Today's comic artists aren't worthy to kiss Jack Kirby on the ass
Unknown
the exact opposite view that I hold about comics. I was so happy to see
many of you destroy the arguments that "I" presented. The only thing that
I was worried about was that I might have hurt the feelings of those who
love Jack Kirby.
I can't say that I call myself a hardcore Kirby fan, and I wasn't even born
in the 1960's. I grew up reading comics in the 1980's and I discovered the
silver age of comics by reading "Marvel Saga". I thought that the art was
simplistic at first but far more pleasing to the eyes. I still liked the
80's comics (especially Spider-Man's story arc on the Hobgoblin) because it
at least carried some of the tradition from the silver age. I don't know
when it happened but comics started to lose appeal with me. I still buy
comics today, but mostly from the back-issue bins at the comic book store.
In the past few years, the only "new" comics that I bought were the DC
Millenium Editions, World's Greatest Comics Magazine (a Marvel tribute to
Lee/Ditko) and a few Spider-Man titles.
I really loathe today's comics. The coloring is so over-the-top that it
defeats the purpose. I hate the "Ultimate" titles, and "Ultimate"
Spider-Man looks very very very dumb. He coiuldn't weigh more than 50
pounds soaking wet. And today's coloring techniques look really really
horrible when it is printed on the cheap standard pulp paper. I much
prefer the way comics were being colored before the 90's--simple but it
looked good. When the mini-series "Spider-Man: Lifeline" came out, I was
almost moved to tears because it was Spider-Man drawn in the traditional
way without all of the weird angles and deformities that we see Spider-man
in today. The website spiderfan.org review gave a rating of only 2 1/2
webs (out of 5) proclaiming:
"The dialog is corny, the plot is inane, the characters are recycled, and
the art looks better suited to some kids title like "Spider-Man
Adventures". Don't be fooled by the cover painting, there's none of that
stuff inside the book."
Perhaps the story in that series was a retread from an earlier Spider-Man
adventure but I will venture to say that it was 100 times better than the
crap that is done today. The art in that series was simply magnificient.
This reviewer has been brainwashed by the Wizard Magazine hype machine.
"Man's greatest friend has not been modernity or progress. It has always
been tradition" -- a Pope from the 19th century (paraphrasing from memory).
Now I'm not trying to turn this into a religious debate but today's "cool"
comics are overtly sexual and violent (just peruse "Knockout" at the comic
book store). There are wrtiers and artists in today's comics who feel they
can't sell comics unless there is implied nudity and tons of violence. Now
I like drawings of beautiful women in comics as much as the next guy but I
will much prefer the subtle sexiness of Kirby's Enchantress or Steranko's
poses of Nick Fury's girlfriend in the 60's SHIELD series over the
soft-porn that we see in Crossgen and other "modern" comics. Also, comics
today are suffering badly from Politically Correct-itis giving in to every
form of identity politics. I much prefer the quiet desperation and rugged
individualism of the superheroes from the 1960's. Remember when Peter
Parker hit Mary Jane when he thought he was a clone? What a coward! The
1960's Spider-Man must be surely rolling in his grave at that one.
Unknown
John Thorenson
No need. Everyone knows Jack Kirby couldn't hold a candle to today's artists.
He should be applauded for his prolific influences and production, not his
actual talent. Don't cry.
__
"At this point, I think it's safe to say that Microsoft's statement about PC
games not coming to the Xbox was a bunch of bull ... there's already too many
PC games being ported to the Xbox to count." Shane, Gamespot.com letters,
1/18/02
Edward L. Wilkinson, Jr.
>No need. Everyone knows Jack Kirby couldn't hold a candle to today's artists.
>He should be applauded for his prolific influences and production, not his
>actual talent. Don't cry.
Actually, there is not artist working today in mainstream comics today
is even close to being as good as Kirby.
-Ed
Jay
I enjoyed reading the thread) IMHO a NG should be a discussion on the topic
from all views. Whether I agree or not with the poster isnt the point, its
the exchange of opinions.
Jay
"Behold! The power of cheese!"
richard
"Tavington" <tavi...@zsazsabinks.com> wrote in message
news:3c5be88f....@news.cybersurf.net...
