“If he was your inker you knew well ahead of time of what he would do so is it a surprise that a detailed crowd would be rendered instead as silhouettes?”
It’s obvious somebody didn’t watch the video, which goes into detail on the fact that Kirby was assigned so many comic books per month that he rarely went over the finished product. In fact, he didn’t know what Colletta was doing with his work until both men were working for DC in the '70s.
Or after the episode aired people even in the 90s said that it was a bit too much for Smithers to be a black manservant.
No, his skin color was changed from one episode to the next before the first episode of the show ever aired. The show’s creators have long since stated it was just a mistake.
The fact that Kirby is so revered today is what makes it sting that some of the work is sub par. Those pencil comparisons aren’t just missing elements, but details left out or blacked out. A lesser revered artist wouldn’t be as big of a deal.
BUT, even if we are just talking about it strictly as commercial art - it was sub par work. People at the time did notice. I get that he was trying to make a buck and get them done fast, but if your quality suffers that isn’t cool. Doing any work may not be art per se, but it still needs to be done well.
Also, while you’re right many people saw them as consumable media, many people did view comics as art back then. They heavily influenced the Pop Art movement as well.
Never really rated Kirby’s art, not convinced that it was not flawed before the inkers worked on it.
Yes. But they were just trying to find ways to make their work more distinctive, because that was marketable. They weren’t interested in making “art”, they were interested in making their arguments for higher pay more defensible.
It can also be very logically argued the reason comics are now considered “art” is because there are lots of people who have nothing more important to do then read comics and they have a vested interest in increasing the value of their collection.
How is that different from any other artist?
Why is it that when a modernist painter pushes the boundaries of his medium he is a “genius,“ but when a comic artist does the same thing it’s a cynical cash grab?
I agree that in some cases, Colleta’s inking did degrade the visual appeal of Kirby’s penciling. But I think there were at least as many times when he improved it. When the background gets too cluttered it draws attention away from the main focus of the scene. That hurts both the visual acuity of the drawing and the flow of the action. When your hero is in the middle of a riot in the street and mayhem is flying in all directions, the reader shouldn’t be drawn off into looking at tiny little details a block away from the action. Action sequences need to flow. Having too much detail visible causes the reader to slow down and consider the panel as a much more static image. It does not deliver the same visceral effect. The kind of people who like slowly poring over each line and shadow are the same ones who like watching a movie on DVD so they can hit the pause button every 1.5 seconds and check for continuity errors. That kind of picking at the artists’ work mindset did not exist among comic readers in the 1960s and 70s. Or at least, not among those who read Marvel comics or any superhero comics. For us it was all about sensory overload.
If there were people back then who did view comics as “art”, sure as bleep none of them lived around me. And I have never met anyone at or near my own age who has said that they considered comics to be “art” when they were the age when grape Nehi was the strongest drink they could get.
Surprising fact about art: just because you aren’t into it doesn’t mean that it’s not art.
The same snobbery has been used to dismiss all sorts of genre art. But just because you have your nose fifty feet above everyone else’s doesn’t make you right.
the reason [anything] are now considered “art” is because there are lots of people who have nothing more important to do then [make, buy, and sell art] and they have a vested interest in increasing the value of their collection
Art is in the eye of the beholder, and no one person or entity gets to make that determination for others.
All culture is meaningless. Lets all drink soylent and sit alone in a room labeled “logically” and think real hard about not having a TV.
Roy Lichtenstein, billionaire comic book collector, was just running a pump and dump scheme when he copied artists like John Romita nearly line for line, dot for dot.
OR
The critical re-appraisal of comics as a medium with artistic value started long before there was any significant collector value there. And Jack Kirby was a prime mover on that in the 50’s and 60’s, when it all started.
That’s something I can’t understand. For one thing, I don’t get why Kirby didn’t push back in order to avoid overload. Having so much work piled on him can’t have been healthy. I would think sooner or later he would realize he was courting burnout and/or heart attack, and try to get out from under.
For another thing, I can’t understand why, if Kirby was so concerned about how his work looked at the end, why he didn’t check it and see how it was coming out the far end of the pipeline. If he really wanted to be thought of as an artist, how could he possibly be so lacking in concern over whether or not the reader was actually seeing what he drew? Thomas Kinkade was infamous for having an assembly line operation but even he took the time to proof the final products before they were released. Why didn’t Kirby?
Comic artists like Frank Springer, Jean-Claude Forest, and many others were getting published in the Evergreen Review in the 50s and 60s. alongside the likes of Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Albert Camus, and Edward Albee.
I didn’t say it was a cynical cash grab. I will thank you to not try to put your words in my mouth.
It isn’t different from any other artist - that’s my point. ALL artists want to create something new. And ALL artists want to get paid. True artists work because they have to, because it hurts not to. But even for them there is the need to deal with real world concerns, and for that you need money. And, pay is what tells the artist that his work is truly appreciated because it’s the form of applause that he knows hurt the giver to part with it. To paraphrase Jubal Harshaw, any fool can simply applaud and say they like it. Applause that is actually worth having comes in the form of little green pictures of dead presidents.
Your exact words were
So yeah I’m about done listening to your opinions on whether comics count as a legitimate art form or not. Doubly so if we’re talking about talented boundary-pushing artists like Jack Kirby, Windsor McKay, Walt Kelly, Will Eisner, Art Spiegelman, etc.
