Why is Kirby the King?
MACK DIME
O.K. I have a question that has been on my mind recently. This is not
intended to be a smart ass question so please no insults telling me I'm
stupid. Quite simply, why is Jack Kirby so beloved to people? I
constantly see
references about how great his art is and groundbreaking, but when I look
at it it seems simplistic and nowhere near as sophisitcated as some
current artists. What is it that makes people love his work so much? Is
it nostalgia? Or am I missing something? I would love to hear why people
love or hate his work, especially any creaters out there who have an
opinion. Once again this is merely curiosity from someone who has looked
at his work and doesn't love or hate it and wonders why he is so revered.
I look forward to hearing people's opinions.
Chad
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I gots more flavor than a tropical pack of skittles." YMS
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
.
.s$a. .
$$$$$a. .a$$.
$$$$$$$$a. .a$$$$$
$$$$$$$$. .a$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$. aa .$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$. a$$a .$$$$$$$$
WU-TANG CLAN
""$$$$$$$$" .$$$$$$$"
"$$$$$. .$$$"
Curt
>O.K. I have a question that has been on my mind recently. This is not
>intended to be a smart ass question so please no insults telling me I'm
>stupid.
You're stupid. <g>
>Quite simply, why is Jack Kirby so beloved to people?
I love his artwork for his powerful line quality as well as his
characteristic foreshortening (the process of applying linear
perspective to the figure). His superheroes are textbook examples
of foreshortening. His art showed great action and, imo, his
creativity is unparalleled. He was an innovator and not a
copycat. He had his own style, Mack.
My $0.02. Thanks for asking.
--
Curt
http://www.curtjames.com/
ANIM8Rfsk
>intended to be a smart ass question so please no insults telling me I'm
>stupid.
You're stupid. <g> >>
That's not an insult, it's a objective observation
:-D
COLIERRANND2
>constantly see
>references about how great his art is and groundbreaking, but when I look
>at it it seems simplistic and nowhere near as sophisitcated as some
>current artists. What is it that makes people love his work so much?
I've had this thought myself and here is what I think, take it for what its
worth, as I am not an artist but a writer.
Kirby is not as technically proficient as a Ross,or even a Hester. What Kirby
is, is twofold though.
First he was an innovator. The man made people look odd and strange and
designed The Thing, so in that alone he is great.
Secondly, as mentioned elsewhere, he was great at action. When you read a FF or
a Spider-Man that Kirby drew and there was a fight, you didn't so much as read
the fight in the comic, as watch it. Kirby also did something that Ross does
well in his fights. He gives you enough to see whats going on, but leaves that
little bit to let your imagination take over. Sort of like a great blues
guitarist, its not what he drew, but what he didn't.
Just my thoughts.
Col
If you know the name of the actress in the Miller Lite "Copy Kitten" ad, email
me.
Note To All Hollywood Women : MEN LIKE CURVES
Isaac
wrote:
>
> O.K. I have a question that has been on my mind recently. This is not
> intended to be a smart ass question so please no insults telling me I'm
> stupid. Quite simply, why is Jack Kirby so beloved to people? I
> constantly see
> references about how great his art is and groundbreaking, but when I look
> at it it seems simplistic and nowhere near as sophisitcated as some
Well you may not like his art style, but just his role in creating
the bulk of Marvel's characters is a legacy fit for a king. Hulk, Thor,
X-Men, Fantastic Four, Silver Surfer, Celestials, Eternals, entire
pantheons, Black Panther, etc. In short, pretty much everybody with any
staying power except Spiderman and Iron Man.
> current artists. What is it that makes people love his work so much? Is
> it nostalgia? Or am I missing something? I would love to hear why people
There's certainly to be some nostalgia involved, but Kirby's innovative methods
of depicting dynamic action have are still the building blocks for many
of those sophisticated artists you do enjoy.
Personally, I love Kirby art. I particularly love those Kirby monsters
and cosmic machines.
Isaac
Richard
"MACK DIME" <cm17...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.OSF.3.93.1020724...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu...
>
> O.K. I have a question that has been on my mind recently. This is not
> intended to be a smart ass question so please no insults telling me I'm
> stupid. Quite simply, why is Jack Kirby so beloved to people? I
> constantly see
> references about how great his art is and groundbreaking, but when I look
> at it it seems simplistic and nowhere near as sophisitcated as some
> current artists
Just out of curiosity, which current artists do you consider
as being "sophisticated" and what qualities does their art have
that makes you classify them that way?
Richard
Sean Walsh
news:_Ts%8.55651$L02.2...@news1.west.cox.net...
And FYI, whatever artists named will more than likely people who will
profess that Kirby was the man they modelled themselves after. It is a
rarity to see an artist not acknowledge Kirby as a artistic idol...
--
Sean
Sean-Walsh.com!!! Just guess the URL...
New Gods Library: http://fastbak.tripod.com
Quantum Piett! http://www.geocities.com/quantumpiett/
My latest eBay auctions: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/slwalsh/
¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
hi...@seark.net
the 1960s with the exception of Daredevil and Dr. Strange. He also created
many long lasting Marvel foes such as Dr. Doom, Galactus, and Magneto. He
also created many long lasting characters for other comics and worked in
most every genre you could name.
Kirby is also credited for having created the mini-series format.
I will say that Jack Kirby is the greatest and most accomplished comic book
creator or has ever lived or ever will live.
Brian Doyle
<hi...@seark.net> wrote in message
news:1vw%8.581$XK3...@news.webusenet.com...
> Kirby is also credited for having created the mini-series format.
How? First US mini series was "World of Krypton" back in the 70's. Kirby had
nothing to do with it.
> I will say that Jack Kirby is the greatest and most accomplished comic
book
> creator or has ever lived or ever will live.
Have to disagree there. With the greatest respect to Kirby, he told grand
sweeping stories and his style was impressive, but whilst his creativity was
awesome, he had a tendency to repeat himself in later years (Eternals / New
Gods being the worst example) and his art style was unable to evolve very
far from it's original look.
Will Eisner is still the overall champ in my book.
That being said, I'd still read a Kirby FF over any other era of the comic,
bar none. I grew up reading the reprints of those and love them to death.
Landru99
Kirby's pencils are literally packed with power. You can practically feel
every strike of Thor's hammer, every piledriving blow of the Thing, and when
Captain America throws his mighty shield - duck.
He is my favorite comic book artist, bar none.
Landru
Landru99
Iron Man.>>
Actually, I think Kirby did create the visual for Iron Man. The cover of TALES
OF SUSPENSE # 39 sure looks like his work (assuming the cover had been drawn
before the interior of the book).
Landru
Mark W Modrall
to give him star status. It also didn't hurt that, as part of differentiating
themselves, Marvel tried to make cults of personality for their creators.
To me the largest contribution of Kirby started around FF 20 or so, when his
style went through dramatic evolution. The early marvel and GA stuff of his
was sketchy and stiff, like a lot of the art of the time, but suddenly he
started producing the very dramatic foreshortening and giving more motion to
his work. It really revolutionized the industry. As others have noted,
there's also all of the "KirbyTech" - all of that glorious, shiny-metal detail
to his cosmic stuff.
Then there's his phenomenonal creativity and experimentation. Who else could
have come up with The Forever People? I have to admit, he lost me with
Devil Dinosaur, but he was always trying new stuff instead of recycling the
same-old, same-old.
-mark
ANIM8Rfsk
nothing to do with it. >>
Lee/Kirby were doing sweeping multi-part mini series in the Fantastic Four and
Thor looooooong before that. Maybe they weren't billed as such, but they were
there.
Brian Doyle
"ANIM8Rfsk" <anim...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20020724123032...@mb-mq.aol.com...
Then it's not a mini series, just a multi-part story, and those had been being done
in Europe for decades beforehand. Tintin, for example.
Bob Hughes
>
>O.K. I have a question that has been on my mind recently. This is not
>intended to be a smart ass question so please no insults telling me I'm
>stupid. Quite simply, why is Jack Kirby so beloved to people? I
>constantly see
>references about how great his art is and groundbreaking, but when I look
>at it it seems simplistic and nowhere near as sophisitcated as some
>current artists. What is it that makes people love his work so much? Is
>it nostalgia? Or am I missing something? I would love to hear why people
>love or hate his work, especially any creaters out there who have an
>opinion. Once again this is merely curiosity from someone who has looked
>at his work and doesn't love or hate it and wonders why he is so revered.
>I look forward to hearing people's opinions.
>
>Chad
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you say you look at his art, which art are you talking about?
The man was in the business from 1937-1990+ During that time he used
many different styles and worked with many different inkers. Some of
his work from the forties and fifties has more detail than any current
artist would dare stick on a page.
A lot of his appeal also has to do with story telling skills. A lot
of modern artists can draw the hell out a panel but have no idea how
to tell a story- how to sustain a flow of action from one panel to
another- how to pace a story- how to make the climax an actual climax.
I never had to read a Kirby comic over again three times to try to
figure out what was going on. (unlike say, some recent issues of
Superman, Justice League, Captain Marvel, etc.)
The other thing you seem to be missing is Kirby created the Marvel
Universe. Without him, the modern guys wouldn't have anybody to steal
from.
Bob Hughes
Who's Whose at DC Comics? Creator Credits and art samples from DC's Golden and Silver Age Comics, especially Superman and Batman profiled at:
http://www.supermanartists.comics.org/superart.htm
"Information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not music. Music is best."
Frank Zappa
Bob Hughes
>Well you may not like his art style, but just his role in creating
>the bulk of Marvel's characters is a legacy fit for a king. Hulk, Thor,
>X-Men, Fantastic Four, Silver Surfer, Celestials, Eternals, entire
>pantheons, Black Panther, etc. In short, pretty much everybody with any
>staying power except Spiderman and Iron Man.
>
Kirby created Iron Man. He didn't draw the first issue, but he did
the original sketches and provided the cover for Don Heck to work
from. The script, contrary to what Stan Lee may want to believe, was
by the unsung Larry Lieber.
Bob Hughes
>
><hi...@seark.net> wrote in message
>news:1vw%8.581$XK3...@news.webusenet.com...
>
>
>> I will say that Jack Kirby is the greatest and most accomplished comic
>book
>> creator or has ever lived or ever will live.
>
>Have to disagree there. With the greatest respect to Kirby, he told grand
>sweeping stories and his style was impressive, but whilst his creativity was
>awesome, he had a tendency to repeat himself in later years (Eternals / New
>Gods being the worst example) and his art style was unable to evolve very
>far from it's original look.
>
Yeah. His first Popeye's look exactly like his Captain America's,
look exactly like Stuntman, looks exactly like Young Romance, looks
exactly like Boys Ranch, looks exactly like Sky Masters, looks exactly
like Fantastic Four, looks exactly like New Gods, looks exactly like
2001.
Got a great eye for detail haven't you?
Brian Doyle
"Bob Hughes" <BobH...@2ttlc.net> wrote in message
news:c6etjuksdj2sbgk9d...@4ax.com...
> >Have to disagree there. With the greatest respect to Kirby, he told grand
> >sweeping stories and his style was impressive, but whilst his creativity was
> >awesome, he had a tendency to repeat himself in later years (Eternals / New
> >Gods being the worst example) and his art style was unable to evolve very
> >far from it's original look.
