Well, the first thing I thought of when I saw this question was



So yeah, I'd say the guy could do sexy.

Pretty much, yes.   That is a position I've arrived at over many years.

Why I think Kirby's art is perfect

I didn't love Kirby's art at first. As a child I thought he was generally OK, sometimes great, often mediocre. I much preferred Romita, Steranko, Perez - it was a long list. But over the years I've become much more interested in the story than the art. I'm fascinated by big topics: history, philosophy, religion, etc. When I read stories now I'm looking for the reality behind it, and how all the stories fit together. As I went deeper down that rabbit hole I lost interest in more and more artists (and writers of course). The story was all on the surface and did not stand examination. Nothing really made sense. I felt betrayed: as a child I believed in these things, and all the time they were lying to me. But an ever smaller number of writers became more and more interesting, the deeper I delved. Top of that list was Jack Kirby. 

What then is perfection? I define it as the best possible. That "possible" is important. Kirby was human and there are only so many hours in the day. He had to fit into the system, and inevitably had to rush some jobs. I don't think it was possible to create the good work without the bad. So as a whole it is therefore perfect: because I cannot imagine how it could be possible to do better in the real world.

Based on this I think it's also important to define "Kirby" art. Some titles reflected his full energy: e.g. Thor and the Fantastic Four up to the end of 1967. I think it is fair to judge him on these. Other titles - such as odd issues of Strange Tales, or his 1970 Inhumans stuff, is clearly just rushed to pay the bills. That was necessary in order to produce, over all, the best possible: the perfect body of work. So I accept that some later Inhumans work was pig ugly, but I don't see those as reflecting the real Kirby. They were the necessary dross (that he did not want to do) in order to leave time for the true Kirby stuff (the stuff he did want to do). Though even his bad stuff contains hidden depths (in my view) but that's another topic. 

Why I think Kirby's art is beyond criticism

I think people confuse criticism with opinion. Every opinion is valid. As a child I disliked Kirby's late art. That was my opinion, I paid for my comics, so my opinion mattered. But criticism is different. Criticism attempts to describe objective faults (and objective strengths). And in my opinion Kirby is so far ahead of the pack that almost all criticism turn out to be wrong. So I don't think criticism of him has much value. Opinions do, sure. But opinions are not criticism. 


And so do most women in the real world, in my opinion. Sure, maybe ten percent of women have amazing curves and strikingly feminine faces, but the rest rely on makeup and clothes. I hate that women need to be fake. What is wrong with the world that women cannot be themselves? I love how Kirby's women are real. Ten percent look like glamour models, and ten percent are uglier then the men, and there is a whole spectrum in between. I find that so refreshing. I love realism. I love variety. I love it when we don't try to force people to be what they are not. And I love stories I can believe in. So I love Kirby's work.

There really needed to be another option for "Depends on What Book You're Looking At", because for every female Kirby drew like this...




...there are females that look like these:


  

If anything, I would consider the work he was doing on his own characters at this point (Captain Victory, Silver Star, etc.) to be even worse.

This is just a bad cover all around. But Kirby was not at the top of his game when he did those books. Maybe he needed a stronger inker like Mike Royer or Colletta.

But according to Tolorthy, my comment that the poses are stiff and unnatural cannot be an objective criticism because this cover is by Kirby and therefore transcends any kind of objective criticism.

But apparently it is brilliant because it is 'realistic' (because it is by Kirby), despite the fact that people do not move like that. So you can apparently declare that something is beyond objective criticism, but also declare that it is objectively realistic, regardless of whether it matches up to reality or not.