Because this DaVinci can critisiseany good or great artist.
Are you sure he wasn't looking at something Rob Liefield did?
I'm with Shad on this one. That was my first instinct
I can understand. I still can't get over some of the color schemes they used in comics in the 70's and 80's.
Kirby was an artist in every sense of the word. The man created entire worlds with every story, he completely revolutionized the concept of pop art and he brought with him a sense of wonder and excitement that is usually reserved for children.Then there are people who don't get art, all the get are tits, guns and pouches. Lots of fucking pouches.PS No feet
I would've been over the counter and throttling him before he could blink.Are you sure he wasn't looking at Greg Land's "work"?
I think its high time that "Kids these days" gets its own category in the side bar. Seems they're becoming more and more common.
Oh fuck this guy.
I don't think any of the comic artists from the sixties would be hired these days. Static poses, understated physiques, bad proportions, misshapen faces...
Not even playing Devil's advocate here, but the kid doesn't belong on this list. Not liking a style isn't a crime, and not liking pre-modern era comics definitely isn't a crime.
I see where this guy is coming from, despite him being wrong, actually. The problem is, he's criticizing the wrong thing. The actual drawings are fine, and every bit as good, if not better in some cases (especially with Kirby), than stuff today. What they need to do is get the original inked versions, and release recolored versions of all of that old stuff along side the classic color versions. Even stuff that was already pretty modern looking has improved vastly because of this (Watchmen and Sandman Absolute editions, and the hardcover of Killing Joke), and I think this older stuff would benefit even more from having clear, crisp, modern coloring with attention to detail and shading.
That's Sinnot's fault. He was inking with a whisk broom.
@Gabriel: "I think this older stuff would benefit even more from having clear, crisp, modern coloring with attention to detail and shading."Are you serious?The LAST thing we need to see, is this over-rendered/over photo-shopped coloring that are used in most books today to mar these old comics. The majority of comics I've paged through from most major companies recently are horribly muddy and are so dark that you can't see what's supposed to be going on. Crisp? Far from it...
This comment has been removed by the author.
I still don't understand why some of the comments are always earnest responses to what's said in the comic.
You should tag it "crazies," too.
I can see how a younger comics fan could feel this way if they grew up on the digital process. It's a bit like the same generation saying SNES games "look like shit" when it's arguable that many SNES games look better than their Wii sequels. Or to be perfectly clichéd: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
It's funny that he was just drawn so bad.
Fuck. This. Guy.
i've been drawing comic books pro since 1995. kirby brought dynamic layouts and energy to comics that hadn't been there before. that being said, IMO, he is insanely overrated. back in the early days, comic book artists weren't paid as much, and the art was often thrown away. as a result they didn't put as much effort into the art. things have changed today, the art is collectible and worth a lot of money in some cases. the art has improved over the decades, and will continue to do so.
Oooh wow. An anonymous "professional comic artist". And on the Internet of all places.
I don't think it's the art but I am always disappointed when I crack open a Bronze Age 4-color comic. The grey pulpy paper, the terrible color transfers, everything about them is just drab. No matter how well the art may have been penciled and inked, it's like printing them on toilet paper and then letting a child color them with crayon. The end result isn't pretty. Give me SSOC over Conan The Barbarian any day.
Lets' see: Kirby, Steranko, 70's era Neal Adams, 70's/80's era Byrne, Mike Ploog, Michael Golden, Kaluta, Bernie Wrightson, Wood, Al Williamson, Frazetta... Yeah, those guys all sucked.
I forgot Gil Kane and John Romita. They sucked too.
Aside from the fact that this guys if just a moron (there's a reason why the man has the title "King of Comics"), his sentence structure is awful. The way he said it, it sounds like that they used to draw old comics badly, which implies that they are currently drawing the old comics better. Language is the cornerstone of society, people. If this is the best sentence you can come up with, just be quiet. Please.
Whenever I see Kirby comics I say they're exploding with stupid.That's not to say it's bad by any means, in fact its a lot better than most modern comics.I just feel that every Kirby panel I see is exploding for no reason and Stan Lee had to make up shit in order to balance it.
I sometimes think with these cartoons that it's unfair to label a kid like this a jerk. He's just being a kid like we all were once. I didn't appreciate Kirby (or Ditko or Buscema) until I was older and understood the context of the art.
@12:32 anon"Aside from the fact that this guys if just a moron (there's a reason why the man has the title "King of Comics"), his sentence structure is awful."Really? Really? At least I could understand what the fuck he said.
It's hard for somebody just getting into comic books in the last several years to appreciate Kirby's illustration skills or his historical importance-- even if they appreciate his design sensibility.Let me note that "bad" is an adjective and "to draw" is a verb-- the proper descriptor would be "badly", an adverb.
And yeah, how come this webcomic isn't in color?(Sarc)
Words fail me. Just...wrong. GENTLEMEN, THIS MAN IS WRONG, AND A POX ON ALL HIS ILK!
So you threw him out of the store, right?
He's right Kirby did suck and to be truthful Stan Lee couldn't write to save his life, he created some great characters but his writing SUCKED.
Kirby was a very great artist. You have to see his artwork outside of the comic world to fully understand how great of an artist he actually was. He style with comics was on purpose. It was a style he pick because he thought it would improve the storytelling. It did. With Jack The King Kirby we wouldn't have comics today. Look at other artist of that time and look at Kirby. He work on so many books and designed so many characters.The mindset when making comics is different now it was then. Now we market towards adults. Then it was marketed towards kids. Kirby had appeal and still does. I can look at wonder at his art day in and day out. Just like I can with photo realistic artist like Alex Ross. Also without Kirby Ross would be nothing. This industry would be nothing. As an artist myself there are golden rules. You need fundamentals before you have style. I'm sure this guy doesn't understand that. Style is style. Look at Bruce Timm, look at Mike Mignola when you go oh comics are drawn poorly. Think for one second please. Both those artist I named in this paragraph have a different take on comic style. Both have great fundamentals foundation yet have very well known styles.