SA ARTIST SURVIVOR SERIES: RD.12

[Dale Roberts]

Sorry, and I know this is going to end badly for me, but what did Kirby do that is artistically so great? His creativity is beyond description, but please someone look at the art to Fantastic Four #1 - whatever and tell me what is so good.

 

I really don't mean to knock the King, but he is soooo over-rated it is ridiculous. I know he has alot of fans, and I think his stuff was okay. But why on earth does he deserve to win this? He can't carry half of the remaining field's jock as far as art goes.

 

Wow. You've lost me but good with that one. One can dislike the man's art as much as one wants - to each his own - but to discount his achievements and contributions to the genre that way is just cracked.

 

Where did I discount his achievements and contributions to the genre? Actually I did just the opposite, I said he was a heck of a creator, but a greatly over-rated artist.

 

 

 

 

 

boy howdy... people use the word "artist" and mean so many different things! What I keep hearing here is many people who equate an "artist" with someone who can draw or paint in as realistic a manner as possible. And, usually, these people cant draw a lick by themselves... and to their minds, being realistic is the sole measuring stick.

 

So while theyre opinion is as valid as anyone else's, to others who use "artist" to describe an exciting or dynamic STYLE of illustrating, one that transends vanilla realism (which to an ARTIST is like a cheap parlor trick, copying photos etc) its constantly frustrating to see a Kirby, or Toth, etc belittled because they arent as good an "artist" as a realist...some guy doing as best as he can to make a picture look like a photo.

 

something like that...

 

Almost EVERY stylist who breaks reality down to a fluid un-realistic look has earlier spent years working extremely realistically... and evolved beyond it seeking something more, usually by using LESS lines etc.

 

I personally like a mix of styles. I like Adams. I like Gil Kane and Romita. I like Ditko. I like Heath. I like all the EC artists, Matt Baker, most of the Warren artists, Steranko, Wrightson, Dave Stevens, LB Cole, Schomburg. I even like Kirby, especially his Golden Age stuff which I think is superior to his Silver Age. I just don't think he is close to the best artist of his era. I would probably put him in the top 5.

 

I still have yet to hear why Kirby is so great. All I hear is why I am wrong, and my opinions are belittled. Tell me what you think Kirby did that was so good. I am willing to listen and consider it.

 

fair enough. First off, let me preface by saying I wasnt a big Kirby fan in the 60s. I like Infantino/Anderson for the realism and angular layouts. Also Gil Kane, and Wally Woods Tower work. But it wasnt until Eisner's Spirit reprints and Neal Adams til I was actually blown away by anybody in comics. Adams was like a bolt of lightning when he showed up: super slick styling PLUS photographic realism and cinematic layouts and coloring.

 

Early 60s Kirby was clutzy, clunky, blocky and smudgy. Little did I know it was Ayers and othet inkers responsible for dominating his pencils. I always looked at Marvels from 1961 - 1965 as cheap inferior productions compared to slick clean DCs. Lots of us did. The stories were so exciting it didnt matter!

 

Back to Kirby, though. The man has the best eye for superhero layouts. Avengers 4 for instance, notine how expertly each character owns his own space AND interacts linearly with the other figures. In addition, Kirby's work BURSTS out of the panel into your face. Its almost abstract how he uses perspective to enhance fists and knees, projecting you put your 3D glasses on.

 

Kirby's work is emotion, passion and finesse and consummate comics chops. Design wise, he invented the Kirby crackle!! Has there ever been a better way to illustrate bursts of galactic power in pen and ink? And notice how perfectly placed each globule of krackle is as it snakes around and behind the figures.

 

nuff said. You see it or ya dont. no problem.

 

Kirby is the Picasso of Comics... some revere him. other revile him. But you cant IGNORE him.

 

I can absolutely buy most of this. Don't agree with the Picasso of comics, but whatever.

 

I also completely agree with a favorite SA artist. Ross Andru is one of my favorite BA artists, because I read the Spider-man and Superman books and remember them fondly. I don't claim that he is a best artist though.

 

Personally, I did not like the silver age books which Kirby worked on when I was growing up. I was so young I didn't know why at the time, but I liked the other stuff. Turns out when I got older, it was the Kirby art which I didn't really care for that much. The more I looked, the more appreciation I had for them, but he will just never be one of my favorites.

 

 

[Aman619]

all depends on how we define "picasso" right?

 

I meant it as the most recognized and lauded and controversial artists of his time who embodied an entire school of art (Picasso = Modern art, Kirby = SA comics,maybe, ALL comics!)

 

Others say picasso and mean most hyped, worst or best artist of his time!

[adamstrange]

Sorry, and I know this is going to end badly for me, but what did Kirby do that is artistically so great? His creativity is beyond description, but please someone look at the art to Fantastic Four #1 - whatever and tell me what is so good.

 

I really don't mean to knock the King, but he is soooo over-rated it is ridiculous. I know he has alot of fans, and I think his stuff was okay. But why on earth does he deserve to win this? He can't carry half of the remaining field's jock as far as art goes.