> >
> Yeah. His first Popeye's look exactly like his Captain America's,
That would be the deliberate use of a house style on Popeye, he did not originate the
design of Popeye and would have kept to the original appearance as would be common.
> look exactly like Stuntman, looks exactly like Young Romance, looks
> exactly like Boys Ranch, looks exactly like Sky Masters, looks exactly
> like Fantastic Four, looks exactly like New Gods, looks exactly like
> 2001.
Apart from the Eternals, his style on New Gods is very akin for example, to his Thor
in terms of cosmic scale and scope.
Kirby tech, whilst absolutely gorgeous to look, also looked much the same whether on
Atttilan or New Genesis.
His Fighting American looks rather like his Captain America
His Sandman and Sandy looks a lot like Captain America and Bucky.
He had different styles, but he tended to keep the ones he used for specific thematic
formats, and I'm certainly not saying he didn't do it well!
ANIM8Rfsk
thematic
formats >>
Look at an early issue of Fantastic Four and a late one. Same for his Thor
run.
istar
One thing Kirby did that very few artists do:
He choreographed his fight scenes.
When you move from one panel to the next,
you can tell what happened in between because
they are like frames from a movie.
(He worked in animation early in his career.)
John Romita Sr. did that too.
Most artists today do a fight scene where panels
don't have any relation to the one before or after.
Paul O'Brien
<Pine.OSF.3.93.1020724...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu>, MACK
DIME <cm17...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> writes
>
>O.K. I have a question that has been on my mind recently. This is not
>intended to be a smart ass question so please no insults telling me I'm
>stupid. Quite simply, why is Jack Kirby so beloved to people? I
>constantly see references about how great his art is and
>groundbreaking, but when I look at it it seems simplistic and nowhere
>near as sophisitcated as some current artists.
It is.
The point is, Kirby originated most of the standard storytelling tricks
of superhero art which everyone else has copied. Since you've seen them
first in the artwork of Every Other Artist In The Last Forty Years, you
understandably don't see anything particularly distinctive in Kirby.
I sympathise. I find most Silver Age comics boring as hell to read as
well.
Nonetheless, the conventional wisdom is that Kirby originated all of
these storytelling techniques. Granted, everyone else copied him so the
aspects that make him important no longer stand out. But the point is -
he was there first. It was his idea.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
NTL - even worse than I'd heard.
Andy Sheets
news:Pine.OSF.3.93.1020724...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu...
>
> intended to be a smart ass question so please no insults telling me I'm
> stupid. Quite simply, why is Jack Kirby so beloved to people? I
> constantly see
> references about how great his art is and groundbreaking, but when I look
> at it it seems simplistic and nowhere near as sophisitcated as some
> current artists. What is it that makes people love his work so much? Is
> it nostalgia? Or am I missing something?
You're missing something :)
He was one of the artists who was most responsible for establishing a visual
vocabulary for artists to use in comics. When you read a comic book today,
chances are that the artist is using a storytelling technique that Kirby (or
Eisner, or Toth, and other older influential artists) established years ago.
It's kind of like how Citizen Kane is considered the best movie ever even
though most people that aren't into film can't explain in detail why. The
innovations of the movie have become too commonplace now.
Kirby also created tons of stuff, including a lot of the Marvel Universe. He
was almost constantly focused on creating new concepts. Sure, some of them
came out pretty dumb, but then look at all the hits he had a hand in making
:) And the style of art that he developed was truly unique.
Another thing about his work is what I've heard some artists refer to as a
mastery of "the power of the line". Even though his work looks "simple", he
could draw in such a way that it carried great impact. With just a few bold
strokes he could make characters that looked like they were going to hop off
the page and knock your teeth down your throat. It seems like with so many
artists today being focused on "realism" and fine detail that this kind of
drawing is harder to recognize and appreciate. A lot of the artists who
still do that kind of thing seem to have animation backgrounds, like Jeff
Smith or Bruce Timm, and their work isn't usually considered viable in the
mainstream (look at how Mike Allred's work on X-Force has divided people).
So overall he's probably more of an artist's artist at this point. I admit
that it took me a few years of reading comics before I got it, and then it
just clicked one day. I really love a lot of his work now :)
Andy
Gary Majdanek
> O.K. I have a question that has been on my mind recently. This is not
> intended to be a smart ass question so please no insults telling me I'm
> stupid. Quite simply, why is Jack Kirby so beloved to people?
It's a great question.
It's also had some great answers.
I KNOW Kirby is great, but I don't always understand why? Does that make
sense - No!
OK - growing up, the comics that hooked me were largely Kirby's.
I think this would be true for so many people who never pursued this
somewhat bizarre interest.
For me, after discovering Kirby, and therefore comics, the interest
expanded, and I therefore got to see Ditko, Colan, Buscema et al.
At times it would seem to me that these people drew stuff that I liked
looking at better than Kirby. Eeek - heresy.
Eventually, I saw stuff by people like Neal Adams and Frank Brunner, and
fell in love.
Of course, these guys always paid homage to Kirby. Who am I to argue?
To me, it's a bit like any fan of music denying the importance of people
like Elvis, The Beatles, Dylan Etc. Music today wouldn't be the same without
any of them. Doesn't necessarily mean you have love everything they did,
just acknowledge the influence.
In retrospect, I see the great stuff he did. I also see some anachronistic
humour - his strange way of drawing male figures without any genitalia,
always springs to mind. I also have huge problems with him as a writer,
particularly dialogue, but that wasn't really the question.
Best Wishes
Gary
istar
so he didn't put in as much detail as today's artists
who do maybe one book a month.
yet his stuff was still clear and exciting.
some of today's artists, you can't figure out what is happening in the
panel.
Richard
"Brian Doyle" <brian...@afdigest.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:ahmsav$g44$3...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > > look exactly like Stuntman, looks exactly like Young Romance, looks
> > exactly like Boys Ranch, looks exactly like Sky Masters, looks exactly
> > like Fantastic Four, looks exactly like New Gods, looks exactly like
> > 2001.
>
> Apart from the Eternals, his style on New Gods is very akin for example, to his Thor
> in terms of cosmic scale and scope.
Of course, what you're not mentioning is Thor and the New Gods
were series he happened to do did back to back with no break
in between. Moreover, Kirby's early issues of Thor, as well
as the FF, were much different in style than the later ones. In
the early '60's, with the exception of his monsterous characters,
most of Kirby's figures were thin and graceful, with hardly a
straight line in evidence. By the mid '60's, Kirby's characters
really started bulking up and his figures became much
more angular and sharp, almost "blocky" in appearance. For
example, Reed Richards in FF #1 looked like a 140 lb weakling.
By about #60, he looked like he gained about 50 lbs of muscle.
At the same time, Kirby increased was increasing his use of
blacks to create sharp contrasts (I believe the appropriate
term is chiaroscuro). Moreover, the complex and elaborate
Kirby tech we've come to know and love only really started
to emerge during this period. In that regard, it is interesting
to compare the latter issues of the FF with the Challengers
of the Unknown, which he did 10 years earlier. Both contain
an abundance of fanciful technology, but drawn in very
different styles.
>
> His Fighting American looks rather like his Captain America
Not surprising considering the former is a parody of the latter.
>
> His Sandman and Sandy looks a lot like Captain America and Bucky.
Once again, these were series that were done at almost the same
time. Why don't take a close look and compare Captain America
circa 1941-1942, with how Kirby was drawing him in 1968. I
have. Personally, I think it's almost hard to believe that they
were drawn by the same artist.
>
> He had different styles, but he tended to keep the ones he used for specific thematic
> formats, and I'm certainly not saying he didn't do it well!
>
No, but you did say is "his art style was unable to evolve very
far from it's original look", which is a rather dubious statement.
Kirby is probably the last artist I'd make a comment like that about.
The irony is that you hold Eisner in higher esteem. While the subject
matter of his stories has changed over the years, Eisner's style has
remained basically unchanged since about 1946.
Richard
Landru99
original sketches and provided the cover for Don Heck to work from. The
script, contrary to what Stan Lee may want to believe, was
by the unsung Larry Lieber.>>
Stan has indeed acknowledged that Larry Lieber wrote the script for TOS # 39.
Here's an except from Stan's intro to the IRON MAN Marvel Masterwork volume:
"At the time Iron Man was created, I was heavily involved in writing the
Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, The Incedible Hulk, and others in our original
Marvel lineup of stars. Therefore, as you'll see in the credits in the stories
that follow, I merely plotted ol' Shell-Head's adventures, while my brother
Larry saved my life by scripting the initial origin story. After that, as
Larry returned to his own regular assignments, my friend Bob Bernstein also
came to the rescue and scripted the next six adventures, by which time I was
finally able to take up the scripting chores and write the balance of the tales
myself."
That should set the record straight.
Landru
MACK DIME
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Sean Walsh wrote:
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, which current artists do you consider
> > as being "sophisticated" and what qualities does their art have
> > that makes you classify them that way?
I don't know if sophisticated was the right word for me to use, maybe more
detailed or realistic. Off the top of my head I think of Jay Anceleto,
Stuart Immomen, Phil Jimmenez, as some of my more favored artists. I
understand that today's artist's have better materials and better
reproduction or there work (as well as not having to crank out multiple
issues a month as Kirby did), and I like the Kirby tech stuff, but the
majority of Kirby's work looks average at best to me. It could be just a
matter of personal preference (by no means am I saying my opinion is the
best, simply mine), or maybe its because I didn't grow up with Kirby's
art.
>
> And FYI, whatever artists named will more than likely people who will
> profess that Kirby was the man they modelled themselves after. It is a
> rarity to see an artist not acknowledge Kirby as a artistic idol...
>
I do not question that Kirby was a great influence, I know that. That's
why I asked the question because I wanted to know why he is so revered,
what makes these artists want to be like Kirby. Quite simply, what am I
missing?
MACK DIME
> Well you may not like his art style, but just his role in creating
> the bulk of Marvel's characters is a legacy fit for a king. Hulk, Thor,
> X-Men, Fantastic Four, Silver Surfer, Celestials, Eternals, entire
> pantheons, Black Panther, etc. In short, pretty much everybody with any
> staying power except Spiderman and Iron Man.
>
love, and I thank him for doing so. I am not questioning his credentials
just trying to see what others opinions are of his work and what they are
based on.
> There's certainly to be some nostalgia involved, but Kirby's innovative methods
> of depicting dynamic action have are still the building blocks for many
> of those sophisticated artists you do enjoy.
>
That's the kind of answer I was looking for when I asked the Q. Answers
that I can use to get a different perspective on Kirby's art.
MACK DIME
>
> To me the largest contribution of Kirby started around FF 20 or so, when his
> style went through dramatic evolution. The early marvel and GA stuff of his
> was sketchy and stiff, like a lot of the art of the time, but suddenly he
> started producing the very dramatic foreshortening and giving more motion to
> his work. It really revolutionized the industry. As others have noted,
> there's also all of the "KirbyTech" - all of that glorious, shiny-metal detail
> to his cosmic stuff.
>
I understand Kirby revolutionized the industry, and you give me a lot of
things to look at to futher try to gain an affinity for his work, but do
you think the work holds up today? Does anybody think Jack Kirby would be
so popular if he was around now? Again, no disrespect (I know people can
get heated when talking about something they care passionately about) I
just like hear other perspectives. Thanks again,
Chad
MACK DIME
>
> > O.K. I have a question that has been on my mind recently. This is not
> > intended to be a smart ass question so please no insults telling me I'm
> > stupid. Quite simply, why is Jack Kirby so beloved to people?