> I really loathe today's comics. The coloring is so over-the-top that it
> defeats the purpose. I hate the "Ultimate" titles, and "Ultimate"
> Spider-Man looks very very very dumb. He coiuldn't weigh more than 50
> pounds soaking wet.
I've been recommended Ultimate Spider-Man by
a person whose opinion I normally trust. Maybe the
writing's OK, but I can't make it past the art. Having
picked up a few issues of the Thunderbolts, I was familiar
with Bagley's art. My impression from that work was
that he couldn't make up his mind whether he wanted
his style to be cartoony or realistic and thus was failing
at both. While that work was at least tolerable, I find
the way he draws Spider-Man to be really beyond
the pale. With that "bubble-head" he gives Spidey,
I feel like I'm looking at the work of a Frankenstein's
monster that's part Fred Hembeck and part Neal
Adams.
Richard
Terry & Wendi Beatty
"John Thorenson" <omar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020202154046...@mb-md.aol.com...
> >I may as well confess right now.
>
> No need. Everyone knows Jack Kirby couldn't hold a candle to today's
artists.
> He should be applauded for his prolific influences and production, not his
> actual talent. Don't cry.
I'm assuming these comments are someone "trolling" -- but just in case
SOMEONE takes them seriously, here's my response.
As one of the artists who contributed to the recent faux Lee-Kirby FF
mini-series at Marvel, all of us attempting to ape Kirby as close as
possible (well, as one of the inkers, I was actually attempting to pass as
Joe Sinnott, but that's a technicality), I have to point out that damn few
of us even came close....
I admire a great many cartoonists who have worked in the comic book field --
but there's never been anyone else like Kirby. His talent was
immeasurable -- and will never be equalled.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go once again study the (stunning!)
Kirby pencils repro'ed in the latest (wonderful!) issue of THE JACK KIRBY
COLLECTOR and wonder just how the hell he did it....
Terry Beatty
John Savard
(tavi...@zsazsabinks.com) wrote, in part:
>And today's coloring techniques look really really
>horrible when it is printed on the cheap standard pulp paper.
On the other hand, yesterday's techniques have problems on glossy
paper, so they're aiming at the trade paperback reprint.
>There are wrtiers and artists in today's comics who feel they
>can't sell comics unless there is implied nudity and tons of violence.
Unfortunately, they're probably right.
And not just because they, personally, may lack talent.
The market for comics has contracted terribly since the glorious days
of Jack Kirby's active career. Now, comics are sold in specialty
stores, patronized by teenage boys and up. The only surviving genre is
superheroes... almost. Manga has some variety, and there still are
some comics for very young children.
Peter Kostka
>I really loathe today's comics. The coloring is so over-the-top that it
>defeats the purpose. I hate the "Ultimate" titles, and "Ultimate"
>Spider-Man looks very very very dumb. He coiuldn't weigh more than 50
>pounds soaking wet. And today's coloring techniques look really really
>horrible when it is printed on the cheap standard pulp paper. I much
>prefer the way comics were being colored before the 90's--simple but it
>looked good. When the mini-series "Spider-Man: Lifeline" came out, I was
I've been enjoying this topic, if just to hear people's opinions. I've
never bought any books with Kirby art in them, though I have seen some
pieces here and there. Now I think I want to see and judge for myself. (any
suggestions for reprints or collections? I think I read some somewhere in
these Kirby threads, but I'll have a hell of a time finding them again now)
Besides that though, the above paragraphs were bugging me, because I've
gotten into the colouring side of comics and felt the need to weigh in with
my thoughts.
Colouring is no more a "technique" than pencilling. It takes knowledge and
talent, dedication, practice, and artistic sense like any other art form. If
you don't know anatomy, light and shadow *plus* the principles of colour
theory, you can't just hack out a page in photoshop and say that you are a
colourist. All of the above-mentioned knowledge put together in a coloured
piece can make for a beautifully rendered piece of art, and just because it
is so, does not make it over-the-top.
Also, it's not just "today's colouring techniques" that look bad on cheap
paper, that goes for anything printed on cheap paper! However, a good
colourist who knows their stuff knows how to compensate for different kinds
of paper. (When it comes to reprinting a TPB on newsprint, when the
colouring was originally done with better paper in mind, there really isn't
much a colourist can do to fix that.)