 

Wow. You've lost me but good with that one. One can dislike the man's art as much as one wants - to each his own - but to discount his achievements and contributions to the genre that way is just cracked.

 

Where did I discount his achievements and contributions to the genre? Actually I did just the opposite, I said he was a heck of a creator, but a greatly over-rated artist.

 

 

 

 

 

boy howdy... people use the word "artist" and mean so many different things! What I keep hearing here is many people who equate an "artist" with someone who can draw or paint in as realistic a manner as possible. And, usually, these people cant draw a lick by themselves... and to their minds, being realistic is the sole measuring stick.

 

So while theyre opinion is as valid as anyone else's, to others who use "artist" to describe an exciting or dynamic STYLE of illustrating, one that transends vanilla realism (which to an ARTIST is like a cheap parlor trick, copying photos etc) its constantly frustrating to see a Kirby, or Toth, etc belittled because they arent as good an "artist" as a realist...some guy doing as best as he can to make a picture look like a photo.

 

something like that...

 

Almost EVERY stylist who breaks reality down to a fluid un-realistic look has earlier spent years working extremely realistically... and evolved beyond it seeking something more, usually by using LESS lines etc.

 

I personally like a mix of styles. I like Adams. I like Gil Kane and Romita. I like Ditko. I like Heath. I like all the EC artists, Matt Baker, most of the Warren artists, Steranko, Wrightson, Dave Stevens, LB Cole, Schomburg. I even like Kirby, especially his Golden Age stuff which I think is superior to his Silver Age. I just don't think he is close to the best artist of his era. I would probably put him in the top 5.

 

I still have yet to hear why Kirby is so great. All I hear is why I am wrong, and my opinions are belittled. Tell me what you think Kirby did that was so good. I am willing to listen and consider it.

 

fair enough. First off, let me preface by saying I wasnt a big Kirby fan in the 60s. I like Infantino/Anderson for the realism and angular layouts. Also Gil Kane, and Wally Woods Tower work. But it wasnt until Eisner's Spirit reprints and Neal Adams til I was actually blown away by anybody in comics. Adams was like a bolt of lightning when he showed up: super slick styling PLUS photographic realism and cinematic layouts and coloring.

 

Early 60s Kirby was clutzy, clunky, blocky and smudgy. Little did I know it was Ayers and othet inkers responsible for dominating his pencils. I always looked at Marvels from 1961 - 1965 as cheap inferior productions compared to slick clean DCs. Lots of us did. The stories were so exciting it didnt matter!

 

Back to Kirby, though. The man has the best eye for superhero layouts. Avengers 4 for instance, notine how expertly each character owns his own space AND interacts linearly with the other figures. In addition, Kirby's work BURSTS out of the panel into your face. Its almost abstract how he uses perspective to enhance fists and knees, projecting you put your 3D glasses on.

 

Kirby's work is emotion, passion and finesse and consummate comics chops. Design wise, he invented the Kirby crackle!! Has there ever been a better way to illustrate bursts of galactic power in pen and ink? And notice how perfectly placed each globule of krackle is as it snakes around and behind the figures.

 

nuff said. You see it or ya dont. no problem.

 

Kirby is the Picasso of Comics... some revere him. other revile him. But you cant IGNORE him.

 

I can absolutely buy most of this. Don't agree with the Picasso of comics, but whatever.

 

I also completely agree with a favorite SA artist. Ross Andru is one of my favorite BA artists, because I read the Spider-man and Superman books and remember them fondly. I don't claim that he is a best artist though.

 

Personally, I did not like the silver age books which Kirby worked on when I was growing up. I was so young I didn't know why at the time, but I liked the other stuff. Turns out when I got older, it was the Kirby art which I didn't really care for that much. The more I looked, the more appreciation I had for them, but he will just never be one of my favorites.

 

 

There's an issue of Amazing Heros magazine with a 2 or 3 page article by Greg Theakston breaking down what Kirby was doing on a fairly mundane FF page. It made me realize how much thought goes into his work. Reading a Kirby story is like watching one of the great films where you don't notice the fancy camera angles or acting tricks because the technique and the story are a seamless part of a whole that draws you out of your world and into the film's.

[Aman619]

..and he did all that planning effortlessl. Meaning, you or I would do layout after layout perfecting our approach before actually drawing the page. He could see it all in hishead as he started pencilling. Most of that was experience surely after 30 years of it, but, so what!

 

 

Id like to add to my posts about Kirby that he really isnt my "favorite" comics artist. There are many I like more and am more impressed by. But Kirby's impact on comics places him very high on the list as most important and influential comics artists of the past 70 years. I dont think he can be sloughed off as simply as a shoulder shrug, saying "I dont get what all the fuss is all about." He's been SO important to comics for so long you HAVE to work it out why.

[selegue]

...

Kirby is the Picasso of Comics... some revere him. other revile him. But you cant IGNORE him.

 

Plus the machinery. He could draw machinery.

 

And that woman. That one, boxy, unattractive woman.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like Kirby's comic-book artwork a lot -- but it's sure not for the babes!

 

Jack

(someone will probably whip out their favorite scan of Big Barda, but that's Bronze)