|
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2016 17:44:49 GMT -5
Jack Kirby definitely deserves his title of the King with all he contributed to comics. But he was like any other artist - if his art was rushed or he was paired with the "wrong" inker his work was not as stellar. I think The Captain's post above (on page 3) shows this as a good example.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on May 31, 2016 17:58:18 GMT -5
I'm okay with Tolworthys man crush for Kirby. I'm a starch Jim Starlin Defender.  I'm okay with his Kirby idolatry, as well. It is a very common attitude in comics fandom, and I am used to feeling like the odd man out because I don't particularly like Kirby. But declaring something to be beyond criticism? That sits less well with me. As big of a Starlin fanboy as I am too, I can't find much to defend on his art at least on the same criteria as we are with Kirby. The closest I can come to praising his art is how well, in this medium of comics, his art, above all other artists that have worked with him, compliments his writing. But I still don't think it's "good" art. But it's a perfect albeit jarring harmony when together. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 31, 2016 18:12:51 GMT -5
I'm okay with his Kirby idolatry, as well. It is a very common attitude in comics fandom, and I am used to feeling like the odd man out because I don't particularly like Kirby. But declaring something to be beyond criticism? That sits less well with me. As big of a Starlin fanboy as I am too, I can't find much to defend on his art at least on the same criteria as we are with Kirby. The closest I can come to praising his art is how well, in this medium of comics, his art, above all other artists that have worked with him, compliments his writing. But I still don't think it's "good" art. But it's a perfect albeit jarring harmony when together. I would never say that Starlin's artwork is on the par with Neal Adams or Jose Garcia Lopez but he is probably among the best storytellers in the History of comics. And of course his stuff isn't as tight as his early Warlock/Cap Marvel or Dreadstar work. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on May 31, 2016 18:18:37 GMT -5
As big of a Starlin fanboy as I am too, I can't find much to defend on his art at least on the same criteria as we are with Kirby. The closest I can come to praising his art is how well, in this medium of comics, his art, above all other artists that have worked with him, compliments his writing. But I still don't think it's "good" art. But it's a perfect albeit jarring harmony when together. I would never say that Starlin's artwork is on the par with Neal Adams or Jose Garcia Lopez but he is probably among the best storytellers in the History of comics. And of course his stuff isn't as tight as his early Warlock/Cap Marvel or Dreadstar work. I totally agree. And why I said I enjoy his art and writing together in things like Warlock, Breed, Gilgamesh II, Kid Kosmos and Dreadstar. But I remember really forcing my self to read through Warlock when I first read it after having read Infinity Gauntlet with Ron Lim. He can tell great stories with words and panels but I've never liked his style, I guess I should say. It's not ineptitude on his part, just the mannerisms within the art of humans. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on May 31, 2016 19:13:18 GMT -5
But declaring something to be beyond criticism? That sits less well with me. I think tolworthy's remark needs to be taken within the context of the larger post, where he states: 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). So his point is not that all Kirby work is perfect and beyond criticism as individual works, but rather that the man could only create so much brilliant work while also trying to pay the bills and, thus, his body of work, as a whole, was the best anyone in his situation could be expected to produce and, therefore, is beyond criticism. That being said, I still beg to differ, both with his definition of "criticism" and with his rationale, but I think his argument makes more sense than you are implying  |
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Jun 1, 2016 2:24:14 GMT -5
But declaring something to be beyond criticism? That sits less well with me. I think tolworthy's remark needs to be taken within the context of the larger post, where he states: 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). So his point is not that all Kirby work is perfect and beyond criticism as individual works, but rather that the man could only create so much brilliant work while also trying to pay the bills and, thus, his body of work, as a whole, was the best anyone in his situation could be expected to produce and, therefore, is beyond criticism. That being said, I still beg to differ, both with his definition of "criticism" and with his rationale, but I think his argument makes more sense than you are implying I'm not sure how else I can interpret this comment of tolworthy's: He outright states that Kirby is so far ahead of the pack that all criticism of him is wrong. How is that not stating that Kirby is beyond criticism? |
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Jun 1, 2016 2:27:32 GMT -5
Still disagree, nothing is beyond criticism. And judging an artist on only the best of his/her work is just cherry picking, all artists are under constraints when working, sometimes financial, sometimes physical, sometimes mental. The only thing we can ever judge a work on is the end-product.
Especially if you then also go into broad statements on modern artists.