>
> It's a great question.
>
I try.
> It's also had some great answers.
I agree, and its helped me look at his work a little differently already.
> For me, after discovering Kirby, and therefore comics, the interest
> expanded, and I therefore got to see Ditko, Colan, Buscema et al.
>
> At times it would seem to me that these people drew stuff that I liked
> looking at better than Kirby. Eeek - heresy.
>
> Eventually, I saw stuff by people like Neal Adams and Frank Brunner, and
> fell in love.
>
> Of course, these guys always paid homage to Kirby. Who am I to argue?
>
> To me, it's a bit like any fan of music denying the importance of people
> like Elvis, The Beatles, Dylan Etc. Music today wouldn't be the same without
> any of them. Doesn't necessarily mean you have love everything they did,
> just acknowledge the influence.
I look at it the same way you do. I know he is largely why comics are the
way they are today. However, I don't get it and I wonder how many people
simply reguritate that he is great (like many people do about music
artists) without looking at his work. Do many people think Kirby is great
because that's what they have grown up hearing, or is it because they look
at his work on an independent basis and came to that conclusion?
Chad
Not bitchy, just curious
jay
wrote:
> Kirby created Iron Man. He didn't draw the first
> issue, but he did the original sketches and provided
> the cover for Don Heck to work from. The script,
> contrary to what Stan Lee may want to believe, was
> by the unsung Larry Lieber.
Stan has always acknowledged that Lieber (his brother)
scripted that issue, and, in fact, that's what the credits
of TOS #39 say.
hi...@seark.net
In a sense, Kirby is still around today -- or at least his legacy and work
is. We are still discussing artwork decades after it was first published.
His creations are still among the most popular characters in the industry.
His work is still in high demand as back issues and as reprints.
Aaron Malchow
"I do not question that Kirby was a great influence, I know that. That's
why I asked the question because I wanted to know why he is so revered, what
makes these artists want to be like Kirby. Quite simply, what am I missing?"
To find out more about other writers and artists' interest in Kirby, go The
Jack Kirby Collector Web site at http://www.twomorrows.com/kirby/
There, you'll find links to online versions each issue, featuring interviews
with Neal Adams (from issue 17), John Buscema (from issue 18), Bruce Timm (from
issue 21), Eddie Campbell (also from issue 21), Alex Ross (from issue 27), and
Alan Moore (from issue 30).
There are other interviews there, some with Kirby as well, but the above
interviews will give you some perspective on what those creators thought were
Kirby's strengths.
Hope that helps,
Aaron Malchow
Richard
"MACK DIME" <cm17...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.OSF.3.93.1020725...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu...
>
> >
> > style went through dramatic evolution. The early marvel and GA stuff of his
> > was sketchy and stiff, like a lot of the art of the time, but suddenly he
> > started producing the very dramatic foreshortening and giving more motion to
> > his work. It really revolutionized the industry. As others have noted,
> > there's also all of the "KirbyTech" - all of that glorious, shiny-metal detail
> > to his cosmic stuff.
> >
>
> I understand Kirby revolutionized the industry, and you give me a lot of
> things to look at to futher try to gain an affinity for his work, but do
> you think the work holds up today?
Certainly the stuff he produced when he was at
his absolute peak (roughly 1965-1968) more than
holds up today.
>Does anybody think Jack Kirby would be
> so popular if he was around now?
Kirby was the ultimate super-adaptoid. He was hugely
successful in a succession of different genres. If he
were here today and in his prime, I'm sure he'd have
no trouble in creating a successful niche for himself.
In another post, you mentioned something about some
current artists being more "detailed" and "realistic".
Kirby drew the way he did not because he wasn't
capable of drawing realistically (actually, if you
see, for example, samples the Sky-Masters comic
strip, you'd see he was fully capable of drawing
that way), but because he had made a conscious
choice to make his drawing stylized to give it
greater impact. What Kirby was doing in Thor,
the FF and all the rest was no different than
what Charles Schultz was doing in Peanuts
or Chester Gould was doing in Dick Tracy -
developing and utilizing a distinctive style
that particularly suited the material.
Imagine someone complaining to Schultz
about Charlie Brown not looking like a "real boy"
and pointing to a Neal Adams drawing as a model
for how he should be drawn. Clearly, someone
who thought that way had completely missed the
point. I wonder if that's kind of the stage you're
at in regards to Kirby.
Richard
Kyle L. Dennis
<hi...@seark.net> wrote in message
news:C8O%8.216$Ue6...@news.webusenet.com...
Kirby's art. At least IMHO.
Later,
Kyle
Curt
[snip]
>I look at it the same way you do. I know he is largely why comics are the
>way they are today. However, I don't get it and I wonder how many people
>simply reguritate that he is great (like many people do about music
>artists) without looking at his work. Do many people think Kirby is great
>because that's what they have grown up hearing, or is it because they look
>at his work on an independent basis and came to that conclusion?
>
>Chad
>Not bitchy, just curious
Did you read the replies to your initial post?
--
Curt
Not bitchy, just curious, too
Gary Majdanek
> I look at it the same way you do. I know he is largely why comics are the
> way they are today. However, I don't get it and I wonder how many people
> simply reguritate that he is great (like many people do about music
> artists) without looking at his work. Do many people think Kirby is great
> because that's what they have grown up hearing, or is it because they look
> at his work on an independent basis and came to that conclusion?
>
Well, it's impossible to speak for everyone, and I'm sure that some of that
stuff goes on, but I tend to think that the majority recognised the dramatic
impact of Kirby when they first encountered him. Particularly true of people
who were there at the time, I guess.
Perhaps a good way of looking at it is to consider the general appearance of
Comics pre and post Kirby.
Cheers
Gary
Bob Hughes
If Kirby was around today, at the peak of his creative powers, before
illness, failing eyesight and disillusionment set in, he would be
creating NEW series, developing NEW styles, NEW formats. He certainly
wouldn't be wasting his time trying to draw like Jack Kirby did back
in the sixties.
Mark W Modrall
MACK DIME <cm17...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> wrote:
>I understand Kirby revolutionized the industry, and you give me a lot of
>things to look at to futher try to gain an affinity for his work, but do
>you think the work holds up today? Does anybody think Jack Kirby would be
>so popular if he was around now? Again, no disrespect (I know people can
>get heated when talking about something they care passionately about) I
>just like hear other perspectives. Thanks again,
Well, for me, the height of Kirby - the fondest recollections -
are going to be the mid to late 60's (FF 20-say 90, Cap, etc). I have a
warm spot for Omac and Kamandi and Jimmy Olsen especially for the inventiveness,
but i think he started to "lose it" by the mid 70's. His art got a little
too contrasty and less crisp and we started getting things like Devil
Dinosaur.
If Kirby were to come around today, he probably wouldn't be very
successful, frankly, given where the state of the art has gone. But you
have to ask what the industry would be like if some much of what we now
have hadn't been built on Kirby? Giotto looks pretty rank compared to
Davinci but everyone gives him credit for making davinci possible...
-mark
MACK DIME
> To find out more about other writers and artists' interest in Kirby, go The
> Jack Kirby Collector Web site at http://www.twomorrows.com/kirby/
>
> There, you'll find links to online versions each issue, featuring interviews
> with Neal Adams (from issue 17), John Buscema (from issue 18), Bruce Timm (from
> issue 21), Eddie Campbell (also from issue 21), Alex Ross (from issue 27), and
> Alan Moore (from issue 30).
>
> There are other interviews there, some with Kirby as well, but the above
> interviews will give you some perspective on what those creators thought were
> Kirby's strengths.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Aaron Malchow
>
>
Thanks a lot this does help a lot. This is exactly the kind of stuff I
wanted when I asked the questio. Thaks again,
Chad
MACK DIME
I get that Kirby was drawing in a certain style, and believe me I know
that things being done in certain styles are what makes them unique and so
impacting. I'm not questioning his stylistic choice, rather that he could
draw as detailed as some artists today do. Many artists today have
tons more detailed panels in a book than Kirby did. More detailed
backgrounds, characters, etc. I'll admit I've never seen Sky-Masters, but
would like to check it out to get a look at a more "realistic" Kirby. I
may be wrong about his work, that's why I asked the question, to get
opinions and hopefully pointed in a direction that would help me see his
greatness.
It's not stylistic choices that I'm questioning, its Kirby's talent level
and whether he deserves the accolades he receives from all of fandom.
Artists take different approaches for different material, but did Kirby
have the talent to draw as detailed as a Neal Adams? And if so, where can
I see that work?
Chad
MACK DIME
Yes I did, and for the most part they told me Kirby is great because he
created all these beloved characters. I didn't get too many commnets on
what makes his art so great. That is what I was looking for. So far,
I've gotten Kirby is great because he created this and influenced others
and they all pay homage to him. What I am curious about now is what do
you see in Kirby's artwork that makes you feel this way? Is it layouts,
Kirbytech stuff, storytelling, etc.? I'm looking for the nuts and bolts
of his art's greatness (and I know some people have already commented on
this, but most didn't).
Chad
Doing a piss poor job of framing a question, but trying
Marcus James Murphy
If a lurker may contribute to this discussion:- When I was younger the same
question came up with a friend of mine who also collected comics. Now strangely
enough although he prefered Marvel to DC at this point he loathed Jack Kirby
whom he considered a hack. That was purely a personal reaction on his part -
and I think that is at the heart of why people love or hate Jack Kirby - your
personal response. I enjoy his work greatly, because I can see he has a larger
vision than most other comic book artists of his time, although you do have to
make room for his sometimes 'hokey' dialogue which was never his forte.
On a side note another love him or hate artist from the who started work in the
same era who has already been mentioned is Will Eisner, whom I've always loved
but whom a lot of people I've met detest for some reason.
Having said all of the above I have very little time for Jack's ex-partner Joe
Simon who I think did produce some awful work in his later years.
Marcus
"We seem to have lost, we have not lost.To refuse to fight would have been to
lose, to fight is to win, we have kept faith with the past and handed a
tradition to the future."
Patrick Henry Pearse (1879-1916)
Curt
>On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Curt wrote:
[snip]
>> Did you read the replies to your initial post?
[snip]
>Yes I did, and for the most part they told me Kirby is great because he
>created all these beloved characters. I didn't get too many comments on
>what makes his art so great. That is what I was looking for. So far,
>I've gotten Kirby is great because he created this and influenced others
>and they all pay homage to him. What I am curious about now is what do
>you see in Kirby's artwork that makes you feel this way? Is it layouts,
>Kirbytech stuff, storytelling, etc.? I'm looking for the nuts and bolts
>of his art's greatness (and I know some people have already commented on
>this, but most didn't).
>
>Chad
>Doing a piss poor job of framing a question, but trying
Well, my two cents continue to be that his greatness comes from
his powerful foreshortening, true action or that wonderful
'pop-out-of-the-comic-book' look to it. His creativity in set
design or backgrounds, machines and weaponry design, as well as
costume or uniform design all helped create a world of fantasy
that appealed to and fueled my imagination.
