Adams vs. Kirby 0

[Rick2you2]

Two separate questions:

(1) Who do you prefer as an artist, and if you have reasons, so much the better; and

(2) Who do you consider the more impactful artist in terms of OA, as a whole? For this question, I would separate out Adams’ work which improved artists’ pay, because I think that tilts the question too much towards Adams. I’m thinking more in terms of style of work. Poor Jack was more like a pin-cushion for publishers to take advantage of.

By the way, for me, the answer in both cases is Adams, but everyone has an opinion. As to #2, you can see Adams’ influence in, e.g.,Byrne, Grell, and Batista (who once confirmed it when I asked him) to name a few. 

[jjonahjameson11]

 

[s-man]

On 5/2/2022 at 4:06 PM, jjonahjameson11 said:

 

You do realize we now have an emoji for that  

For me Adams is the better artist.  As far more impactful, Kirby most would probably say is the one.

[Guest Race]

Kirby was a true artist in the vein of Picasso -- instantly recognizable but polarizing work, mercurial and combative personally, but an icon. Adams was a fine artist, a greater technician and someone who actually advanced comic books via his revolutionary use of color. But it is Kirby who will be remembered in 100 years, period.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Race

[Rick2you2]

On 5/2/2022 at 5:13 PM, Race said:

Kirby was a true artist in the vein of Picasso -- instantly recognizable but polarizing work, mercurial and combative personally, but an icon. Adams was a fine artist, a greater technician and someone who actually advanced comic books via his revolutionary use of color. But it is Kirby who will be remembered in 100 years, period.

How many professional artists developed their style based on Kirby’s work vs. Adams work? And then there are the layouts: Kirby could be inventive, but I think on that one, you also have to give it to Adams.

[grapeape]

On 5/2/2022 at 12:51 PM, Rick2you2 said:

Two separate questions:

(1) Who do you prefer as an artist, and if you have reasons, so much the better; and

(2) Who do you consider the more impactful artist in terms of OA, as a whole? 

*(1) Neal Adams said, “I wouldn’t call what Jack does anatomy. He does an impressionistic thing and he does it because he pencils very fast and he’s a storyteller.”

”What you get is the impressionistic quality that is in many ways superior to someone who draws realistically the way I do.”
 

*(2) Neal said further,” I brought a quality to comic books. Jack made comic books. There’s just no comparison.”

”Jack created worlds. Universes.”

* The Jack Kirby Collector #17

There are certain pages, or even books Neal created where my jaw drops and I say,” I’ve never seen anything prettier, more striking. That’s the Neal Adams affect.

But for the reasons Neal mentions, Kirby rings the bell for me on both questions. 
I prefer Kirby’s art for his impressionistic style. He deconstructs normal anatomy, creates gods, monstrosities..... I love the fact there are so many people who actually don’t have a taste for Kirby. You might think I’m exaggerating but they’ll be coming with the comments. Reminds me of many amateur art critics that would point to a Jackson Pollack and say, “anyone could do that.”

I love them both. But Neal knew that Jack was very special.

On the second question I agree with Neal again. I could’ve just posted the JKC #17 article, but he essentially pointed out that nearly all of Marvel IS KIRBY. As for DC, if they’d known how to support Jack when he came over, would’ve been 80% of how we remembered DC. Neal even scoffed at the amount of praise he’s been given over the years for innovations he supposedly invented. He pointed to zipatone usage as something he borrowed from the EC artists but has been singularly praised for as the innovator.

I’m going to stop here because honestly, I can’t help but think of how boring DC would’ve been without someone like Neal Adams. And when he appeared anywhere for Marvel it seemed like a special treat.

More importantly from a human side, Neal has family, loved-ones, friends and fans like myself who are truly sad that he passed away. I’m ok if someone else feels Adams is superior on either question.

My heart really isn’t in to arguing passionately about this. I can honestly say I’m grateful to Jack Kirby and to Neal Adams for their special talent and contributions to the world of comics and art.

