Jack Kirby anatomy

[The-Spirit]

I hate the Jack Kirby Liefield comparison.

http://www.pigdogproductions.com/kirby7.jpg
"My figures are alive, they had to be because being self-taught is an agonizing process. I didn't know the fundamentals of anatomy. I had to grasp it myself...I used to get very frustrated. Then I would watch the movies, learn from the flexibility of real people and eventually I learned how to create my three-dimensional characters."--Jack Kirby

I think that there are examples of great anatomy and fluidity in comics art from all ages. but there was a lot of art with awkward posing, questionable anatomy, etc.. a lot of these guys were mainly concerned with moving the story along. and this art is what i think of when i hear "silver age" just like i think of a particular type of art if someone brings up the early '90's, even tho, EVERYONE didn't draw like mcfarlene, lee and liefield.
Sorry this is getting silly but I just have to say Jack Kirby never did bad anatomy in his life. Jack Kirby knew more about anatomy than a surgeon!


He learned all the rules, perfected them, and then bent them to his will.
what would you say about the hand of the guy standing in the hat and purple jacket--re:anatomy?

Sometimes he Broke them, but he understood anatomy, he drew hands like that because he drew long thumbs, but that's exactly how thumbs look in Jack Kirbys universe!

I thought about this last night and what I wanted to state is that Jack Kirby didn't do bad anatomy he did cartoony anatomy, his figures were completely consistent with the world he created. The difference between Kirby and someone like Liefield is that Liefield didn't know how to draw his anatomy is always off he edits out or obscures the things he doesn't know how to draw, Kirby never did, he didn't have realistic anatomy to be sure but it wasn't bad, just cartoony.

[BKMDog]

---He learned all the rules, perfected them, and then bent them to his will.

Being a huge Jack Kirby fan ( and believing his work still has as much relevance as it ever did ) I'm not sure I'd say he "perfected" all the rules, but I definitely agree that he "bent them to his will". It may be more accurate to say he learned what he could - which, from what I've read about the man and what I've been told - was a massive amount of knowledge, and then interpreted on that, creating his own look / style. To me, this is the path of most artists in comics or otherwise. Some vary from the academic very little = Hal Foster. Some vary a great deal = Jack Kirby.

---he drew hands like that because he drew long thumbs, but that's exactly how thumbs look in Jack Kirbys universe!

Again, I agree. I do find this particular aspect of Kirb's work a little distracting, but not bothersome because it's consistent with his "world" - his approach.

---The difference between Kirby and someone like Liefield is that Liefield didn't know how to draw his anatomy is always off he edits out or obscures the things he doesn't know how to draw, Kirby never did---

Well. Said. And therein, at least to my way of thinking, lies the difference between a true artist and someone who uses "style" as an excuse to cover up what they don't know, or would rather not learn. Anyone may find Kirby's stylization / interpretations distracting, jarring, unlikeable---whatever, but it was always clear to me that no matter the sometimes esoteric quality of his work, Kirby was always working things out, consistent with the vein in which he chose to work. I think it's for that reason his work gains and maintains it's credibility. Always will, IMHO.

They don' call him "The King" fur nuthin'---Good post / thread, Spirit.

[jmassie]

There is no comparison really. Jack Kirby could tell a story.

[The-Spirit]

Anyone may find Kirby's stylization / interpretations distracting, jarring, unlikeable---whatever, but it was always clear to me that no matter the sometimes esoteric quality of his work, Kirby was always working things out, consistent with the vein in which he chose to work. I think it's for that reason his work gains and maintains it's credibility.
I guess that's my point really, Kirby had a unique take on anatomy but his anatomy was originally grounded in reality, he moved more and more into the surreal and fantastic elements that comics allowed as he aged, but his anatomy was never "off" it was stylized.
I hate the comparisons between Him and liefield because liefield didn't ever progress or even try to improve. He had/has a cartoony stylized look and it's all surface, he doesn't know proportion design or even basic storytelling. I get angry when someone says he's the next Jack Kirby, that's like saying Britney Spears is the next Mozart.

[Wayne Drake]

Wasn't Kirby drawing FF, Avengers, X-Men and other books at the same time?? The man was a machine! Maybe he created his own style to be more effecient. Either way, everything he drew is completely electrifying.
I'm in the middle of FF omnibus 2. Every chapter is crackling with more energy than the last. No one will ever be as great!

[Scott Story]

Kirby was strongly influenced by the Pop Art movement, and the other Modern artists of the 60's. You just have to look at the early issues of Fantastic Four as he transitioned from his earlier style to Pop Art.

I don't buy the Kirby/Liefeld comparison. They are alike in the energy and attitude they both infused their work with, and both are stylized. That's where the similarities end, however. Kirby was one of the great masters of storytelling, succinctly cramming narrative power into his panels and pages. Liefeld has never been a good storyteller. Kirby's work is powerful and visceral, while Liefeld's is busy.

Note: I'm not a Liefeld hater. Far from it. I like much of his stuff. Originally I liked it because he is so maligned, but then I looked closer and realize that Rob brings some interesting things to the party. I am fully aware that he has issues with perspective, proportion, storytelling, and the like, so let's avoid hatefulness.

Was Jack Kirby's command of anatomy "perfect"? Not in the traditional sense, obviously. But, Jack was a cartoonist, and exageration and stylistic touches are perfectly legitimate. It fits the medium, and defined what the medium could be.

[Nitecrawlah2]

One could say Kirby had a mastery of anatomy simply because he was so consistent with his sense of anatomy. It was stylized, efficent, and great for the stories he was telling He did it so well he created his own unique "basis" of anatomy. Liefeld can't keep a face straight from panel to panel, let alone title to title!