I think it all comes down to "Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder." You may not find his artwork appealing and that's
perfectly fine. It doesn't make you stupid as I joked elsewhere
in this thread. Interesting question. I just thought it was odd
that you phrased it in a manner that sounded like - to me -
"What's all the stink about Kirby? I think he sucks." <g>
Someone else mentioned the cult of personality and I do believe
that "King Kirby" started out as merely a nickname for the
artist, but he obviously deserves such a designation, imo.
Look at some of the Essentials. I have a copy of the Thor
Essential Vol. 1. Thor 108 includes the following:
Written by Stan Lee, The Idol of Millions!
Illustrated by Jack Kirby, The Toast of the Town!
Inked by Chic Stone, The Man of the Hour!
Lettered by Art Simek, The People's Choice!
Why not ask if Stan Lee was actually the idol of millions when
Thor 108 was first published? Was Art Simek the people's choice
or just a solid letterer who had an opening in his work schedule?
And exactly *which* hour was Chic Stone the man of???
The name "King" Kirby started out as a little bit of
sensationalism/salesmanship or show biz and grew to be a
respected and agreed status for the reasons offered by the other
posters and, of course, because KIRBY'S STUFF LOOKS COOL!
What am I up to by now, eighteen cents?
Anyway, there's another two cents, fwiw.
--
Curt
http://www.curtjames.com/
Curt
>Mack Dime,
>
>If a lurker may contribute to this discussion:- When I was younger the same
>question came up with a friend of mine who also collected comics. Now strangely
>enough although he prefered Marvel to DC at this point he loathed Jack Kirby
>whom he considered a hack. That was purely a personal reaction on his part -
>and I think that is at the heart of why people love or hate Jack Kirby - your
>personal response. I enjoy his work greatly, because I can see he has a larger
>vision than most other comic book artists of his time, although you do have to
>make room for his sometimes 'hokey' dialogue which was never his forte.
>
>On a side note another love him or hate artist from the who started work in the
>same era who has already been mentioned is Will Eisner, whom I've always loved
>but whom a lot of people I've met detest for some reason.
>
>Having said all of the above I have very little time for Jack's ex-partner Joe
>Simon who I think did produce some awful work in his later years.
Will Eisner's work is wonderful, but it's also very cartoony. Do
you think there are two (or more) camps? The realistic artwork
lovers and the cartoony artwork lovers? I am a big fan of Barry
Windsor Smith. He has so much detail, but there's some
cartoonishness to his art. Neal Adams and Curt Swan are other
favorites for their realism. I love Will Eisner's work, but I
wouldn't have his art represent a Superman or Spider-Man story.
Probably why I was never a huge fan of Ditko. Too cartoonish for
my tastes, but obviously a fantastic artist.
You're right about personal reaction playing a large part in who
a favorite artist will eventually be.
--
Curt
http://www.curtjames.com/
Marcus James Murphy
I think to be honest some people dislike Will Eisner because even when he was
writing the Spirit many years ago it was hardly a typical action strip. It was
always a bit more philosophical than that, also I have heard comments which
border on the Philistine regarding his later work (e.g. A Contract With God, To
The Heart Of The Storm etc.) to the effect of, "who wants to read about people
living in 1930's New York."
Actually I think Eisner could do a quite interesting Superman or Spider-man
story. He has actually drawn Superman a time or to - although generally just as
portraits. Barry Windsor Smith is a personal favourite of mine as is Neal Adams
especially the latter as I was exposed to his Batman work via British reprints
when growing up. I was particulary gratified to be able to get hold of the
Conan Essential sometime ago which had all of B.W.S. run on Conan -
particularly as it showed him evolving from almost a clone of Kirby to
something more original.
istar
some artists put in a lot of detail, but it just distracts you from the
subject.
on the TwoMorrows website are some pictures Kirby drew early in his career
when he was in art school; they are more detailed.
no one knows what Kirby would do if he were alive today;
maybe he would change to a different style;
maybe he would be popular, maybe not.
some artists today copy Kirby; but they don't seem to be popular.
M.O.R
at the time. He broke new ground, as his style was new. I always thought
he couldn't draw, until I saw that he drew like that cos he wanted to. He
could draw more detailed, less exagerated, but altered his style to make it
different, and new, just think of what it was like when you saw Manga for
the first time, or some other style which was different to others and was a
breath of fresh air. Kirby was Picasso, changing his style, bravely,
because it may not have been liked. Him and John Buscema and John Romita
were the Renaissance artists of Comic books.
MOR
WRH Bill
>of superhero art which everyone else has copied. Since you've seen them
>first in the artwork of Every Other Artist In The Last Forty Years, you
>understandably don't see anything particularly distinctive in Kirby.
>
It's kind of like the old joke about the man who said "I don't see what's so
great about Shakespeare....all he did was string a bunch of famous quotations
together."
"You can't kill the truth. Well, actually, you CAN kill it...but it'll come
back to haunt you later." (Capt. John Sheridan)
WRH Bill
>
Actually, Larry Lieber wrote the scripts for the first few issues of Thor in
JOURNEY INTO MYSTERY, Ant-Man in TALES TO ASTONISH and Human Torch in STRANGE
TALES, as well as the first Iron Man. The way Lieber told it in an interview
in COMICS SCENE magazine a few years ago, was that he and Stan had a division
of labor going in the early '60s where Stan scripted the characters who had
their own titles (which pre-FF #1 meant RAWHIDE KID, MILLIE THE MODEL, etc.)
and Larry did the scripts for the monster stories that headlined ASTONISH,
SUSPENSE, etc. When it was decided to add superhero features to those books,
Lieber stayed on and did the initial scripts for them. Later, Stan became
somewhat dissatisfied with Larry's superhero scripting and tried other writers
(Robert Bernstein, etc.) then took over the hero strips himself.
WRH Bill
>TALES
>OF SUSPENSE # 39 sure looks like his work
The "visual" for Iron Man that we're used to-- the form-fitting red and gold
armor, rather than the bulky, robotic-looking yellow armor of the first few
issues-- may actually be a creation of *Steve Ditko*. At least, Ditko drew the
story in TALES OF SUSPENSE #48 that introduced "The New Iron Man". Of course,
it's possible that Kirby or even Don Heck designed the armor before the story
was assigned to Ditko to draw... but since Ditko was no slouch at costume
design himself, he may be the one responsible.
Dale Hicks
says...
> >The point is, Kirby originated most of the standard storytelling tricks
> >of superhero art which everyone else has copied. Since you've seen them
> >first in the artwork of Every Other Artist In The Last Forty Years, you
> >understandably don't see anything particularly distinctive in Kirby.
>
> It's kind of like the old joke about the man who said "I don't see what's so
> great about Shakespeare....all he did was string a bunch of famous quotations
> together."
Hey, I'm with all the crowd that talks about the energy in the panels and
such. I just wish he hadn't made the stylistic choice to give everyone
fat fingers and give his women simplified round faces.
Someone mentioned where to see his early work -- he did a great job with
a Green Arrow two-parter available in THE GREATEST 1950's STORIES EVER
TOLD. Not completely realistic, but tons better than his 60's (and 70's,
and 80's) stuff.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
BritReid
of Marvel's characters is a legacy fit for a king. Hulk, Thor, X-Men,
Fantastic Four, Silver Surfer, Celestials, Eternals, entire pantheons, Black
Panther, etc. In short, pretty much everybody with any staying power except
Spiderman and Iron Man. >>
I thought it was Spider-Man, Dr. Strange, Captain Marvel & their respective
supporting casts. He didn't create Sub-Mariner, but he did create the 60s
supporting cast (including Lady Dorma and Attuma) of all the pre-1970
characters!
The cover of TALES OF SUSPENSE #39 (First Iron Man) was Kirby-pencilled! My
impression was he designed the character.
Brit
Richard
"MACK DIME" <cm17...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.OSF.3.93.102072...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu...
You really are missing the point. It's the effectiveness of
the artist's stylistic choices that is the true indicator of that
artist's talent. Trying to separate stylistic choice from talent
is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Unless your goal
is simply to produce still life drawings, the ability to draw
"detailed" in ITSELF does not equate to talent, particularly
for comic book artists. If that was all Neal Adams had going
for him, his career probably would have involved sketching
people on street corners and churning out black velvet
landscape paintings instead of drawing comic books.
Richard
Landru99
armor, rather than the bulky, robotic-looking yellow armor of the first few
issues-- may actually be a creation of *Steve Ditko*.>>
Well, the armor isn't exactly form-fitting anymore, is it? If we're going to
credit every artist who's had a hand in creating a new Iron Man suit of amor,
IM would have a list of literally dozens of "creators." My point was Jack
Kirby created the original visual for the character, which formed the basis (at
least loosly) for everything that followed.
Landru
Gary Lightfoot
news:iLH%8.7001$H67....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca
> also Kirby was drawing 3 or 4 books a month,
> so he didn't put in as much detail as today's artists
> who do maybe one book a month.
> yet his stuff was still clear and exciting.
> some of today's artists, you can't figure out what is happening in
> the panel.
I also find that with the newer 'full colour' colouring they do today,
it often seems to make everything blend together, and lose the
distinction of what's happening with the forground characters.
A good example was a Spider-Man cover drawn by Romita Snr (Hobgobling
carrying a roped Spidey) - nothing really stood out on the cover and
you had to look closer to define the images. In the SA days with just
four colours, Spidey and Hobby would have stood out and the cover
would have looked far more dramatic.
--
please remove nosmeg from e-mail addy to reply.
www.g.lightfoot.btinternet.co.uk
Rob Hansen
<cm17...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> wrote:
> Do many people think Kirby is great
>because that's what they have grown up hearing, or is it because they look
>at his work on an independent basis and came to that conclusion?
I'm old enough to remember his ground-breaking 1960s stuff when it
first appeared and just how powerful that work was. I still think his
mid-60s work with Joe Sinnott on FANTASTIC FOUR (see ESSENTIAL FF #3)
is just awesome and blows away most of today's artists. There's a
power and a sense of motion to his stuff that you just don't see as
much of today. That he was also drawing THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA at
the same time also shows just how stunningly prodigious he was, too.
--
Rob Hansen
=============================================
Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
RE-ELECT GORE IN 2004.
Chuck, Dark Lord of the Rings
> I get that Kirby was drawing in a certain style, and believe me I know
> that things being done in certain styles are what makes them unique and so
> impacting. I'm not questioning his stylistic choice, rather that he could
> draw as detailed as some artists today do. Many artists today have
> tons more detailed panels in a book than Kirby did. More detailed
> backgrounds, characters, etc. I'll admit I've never seen Sky-Masters, but
> would like to check it out to get a look at a more "realistic" Kirby. I
> may be wrong about his work, that's why I asked the question, to get
> opinions and hopefully pointed in a direction that would help me see his
> greatness.
>
> It's not stylistic choices that I'm questioning, its Kirby's talent level
> and whether he deserves the accolades he receives from all of fandom.
> Artists take different approaches for different material, but did Kirby
> have the talent to draw as detailed as a Neal Adams? And if so, where can
> I see that work?
>
Particularly this: "In all the arts it's the surface that people appreciate
most easily, like an apple chosen for its shiny skin. The latest 'fan
favorite' often looks better at a glance than the older artists who had the
ideas and created the idioms, but were less interested in surfaces. But
often if we bite into that shiny new apple -- hollow." His point was that
the surface, the initial impression of the style, doesn't really show
artistic talent. The surface is only the beginning, and its going deeper
into the work itself and how to express it that true artistic talent is
shown. I've no doubt that even people in this newgroup could make a better
looking drawing of one of his characters, but it definitely wouldn't mean
that person was a better comic book artist. They would be all surface
without the understanding of the medium to bring in techniques and ideas
that would be true art. Comic book art, remember, is not static; it's a
storytelling medium. Kirby's talent was in being a master storyteller with
his art.