I'll have to disagree with how good colouring pre-90's was. Well, not how
good, because that all depends on the individual colourist, but how much
potential a colourist could realize from the methods of that time. They were
simply more limited, and if anything, it is pre-90's colouring which had
more of a technical aspect to it and less of an artistic one than today's
colouring, where rendering of 3-dimensional forms is now commonplace, while
it was not even a consideration a colourist had to deal with in the
flat-colouring of years past. And as a real-world example, whenever I show
today's comics to people who haven't touched a comic in years, the very
first thing they mention, without exception, is how good the colours look.
Well, there's my two cents on that. Every once in a while, there are
comments made about colouring that show how much of a misunderstanding there
is about that end of the business, and there are lots of hard-working
colourists in the business that try hard to change those ideas and earn more
of the respect that they deserve, but it's a tough battle. It will probably
always be like that. A comic book reader will often be able to appreciate
the work that goes into pencilling and inking, but when it comes to
colouring, too often you hear something along the lines of "they use
photoshop to colour that" with the thought in their minds that all of the
artistic knowledge and effort that went into it was compressed into a few
easy clicks of a mouse button. That would be equivalent to looking at a page
drawn by a penciller and then making as relevant a comment as "so, you must
have used an HB pencil to do that, huh?"
------------
Peter Kostka
http://www.dmfcomics.com
For all your Demented comic needs...
Dale Hicks
kos...@globalserve.net says...
> I'll have to disagree with how good colouring pre-90's was. Well, not how
> good, because that all depends on the individual colourist, but how much
> potential a colourist could realize from the methods of that time. They were
> simply more limited, and if anything, it is pre-90's colouring which had
> more of a technical aspect to it and less of an artistic one than today's
> colouring, where rendering of 3-dimensional forms is now commonplace, while
> it was not even a consideration a colourist had to deal with in the
> flat-colouring of years past.
Okay, while colorists are now even more of an artist than they were, I'm
left wondering if this 3-D approach isn't necessarily the next
progression. Or, if it is, should we drop the inking process?
To me, some of the overdone texturing done with Photoshop today seem to
work poorly with the bold outlines of the inked page. I like the
coloring jobs best that just suggest colors, but leave the areas between
the lines with a generally solid color. Perhaps if people want to go
overboard with the tool, there should be some thought into doing digital
paintings, going straight from pencils to color, leaving out the outlines
to everything?
One note I found interesting is that I'm generally against the Crappy
Computer Coloring trend distracting from and muddling up the line art,
but I was floored by AVENGERS #50, loving the patchwork effect used on
the flashback scenes. That was a great job by Tom Smith.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Andrew Ryan Chang
>Okay, while colorists are now even more of an artist than they were, I'm
>left wondering if this 3-D approach isn't necessarily the next
>progression. Or, if it is, should we drop the inking process?
What about Red Star? No inking there, and it looks great.
That said, I don't think everything needs to look like Red Star.
Hitch, Neary, and Depuy all made amazing contributions on their run on
Authority. I loved Noelle Giddings' watercolour work in Static. Tim
Sale's ink washes on DD:Yellow do really impressive things that I used to
think were solely the province of the colourist.
--
"Essentially, he's saying the government is a giant money laundering
machine that gives back your taxes so you can give it to the oil
companies or electric companies," says Rep. Robert Filner, D-Calif.
[http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/17/energy_plan/index.html]
Jeff Coleman
"Peter Kostka" <kos...@globalserve.net> wrote in message
news:Ly578.1762$bl4.10...@news.tor.primus.ca...
> I've been enjoying this topic, if just to hear people's opinions. I've
> never bought any books with Kirby art in them, though I have seen some
> pieces here and there. Now I think I want to see and judge for myself.
(any
> suggestions for reprints or collections? I think I read some somewhere in
> these Kirby threads, but I'll have a hell of a time finding them again
now)
> Besides that though, the above paragraphs were bugging me, because I've
> gotten into the colouring side of comics and felt the need to weigh in
with
> my thoughts.
Most of Marvel's ESSENTIALS volumes feature Kirby art--the best of the bunch
being ESSENTIAL FANTASTIC FOUR volume 3, which reprints FF#41 - 63.
