|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 19, 2020 16:26:45 GMT -5
All due respect, but comparing someone to Jack Kirby is like comparing someone to Michael Jordan. You always end up losing the argument.
|
|
|
Post by foxley on Jan 19, 2020 16:47:59 GMT -5
All due respect, but comparing someone to Jack Kirby is like comparing someone to Michael Jordan. You always end up losing the argument. And this why you can't argue with fanatics.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 19, 2020 16:51:20 GMT -5
Maybe if you tried to pit Jose Garcia Lopez or Neal Adams against Kirby , you might have an argument.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 16:52:28 GMT -5
But maybe Icctrombone is referring to Michael Jordan's baseball career, which obviously was not as successful. So maybe we can judge Jack Kirby on things he did as a whole and not one or two facets.
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Jan 19, 2020 17:06:46 GMT -5
You could compare Osamu Tezuka to Jack Kirby, he's about the only one in terms of comic book productivity, variety, influence...
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 19, 2020 19:26:18 GMT -5
For me, it would be a true "artist's edition" only if it reproduced the artist's pencils without inks. Of course the original art for comics is inked, though some of these, like New Gods, also have some pencil art. There are also those Artist Editions by artists who inked their own work. But part of the joy is to see the artwork we know from the published comic in it's original glory. No, for me, the inked artwork doesn't look right without colour, unless it had originally been intended for a black and white mag.
And from another perspective, if it's an artist's edition then I'd expect to see the work the artist in question handed in, not the collaboration between that artist and another artist, the inker.
Finally, I almost always find the pencils more interesting to look at and more aesthetically pleasing than the uncoloured inked artwork.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jan 19, 2020 19:29:47 GMT -5
Of course the original art for comics is inked, though some of these, like New Gods, also have some pencil art. There are also those Artist Editions by artists who inked their own work. But part of the joy is to see the artwork we know from the published comic in it's original glory. No, for me, the inked artwork doesn't look right without colour, unless it had originally been intended for a black and white mag.
And from another perspective, if it's an artist's edition then I'd expect to see the work the artist in question handed in, not the collaboration between that artist and another artist, the inker.
Finally, I almost always find the pencils more interesting to look at and more aesthetically pleasing than the uncoloured inked artwork.
Hm. The pencils would rarely look right without the ink either, since they were not intended as the final published product. Obviously some artists were tighter than others with their pencils, though.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 19, 2020 20:12:38 GMT -5
You would think so, but in my experience the pencils often look surprisingly good. And in Kibry's case, from what I've seen in the Kirby Collector, they look really good.
of course, even if you agree with my POV, the problem remains that the uninked pencils often aren't available: no copies were made or they didn't survive after the artwork was inked.
|
|
|
Post by junkmonkey on Jan 19, 2020 20:25:09 GMT -5
For me, it would be a true "artist's edition" only if it reproduced the artist's pencils without inks.
...or you moved the apostrophe to the other side of the S. Artists' Edition.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 19, 2020 22:11:17 GMT -5
No, for me, the inked artwork doesn't look right without colour, unless it had originally been intended for a black and white mag. And from another perspective, if it's an artist's edition then I'd expect to see the work the artist in question handed in, not the collaboration between that artist and another artist, the inker. Finally, I almost always find the pencils more interesting to look at and more aesthetically pleasing than the uncoloured inked artwork.
Hm. The pencils would rarely look right without the ink either, since they were not intended as the final published product. Obviously some artists were tighter than others with their pencils, though. You would love the Eisner Contract with God A. Two books, one of the original pencils,the other his inked pages. He inked over his pencils with vellum pages.so both still exist.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jan 19, 2020 22:55:14 GMT -5
All due respect, but comparing someone to Jack Kirby is like comparing someone to Michael Jordan. You always end up losing the argument. In Ditko's case, perhaps. But the industry certainly had a number of giants who changed the way comics were viewed and created heightened expectations of what comics should be in their own ways.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 19, 2020 23:29:08 GMT -5
For me, it would be a true "artist's edition" only if it reproduced the artist's pencils without inks.
...or you moved the apostrophe to the other side of the S. Artists' Edition.
Which would make the title more accurate but the contents no more appealing (to me).
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jan 19, 2020 23:31:36 GMT -5
All due respect, but comparing someone to Jack Kirby is like comparing someone to Michael Jordan. You always end up losing the argument. In Ditko's case, perhaps. But the industry certainly had a number of giants who changed the way comics were viewed and created heightened expectations of what comics should be in their own ways. Yes, there is LeBron or Russell or Wilt, but there is still Jordan.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Jan 20, 2020 7:21:06 GMT -5
Guess that makes Ditko the Dr J. of comics? Colorful, stylish, different and uniquely his own and a standout in the crowd of professional artists.
|
|
|
Post by junkmonkey on Jan 20, 2020 11:43:00 GMT -5
You do realise that no one outside the US (and maybe Canada) has a scooby what any of that means?
|
|