|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Feb 16, 2024 11:44:09 GMT -5
I have to defend Colletta too, if only for one thing: his pairing with George Tuska gave us the definitive version of Iron Man, at least as far as I'm concerned. Other contemporary inkers were pretty good too (so it's not just a matter of nostalgia), but Colletta added a certain je-ne-sais-quoi to George's already beautiful female characters and to Shellhead's massive presence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 16, 2024 11:49:52 GMT -5
Well, that's a double-edged sword. My inks on Thor would also have been unparalleled And I was just gonna send you some 90’s Image books. You lost out ,mister ! Were you gonna... foot the bill? |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 16, 2024 11:50:59 GMT -5
I have to defend Colletta too, if only for one thing: his pairing with George Tuska gave us the definitive version of Iron Man, at least as far as I'm concerned. Other contemporary inkers were pretty good too (so it's not just a matter of nostalgia), but Colletta added a certain je-ne-sais-quoi to George's already beautiful female characters and to Shellhead's massive presence. I was never an Iron Man fan/reader, but you're always right, so I'm liking this. |
|
|
|
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 tonebone on Feb 16, 2024 15:34:03 GMT -5
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. Yeah, as I expressed over on another thread, I'm kind of tired of people sorting inkers on Kirby into either slavish genius, or "he ruined Kirby's art". I have always enjoyed Kirby no matter who was inking him... I never felt Colletta was so bad. I really like his inking on the Thor run. I have seen the comparisons where Vinnie removed or simplified some of his pencils, and could usually either see it as a minor detriment, or sometimes an improvement. Honestly, I think you'd have to be really really horrible to somehow overpower Kirby's pencils. They're kind of bulletproof. On the other hand, I find that the wrong inker can totally devastate some sweet Gil Kane pencils. |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Feb 16, 2024 15:38:15 GMT -5
How much did Sinnott elevate Kirby over Giacoia? Because both of these look pretty good to me. I could also post images from the FF (90-99) when Giacoia seamlessly took over inking from Sinnott on several issues. Or the covers of those books with Giacoia, Verpooten and Sinnott all inking various issues.
This may sound kind've esoteric, and I'd have to look at things chronologically, but Sinnott seemed to be the first inker who was comfortable inking Kirby's various marks as marks and not trying to pretend they were realistic folds or shadows. He led the way for folks like Royer and Berry who "just inked what was there," even though Sinnott did add something to the faces. His approach to Kirby is all the more surprising since his own style is very realistic and really nothing like Kirby. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Feb 16, 2024 15:56:50 GMT -5
This may sound kind've esoteric, and I'd have to look at things chronologically, but Sinnott seemed to be the first inker who was comfortable inking Kirby's various marks as marks and not trying to pretend they were realistic folds or shadows. He led the way for folks like Roger and Berry who "just inked what was there," even though Sinnott did add something to the faces. His approach to Kirby is all the more surprising since his own style is very realistic and really nothing like Kirby. No one is saying Sinnott was not a great inker, one of the best. And no one is saying he didn't make Kirby's pencils look good, as he did every one he inked. The question is did Kirby need an inker the caliber of Sinnott for his work to look good. Was the work Kirby did with the 1/2 dozen other inkers I named sub par and not worthy of appreciation and respect?
I agree about what you are saying in terms of Sinnott's approach. And if you look at the Giacoia FFs he did in the #90s, he followed Sinnott's approach to Kirby.
But there is also Kirby's changing style, which was different by the mid #50s of the FF from the early issues. So how much was Kirby and how much was Sinnott?
Cover to FF #92 with Giacioa inking in a very Sinnott fashion inking those Kirby marks. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 16, 2024 17:21:17 GMT -5
Not to criticize anyone who inked Kirby, but whenever I've seen Kirby's pencils next to the inked version, I prefer the uninked pencils.
With possible exceptions of inks by Neal Adams and, oddly enough, sometimes Murphy Anderson.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 16, 2024 19:23:16 GMT -5
Not to criticize anyone who inked Kirby, but whenever I've seen Kirby's pencils next to the inked version, I prefer the uninked pencils. With possible exceptions of inks by Neal Adams and, oddly enough, sometimes Murphy Anderson.
For me, this is often the case with other pencillers as well: I think the uninked pencils often allow the artist to convey more subtlety and nuance. I'd be very interested in seeing all of Kirby's uninked pencils published, and I suspect that would hold for some of my other favourites as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Feb 16, 2024 19:37:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 16, 2024 19:47:55 GMT -5
Printing the inked version on the opposite page is great for being able to compare them face to face but I would have preferred a volume with just the pencils. However, I'll take what I can get! |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Feb 17, 2024 11:36:07 GMT -5
I agree that there is a huge difference between raw pencils and inked pages, but this makes sense as they serve different purposes.
You can absolutely get a lot more nuanced detail in pencils, but there is also a neat power and bold impact in the inked pencils that stand out in such a strong way.
Two different use cases with their own appeals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Feb 17, 2024 13:23:44 GMT -5
I agree that there is a huge difference between raw pencils and inked pages, but this makes sense as they serve different purposes. You can absolutely get a lot more nuanced detail in pencils, but there is also a neat power and bold impact in the inked pencils that stand out in such a strong way. Two different use cases with their own appeals. There is also a certain spontaneity in the pencils that can be lost when inking. That's why my hat's off to artists who go straight to ink! |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 17, 2024 14:08:41 GMT -5
In the history of the greatest of "Big Two" artists, I'd say there were not too many of a talent and level to shine by inking themselves (unlike those who could, such as Adams, Romita, Colan, Aparo, Severin, J. Buscema, Cardy, Giordano, Steranko, Kane, Dominguez, et al.). A rare gift for that upper echelon of master artists in that field.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,203 
|
Post by Confessor on Feb 17, 2024 16:19:42 GMT -5
Kirby's best inker was Steve Ditko. It's just a shame it didn't happen often.
|
|