That run, one of the most prolific and creative of any comics in history,
includes the first appearances of Galactus, The Silver Surfer, The Inhumans,
and The Black Panther, among others. It features the original Galactus
Trilogy, the classic "This Man, This Monster", and the three-issue story in
which Doctor Doom steals the cosmic power of the Silver Surfer.
Most of it is inked by Joe Sinnott, too, widely acclaimed as one of Kirby's
best inkers.
You couldn't go wrong by checking out all the FANTASTIC FOUR volumes, but if
you really want a dose of Kirby at his prime (granted, the King had a lot of
"primes"), FF#3 is the one to get.
I'd recommend his NEW GODS stories as well, but I wouldn't recommend them in
the current DC trade paperbacks. The grey tones added to the art to make up
for color have, in my opinion, made them extremely unappealing to me. I
collected NEW GODS back issues--NEW GODS, MISTER MIRACLE, FOREVER PEOPLE,
and especially his craziest run ever, on SUPERMAN'S PAL JIMMY OLSEN...
Jeff
--
www.isaacpriestley.com
Latest album "Days of Being Dumb"
available for download now!
Jeff Coleman
"John Savard" <jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote in message
news:3c5ce25b...@news.powersurfr.com...
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2002 13:24:40 GMT, Tavington
> (tavi...@zsazsabinks.com) wrote, in part:
>
> >There are wrtiers and artists in today's comics who feel they
> >can't sell comics unless there is implied nudity and tons of violence.
>
> Unfortunately, they're probably right.
>
> And not just because they, personally, may lack talent.
>
> The market for comics has contracted terribly since the glorious days
> of Jack Kirby's active career. Now, comics are sold in specialty
> stores, patronized by teenage boys and up. The only surviving genre is
> superheroes... almost. Manga has some variety, and there still are
> some comics for very young children.
And yet, John, I'm still able to go into a store and purchase EIGHTBALL by
Dan Clowes, CEREBUS by Dave Sim, MURDER ME DEAD by David Lapham, LOVE AND
ROCKETS by the Bros Hernandez, THAT YELLOW BASTARD by Frank Miller, or YOU
ARE HERE by Kyle Baker.
Those comics are neither superheroes nor manga nor comics for very young
children...
Of course it's true that the market has contracted, but there are still
plenty of comics of a variety of types--if we're interested in variety,
shouldn't we give them all the props we can, rather than edging them out of
existence in our view of the comics market?
Ginru
writer/artist Hiroaki Samura. His style in doing action and nonaction body
poses is quite remarkable. As an amateur comic artist myself, he's one of
the only ones that I can look to for inspiration these days.
John Savard
<jcol...@NOSPAMhandofgod.com> wrote, in part:
>Of course it's true that the market has contracted, but there are still
>plenty of comics of a variety of types--if we're interested in variety,
>shouldn't we give them all the props we can, rather than edging them out of
>existence in our view of the comics market?
Oh, I'm not suggesting we should stop buying quality stuff of interest
to us in other genres! Definitely, people should give it a chance.
But bringing out a new book in that area, despite the lack of
competition, *that* is what is extremely difficult. Creative people
with something to say will still try it, but I feel sorry for their
odds. So someone with ordinary talents who wants to make a living ...
it's not surprising he may stick to what seems to be in demand. Even
then, though, those with talent will try to do a good job, and make
something that is in some ways worth reading.
Ron
--
"Terry & Wendi Beatty" <bea...@NOSPAMmachlink.com> wrote in message
news:u5pgk35...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "John Thorenson" <omar...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020202154046...@mb-md.aol.com...
> > >I may as well confess right now.
> >
> > No need. Everyone knows Jack Kirby couldn't hold a candle to today's
> artists.
> > He should be applauded for his prolific influences and production, not
his
> > actual talent. Don't cry.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I'm assuming these comments are someone "trolling" -- but just in case
> SOMEONE takes them seriously, here's my response.
>
Don't worry about John (he is also known as Enoryt666, Omarichu or
whatever ludicrous nom de plume his limited imagination can conjure).
He is just a typical child troll that pollutes the Comics and Videogames
NGs. Just make fun of him all you want. When he gets spanked to the
point that the little baby whines, he declares "victory" and killfiles you.
