Adams vs. Kirby 0

[rexinnih]

Kirby and Kirby for me. Arguments can be made for the cultural impact both have made but will still be behind Kirby. Just IMHO.

[Timely]

[KirbyJack]

Just incredible.

[Rick2you2]

On 5/12/2022 at 6:45 PM, Timely said:

While this is a stunningly vibrant page, which any collector would be happy to own, it also contains some of the elements of his work that bother and distract me. Take a look at that left leg of Cap’s. Did he dislocate it? And, why does it seem to be longer than his other leg? Then,  there’s the window angle compared to Cap. From a composition perspective, it’s tilted shape makes sense. But then why is Cap jumping almost straight out? Was the floor crooked? Now, none of this changes the fact that it is a great piece, but I really don’t like these types of mistakes.

[Timely]

On 5/12/2022 at 6:43 PM, Rick2you2 said:

While this is a stunningly vibrant page, which any collector would be happy to own, it also contains some of the elements of his work that bother and distract me. Take a look at that left leg of Cap’s. Did he dislocate it? And, why does it seem to be longer than his other leg? Then,  there’s the window angle compared to Cap. From a composition perspective, it’s tilted shape makes sense. But then why is Cap jumping almost straight out? Was the floor crooked? Now, none of this changes the fact that it is a great piece, but I really don’t like these types of mistakes.

If you don’t like these “mistakes” you’ll hate the even more exaggerated “mistakes” of Todd McFarlane’s anatomy.

[jjonahjameson11]

On 5/12/2022 at 9:01 PM, Timely said:

If you don’t like these “mistakes” you’ll hate the even more exaggerated “mistakes” of Todd McFarlane’s anatomy.

Not true at all.

I think the Kirby splash you’ve shown is absolutely fugly, but I’ll take McFarlane’s exaggerated ‘mistakes’ any day of the week!

[Rick2you2]

On 5/13/2022 at 8:32 AM, jjonahjameson11 said:

Not true at all.

I think the Kirby splash you’ve shown is absolutely fugly, but I’ll take McFarlane’s exaggerated ‘mistakes’ any day of the week!

McFarlane’s style includes exaggeration; it has a warmth to it so it isn’t mistaken.Drawing a hand with too many fingers is a mistake. But don’t ignore the dynamism in Kirby’s style.

[Carl Elvis]

In terms of impact it’s not fair to pair any artist against Kirby. The man IS comics, more than anyone. He created multiple genres not to mention almost every major hero besides Batman & Superman.

So we are left to compare their styles and again it’s just unfair; drawing figures that went beyond basic anatomy and into forms that moved with the reader’s eye. Kirby was working on another level, he was that ultra rare genius like Mozart or Einstein. 

 

 

[BFA1971]

Am late to the party. I think Kirby is iconic... as in the style is so unique and is art on its own. He created his own genre and his art cannot be mistaken for anyone else. Having said that Adams art would look good on any character and would look 'natural' as in the storyline/ character was intended for him to draw.  Not so sure Batman or Superman for example would have looked ideal done by Kirby. However I am biased as Kirby's style is not my thing. I prefer Adams by a country mile. For me Adams is obviously realistic and you feel you are immersed and in the story and feel you are there. I guess it is a personal  preference and tastes differ. Also I am sure I am not qualified enough to be able to judge at this level! Like someone else said its also apples and oranges.... Long story short if I had original art on my wall it would be Adams and a character I loved.

[Dr. Balls]

I enjoy Kirby's art more, as it leaves me with more to look at, but Adams art makes me study the technical form and function of his art. I can't really comment to the impact on OA for these two, as they are far outside what I focus on for original art.

For me, the two come down to different definitions:

Adams was a Master commercial illustrator, his job being to visually communicate a sequence of situations through his illustrations to form a cohesive thought process that the end user could interpret in a realistic way.

Kirby was a Master artist, his job to visually express his ideas in an orderly fashion that could be interpreted in a variety of ways by the end user.

Of course, they both crossed over into each others' areas - because they were both creative and illustrative - but Kirby's vision was based in his innovative styling, where Adams was a masterfully technical style. But, that's just my take.

Edited March 21 by Dr. Balls

[Unca Ben]

On 5/3/2022 at 10:31 PM, Joshua33 said:

I'd argue that Neal did it better, regardless of layout. You know... the jumping off the page thing.