Or, to approach it another way, let's bring out comicdom's whipping boy. I
can remember when Rob Liefeld's stuff would go for over fifty dollars an
issue and how he was one of comic's giants because of his art. Today he's a
laughing stock; I came across some of his highly sought Youngblood issues in
the "4 for a Dollar" box. What happened? He was all surface.
I guess what I'm getting at is, if you're only seeing a panel as a pretty
picture, you're not really seeing the art.
--
Chuck
I don't suffer fools lightly. I prefer to season them lightly before
they're roasted.
Dale Hicks
ric...@nospam.edu says...
>
> Unless your goal
> is simply to produce still life drawings, the ability to draw
> "detailed" in ITSELF does not equate to talent,
Yes it does.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Scott Eiler
the robotic servitors of Dale Hicks <dgh...@bellSPAMsouth.net.invalid>
rose up with the following chant:
>In article <cx509.64001$L02.2...@news1.west.cox.net>,
>ric...@nospam.edu says...
>>
>> Unless your goal
>> is simply to produce still life drawings, the ability to draw
>> "detailed" in ITSELF does not equate to talent,
>
>Yes it does.
But does it equate to the talent of telling a comic book *story*?
I personally don't like Jack Kirby's art that much. And as for his dialogue,
I've heard it said that Stan Lee deserves a Nobel Prize for Literature for
sparing us Jack Kirby's dialog all those years.
But still, there's no denying Jack Kirby gave everyone else something they
could build upon. Disrespecting him because his art is old-fashioned, is like
dissing Christopher Columbus because he didn't have ethnic respect for
Indians, or like frowning upon Isaac Newton because he didn't know about
relativistic effects at lightspeed.
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------
"I'm in a parallel universe fighting an alternate version of
myself alongside a group of parahuman mercenaries who want me to help
the wrongly accused Majestrix of ...
"Do you ever get halfway through a sentence and find yourself
unable to believe that you're actually saying it?"
-- Captain Britain, as scripted by Alan Moore.
Richard
"Dale Hicks" <dgh...@bellSPAMsouth.net.invalid> wrote in message news:MPG.17abc1bea...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
> In article <cx509.64001$L02.2...@news1.west.cox.net>,
> ric...@nospam.edu says...
> >
> > Unless your goal
> > is simply to produce still life drawings, the ability to draw
> > "detailed" in ITSELF does not equate to talent,
>
> Yes it does.
>
Name me an artist who can draw lots of minute
details, but is completely deficient in all other
aspects involved in drawing comics (storytelling
skills in particular) that you would describe as being
a "talented" comic book artist.
Richard
Eric San Juan
news:ndr09.66327$L02.2...@news1.west.cox.net...
I think Jim Lee is a very talented artist with the ability to create
striking, eye-catching panels with lots of detail.
I also think his storytelling skills are subpar, his sense of pacing
poor and his panel-to-panel action less than noteworthy.
I think he's a talented comic book artist in the visual sense, but he's
not particularly adept at the most key aspect of comic art,
storytelling.
Take note, I have not seen Jim Lee work in a number of years, since the
early 90s, so he may have improved in this respect.
Eric San Juan
>
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Sean Walsh wrote:
>
> I
> understand that today's artist's have better materials and better
> reproduction or there work (as well as not having to crank out
multiple
> issues a month as Kirby did), and I like the Kirby tech stuff, but the
> majority of Kirby's work looks average at best to me. It could be
just a
> matter of personal preference (by no means am I saying my opinion is
the
> best, simply mine), or maybe its because I didn't grow up with Kirby's
> art.
The fact that you grew up post-Kirby certainly plays into it. As in any
art form, if you lack perspective on how the form got to where it is, it
becomes harder to appreciate the innovators of the past. Look at music
genres like rock and roll or jazz to see the phenomenon in action, or in
the great filmmaking techniques of yesterday and today.
Like The Beatles did to rock and roll, Jack Kirby laid the groundwork
for 30 or 40 years of innovation in his field. But maybe a more apt
comic-to-music comparison would be to Miles Davis, who was constantly
evolving, constantly moving, constantly changing the colors and tones
and textures of his music. Miles moved jazz ahead several times in his
career, as Kirby did with comics.
Buddy Holly and Little Richard sound pretty run of the mill to modern
music ears, but if you look deeper, look at the basic structure of what
artists like them were doing, you can see just how ground-breaking and
innovative it truly was. And that stuff, like Kirby's work, stands the
test of time very well, if you're willing to embrace it.
> > And FYI, whatever artists named will more than likely people who
will
> > profess that Kirby was the man they modelled themselves after. It is
a
> > rarity to see an artist not acknowledge Kirby as a artistic idol...
>
> I do not question that Kirby was a great influence, I know that.
That's
> why I asked the question because I wanted to know why he is so
revered,
> what makes these artists want to be like Kirby. Quite simply, what am
I
> missing?
I will go back to The Beatles. Many younger music fans think they're
missing something when it comes to The Beatles, can't understand what
others see in them, think modern rock surpassed it long ago, so who
cares about them? Then one day, it clicks.
I'm not a huge Jack Kirby fan by any stretch of the imagination, but he
invoked a sense of wonder and power and grandeur to his stories that was
simply captivating. His expansive work in the Fantastic Four in
particular created a storytelling atmosphere few modern artists could
match, I would argue. If the art looks simple to you, I would argue that
you are only looking at the surface.
Eric San Juan
>
> One thing Kirby did that very few artists do:
>
> He choreographed his fight scenes.
> When you move from one panel to the next,
> you can tell what happened in between because
> they are like frames from a movie.
> (He worked in animation early in his career.)
>
> John Romita Sr. did that too.
>
> Most artists today do a fight scene where panels
> don't have any relation to the one before or after.
A trend that seemed to grow exponentially following the quick popularity
of the Image style. And a trend I detest.
At one time, it used to be a rule that readers should be able to look at
the panels and be able to follow the story without even a glance at the
text. That is rarely true these days. Where once artists used
interesting angles and movie-like techniques to tell a story, many books
now look like a series of splash pages shrunken down to panel size.
Sure, lots of detail and whiz-bang action, but a tremendous lack of
storytelling skills.
That was one of Kirby's biggest strengths.
Panel to panel, frame by frame, a story is told. Great comic art is not
simply a series of static images, but a cohesive whole. At least, it
should be.
Eric San Juan
news:Pine.OSF.3.93.1020725...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu...
>
> >
when his
> > style went through dramatic evolution. The early marvel and GA
stuff of his
> > was sketchy and stiff, like a lot of the art of the time, but
suddenly he
> > started producing the very dramatic foreshortening and giving more
motion to
> > his work. It really revolutionized the industry. As others have
noted,
> > there's also all of the "KirbyTech" - all of that glorious,
shiny-metal detail
> > to his cosmic stuff.
>
> I understand Kirby revolutionized the industry, and you give me a lot
of
> things to look at to futher try to gain an affinity for his work, but
do
> you think the work holds up today?
Without question, I do. And I'm not a huge Kirby fan. Like the ability
to craft a great song, the simple, subtle skills of a great comic artist
will likely always be appreciated and remain striking even when the art
form has advanced. Kirby's bold panels and clear, concise storytelling
skills hold up as well today as they did 30 or 40 years ago. The
choreographed action and dramatic scenes still strike the reader, even
if in a style simpler than what modern readers are accustomed to. Just
like great rock and roll, where a great song is a great song, whether
it's just a guy on an acoustic guitar or a band recording in a 64-track
studio. You can mask a lousy song with fancy production, as some artists
do now with snazzy color and stylized characters, but the astute reader
will eventually see through the farce and see it for what it is.
> Does anybody think Jack Kirby would be
> so popular if he was around now?
An impossible question. It's like asking if The Beatles would be popular
today in the world of rock. Since they *invented* half the language of
post-50s rock and roll, a language furthered only by the foundation they
laid, who's to say where rock would be without them? The same holds true
to Kirby.
I think if Kirby was doing the Kirby thing right now, he would not be an
Image poster boy, if that at all answers your question. He'd probably be
doing some fairly small but critically acclaimed book, maybe with Alan
Moore or something, with people taking well about him but no real
massive sales. But that's just speculation.
Eric San Juan
news:ahmsav$g44$3...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
<snip>
>
> Kirby tech, whilst absolutely gorgeous to look, also looked much the
same whether on
> Atttilan or New Genesis.
I tend to agree with this. Always with the mass of segmented tubes and
bold shapes haphazardly thrown together, a machine bigger than life,
always gleaming, maybe a few gigantic rocket boosters or something, a
few cylinder shapes attached with no discernable rhyme or reason. Yeah,
Kirby did not differentiate much between the "cultures" he drew when it
came to his tech stuff. I something think he just started drawing shapes
and connected them together until he had a machine.
Eric San Juan
<snip>
>
> I get that Kirby was drawing in a certain style, and believe me I know
> that things being done in certain styles are what makes them unique
and so
> impacting. I'm not questioning his stylistic choice, rather that he
could
> draw as detailed as some artists today do. Many artists today have
> tons more detailed panels in a book than Kirby did. More detailed
> backgrounds, characters, etc.
Very, very true. Almost all do, in fact, but less than the majority of
them have the storytelling skills Kirby possessed. A guy like Rob
Leifield can jam loads of (distorted, amateurish) stuff into a panel,
but he couldn't tell a story if <insert cliché here>.
WRH Bill
>credit every artist who's had a hand in creating a new Iron Man suit of amor,
>IM would have a list of literally dozens of "creators." My point was Jack
>Kirby created the original visual for the character, which formed the basis
>(at
>least loosly) for everything that followed.
>
>Landru
As I see it, it was really the "new Iron Man" design that debuted in TOS #48
that "formed the basis (at least loosely) for everything that followed". No
subsequent IM armor design has looked very much like the original bulky yellow
model. And while Ditko may or may not have actually designed the "new" armor,
he was at least the first to draw it for publication.
Scott Eiler
the robotic servitors of "Eric San Juan" <shoeg...@hotmail.com>
>news:ndr09.66327$L02.2...@news1.west.cox.net...
>>
>> "Dale Hicks" <dgh...@bellSPAMsouth.net.invalid> wrote in message
>news:MPG.17abc1bea...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
>> > In article <cx509.64001$L02.2...@news1.west.cox.net>,
>> > ric...@nospam.edu says...
>> > >
>> > > Unless your goal
>> > > is simply to produce still life drawings, the ability to draw
>> > > "detailed" in ITSELF does not equate to talent,
>> >
>> > Yes it does.
>>
>> Name me an artist who can draw lots of minute
>> details, but is completely deficient in all other
>> aspects involved in drawing comics (storytelling
>> skills in particular) that you would describe as being
>> a "talented" comic book artist.
"Completely" deficient is kind of a strong term, but otherwise this is an easy
challenge. Unless you think Skate Man (once declared the World's Worst Comic)
is just about equal to Darkseid, I'll have to cite Neal Adams.
>I think Jim Lee is a very talented artist with the ability to create
>striking, eye-catching panels with lots of detail.