Visit The Home of The Relic!
http://relic.globalredirect.com/index.html
Images! Fansubs! Manga/Comics FT/FS
And the infamous Briefcase Fulla Rant!
This Week's Rant: PC Retards!
Peter Kostka
>Dale Hicks <dgh...@bellSPAMsouth.net.invalid> wrote:
>>Okay, while colorists are now even more of an artist than they were, I'm
>>left wondering if this 3-D approach isn't necessarily the next
>>progression. Or, if it is, should we drop the inking process?
>
> What about Red Star? No inking there, and it looks great.
>
experimented with doing away with inking on extreme x-men. Inking was, for a
large part, a necessity in order to make art "camera-ready" and able to
reproduce well on the press. These days you don't really need to do it for
printing reasons, only for aesthetics (if you want nice, clean solid blacks
as opposed to a rougher result with pencil lines and shading. For the most
part though, pencillers can't keep their pencils tight and clean enough, and
you would always have problems with things like smudging, so I would lean
toward the use of inkers. It usually makes for nicer-looking art, but there
are talents such as the Red Star team, which are capable of doing a fine job
without.
As for texturing, it's not necessary, but yes, a lot of colourists use it.
When it's not done well, that's when the coloured areas between the lines
end up looking disjointed from the rest (as Dale mentioned). A colourist can
do things with their colouring to make texturing work, and this is where my
statement comes in about it not being dependent on the tools used, but on
the artist employing them.
>
> That said, I don't think everything needs to look like Red Star.
>Hitch, Neary, and Depuy all made amazing contributions on their run on
>Authority. I loved Noelle Giddings' watercolour work in Static. Tim
>Sale's ink washes on DD:Yellow do really impressive things that I used to
>think were solely the province of the colourist.
>
It's art. If someone produces work, be it with pencils, inks, watercolours,
oil paints, digital colouring or whatever medium, just make sure it's the
talent that is appreciated (or lack of talent that is criticized!), more
than anything else.
MegaGear X
artists. He should be applauded for his prolific influences and production, not
his
actual talent. Don't cry. >>
I know Omar is a troll and all, but he basically wrote something I've always
agreed with. Jack might be a pioneer but his art is less than thrilling
compared to some of todays talent, in my opinion. My opinion is not the gospel
of this NG, but some of us DO have differing opinions. Jack was a pioneer and
some of his stories were enjoyable (and he drew stuff in an issue where many
artists need an entire 3-4 issue storyarc), but todays artists blow him away in
terms of presentation and look.
Friends I know who don't collect comics, but glance through them all the time
look at Jim Lee's FF#1 and compare it to Jack Kirby's FF#1 think that Jack's
version might as well have been drawn by a kid.
--------------------------------------------------------
"Feel the storm? It's coming!"
-Terry Bogard, Fatal Fury Movie
"Oh, where was I? Ah! Mindless destruction!"
-BW Megatron
"They aren't real, but they are FABULOUS!"
-Kimberly Page
Joe Ankenbauer
news:20020204205258...@mb-mr.aol.com...
> << No need. Everyone knows Jack Kirby couldn't hold a candle to today's
> artists. He should be applauded for his prolific influences and
production, not
> his
> actual talent. Don't cry. >>
>
> I know Omar is a troll and all, but he basically wrote something I've
always
> agreed with. Jack might be a pioneer but his art is less than thrilling
> compared to some of todays talent, in my opinion. My opinion is not the
gospel
> of this NG, but some of us DO have differing opinions. Jack was a pioneer
and
> some of his stories were enjoyable (and he drew stuff in an issue where
many
> artists need an entire 3-4 issue storyarc), but todays artists blow him
away in
> terms of presentation and look.
>
> Friends I know who don't collect comics, but glance through them all the
time
> look at Jim Lee's FF#1 and compare it to Jack Kirby's FF#1 think that
Jack's
> version might as well have been drawn by a kid.
Well, there's two big differences between Jack Kirby's FF #1 and Jim Lee's
FF #1.
First, production techniques are much more refined today than they were in
1961. Ask around and see how much computer coloring was done in 1961.
Secondly, Jack Kirby's FF #1 was probably one of several books that he did
that month. Jim Lee is lucky if he can produce <ONE> book in a month. If you
gave Kirby two months to produce one issue, it probably have been rendered
differently.
