|
|
Post by chaykinstevens on Jan 30, 2020 8:53:52 GMT -5
I consider Colan to be in the top 10 artists in comic history. I don't think anyone could really copy his style, or has. Really unique layouts and mood setting. I always thought he was born to draw Batman. Greg Brooks looked quite Colanesque on the Crimson Avenger miniseries, especially the two issues he inked himself, before a murder rap ended his short career. Colan had previously drawn the character in Secret Origins. Jackson Guice tried to imitare Colan in Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. #23. I think I read somehere that he wanted to continue using Colan's style but the editor wouldn't let him. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 30, 2020 8:57:58 GMT -5
Wow, murder rap.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 31, 2020 3:49:05 GMT -5
Brooks tried to look like Colan, but he wasn't very good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Jan 31, 2020 7:35:43 GMT -5
"A whisk broom" - classic! |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 31, 2020 8:01:24 GMT -5
Nothing anyone could write will strip me of my enjoyment of Vinnies work on the Marvel books or even his work on the Fourth World’s Mr. Miracle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Jan 31, 2020 8:07:46 GMT -5
From a purely aesthetic viewpoint, I find that Vince Colletta's inking is wildly uneven; it could be pretty good on occasion, but it often wasn't. My tuppence worth on the Kirby-Colletta controversy is that, while Kirby may've resented Colletta's erasing of some of his pencils, the commercial realities of the Marvel office were that the man had a job to do...and that job was to get his huge inking workload out on time, which he unfailingly did. His erasing of some of Kirby's pencils only becomes an angering and emotive issue if you view Kirby as some kind of artistic god and Silver Age comics as pieces of high art -- which neither Kirby or Colleta, or anybody else working at Marvel of DC at the time, did. These were mass produced pieces of disposable entertainment for 8-year-olds, not the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. That said, if you are a huge Kirby devotee, I can certainly see how Colletta's sometimes slapdash treatment of Kirby's pencils would rankle. But I really think you have to try to view Colletta's actions within the context of the marketplace pressures he operated under. You mean the same conditions Colletta's peers worked under? I don't "worship" Kirby or regard Silver Age comics as high art. That's just a cheap attempt to discredit my opinion by exaggeration. I only judge this stuff against itself (the whole point of this thread and this little diversion within it). And in that context I find Colletta to be one of the worst in his field at that time. The only emotion I have felt about the man's work was a very mild glee briefly bashing him on this thread. Beyond that I couldn't care less about his work or what anyone else thinks about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 31, 2020 8:43:53 GMT -5
From a purely aesthetic viewpoint, I find that Vince Colletta's inking is wildly uneven; it could be pretty good on occasion, but it often wasn't. My tuppence worth on the Kirby-Colletta controversy is that, while Kirby may've resented Colletta's erasing of some of his pencils, the commercial realities of the Marvel office were that the man had a job to do...and that job was to get his huge inking workload out on time, which he unfailingly did. His erasing of some of Kirby's pencils only becomes an angering and emotive issue if you view Kirby as some kind of artistic god and Silver Age comics as pieces of high art -- which neither Kirby or Colleta, or anybody else working at Marvel of DC at the time, did. These were mass produced pieces of disposable entertainment for 8-year-olds, not the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. That said, if you are a huge Kirby devotee, I can certainly see how Colletta's sometimes slapdash treatment of Kirby's pencils would rankle. But I really think you have to try to view Colletta's actions within the context of the marketplace pressures he operated under. You mean the same conditions Colletta's peers worked under? I don't "worship" Kirby or regard Silver Age comics as high art. That's just a cheap attempt to discredit my opinion by exaggeration. I only judge this stuff against itself (the whole point of this thread and this little diversion within it). And in that context I find Colletta to be one of the worst in his field at that time. The only emotion I have felt about the man's work was a very mild glee briefly bashing him on this thread. Beyond that I couldn't care less about his work or what anyone else thinks about it.Yes, you have made this pretty clear. Maybe you should tone down the hostility. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,222 
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Jan 31, 2020 9:00:33 GMT -5
Beyond that I couldn't care less about his work or what anyone else thinks about it. Yes, you have made this pretty clear. Maybe you should tone down the hostility. Agreed. My above post was not directed towards you at all Mister Spaceman, or anyone else in the forum. It was just my own idle thoughts on the whole Kirby-Colletta controversy. If I were you, I'd have a re-read of the forum rules -- specifically rule #1 -- to remind yourself of the sort of tone of discourse that is required of members here. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Feb 1, 2020 13:55:42 GMT -5
I voted for Sal Buscema. He was never the draftsman that his brother was, nor did ever rise to the heights of later Marvel artistic greats like Starlin, Simonson, Perez and Byrne, but there was always something intrinsic in his art that appealed to me. I think his classic Hulk run is a great example of this. Many artists came along later and made the Hulk bigger, "cooler", but nobody ever portrayed the Hulk with such emotional clarity and nuance. The Marvel Universe just always seemed to be in good hands when Sal was the penciler...even on some of his obvious rush jobs. I even love his very sparse artwork on the original Marvel Super Heroes RPG!  |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 1, 2020 15:04:17 GMT -5