>
>I also think his storytelling skills are subpar, his sense of pacing
>poor and his panel-to-panel action less than noteworthy.
>
>I think he's a talented comic book artist in the visual sense, but he's
>not particularly adept at the most key aspect of comic art,
>storytelling.
A lot of the former "Image" creators have or had this problem. As an artist,
Rob Liefeld makes a good comic book executive.
Eric San Juan
news:QLy09.9724$Ky3.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> In article <2Ex09.313167$iB1.15...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>,
> the robotic servitors of "Eric San Juan" <shoeg...@hotmail.com>
> rose up with the following chant:
> >"Richard" <ric...@nospam.edu> wrote in message
> >news:ndr09.66327$L02.2...@news1.west.cox.net...
> >>
> >> Name me an artist who can draw lots of minute
> >> details, but is completely deficient in all other
> >> aspects involved in drawing comics (storytelling
> >> skills in particular) that you would describe as being
> >> a "talented" comic book artist.
>
> >I think Jim Lee is a very talented artist with the ability to create
> >striking, eye-catching panels with lots of detail.
> >
> >I also think his storytelling skills are subpar, his sense of pacing
> >poor and his panel-to-panel action less than noteworthy.
> >
> >I think he's a talented comic book artist in the visual sense, but
he's
> >not particularly adept at the most key aspect of comic art,
> >storytelling.
>
> A lot of the former "Image" creators have or had this problem. As an
artist,
> Rob Liefeld makes a good comic book executive.
Too true. I cite Jim Lee because he's one of the only Image creators
whose art I like(d) and who fit the above criteria, in my opinion.
I also like Erik Larsen's work, but think he's a better storyteller than
Lee, so he doesn't fit the criteria as outlined.
I quite like Sam Keith's art. His storytelling skills (in panel form)
may, too, be lacking, but I have such affection for The Maxx I didn't
want to throw his name out there. For the record, I didn't much care for
his recent Hulk/Wolverine series, however. But I still think The Maxx
was tops.
All of the other Image artists I can take or leave. Preferably leave.
Especially that Rob kid.
Gary Lightfoot
news:1kf3kuok8os5fihhp...@4ax.com
> I'm old enough to remember his ground-breaking 1960s stuff when it
> first appeared and just how powerful that work was. I still think
> his mid-60s work with Joe Sinnott on FANTASTIC FOUR (see ESSENTIAL
> FF #3) is just awesome and blows away most of today's artists.
> There's a power and a sense of motion to his stuff that you just
> don't see as much of today. That he was also drawing THOR and
> CAPTAIN AMERICA at the same time also shows just how stunningly
> prodigious he was, too.
I'm almost as old, and fortunate enough to have ben able to read all
Marvels's stuff from day one via the reprints Marvel special published
here in the UK.
It was those reprint comics that got me into Marvel and specifically
into the original US Marvel comics, and why I started collecting them.
I agree that Jacks stuff really came on by the mid 60's, but I think
that Jacks stuff was at its best in the late 60s (68) - hard to
explain exactly why, but his lines were more solid and it seemed to
stand out more. Can't really put my finger on it, I just know what
appeals to me the most.
Issues such as Cap America 102, 106 and 108 typify his styling for me,
and the inker could often have an effect on Kirby's lines too - Cap
106 was inked by Frank Giacoia, and 102 and 108 were inked by Syd
Shores. There are definite differences there. Some inkers would make
Kirby's lines look very 'thin', but others would fill those lines in
more solidly and that made Jacks work look a lot better to me.
Even today I love Jacks work, and I even enjoy those that mimic his
style like Ladronne. Like I said, it's hard to put my finger on it,
but there's definitely something about Jacks work that makes it stand
out as one of the best styles in comics (IMHO).
And I also have a great love for Ditko, Romita Snr, John Buscema, Kane
and Colan. There are some modern day artists that I like, but I often
think their work is spoiled by the colouring - far too many colours
seem to detract from the image, where the basic four colour that
seemed to be used in the 60s seemed to allow the art to stand out
more. At least, that's the way it seems to me..
Gary.
KurtBusiek
that "formed the basis (at least loosely) for everything that followed". No
subsequent IM armor design has looked very much like the original bulky yellow
model. And while Ditko may or may not have actually designed the "new" armor,
he was at least the first to draw it for publication. >>
Don Heck has said that virtually any time a new character or costume appears on
a cover drawn by Jack Kirby, then Jack designed it, and the interior artist was
working from Jack's design. That was definitely the case with Iron Man's first
armor (Don said so) and almost assuredly the case with the second, as well.
kdb
POWER COMPANY Preview Site:
http://www.dccomics.com/features/powerco/powerco.html
POWER COMPANY Message Board:
http://www.comicboards.com/powercompany/
Andy Sheets
news:2Ex09.313167$iB1.15...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> Take note, I have not seen Jim Lee work in a number of years, since the
> early 90s, so he may have improved in this respect.
If he gets his working boots on and isn't working on a superhero comic, he
can be okay. Not GREAT, but he can do a good job and show more range than he
usually does. His superhero style, OTOH, is largely the same as ever from
what I've seen. I can't say I'm really hyped for his upcoming Batman run.
Andy
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
>early 90s, so he may have improved in this respect.
>
In spades. 8^)
RJRJR
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
>"istar" <kp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:m6D%8.6985$H67....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
>>
>> One thing Kirby did that very few artists do:
>>
>> He choreographed his fight scenes.
>> When you move from one panel to the next,
>> you can tell what happened in between because
>> they are like frames from a movie.
>> (He worked in animation early in his career.)
>>
>> John Romita Sr. did that too.
>>
>> Most artists today do a fight scene where panels
>> don't have any relation to the one before or after.
>
>A trend that seemed to grow exponentially following the quick popularity
>of the Image style. And a trend I detest.
>
>At one time, it used to be a rule that readers should be able to look at
>the panels and be able to follow the story without even a glance at the
>text. That is rarely true these days. Where once artists used
>interesting angles and movie-like techniques to tell a story, many books
>now look like a series of splash pages shrunken down to panel size.
>Sure, lots of detail and whiz-bang action, but a tremendous lack of
>storytelling skills.
This was a strength of Silver Age Marvels because of the editor. If you
look at all the material that *wasn't used* in the early Marvels, simply
because the editor wanted the story to be more clear, you can see what I'm
talking about. Stan would have the artist redraw entire pages in order to
get the story to flow and make sense. Today, an editor is happy to get
the work on time, and I suspect very few of them ask an artist to redraw
a panel, let alone a page, in order to tell a story better.
Storytelling skills today are pretty weak due to the hands off approach
editors take with the writers and the artist. I could do a better job
editing alot of books I read, but I suspect I'd end up making the writer and
artist mad and they'd leave. That's the problem with the super-egos that
produce comic books today. And if the writer and artist don't like you,
your considered a bad editor.
>That was one of Kirby's biggest strengths.
>
>Panel to panel, frame by frame, a story is told. Great comic art is not
>simply a series of static images, but a cohesive whole. At least, it
>should be.
Look through several of the comic magazines that come out today that talk
about how the old comics were put together. Kirby and many of his peers told
great stories because the editors demanded the stories be easy to follow.
And this in return caused the artist to think about what makes good comic
book art. The decline in the quality of good editors (for reasons probably
out of their control) is what has caused the art of comic book storytelling
to decline in recent years. Hence, all the pretty pictures, but weak
comic storytelling.
RJRJR
Mark Evanier
J. Rickard Jr.) posted:
>This was a strength of Silver Age Marvels because of the editor. If you
>look at all the material that *wasn't used* in the early Marvels, simply
>because the editor wanted the story to be more clear, you can see what I'm
>talking about. Stan would have the artist redraw entire pages in order to
>get the story to flow and make sense. Today, an editor is happy to get
>the work on time, and I suspect very few of them ask an artist to redraw
>a panel, let alone a page, in order to tell a story better.
ME: This happened very rarely in the Silver Age and probably happens
more now.
>Look through several of the comic magazines that come out today that talk
>about how the old comics were put together. Kirby and many of his peers told
>great stories because the editors demanded the stories be easy to follow.
>And this in return caused the artist to think about what makes good comic
>book art. The decline in the quality of good editors (for reasons probably
>out of their control) is what has caused the art of comic book storytelling
>to decline in recent years. Hence, all the pretty pictures, but weak
>comic storytelling.
ME: I don't see that editors have as much to do with this as you do.
There has been a change of what constitutes good storytelling and what
is considered commercial. The editors of any period have merely been
trying to hire folks who give them what the market seems to want.
------------------------------
www.POVonline.com - a website about comic books, cartoons, TV,
movies, Groo the Wanderer, Broadway, Las Vegas, Hollywood,
Stan Freberg, Laurel & Hardy, Jack Kirby and possums in my backyard.
Mark Evanier
posted:
>The cover of TALES OF SUSPENSE #39 (First Iron Man) was Kirby-pencilled! My
>impression was he designed the character.
ME: That was Don Heck's impression, as well.
MACK DIME
> Well, my two cents continue to be that his greatness comes from
> his powerful foreshortening, true action or that wonderful
> 'pop-out-of-the-comic-book' look to it. His creativity in set
> design or backgrounds, machines and weaponry design, as well as
> costume or uniform design all helped create a world of fantasy
> that appealed to and fueled my imagination.
>
> I think it all comes down to "Beauty is in the eye of the
> beholder." You may not find his artwork appealing and that's
> perfectly fine. It doesn't make you stupid as I joked elsewhere
> in this thread. Interesting question. I just thought it was odd
> that you phrased it in a manner that sounded like - to me -
> "What's all the stink about Kirby? I think he sucks." <g>
That impression is why I said I didn't mean to start a flame war, I was
just expressing my opinion, which is not that Kirby sucks, but that he
isn't as great as I had expected from what I had heard (which is of course
a matter of taste).
>
> Someone else mentioned the cult of personality and I do believe
> that "King Kirby" started out as merely a nickname for the
> artist, but he obviously deserves such a designation, imo.
>
> Look at some of the Essentials. I have a copy of the Thor
> Essential Vol. 1. Thor 108 includes the following:
>
> Written by Stan Lee, The Idol of Millions!
> Illustrated by Jack Kirby, The Toast of the Town!
> Inked by Chic Stone, The Man of the Hour!
> Lettered by Art Simek, The People's Choice!
>
> Why not ask if Stan Lee was actually the idol of millions when
> Thor 108 was first published? Was Art Simek the people's choice
> or just a solid letterer who had an opening in his work schedule?
> And exactly *which* hour was Chic Stone the man of???
>
> The name "King" Kirby started out as a little bit of
> sensationalism/salesmanship or show biz and grew to be a
> respected and agreed status for the reasons offered by the other
> posters and, of course, because KIRBY'S STUFF LOOKS COOL!
>
I didn't mean why was he "King" Kirby. I realize that is hyperbole, I was
using his nickname as (an attempt at least) clever framing to ask why
people love him so much. I don't think Aretha Franklin is really the
Queen of Soul, and I think its obvious that Kirby isn't a king. I think
if I asked why Stan was the idol of millions people would get what the
meaning was.
Chad
Who wishes he could be the man of the hour, even if it was 5:00 am
MACK DIME
> << >O.K. I have a question that has been on my mind recently. This is not
> >intended to be a smart ass question so please no insults telling me I'm
> >stupid.