Finally, and this is the most important point, Jim Lee's FF #1 would not
have been possible if not for the work of Jack Kirby. Does anyone really
think that <ANY> Jim Lee-created character will still be going strong in
2030?
JMA
Richard
> artists. He should be applauded for his prolific influences and
production, not
> his
> actual talent. Don't cry. >>
>
> I know Omar is a troll and all, but he basically wrote something I've
always
> agreed with. Jack might be a pioneer but his art is less than thrilling
> compared to some of todays talent, in my opinion. My opinion is not the
gospel
> of this NG, but some of us DO have differing opinions. Jack was a pioneer
and
> some of his stories were enjoyable (and he drew stuff in an issue where
many
> artists need an entire 3-4 issue storyarc), but todays artists blow him
away in
> terms of presentation and look.
Interesting word choice there, as when I think of Lee's work, the
words that always comes to my mind are overblown and overkill.
Lee hits you over the head with a bludgeon, with every grotesque
muscle of each teeth baring character outlined in scratchy detail.
It's primal scream therapy in comic book form. It gives me a
headache just to look at it. Moreover, a big problem with
today's "talent" is that all too many artists have adopted a
virtually identical overblown style. As far as I'm concerned,
Lee, Liefeld, McFarlane and their various imitators are completely
interchangable.
>
> Friends I know who don't collect comics, but glance through them all the
time
> look at Jim Lee's FF#1 and compare it to Jack Kirby's FF#1 think that
Jack's
> version might as well have been drawn by a kid.
>
Well, you better get some new friends then! Honestly,
I can understand how someone might think that Kirby's
work of that period might be lacking. However, one
important mitigating factor was Jack Kirby's huge
workload at the time. Looking at www.comics.org,
I managed to figure out the sum total of Kirby's
creative output in Nov. 1961 (the month of FF #1).
That total was 90 pages of interior art plus 8 covers,
the equivalent of four complete comics. Needless
to say, Kirby didn't have nearly as much time to play
with as Lee did when he was making all those scratchy
lines for X-Men #1. Even when Kirby's artwork
reached its peak in quality around 1966 (a peak
that, in my opinion, leaves the Image boys in the position
of being unworthy to hold his jockstrap), he was still doing
the equivalent of three books a month.
Richard
John Savard
<anken...@cox.net> wrote, in part:
>Finally, and this is the most important point, Jim Lee's FF #1 would not
>have been possible if not for the work of Jack Kirby. Does anyone really
>think that <ANY> Jim Lee-created character will still be going strong in
>2030?
But that doesn't contradict the original criticism of Kirby: that his
creativity in originating characters, not his talent as an artist, is
why he is remembered.
If one looks at FF #5, or FF #65, though, instead of FF #1 or 2, then
one gets a better idea of Kirby at his best (or should that be Joe
Sinnott, someone might ask, though). Kirby's art had a unique
dynamism; it may not have been as slick as that of some others, but it
did have merits of its own.
Of course, he wasn't the best at *everything*. The dialogue in his
Pacific Comics efforts must be considered somewhat lacking. But he can
and should be recognized as a major artist, not only an imaginative
character creator.
I admit that my personal tastes run more to Jim Steranko, George
Perez, Russ Manning, and Curt Swan.
But I still appreciated Steve Ditko's work on Dr. Strange: the only
other artist that series had that I really liked was one in my favored
style, Dan Adkins. (Well, Jackson Guice was pretty good too.)
Andrew Ryan Chang
>headache just to look at it. Moreover, a big problem with
>today's "talent" is that all too many artists have adopted a
>virtually identical overblown style. As far as I'm concerned,
>Lee, Liefeld, McFarlane and their various imitators are completely
>interchangable.
Mmmaybe true in the 90s, but the Image "house style" isn't all so
omnipresent nowadays. Travis Charest started out as a Jim Lee clone, for
one thing, and he's way different now. Then there's Bryan Hitch,
Christian Gossett, and Mike Avon Oeming, all artists on top-selling books
with unmistakable personal style.