RIP

 

Edited May 2, 2022 by grapeape

[Rick2you2]

On 5/2/2022 at 4:06 PM, jjonahjameson11 said:

 

 

[Rick2you2]

On 5/2/2022 at 6:08 PM, grapeape said:

I prefer Kirby’s art for his impressionistic style. He deconstructs normal anatomy, creates gods, monstrosities..... I love the fact there are so many people who actually don’t have a taste for Kirby. You might think I’m exaggerating but they’ll be coming with the comments. Reminds me of many amateur art critics that would point to a Jackson Pollack and say, “anyone could do that.”

Grapey,

I carefully phrased my first question; I don't think either artist is "superior" since they do come from different sylistic directions. Historically, I preferred Adams' style because it had an air of realism in circumstances where realism, IMO, was more appropriate to the subject matter. Batman, for example, is supposed to be gritty. So, life-like people and circumstances make sense. But take something like the Silver Surfer, a fundimentally bizarre concept, which I think is much better suited to flights of fancy. Kirby would be better suited to that, again, IMO.

These days, with my taste leaning towards the supernatural, I favor art that has a darker line with a lighter, airier brush, almost impressionistic--which is neither of these two giants.

But in terms of impact--what followed these artists--how many artists can attribute their training to studying Jack vs. Neal? Sal was mostly at Marvel, do you think he studied Jack's work on his path to becoming a god (cough, cough)? 

[hmendryk]

Kirby for both questions. While my preference for Kirby over Adams as an artist might seem to prejudice the answer to which was the more impactful I think I can make a case based on objective evidence.

Kirby collaborating with Stan Lee created much of the Marvel universe, the impact still being felt today.

Some of the art devices that Kirby used are still found being used by comic book artists. Kirby Krackle is perhaps to most obvious example of this.

Kirby's career as a comic book artist is extensive and over most of it he was influential to other artists. Most collectors only think about silver age art and what follows, but that ignores a lot of comic book history during which Kirby dominated the industry.

Kirby collaborating with Joe Simon created the romance genre of comic books. While that genre is pretty much currently extinct, it once was a large and vital genre with many titles published.

This is not to put down the talent of Neal Adams, but comparing his impact to Kirby just results in downplaying what an artist he was.

 

[Twanj]

Kirby. Kirby.

[JadeGiant]

Kirby

 

Kirby

[KCOComics]

1) Is a tough one. If I had to be honest, I would lean Adams.  I just always felt Adam's with was both striking and immediately identifiable. I feel the same way about Wrightson and Sterenko. Those three guys really ushered in a new era for both DC and Marvel. 

This isn't a slam dunk though. So many of my favorite SA covers are done by Jack and I would argue it was Kirby's cover art that drew in readers and gave rise to Marvel as we know it. 

2) Kirby was far more impactful. Before FF1 ever hit the newstands, Kirby had co-created Cap and started the Romance Genre. 

[Primetime]

Kirby, because I prefer earlier art and comics. 

[Guest Race]

Just as an experiment, pull up any number of famous Kirby pages and notice you can easily discern the story without the dialogue. Avengers #4 page 4, which shows the recovery of Captain America and his identification, is a perfect example. He is noticed; he is pulled into the sub; the Avengers are concerned about the unknown man; he is recognized (the blond hair, square hero jaw, the tiniest bit of the shield showing); he is confirmed via the mask; and he is alive! Six panels of historic importance which could have been rendered silently -- a remarkable achievement. As much as we all admire dialogue (and I will go to the grave loving every word of Stan's FF and Claremont's Dark Phoenix stories), comics are first and foremost a visual medium -- and all of the dialogue in the world will never get you as excited as a top page drawn by a great like Kirby. Were all of Kirby's pages like this? No -- because he was SO prolific, meaning his overall work was bound to succumb to the law of averages. 

Lastly, where would creator's rights be without him? He fought the fight, ugly as it was, and wound up benefiting everyone who came after him. There is not an artist or writer today whose contract is not suffused with an essence of the justice Kirby extracted through his long struggle with Marvel.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Race

[ThothAmon]

Adams is the better illustrator, Kirby the better artist and storyteller. Here’s a topical article.
https://twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/17adams.html

RIP Neal and Jack. 