>
> You're stupid. <g> >>
>
> That's not an insult, it's a objective observation
>
> :-D
I misphrased this: don't call me stupid for asking this question.
However, calling me stupid for a myriad of other reasons if fine (and
probably deserved). <g>
Chad
MACK DIME
> In article <MPG.17abc1bea...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net>,
> the robotic servitors of Dale Hicks <dgh...@bellSPAMsouth.net.invalid>
> rose up with the following chant:
> >In article <cx509.64001$L02.2...@news1.west.cox.net>,
> >ric...@nospam.edu says...
> >>
> >> Unless your goal
> >> is simply to produce still life drawings, the ability to draw
> >> "detailed" in ITSELF does not equate to talent,
> >
> >Yes it does.
>
> But does it equate to the talent of telling a comic book *story*?
>
> I personally don't like Jack Kirby's art that much. And as for his dialogue,
> I've heard it said that Stan Lee deserves a Nobel Prize for Literature for
> sparing us Jack Kirby's dialog all those years.
>
> But still, there's no denying Jack Kirby gave everyone else something they
> could build upon. Disrespecting him because his art is old-fashioned, is like
> dissing Christopher Columbus because he didn't have ethnic respect for
> Indians, or like frowning upon Isaac Newton because he didn't know about
> relativistic effects at lightspeed.
If this is in reference to anything I've said, I must defend my honor. I
have not once disrespected Kiby's art, merely asked a question and
expressed my opinion of his work. I have not tried to diminish his works
or said he is a bad artist, just that I don't think his work is as great
as others, which is my opinion. If you're telling me that I can't
critique his work because it's old, well let's just say I disagree.
Chad
MACK DIME
>
> I will go back to The Beatles. Many younger music fans think they're
> missing something when it comes to The Beatles, can't understand what
> others see in them, think modern rock surpassed it long ago, so who
> cares about them? Then one day, it clicks.
>
> I'm not a huge Jack Kirby fan by any stretch of the imagination, but he
> invoked a sense of wonder and power and grandeur to his stories that was
> simply captivating. His expansive work in the Fantastic Four in
> particular created a storytelling atmosphere few modern artists could
> match, I would argue. If the art looks simple to you, I would argue that
> you are only looking at the surface.
>
And I would agrue otherwise. I don't think I am looking at the "surface"
of the art, I think I am looking at the art. I'm not looking at the
history and the legend that is Kirby, rather taking a look at the art
itself. I'm looking at it as if I walked into the comic shop and saw a
book by this new guy Jack Kirby, not through rose-colored glasses.
Chad
who really likes the Beatles and Miles Davis
MACK DIME
> When you say you look at his art, which art are you talking about?
> The man was in the business from 1937-1990+ During that time he used
> many different styles and worked with many different inkers. Some of
> his work from the forties and fifties has more detail than any current
> artist would dare stick on a page.
>
I've looked at mostly his Marvel and DC work (Fantastic Four, New Gods,
etc.) and some other stuff. People have pointed me to some other stuff
that might give me a better picture, but I haven't had time to look yet.
I've looked at the stuff people cite as being great Kirby art mostly
because that's what's most people know him from.
> A lot of his appeal also has to do with story telling skills. A lot
> of modern artists can draw the hell out a panel but have no idea how
> to tell a story- how to sustain a flow of action from one panel to
> another- how to pace a story- how to make the climax an actual climax.
> I never had to read a Kirby comic over again three times to try to
> figure out what was going on. (unlike say, some recent issues of
> Superman, Justice League, Captain Marvel, etc.)
>
I know that some modern artists can draw beautifully but not know how to
storytell (Greg Land comes to mind), but I could draw some pictures
that look like shit but may be good storytelling. Doesn't mean I'm a good
artist. I realize that beautiful art and stroytelling don't go
hand-in-hand and many artists are good at the former but not the latter.
> The other thing you seem to be missing is Kirby created the Marvel
> Universe. Without him, the modern guys wouldn't have anybody to steal
> from.
I didn't miss this at all. From my first post I mentioned this. The fact
that he created the Marvel Universe doesn't make him great. I could
scribble out some drawings that other people use to make a great universe,
that doesn't mean I'm great. What I'm saying is that because he created
beloved characters doesn't make him great, it's his work on its own
merits.
Chad
who is not comparing his art to Jack Kirby's
and in fact would not compare it to his 4 year old cousin.
BritReid
<< I know that some modern artists can draw beautifully but not know how to
storytell (Greg Land comes to mind), but I could draw some pictures
that look like shit but may be good storytelling. Doesn't mean I'm a good
artist. I realize that beautiful art and stroytelling don't go hand-in-hand
and many artists are good at the former but not the latter. >>
"I realize that beautiful art and storytelling don't go hand-in-hand..."???
Try...
Will Eisner
Steve Ditko
Jack Kirby/Joe Sinnott or Mike Royer
Neal Adams/Tom Palmer
John Buscema/Practically ANYBODY
Gene Colan/Tom Palmer
Wally Wood
Graham Ingels
Berni Wrightson
Mike Ploog
John Romita, Sr.
Gil Kane
Curt Swan/Murphy Anderson
George Perez
Mike Kaluta
Jim Steranko
...just a few examples of "beautiful art AND storytelling"!
Brit
BritReid
<< There has been a change of what constitutes good storytelling and what is
considered commercial. >>
If true, that's frightening.
<< The editors of any period have merely been
trying to hire folks who give them what the market seems to want. >>
The market doesn't want well-told stories? That explains why so many over-40
artists aren't getting work in the industry!
Who wants a coherent story when you can look at badly-drawn pin-up pages?
Brit
Bob Hughes
>>
>
>I know that some modern artists can draw beautifully but not know how to
>storytell (Greg Land comes to mind), but I could draw some pictures
>that look like shit but may be good storytelling. Doesn't mean I'm a good
>artist. I realize that beautiful art and stroytelling don't go
>hand-in-hand and many artists are good at the former but not the latter.
>
I doubt you could draw pictures that look like shit but would be good
story telling. I don' t think that's possible. But good storytelling
does mean you're a good artist. That's the point of the art- to tell
the story- if the art doesn't tell the story then it isn't any good,
no matter how anatomically accurate it might be.
>
>> The other thing you seem to be missing is Kirby created the Marvel
>> Universe. Without him, the modern guys wouldn't have anybody to steal
>> from.
>
>
>I didn't miss this at all. From my first post I mentioned this. The fact
>that he created the Marvel Universe doesn't make him great.
This discussion is ended. We obviously do not speak the same
language.
>
>Chad
>who is not comparing his art to Jack Kirby's
>and in fact would not compare it to his 4 year old cousin.
>
>
Bob Hughes
Who's Whose at DC Comics? Creator Credits and art samples from DC's Golden and Silver Age Comics, especially Superman and Batman profiled at:
http://www.supermanartists.comics.org/superart.htm
"Information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not music. Music is best."
Frank Zappa
Curt
>The fact
>that he created the Marvel Universe doesn't make him great. I could
>scribble out some drawings that other people use to make a great universe,
>that doesn't mean I'm great. What I'm saying is that because he created
>beloved characters doesn't make him great, it's his work on its own
>merits.
This is what I would call an impasse.
I believe that Kirby's work on its own has incredible merit.
You believe that most are looking at Kirby's art through
rose-colored lenses.
Congrats on an interesting question that resulted in a thread that
included many wonderful posts!
Did one of those posts include *your* favorite artist and why, Chad?
--
Curt
http://www.curtjames.com/
http://www.virtualtourist.com/curt_james/
Landru99
storytell (Greg Land comes to mind), but I could draw some pictures that look
like shit but may be good storytelling. Doesn't mean I'm a good artist.>>
No, but your point is moot because Jack Kirby's artwork does not look like
"shit." He may be more better known for his storytelling ability than his
ability to draw ultra-realistic figures, but I'd still take his art over 95%
of any artist working in comics today.
<<The fact that he created the Marvel Universe doesn't make him great. I could
scribble out some drawings that other people use to make a great universe, that
doesn't mean I'm great>>
The fact that he co-created the Marvel Universe is just part of the reason the
man was great. His body of work speaks for itself. The man's artwork
revolutionized the entire industry. The fact that you do not seem to
understand his appeal does not make him an less "great." Personally I have
trouble getting through some of Shakespeare's plays, yet acknowledge the man
was great.
<<What I'm saying is that because he created beloved characters doesn't make
him great, it's his work on its own merits.>>
His work on his own merits _is_ what made him great, the fact that he also
co-created a whole universe of fantastic characters is merely a sidebar to his
greatness. Anyone who's artwork is that dynamic is going to make a huge
splash, whether he's drawing Captian America or John Q. Public.
Landru
Curt
><<I know that some modern artists can draw beautifully but not know how to
>storytell (Greg Land comes to mind), but I could draw some pictures that look
>like shit but may be good storytelling. Doesn't mean I'm a good artist.>>
>
>No, but your point is moot because Jack Kirby's artwork does not look like
>"shit."
[snip]
Poor Chad has repeatedly written one thing while meaning an entirely
different thing. I am certain that he didn't mean to say that
Kirby's art looked or looks like "shit".
Chad, in the same breath, I would never offer you a job in any
diplomatic corps. <g> You realize yourself that you've "stepped in
it" a few times in this thread, don't you?
Thanks again, however, for a cool premise to an interesting thread.
--
Curt
http://www.curtjames.com/
MACK DIME
> This is what I would call an impasse.
>
> I believe that Kirby's work on its own has incredible merit.
> You believe that most are looking at Kirby's art through
> rose-colored lenses.
>
> Congrats on an interesting question that resulted in a thread that
> included many wonderful posts!
>
> Did one of those posts include *your* favorite artist and why, Chad?
We may have reached an impasse as of now, but I am going to take a look at
some more of Kirby's work, which will be easier now that people have
pointed me in the direction of some of is lesser known work and gave me
some specific things to look for. Maybe it will click for me one day, and
I will see what I am missing.
I was simply glad to get many good responses to my question, and the
answers were certainly interesting and thankfully civil. I've been more
of a lurker here for awhile, but this certainly encouraged me to post
more.
As for my favortite artist, I don't really have one. Some I like are Sal
Velutto, Dave Gibbons, Kyle Hotz, Alex Ross, and Leonardo Manco off the
top of my head. If forced to choose though, It would probably be John
Romita, Jr., especially his earlier work. As to why I would pick him,
it's largely because I picked up a lot of his work when I started
collecting and it stuck with me, much as Kirby's work did to so many
others. My like of his work isn't objective, I started with his work, and
I always liked it. And when I look back at it, it will always be through
rose-colored lenses. Thanks for the reply Curt!
Chad
Eric San Juan
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Eric San Juan wrote:
> >
> > I'm not a huge Jack Kirby fan by any stretch of the imagination, but
he
> > invoked a sense of wonder and power and grandeur to his stories that
was
> > simply captivating. His expansive work in the Fantastic Four in
> > particular created a storytelling atmosphere few modern artists
could
> > match, I would argue. If the art looks simple to you, I would argue
that
> > you are only looking at the surface.
>
> And I would agrue otherwise. I don't think I am looking at the
"surface"
> of the art, I think I am looking at the art. I'm not looking at the
> history and the legend that is Kirby, rather taking a look at the art
> itself. I'm looking at it as if I walked into the comic shop and saw
a
> book by this new guy Jack Kirby, not through rose-colored glasses.