--
Oakley: Are you absolutely sure that's wise, sir? I mean, I don't want
to sound pretentious here, but Itchy and Scratchy comprise a
dramaturgical dyad.
-- "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show"
Jeff Coleman
"John Savard" <jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote in message
news:3c5f98b3...@news.powersurfr.com...
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 03:32:04 GMT, "Joe Ankenbauer"
> <anken...@cox.net> wrote, in part:
>
> >Finally, and this is the most important point, Jim Lee's FF #1 would not
> >have been possible if not for the work of Jack Kirby. Does anyone really
> >think that <ANY> Jim Lee-created character will still be going strong in
> >2030?
>
> But that doesn't contradict the original criticism of Kirby: that his
> creativity in originating characters, not his talent as an artist, is
> why he is remembered.
But it's a combination of his creativity, his originality, his prolific
output, AND his talent as an artist that he's remembered for today.
> If one looks at FF #5, or FF #65, though, instead of FF #1 or 2, then
> one gets a better idea of Kirby at his best (or should that be Joe
> Sinnott, someone might ask, though). Kirby's art had a unique
> dynamism; it may not have been as slick as that of some others, but it
> did have merits of its own.
It's also worth mentioning that by the time of his Sixties peak in 1966 or
so, he'd been working in comics for something like thirty years. His work
in the 1950's was a very different style than his work in the 1960's, and
his 1940's work is almost unrecognizable as the same artist.
In the 1940's his work was still dynamic and incredibly active, but with
an enormous sense of realism in the figures and backgrounds--his characters
were lithe, sinewy gymnasts with little relation to the stylized, blocky
wrestlers that came later. And it looked great.
His style changed a great deal in the 1970's as well--into the square,
blocky Kirby that many think of right away.
And you've got to remember the inker when you're talking about Kirby--FF#1
does indeed look primitive, but nobody really knows who it was inked by,
right? Vince Colletta did some horrible things to Kirby's art later in the
FF run, until finally Sinnott really let him shine.
FF#1 also bears more of a continuity with the earlier 1950's monster
comics than it does with the later 1960's team--in FF#1 The Thing speaks in
the broad, mocking tones ("Fools! Out of my way!") of one of the 50's
monsters, and the first few stories are very much monster-style adventures.
They hadn't evolved into the sharp, stylish and snappily-written superhero
books that would become Marvel's trademark.
Kirby's art changed every decade, often into something completely different,
and he was often at the whim of his scriptwriters and inkers, so looking at
FF#1 by itself isn't the best way to judge whether Kirby stands up to
today's artists.
MegaGear X
the time. Looking at www.comics.org, I managed to figure out the sum total of
Kirby's
creative output in Nov. 1961 (the month of FF #1).
That total was 90 pages of interior art plus 8 covers,
the equivalent of four complete comics. Needless
to say, Kirby didn't have nearly as much time to play
with as Lee did when he was making all those scratchy
lines for X-Men #1. Even when Kirby's artwork
reached its peak in quality around 1966 (a peak
that, in my opinion, leaves the Image boys in the position
of being unworthy to hold his jockstrap), he was still doing
the equivalent of three books a month. >>
I mentioned that Kirby did more work in one month than most artists can do in a
year. Probably not in those words. but I meant it.
The thing that I'm saying is that his art compared to todays artists (and I'm
not talking just Image) is like comparing Atari 2600 to XBox. Some folks are
just so in awe of him that they can't see that.
Jeff Coleman
"MegaGear X" <mega...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020205201441...@mb-da.aol.com...
>
> I mentioned that Kirby did more work in one month than most artists can do
in a
> year. Probably not in those words. but I meant it.
>
> The thing that I'm saying is that his art compared to todays artists (and
I'm
> not talking just Image) is like comparing Atari 2600 to XBox. Some folks
are
> just so in awe of him that they can't see that.
Just because kids have, throughout history, a harder time appreciating the
"classics" of previous generations doesn't mean the "classics" are actually
lousy.
Would a thirteen-year-old kid rather listen to Beethoven than Britney? Korn
or Cole Porter? Ella Fitzgerald or Nelly Furtado?
Most comics-buying kids who are into Jim Lee probably wouldn't care too much
for Herge or Carl Barks, not to mention Rembrandt, Renoir, Rodin or Hogarth
(William, not Burne). Does that mean people who appreciate the achievements
of those older artists are "just so in awe... they can't see that"?