[gumbydarnit]

Imagine the comics landscape if these two giants chose a different career path other than comics. These two were the artistic fathers of so many comic artists. What would John Byrne, Frank Miller, or Art Adams art look like without the Kirby/Adams influence?

If backed into a corner I'd pick Kirby, but it's like asking do you prefer cake or ice cream.... it's both... it's always both!

[Kripsys99]

I think their influence is best measured in different spheres.

Creatively? Kirby, hand down. But I think his creativity, his role in early Marvel, and nostalgia do a lot of heavy lifting for his legacy. I don't think his art work and style would be remembered or revered the way it currently is if not for his early creative work.

Artistically? Adams, hands down. Not too many people are trying to draw like Kirby nowadays - but everyone tries to draw like Adams. Kirby's work would look old and out of place in almost any comic today - Adams was still pumping out high quality work until recently.

Is Joe Schuster more influential a creator than Kirby? He co-created Superman, without whom superhero comics might never have taken off the way they did. Is he more influential as an artist than Adams for the same reason?

I think it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.

All of that said, I'll back my boy Neal every day of the week!

[goldust40]

Adams's work is more accessible and immediate and was the reason I got into comics. He was the definitive comic artist from 1968 - 1978, despite some serious competition. Kirby was the classicist, Adams was the modernist.

Kirby's genius can only be appreciated with time and a greater understanding of the development of the form - aside from creating many of the tropes associated with the medium, it was his ability to come out with incredible concepts and then pencil art that could match them. He was always growing and evolving as an artist - each decade brought a different style. In his pomp (1966 - 1971) Kirby could be every bit as cinematic as Adams, despite their being very different artists.

So I wouldn't have a preference, although the 10 year old me would've gone with Adams. As for OA, Kirby is King in terms of output.

[rjpb]

While both were comic book artists best known for their superhero work, their styles are too different for me to have an opinion as to who was more significant. Kirby's output was far larger, and he had several periods of impact, so his influence is likely greater, but both are legends, and I can't really say who's work I prefer. It would be like trying to pick between Toth and Wolverton. 

[Rick2you2]

On 5/3/2022 at 8:07 AM, Race said:

Just as an experiment, pull up any number of famous Kirby pages and notice you can easily discern the story without the dialogue. Avengers #4 page 4, which shows the recovery of Captain America and his identification, is a perfect example. He is noticed; he is pulled into the sub; the Avengers are concerned about the unknown man; he is recognized (the blond hair, square hero jaw, the tiniest bit of the shield showing); he is confirmed via the mask; and he is alive! Six panels of historic importance which could have been rendered silently -- a remarkable achievement. As much as we all admire dialogue (and I will go to the grave loving every word of Stan's FF and Claremont's Dark Phoenix stories), comics are first and foremost a visual medium -- and all of the dialogue in the world will never get you as excited as a top page drawn by a great like Kirby. Were all of Kirby's pages like this? No -- because he was SO prolific, meaning his overall work was bound to succumb to the law of averages. 

Lastly, where would creator's rights be without him? He fought the fight, ugly as it was, and wound up benefiting everyone who came after him. There is not an artist or writer today whose contract is not suffused with an essence of the justice Kirby extracted through his long struggle with Marvel.

I think that part of what you are seeing is the difference between DC style and Marvel style. My understanding is that DC traditionally gives scripts to the artists with panels and pages laid out (presumably, with some room for modifications). Marvel gives a plot summary which the artists then draw as the story, with dialogue coming after from the writers. Since Kirby was as Marvel as you are going to get, your experiment would confirm that.

Also, it was Adams who fought for creators rights, getting them the right to their artwork before the Copyright Act of 1975 essentially destroyed the presumption of work-for-hire. I think he did more than that, including the setting up of defense funds of some sort, but I don’t know the details. Kirby got some of his artwork back after Marvel was essentially shamed into giving it back.