I'd say that it was Kirby who pioneered the dynamic foreshortening and characters breaking thru panel boundaries  in comic books.

Adams (like so many others) followed suit.

[The Voord]

On 5/2/2022 at 8:51 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? 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. 

I like both artists though if pushed for an answer lean more heavily towards Kirby.  Kirby's work spanned something like five decades and, for me, he pretty much defined the look of Marvel in the 1960s and became the house-style for other artists to follow.  Stan Lee knew he was on to a winner, which is why you see lots of Kirby covers for books he may not necessarily have produced any interior artwork for.

For me, Jack's work leaned more towards cartooning, while Neal Adams was grounded in a realistic illustration style.  Jack's artwork was an (imaginative) explosion of ideas likely dashed out very quickly while lingering in his mind . . . with Neal, the work seemed more controlled/planned  and precise.

As such, I'd consider Kirby's work to have the greater overall impact.  I don't see any of this as a competition . . . I like lots of different artists for different reasons and rarely obsess over such things.

In a similar way, this thread reminds me of two EC greats, Jack Davis and George Evans.  Davis was a very fast spontaneous type of artist leaning towards cartooning, with Evans a more illustration type of guy.  A Davis Horror story would often be quite grisly, but the cartoonist's style would often soften the Horror impact.  When someone like Evans handled similar material, the illustrative style became more disturbing to look at.  For example:

 

[Silver Surfer]

Did Adam's actually create any characters of note? It's not even close, Kirby. 

[Rick2you2]

On 3/27/2024 at 10:56 AM, Silver Surfer said:

Did Adam's actually create any characters of note? It's not even close, Kirby. 

Did Kirby create any dialog of note that wasn’t bad? 
Artists aren’t hired to be writers, and with some well know exceptions that is probably a good idea. Adam’s efforts as a writer weren’t too hot as I recall. His Deadman series was awful.

[Kripsys99]

Is there a years old, super active Kirby Covers thread on this site? Cuz there's an Adams one...  

[The Voord]

On 3/27/2024 at 4:54 PM, Rick2you2 said:

Did Kirby create any dialog of note that wasn’t bad? 
 

[Silver Surfer]

Is this more of a Marvel vs DC question because I really don't see a comparison ( like Marvel vs DC). 

[Rick2you2]

On 3/28/2024 at 2:02 AM, Silver Surfer said:

Is this more of a Marvel vs DC question because I really don't see a comparison ( like Marvel vs DC). 

No. At various times each one worked for both companies. 

It is a question of: artistic preference and overall industry impact.

While Kirby’s work is certainly dynamic, and ground breaking, I never particularly liked that beloved-by-many fans of his Silver Age Marvel work. I mostly blame my preference on Marvel, its lousy pay scales (with the rest of the industry), and pressure on him to perform. His raw skill is unquestionable. On the other hand, Adams’ work on GL/GA, in particular, paved the way for so many later artists, while he helped get artists the right to their artwork. In one sense, he was a forefather of this hobby. 

Let me add that one could also throw in Will Eisner into this comparison, but his biggest contributions were during the Golden Age (except, later he also became the father of the graphic novel with “A Contract With God”). IMO, those are probably the “big three” in OA. 

[BFA1971]

On 5/4/2022 at 3:36 PM, RBerman said:

It's tough to compare artists of different generations. If Neal sees farther, it is partly because he stands on Kirby's shoulders. I always enjoyed Adams' moody lighting effects in the 70s, and his art retained an admirable level of detail even recently. So I choose him, which in no way diminishes Kirby's crucial role as an industry innovator in genre formation, character creation, layout, posing, and the rest.

A recent Adams Batman (RIP)

 

[BFA1971]

On 5/4/2022 at 4:02 PM, Timely said:

Kirby had his hand on so many things from 1940's-1990's. Superheroes, Romance, Westerns, Crime, Monsters, back to Superheroes, etc. He had a hand in creating a ton of characters & even the genres themselves!  I'm struggling to think of 1 thing Adams actually created.  He was good at advancing the art of already established entities, but created almost none by comparison.

Artistically they are too different to compare. You either like the styles they implemented or you didn't. I appreciate both!

Hi Timely! I can see you are a fan of Schomburg. If you had to pick one cover which would it be?