|
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Jun 1, 2016 3:43:04 GMT -5
Here is my defense of cherry picking: comic art is a group effort, so it is wrong to give a blanket "this is by artist X". yes, their name is on it, but that just means they were one of the many causes. However, when that artist creates a story all or mostly on their own, and also consistently creates that kind of thing across their career, then I think is fair to say those examples truly represent the artist. Those are the cherries I pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 1, 2016 4:37:29 GMT -5
Still disagree, nothing is beyond criticism. And judging an artist on only the best of his/her work is just cherry picking, all artists are under constraints when working, sometimes financial, sometimes physical, sometimes mental. The only thing we can ever judge a work on is the end-product. Especially if you then also go into broad statements on modern artists. Those early Fantastic Four issues seemed to have less detail by Kirby than his later work. It was a factor also, that he was producing more pages than everyone else. For sure an Inker is important to the finished look, but no one could ever accuse Kirby of drawing women like Adam Hughes draws them. There's no shame in the way Kirby drew women because , as you can see , he put a different style into his superhero females as the did the romance comic characters. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 6:42:12 GMT -5
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. I don't think this argument holds water - take the emotional appeal of the Kirby name out of it and call it Artist A and see if the assertion holds water: "Artist A has delivered this item of art which displays some weaknesses, but s/he could do better if s/he had more time, or was more invested in the work. Therefore Artist A has achieved perfection". No, Artist A has done the best they could in the circumstances, and has fallen a long way short of the best art which could be delivered, because they didn't have the time, or skill, or investment in the work that would have been required to deliver work of a better quality (never mind whether it's "perfect" or not). Why I think Kirby's art is beyond criticismBut 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 this is holed below the waterline as well - "my opinion is Artist A is great therefore they are beyond criticism"?? How can you defend that as a logical position? By all means love Kirby's art, but it's manifestly not beyond criticism, because there are so many things which can be criticised about it - both from opinion over his artistic choices (his stiff unnatural poses, faces with misaligned eyes and cheekbones in the wrong places and muscles that bear no relation to the anatomy of anyone who has lived or will ever live) and objectively identifying faults in the artwork where things like perspective and light sources have been incorrectly used (back in CBR days there was a double page spread from his Prisoner adaptation which was posted on a Kirby thread which was a classic example of this - it looked superficially impressive, but when you looked carefully, the perspective wasn't consistent, objects weren't correctly placed so they actually touched the ground etc) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 6:43:50 GMT -5
I'm okay with his Kirby idolatry, as well. It is a very common attitude in comics fandom, and I am used to feeling like the odd man out because I don't particularly like Kirby. Well, there's at least 2 of us |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jun 1, 2016 7:35:52 GMT -5
In defense of Kirby, it should be pointed out that by the time he was doing those Super Powers covers, Jack was blind in one eye and losing the vision in the other. Much of the problems with his art in that era are attributable to that. It also didn't help that he was insisting that his inkers slavishly follow his pencils instead of embellishing them. This was an especially grievous decision given that his inker of choice by then was the undertalented Greg Theakston.
And I'm forced to agree with everyone else that Kirby is NOT beyond criticism. If Shakespeare isn't, and criticism of the Bard of Avon is practically a genre unto itself, neither is Jolly Jacob Kurtzberg.
Cei-U!
I summon my two cents' worth!
|
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Jun 1, 2016 7:39:49 GMT -5
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. This is just a ridiculous argument - take the emotional appeal of the Kirby name out of it and call it Artist A and see if the assertion holds water: "Artist A has delivered this item of art which displays some weaknesses, but s/he could do better if s/he had more time, or was more invested in the work. That is not my argument. I disagree with your first premise. I argue that artist A does not display weaknesses, if those alleged weaknesses are either: (a) strengths (e.g. I believe it is better to show realistic women than unrealistic women), (b) the best possible use of time (e.g. leaving inkers to provide unimportant details like prettying up the eye makeup), or (c) forced on him against his will. If we have enough of artist A's solo work to show what is his work and what is added by others, and if we can attribute the weaknesses to others. I grant that this depends on the definition of good: e.g. is it better to have realistic women or unusually beautiful women? but that is another topic. You questioned my logic, not the premises it rests on. Why I think Kirby's art is beyond criticismBut 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 again, this is a ridiculous argument - "my opinion is Artist A is great therefore they are beyond criticism"?? How can you defend that as a logical position? Again, that is not my argument. Your first premise rests on opinion. My premise is that opinion is not criticism. I argue that criticism must be objective. If criticisms of artist A repeatedly fail due to being opinion rather than objective, then the whole field of criticism for artist A becomes devalued . I concede that this is an argument based on observation rather than logic: perhaps there are objective criticisms of artist A, but I have yet to see any. I also concede that this is again dependent on what we define as being good or valid. For example, there might be an argument that having impossibly beautiful women is objectively good, but I have not seen that argument. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,209 
|
Post by Confessor on Jun 1, 2016 8:20:34 GMT -5
I just wanted to issue a little reminder to keep it respectful, guys. It's cool to disagree with a premise or attack an argument, but let's be careful not to use inflammatory-sounding language that might be deemed patronising or misconstrued as a personal attack by another poster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 8:25:18 GMT -5
On your first point, as far as I can see, you are selecting the best possible interpretation of Artist A based on his/her best work of their career, and then ascribing any weaknesses in any particular item of art to factors outside their control. On this basis, it's impossible to make any judgement of a particular piece of art, even when the specific quality factors in the art, like the composition of the picture, the posture of characters or their basic anatomy are directly attributable to said artist.
On your second point, your logic is just circular. You say "Kirby's art is beyond criticism" 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" and then argue that criticism of Kirby fails because it is "due to being opinion rather than objective, then the whole field of criticism for artist A becomes devalued". You are eliminating any possibility of criticism because you've decided that criticism can't be applied because of either your subjectively perceived quality of the artist or your subjectively perceived view of the objectivity of the criticism - you put criticism into a narrowly defined box which eliminates almost any possibility of review of the art (though it doesn't address the specific example I quoted earlier)
|
|