I'm too young to truly look at Kirby through rose-colored glasses.
The reason why I suggest you may be only looking at the surface is
because I have not gathered from your posts that you've done anything
aside from look at the drawings ... of course, I could be wrong.
As I noted, Kirby's artistic style is not my favorite, and that doesn't
even have anything to do with its relative simplicity. There are artists
just as "simple" that I like more. What made Kirby special was the way
he told stories, the way each of those relatively simple drawings worked
with every other relatively simple drawing to create an exciting,
larger-than-life tale. His individual panels would burst with life, but
his real power was in how they all worked together. For some reason when
he drew things felt BIG.
Yeah, I'll take a splash page by Todd McFarlane over Jack Kirby any day,
but a story? Give me Jack.
> Chad
> who really likes the Beatles and Miles Davis
Excellent to hear, especially about the latter. Miles is God.
Eric San Juan
news:Pine.OSF.3.93.1020729...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu...
>
> I know that some modern artists can draw beautifully but not know how
to
> storytell (Greg Land comes to mind), but I could draw some pictures
> that look like shit but may be good storytelling. Doesn't mean I'm a
good
> artist.
Maybe not a good artist, but a good comic artist? You better believe it.
Being a good comic artist is _all about_ telling the story. I don't care
how wonderful the drawings are, if you can't tell a story well you're
not a good comic artist. The same holds true in reverse order. If you
don't draw that well, but can utilize what skills you have to tell a
story really well, you're a good comic artist.
This is what I meant in my other post when I talked about looking at the
surface.
> I realize that beautiful art and stroytelling don't go
> hand-in-hand and many artists are good at the former but not the
latter.
That means they are good artists, but not necessarily good comic
artists.
Eoghann Irving
"Curt" <curt_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d4583d1...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> land...@aol.com (Landru99) wrote:
>
> ><<I know that some modern artists can draw beautifully but not know how
to
> >storytell (Greg Land comes to mind), but I could draw some pictures that
look
> >like shit but may be good storytelling. Doesn't mean I'm a good
artist.>>
> >
> >No, but your point is moot because Jack Kirby's artwork does not look
like
> >"shit."
> [snip]
>
> Poor Chad has repeatedly written one thing while meaning an entirely
> different thing. I am certain that he didn't mean to say that
> Kirby's art looked or looks like "shit".
Actually if you look at what he says above. He DIDN'T say that Kirby's art
looks like shit. He said HIS art looked like shit.
Chad's phrasing can be a little unclear at times, but if people take the
trouble (as you did Curt) to look at the context of the thread and what Chad
has been saying, its blatantly obvious that his aim isn't to insult Kirby.
Unfortunately people are very trigger happy when it comes to discussing
Kirby. It seems like certain people just go ballistic and assume you're
denegrating him if you do anything less than call him the greatest comicbook
artist ever.
I'll go on record as saying that look at his comic art (putting aside the
issue of character creation etc temporarily). I'm not a fan. I'll accept
that when people tell me he's doing some brilliant storytelling, that it
must be there. But I don't see it. I just see a bunch of chunky people.
Sorry. :)
Here's a thought. I READ comics. By which I mean I'm interested in the story
and the words. Nice pictures are essentially a bonus from my perspective.
I'm probably in the minority in that I'm more of a word person than a visual
person. It could be that I don't see this storytelling that Kirby is
apparently doing because its of no interest to me. This is also true in
films. I never see clever editing or any of that stuff. My film obsessed
friends used to constantly refer to it after watching a film and I never had
the faintest idea what they were talking about. I focus on the story and
the dialogue.
So my theory comes in two parts. First that the more visually oriented you
are the more important the storytelling aspect of the comicbook art is. And
secondly that the more interested you are in "technique" the more you notice
it. A lot of what has been talked about with regards to Kirby's art simply
won't be visible to someone unless they've read about this stuff.
Just some thoughts.
Eoghann Irving
--
Solar Flare: Everything Fantasy and SF
http://www.sflare.com
Eoghann Irving
"Bob Hughes" <BobH...@2ttlc.net> wrote in message
news:3qqakuskqibog86k0...@4ax.com...
> I doubt you could draw pictures that look like shit but would be good
> story telling. I don' t think that's possible. But good storytelling
> does mean you're a good artist. That's the point of the art- to tell
> the story- if the art doesn't tell the story then it isn't any good,
> no matter how anatomically accurate it might be.
Oh I'm sure it is possible. I bet someone with the right talent could
produce a "silent" comic using matchstick figure art and have it have a
story that people could follow.
Not that I'd be reading it personally, but I bet it could be done.
Eoghann
Eoghann Irving
"BritReid" <brit...@aol.comnostuff> wrote in message
news:20020729102018...@mb-co.aol.com...
Oh for goodness sake people READ what the man is trying to say. He didn't
say it was IMPOSSIBLE to have both.
He said they don't go hand in hand. i.e. just because you have one you don't
AUTOMATICALLY have the other.
Why are people so painfully literal in this thread? Apply context!
Bob Hughes
His name is Matt Feazell.
The book is called Not Available Comics. His stuff is brilliant, but
I would no more call him an artist than I would the guy who "draws"
Dilbert.
Landru99
some more of Kirby's work, which will be easier now that people have pointed me
in the direction of some of is lesser known work and gave me some specific
things to look for. Maybe it will click for me one day, and I will see what I
am missing.>>
Try FF # 45 to around # 70 or so.
Things should definitely start "clicking" by the time Galactus shows up.
Landru
Landru99
trouble (as you did Curt) to look at the context of the thread and what Chad
has been saying, its blatantly obvious that his aim isn't to insult Kirby.>>
He has been "polite" about his disaproval of Kirby's artwork, I'll give him
that.
<<Actually if you look at what he says above. He DIDN'T say that Kirby's art
looks like shit. He said HIS art looked like shit.>>
I am fully aware he said _his_ art looks like shit, but he was saying it in
such a way as to make an analogy. A totally unfounded one, but his intent was
loud and clear nonetheless.
Landru
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
>On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 18:14:07 GMT, rj...@localhost.localdomain (Ronald
>J. Rickard Jr.) posted:
>
>>This was a strength of Silver Age Marvels because of the editor. If you
>>look at all the material that *wasn't used* in the early Marvels, simply
>>because the editor wanted the story to be more clear, you can see what I'm
>>talking about. Stan would have the artist redraw entire pages in order to
>>get the story to flow and make sense. Today, an editor is happy to get
>>the work on time, and I suspect very few of them ask an artist to redraw
>>a panel, let alone a page, in order to tell a story better.
>
>ME: This happened very rarely in the Silver Age and probably happens
>more now.
Mr. Evanier, you're an insider, so I'll have to ask. With comics taking
as long as they do to complete, does an editor ask an artist to redraw
panels or even pages to make the story flow? If so, why are so many
confusing comics coming out? Examples just off the top of my head include
Ruse #1 (the whole glass floor deal), several issues of Our Worlds At War,
a recent Iron Man which had a very confusing ending (Tony Stark taking a
bath with a female AND Tony Stark sitting getting charged up), the Ultimate
Spider-Man Special with the teacher undergoing a drastic change, etc. I
could probably name one or two instances for every comic published in the
past year. Many times, comic panels don't flow and a reader is thrown
outside the story completely trying to figure out what is happening. I've
been reading alot of the Essentials and I don't have this problem reading
the Silver Age material. And there are lots of examples of alternate
Silver Age pages, covers, panels, and thumbnails redone to make the story
flow better. I don't believe I've ever seen a modern example (i.e. the
last 10 years) of a page or panel being redone. But this maybe because the
Comic Magazines I read deal with the vintage material. And there are lots
of stories in those magazines of artists having to redo pages and panels
for one reason or another.
>>Look through several of the comic magazines that come out today that talk
>>about how the old comics were put together. Kirby and many of his peers told
>>great stories because the editors demanded the stories be easy to follow.
>>And this in return caused the artist to think about what makes good comic
>>book art. The decline in the quality of good editors (for reasons probably
>>out of their control) is what has caused the art of comic book storytelling
>>to decline in recent years. Hence, all the pretty pictures, but weak
>>comic storytelling.
>
>ME: I don't see that editors have as much to do with this as you do.
>There has been a change of what constitutes good storytelling and what
>is considered commercial. The editors of any period have merely been
>trying to hire folks who give them what the market seems to want.
That may be. But I'd bet clearer storytelling would go along way toward
keeping readers on some titles. It goes hand in hand with lighter
continuity and can be just a frustrating to a reader.
RJRJR
Foster Coker
indeed The King who pencilled the cover of Suspense #39!
Landru99 wrote:
> <<In short, pretty much everybody with any staying power except Spiderman and
> Iron Man.>>
>
> Actually, I think Kirby did create the visual for Iron Man. The cover of TALES
> OF SUSPENSE # 39 sure looks like his work (assuming the cover had been drawn
> before the interior of the book).
>
> Landru
Mark Evanier
J. Rickard Jr.) posted:
>Mr. Evanier, you're an insider, so I'll have to ask. With comics taking
>as long as they do to complete, does an editor ask an artist to redraw
>panels or even pages to make the story flow? If so, why are so many
>confusing comics coming out?
ME: Editors do occasionally ask for changes for story flow. Generally
speaking though, a somewhat different definition and attitude about
story flow prevails than it once did. I wrote a comic not that long
ago that I felt was "told" very poorly insofar as the artist's
contribution was concerned. I found the staging confusing and since I
wrote the story, I figured that if I was getting lost, the readers
would really get baffled. The editor in this case disagreed and
thought the story was told perfectly well and that the art was very
dynamic and interesting. To simplify the storytelling would, he felt,
make the art more boring. He agreed to ask for redraws in a few
places where I felt the art was merely inaccurate, but he felt the
staging was fine.
Nevertheless, I feel quite confident in my opinion that redraws for
clarity occur more often these days than in earlier times. For one
thing, editors these days usually have lighter workloads than their
predecessors and spend more time going over the material.
>I've been reading alot of the Essentials and I don't have this problem reading
>the Silver Age material. And there are lots of examples of alternate
>Silver Age pages, covers, panels, and thumbnails redone to make the story
>flow better.
ME: Well, if you're looking at old Marvel material, most of the
redraws were not done precisely for reasons of clarity. In most
cases, it had to do with a writer dialoguing a comic after it was
pencilled and wishing the picture showed something different so that
they could put in different story information. And most of the redone
covers were because someone at the office said, "Gee, we can do a more
exciting, sales-grabbing cover than that." (Nowadays, since comics
don't sell on newsstands, they're less worried about having a
commercial cover.)
I don't consider either of these a failure of storytelling on the part
of the artist. They were both generally cases of someone (the writer,
the editor) changing his mind about what should be on the page or, in
the case of comics written Marvel-method, a problem with the artist's
plotting ability, not with his ability to convey information clearly.
>That may be. But I'd bet clearer storytelling would go along way toward
>keeping readers on some titles. It goes hand in hand with lighter
>continuity and can be just a frustrating to a reader.
ME: I might agree with that but a number of artists have proven to be
very popular with what I would consider weak storytelling abilities.
Therefore, it becomes difficult to suggest that the more popular
artists are doing something wrong and ought to draw more like the less
popular artists. But I'm not sure they shouldn't.