His erasing of some of Kirby's pencils only becomes an angering and emotive issue if you view Kirby as some kind of artistic god and Silver Age comics as pieces of high art -- which neither Kirby or Colleta, or anybody else working at Marvel of DC at the time, did. These were mass produced pieces of disposable entertainment for 8-year-olds, not the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Highly debatable, since certain artists were bringing their own, non-comic artistry/training to the medium that separated their work from the plain, primitive or just silly-looking work plaguing many a Golden or early Silver Age comic. The rapid changes to superhero comic art to take ideas into new visual territory was part of the attention paid to it during the fabled "Superhero Boom" of the mid-late 1960s, with quite a number of articles talking about the vast differences between the true innovators of the period and anything from a "funny book" as they were once called. While some long-time artists moved into the 60s pretty much remaining the same with stale, not even mildly realism-based, or unimaginative work, a select group (you can guess which artists I'm referring to) made readers and those who never read a comic in that era take notice. Its not just what they were illustrating, but the quality of the illustrations. They were heavy lifting the medium out of the perception that it was simplistic "kiddie" stuff, which would not have been possible if the art was all in the realm of the Moldoffs, Hecks, et al. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,222
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on Feb 1, 2020 20:36:20 GMT -5
His erasing of some of Kirby's pencils only becomes an angering and emotive issue if you view Kirby as some kind of artistic god and Silver Age comics as pieces of high art -- which neither Kirby or Colleta, or anybody else working at Marvel of DC at the time, did. These were mass produced pieces of disposable entertainment for 8-year-olds, not the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Highly debatable, since certain artists were bringing their own, non-comic artistry/training to the medium that separated their work from the plain, primitive or just silly-looking work plaguing many a Golden or early Silver Age comic. The rapid changes to superhero comic art to take ideas into new visual territory was part of the attention paid to it during the fabled "Superhero Boom" of the mid-late 1960s, with quite a number of articles talking about the vast differences between the true innovators of the period any anything from a "funny book" as they were once called. While some long-time artists moved into the 60s pretty much remaining the same with stale, not even mildly realism-based, or unimaginative work, a select group (you can guess which artists I'm referring to) made readers and those who never read a comic in that era take notice. Its not just what they were illustrating, but the quality of the illustrations. They were heavy lifting the medium out of the perception that it was simplistic "kiddie" stuff, which would not have been possible if the art was all in the realm of the Moldoffs, Hecks, et al. All true, but the idea that Silver Age comic books are in anyway high art or comparable to the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is laughable. Don't get me wrong, I love Silver Age comics, and especially like those being put out by "true innovators of the period", such as Steve Ditko, Jack Kirby, Jim Steranko etc. But really, my point is less about the artistic worth or classification of the art, because ultimately, artistic worth is all in the eye of the beholder. My point is more about the day-to-day business realities of comic production in the 1960s. Colletta had a job to do and he did it very effeciantly, which is why he got so much work. Was he a hack? Yeah, probably, but even though Kirby might've disliked what Colletta was doing to his pencils on occasion (and personally, I think a lot of his inking of Kirby's work looks perfectly servicable), Kirby also knew exactly what kind of industry he was working in and he knew that deadlines had to be met. I think it's a little unfair and a bit weird to get all emotive about it and verbally crucify Colletta for essentially doing the job he was paid for, even if he didn't always treat the artists' pencils with the sanctity that they or their fans would've preferred. |
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Feb 1, 2020 20:51:20 GMT -5
The old "do you want it great or do you want it tuesday" situation. As more 'wanted it to always be great' artists came in you got books not shipping on time or more frequent fill-in out of continuity numbers. Kirby was one of those few able to do both on time and great according to many. Ditko had different levels of commitment to what he was working on which is perhaps ideal, being able to do great sometimes, and on time other times, but then people will judge him on one on time thing and another will say what about this great one he did... I think there should be place for a one incredible book a year type of artist, and also for a 12 or more a year storyteller. Quality and quantity!
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 1, 2020 21:39:32 GMT -5
The way I see it, if the penciller took the trouble to draw something, the inker should take the trouble to ink it. Possibly this wasn't always feasible with Kirby since he was known for being both very fast and very detailed, but it should always be the goal to strive for.
Coletta I think was known for cutting corners substantially more than other inkers, which is why his work is deservedly criticised on that score, even if in other regards - e..g. aesthetically - some people liked it (including me, when it comes to much of Thor).
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Feb 2, 2020 2:03:24 GMT -5
There were many good inkers working at the time that met deadlines and still did good work on all their books. Sinnot or Giacoia or Syd Shores never erased figures or backgrounds.
Tom Palmer consistently did monthly books and stayed one of the best inkers in the biz.
And Mike Royer would ink 2-3 of Kirby's DC books a month without shortcuts or loss of quality.
The famous "overnight" Captain America #112 had strong inks by Tuska on Kirby.
Coletta was not typical of others making a living in those days.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 2, 2020 7:11:49 GMT -5
There were many good inkers working at the time that met deadlines and still did good work on all their books. Sinnot or Giacoia or Syd Shores never erased figures or backgrounds. Tom Palmer consistently did monthly books and stayed one of the best inkers in the biz. And Mike Royer would ink 2-3 of Kirby's DC books a month without shortcuts or loss of quality. The famous "overnight" Captain America #112 had strong inks by Tuska on Kirby. Coletta was not typical of others making a living in those days. ...the list of inkers who took no shortcuts, or were hackish goes on and on. In fact, some of the best inkers were top artists, such as Giordano inking Adams, Romita inking Kane (and the reverse), or Anderson inking Infantino--each group perfectly complimenting one another. |
|
