|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 8, 2019 3:15:45 GMT -5
That assessment could lead to two conclusions: one, that a leaning or "mission" to tell stories through symbolism...implication of a meaning, rather than the direct action associated with most superhero comics gave Ditko a break from the criticism one would reserve for Kirby. Or two, Ditko's work is not "protected", as being an non-traditional superhero artist, Ditko can be compared to the artists who were simply better trained or (in theory) more talented, and effectively handled both adventure and the superhero genres, such as Wood, Severin, or Everett, leading to the conclusion that rather than the wildly broad brush painting an entire era as suffering from allegedly "primitive" art, it was only certain artists who had a problem, or needed to make radical changes to their work as superhero art evolved, or took on other influences some had already employed (e.g., realism). Huh? Meaning people have a choice: either Ditko cannot be judged based on his early superhero work because he was working from another artistic point of view, or if one is really being honest about art of the Golden and Silver Age, they can conclude that "primitive" art was not a problem of the era, but for certain artists, especially when compared to the volume of great talent who worked at the same time as Ditko, et al. I would love to read that argument, and to a point, I can agree with it. |
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Jun 8, 2019 11:52:33 GMT -5
Here's an example of what I was writing about with early Ditko Spider-Man... Panel from a modern (supposed to be highest quality) reprint Marvel Masterworks (notice how the lines are thicker, blobby, and less nuanced (not that this page is the most elaborate work but imagine how much is lost when it is!)...  from an earlier newsprint edition (not the 1962, couldn't find it)...  the original artwork...  Yeah, I know there are dots on his eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Jun 8, 2019 11:57:48 GMT -5
Here's Ditko on Konga #1 in 1960-61...   |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jun 8, 2019 17:28:15 GMT -5
I've always loved that Konga book.
|
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jun 8, 2019 18:57:38 GMT -5
Looking through issues of Epic Illustrated recently, I was amazed at (1) The excellent art that comic book artists were capable of doing when given more time, and (2) the other excellent artists who chose to work only (or at least mainly) on Epic-type books instead of comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 6:45:18 GMT -5
I don't think so. The perfect example of that is Sheldon Moldoff when he did Batman.   It is his Batwoman made her bold, crisp, and exciting to see in a Comic Book and that's made it successful and enjoyable to read. I always enjoyed reading Batman Comics when he at helm of the Art.  His Wonder Woman is very pleasing to the eye and that alone does not look primitive at all. Just glorious work of art. I had a private message and this thread caught my attention and I want to chime into it ... I just think the opposite of all of you here and I felt that the artwork done in the 30's and up to the 60's were King in my own standards and it's looks more original than the artwork done from 70's and onwards (today) and I just feel that way and don't bother asking me why it is. Sheldon is one of my favorite artist during that time and I have more artists to share ... but he in my mind is the best. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 9, 2019 7:26:59 GMT -5
The real strength of a Ditko or Kirby was their ability to tell a story. As for the primitive look of some of the artwork, I will attribute that to the levels of talent by the inkers. Mike Royers Kamandi stuff was head and shoulders above Paul Reinmans work.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 9, 2019 12:26:58 GMT -5
The real strength of a Ditko or Kirby was their ability to tell a story. As for the primitive look of some of the artwork, I will attribute that to the levels of talent by the inkers. Mike Royers Kamandi stuff was head and shoulders above Paul Reinmans work. Perhaps, but on a personal note, I thought Royer was not much better than a tracer, rather than embellisher of Kirby's work (basing this on having viewed penciled and inked Kamandi pages). Now Syd Shores--he's what you call a great inker for Kirby. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jun 9, 2019 12:40:32 GMT -5
The real strength of a Ditko or Kirby was their ability to tell a story. As for the primitive look of some of the artwork, I will attribute that to the levels of talent by the inkers. Mike Royers Kamandi stuff was head and shoulders above Paul Reinmans work. Perhaps, but on a personal note, I thought Royer was not much better than a tracer, rather than embellisher of Kirby's work (basing this on having viewed penciled and inked Kamandi pages). Now Syd Shores--he's what you call a great inker for Kirby. I sgree. It's why I also prefer Ayers, Wood, or especially Bill Everett over Royer, Berry, Theakston, and the like, with slicker inkers like Sinnott, Stone, or Adkins falling somewhere in between. Kirby's art works best when it serves a rock-solid foundation for the skills of a great finisher.
