|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 16, 2024 16:45:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 16, 2024 15:22:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 16, 2024 13:28:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 16, 2024 13:25:15 GMT -5
Detective Comics #222 (August, 1955).
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 16, 2024 13:22:26 GMT -5
Detective Comics #834
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 16, 2024 12:19:34 GMT -5
I'm saying the best of Kirby's Marvel work was inseparable from the great inkers who elevated that work, thus there was noticeable difference in quality all too easy to see when he no longer worked with those key inkers. Anything else is to suggest (not implying you) Kirby's artistic height at Marvel would have presented the same, with the same impact, when there's no way Sinnott or Shores (for just two examples) with their own known style--did not add their distinctive talents to lift Kirby's work to its most appealing period. Which inkers didn't he look as good with? Which weren't great? Giaccioa? Klein? Everett? Verpooten? Stone? Tuska? Are all of these key inkers whose styles made Kirby more appealing?
How much did Sinnott elevate Kirby over Giacoia? Because both of these look pretty good Emphasis on "for just two examples", but I understand your reply to serve as proof Kirby's work was so good, that every inker looked good just by working on his pencils. Obviously subjective, and attempts to steer the opinion away from Kirby's best work was inseperable from great inkers, with his work coming nowhere near that published level without them. In short, Kirby needed great inkers, and i'll add in a way a number of other comic book legends did not always need to produce brilliant, timeless work.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 16, 2024 8:55:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 16, 2024 8:49:44 GMT -5
Mystery in Space #26 (June, 1955).
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 16, 2024 8:45:55 GMT -5
Four Color #832
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 16, 2024 8:08:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 16, 2024 8:04:44 GMT -5
Action Comics #830
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 16, 2024 7:33:20 GMT -5
MAD #22 (April, 1955).
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 15, 2024 23:06:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 15, 2024 20:02:57 GMT -5
Where I would disagree - if it's permitted to do so without being considered part of the "Kirby Hype machine"! - is that Kirby "needed great inkers" in the sense that I think Tarkintino intends, which is that he was incapable of producing great comic book artwork without inkers to cover up his flaws I'm saying the best of Kirby's Marvel work was inseparable from the great inkers who elevated that work, thus there was noticeable difference in quality all too easy to see when he no longer worked with those key inkers. Anything else is to suggest (not implying you) Kirby's artistic height at Marvel would have presented the same, with the same impact, when there's no way Sinnott or Shores (for just two examples) with their own known style--did not add their distinctive talents to lift Kirby's work to its most appealing period.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 15, 2024 17:20:58 GMT -5
Archie #72 (February, 1955).
|
|