Note, that doesn't make the kids who like Jim Lee "wrong"--it's just
important to remember that this kind of argument doesn't really make much
sense. Sure, today's high-energy technopop is a lot more "apparently" good
to young audiences than artists that were considered scandalously energtic
in their day, such as Jerry Lee Lewis.
The new has (by definition) the gloss of novelty to a current audience,
especially a young one who didn't experience the novelty of the previous
generations.
When I was a kid reading Spider-Man, I couldn't stand Bill Sienkewicz's
weirdly abstract characters and, like many kids, Kirby's blocky stylizations
looked weird to me. But I grew out of it.
Kirby kicks anyone's ass. Just the sheer achievement of what he did
dwarfs the accomplishments of anyone working in comics today, and he was a
damn good artist at the same time.
Richard
"MegaGear X" <mega...@aol.com> wrote in message > The thing that I'm
saying is that his art compared to todays artists (and I'm
> not talking just Image) is like comparing Atari 2600 to XBox. Some folks
are
> just so in awe of him that they can't see that.
>
Well, if one is going to make comparison's with different media, I'd say
Jim Lee and his pals are to comics what Jerry Bruckheimer is to film.
With regards to Kirby, the film equivalent might be Howard Hawks,
a productive master of all genres who made many classics, but had
the occasional stinker. If I were to compare Bruckheimer's
"Pearl Harbour" to Hawk's "Sergeant York", I'd have to admit
that Bruckheimer's movie was in widescreen and color while
Hawk's was only in black & white, "Pearl Harbour" had a teeth
chattering 5.1 THX stereo soundtrack while Hawk's was only in
crummy mono, Bruckheimer's movie also had bigger explosions
and infinitely more sophisticated and spectacular special effects.
One could make a long list of the other technical details that
were decidedly superior in Bruckheimer's movie. Given
all these advantages, did Bruckheimer make the better movie?
Certainly not. The films of Jerry Bruckheimer and the work
of Jim Lee share the characteristic of being extremely
flashy but having no substance under that facade.
Kirby's work isn't the same kind of eye candy that Lee's
is (one wonders how Kirby's work would look if coloured
using today's more sophisticated techniques) but, as others
have pointed out, it certainly has stood the test of time,
something that is doubtful in Lee's case.
With all that said, while I've tended to look apon Lee and his
Image compatriots as the antichrists of comics, I'd have
to admit that comics on the whole have never looked better
and the talent pool is probably as strong now as it ever has
been. I am quite happy to see things such as a talented artist
like Chris Sprouse doing genuinely beautiful work on a relatively
obscure title like Tom Strong.
Richard
Matt Shepherd
news:kZ%78.1687$CM1.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> > When I was a kid reading Spider-Man, I couldn't stand Bill
Sienkewicz's
> weirdly abstract characters and, like many kids, Kirby's blocky
stylizations
> looked weird to me. But I grew out of it.
> Kirby kicks anyone's ass. Just the sheer achievement of what he did
> dwarfs the accomplishments of anyone working in comics today, and he was a
> damn good artist at the same time.
Amen, brother. I remember HATING Sienkewicz's work when I first picked up
"The Shadow," and over the course of six months becoming a rabid fan. This
was when I was fifteen years old or so.
Really, I think that Kirby can be reckoned in two ways: as an action artist,
and as a sequential artist; in both areas, I think he may have been
surpassed. His action work is currently being challenged by a number of
young talents, and (not surprisingly) his sequential art has always been up
there with Will Eisner's, and (also not surprisingly) most of those who
match and exceed his abilities are working in indie comics. I can't think of
a better sequential-art storyteller out there today better than Seth
(Palookaville), or Chris (ACME) Ware.
Combining the two, though? That's genius. And nobody's done it like Kirby
did it.
Elayne Riggs
(tavi...@zsazsabinks.com):
>I may as well confess right now. What I have spewed out a few days ago are
>the exact opposite view that I hold about comics.
Could you do us a favor and keep us out of your little experiments?
- Elayne
--
www.soulmateproductions.com
remove "OSPAM" from e-mail address to reply