Cei-U! I summon the King and his court!
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 9, 2019 13:32:39 GMT -5
Perhaps, but on a personal note, I thought Royer was not much better than a tracer, rather than embellisher of Kirby's work (basing this on having viewed penciled and inked Kamandi pages). Now Syd Shores--he's what you call a great inker for Kirby. I sgree. It's why I also prefer Ayers, Wood, or especially Bill Everett over Royer, Berry, Theakston, and the like, with slicker inkers like Sinnott, Stone, or Adkins falling somewhere in between. Kirby's art works best when it serves a rock-solid foundation for the skills of a great finisher.
Cei-U! I summon the King and his court!
For Kirby Inkers, I would rate them as 1. Sinnott 2. Royer 3. Colletta |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,222 
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Jun 9, 2019 17:55:53 GMT -5
Perhaps, but on a personal note, I thought Royer was not much better than a tracer, rather than embellisher of Kirby's work (basing this on having viewed penciled and inked Kamandi pages). Now Syd Shores--he's what you call a great inker for Kirby. I sgree. It's why I also prefer Ayers, Wood, or especially Bill Everett over Royer, Berry, Theakston, and the like, with slicker inkers like Sinnott, Stone, or Adkins falling somewhere in between. Kirby's art works best when it serves a rock-solid foundation for the skills of a great finisher. Cei-U! I summon the King and his court!
Though it only happened a handful of times (a couple of Fantastic Four issues and an Amazing Spider-Man back-up strip, if memory serves), I think Jack Kirby's art looked really fantastic when Steve Ditko was inking him. That was a "Silver Age Dream Team" pairing that I really wish we'd gotten to see more often. I think it was Rob Allen who once told me that Stan Lee said in an interview that he thought Ditko was the best inker for Kirby. |
|
|
|
Post by electricmastro on Jan 2, 2020 22:24:33 GMT -5
In the 1940s' case, I get the feeling that many of the artists being employed were ones that knew weren't particularly great at drawing, but still became an animator just to make enough money to get food on the table. I suppose it takes someone like Munson Paddock to stand out less so as primitive and more so as memorable.  |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 2, 2020 22:38:51 GMT -5
Perhaps, but on a personal note, I thought Royer was not much better than a tracer, rather than embellisher of Kirby's work (basing this on having viewed penciled and inked Kamandi pages). Now Syd Shores--he's what you call a great inker for Kirby. I sgree. It's why I also prefer Ayers, Wood, or especially Bill Everett over Royer, Berry, Theakston, and the like, with slicker inkers like Sinnott, Stone, or Adkins falling somewhere in between. Kirby's art works best when it serves a rock-solid foundation for the skills of a great finisher.
Cei-U! I summon the King and his court!
Yeah, the seemingly paradoxical thing is that more faithful inkers like Royer seem to me to lose much of the nuance I see in Kirby's un-inked pencils. I also liked John Veerpoorten's inks in the first issue or two of the Eternals, and Frank Giacoia's in the first few issues of Kirby's 70s Captain America comeback.
I still love Royer's stuff, though. And it's really interesting to see him inking Keith Giffen in The Defenders, when Giffen was at his most Kirby-esque: he brought an almost metallic-looking sheen to the finished art that made a really cool effect, to my taste.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 2, 2020 23:35:38 GMT -5
... Yeah, I know there are dots on his eyes.Just like that David Bowie song:
Five years, dots on my eyes, Five years, what a surprise ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2020 10:43:44 GMT -5
I think it's obvious to everyone that Kirby's FF art looks more detailed and polished starting around the mid/late 40ish issues...Joe Sinnott's inks helped as well. I think Steve Ditko's early Spider-Man issues hold up better than Kirby's early FF.
|
|