[The-Spirit]

Wasn't Kirby drawing FF, Avengers, X-Men and other books at the same time?? The man was a machine! Maybe he created his own style to be more effecient. Either way, everything he drew is completely electrifying.
I'm in the middle of FF omnibus 2. Every chapter is crackling with more energy than the last. No one will ever be as great! I want those, I also want the fourth world 4 Omibii so bad, I found a site called Instock trades that has them for 30% off I may break down and buy them.

[The-Spirit]

Kirby was strongly influenced by the Pop Art movement, and the other Modern artists of the 60's. You just have to look at the early issues of Fantastic Four as he transitioned from his earlier style to Pop Art.He had a strong Milton Caniff vibe in his earlier stuff kindof illustrative big gloopy inks that I love and strong blocky shadows. The zip lines and Krackle came later and i think much of it was influenced by Joe Sinnotts slick inking on F.F.

I don't buy the Kirby/Liefeld comparison. They are alike in the energy and attitude they both infused their work with, and both are stylized. That's where the similarities end, however. Kirby was one of the great masters of storytelling, succinctly cramming narrative power into his panels and pages. Liefeld has never been a good storyteller. Kirby's work is powerful and visceral, while Liefeld's is busy.Liefield can't do decent backgrounds and props, Kirby had fantastic intricate buildings and machinery.

Note: I'm not a Liefeld hater. Far from it. I like much of his stuff. Originally I liked it because he is so maligned, but then I looked closer and realize that Rob brings some interesting things to the party. I am fully aware that he has issues with perspective, proportion, storytelling, and the like, so let's avoid hatefulness.I'm not either it just bugs me that he has such a strong fan base and doesn't even try to give back to the fans and improve, I think he needs to go ahead and earn that respect he's stolen for the last decade with some hard work. Even if it sucked I would like to pick up a book I know he has poured some blood sweat and tears into. The recent Onslaught thing he had a gun drawn behind franklin richards hand because he didn't want to go back and drawn the hand holding the gun, with all the stuff you can do with Photoshop he could even use white out and 15 more minutes fixing something like that, you would think he'd go the extra mile on something, but in interviews he just say's it's good to go, he knows people will buy his lazy crap because he's a name.

Was Jack Kirby's command of anatomy "perfect"? Not in the traditional sense, obviously. But, Jack was a cartoonist, and exageration and stylistic touches are perfectly legitimate. It fits the medium, and defined what the medium could be.I didn't want to make the case that Kirby's anatomy was perfect just that it wasn't off, he knew how to draw the figure it's just his figures exist in another universe where they look like greek gods.

[The-Spirit]

One could say Kirby had a mastery of anatomy simply because he was so consistent with his sense of anatomy. It was stylized, efficent, and great for the stories he was telling He did it so well he created his own unique "basis" of anatomy. Liefeld can't keep a face straight from panel to panel, let alone title to title!
I told a friend recently I wish Liefield would let a real draftsman do some pencils on a series and Liefield just ink it, I think he would learn some things from that and his stylistic stuff would grow and expand, a lot of guys like Steranko and Windsor Smith took off from comics and studied and came back from being Kirby clones in the 70's because they wanted to grow, I wish he'd do something like that and blow everybody away, maybe it's just not in him.

[xombey]

i wonder tho, are we giving kirby a pass because of his place in history? after all isn't someone like liefield also giving his interpretation of anatomy?

to be clear i only compared the 2 in that they may be representative of their respective eras in comix.

[The-Spirit]

i wonder tho, are we giving kirby a pass because of his place in history? after all isn't someone like liefield also giving his interpretation of anatomy? I don't think so, Liefield swipes and outright steals and even then he can't draw feet or backgrounds and stuff, Kirby was a master craftsman, he pushed himself and grew, I would compare someone like Frank Miller to Kirby, Miller has experimented and innovated, he hasn't always been popular with his art but you can't say he's a hack, he really is trying to do something different. You can look at Liefield through any age and see no improvement except his inking is more professional, he spends no time looking at reference or trying to expand the way he draws and it shows.

to be clear i only compared the 2 in that they may be representative of their respective eras in comix.Like I said Liefield isn't in the same league as Kirby and i think that's what bothers me, there are lots of other guys out there who are working they're butts off trying to improve.

[Mungkay]

I don't think so, Liefield swipes and outright steals and even then he can't draw feet or backgrounds and stuff, Kirby was a master craftsman, he pushed himself and grew, I would compare someone like Frank Miller to Kirby, Miller has experimented and innovated, he hasn't always been popular with his art but you can't say he's a hack, he really is trying to do something different.

Kirby pushed himself to be better. Liefeld got too big, too fast and was never motivated to properly hone his skills.

[thecarrierone]

Kirby was strongly influenced by the Pop Art movement, and the other Modern artists of the 60's.

I think that the pop art movement was strongly influenced by jack.
not the other way around like you have stated.

as i remember hearing jack had a great distaste for the likes of roy lichtenstein and others who "appropriated" comic art for fine art.

[jeffo46]

Jack Kirby,The Master,The King.So much has been said about him,and yet,at the same time,he is the standard bearer as far as I'm concerned.I remember buying my first comic book in 1966,(yes I'm That old).It was Fantastic 4 No.50,the final chapter of the Galactus trilogy.As a 6 year old,I was completely mesmerized and awed at the scope of his work in that issue,and that is what lit the fire in me that influenced me to start drawing.Jack Kirby has influenced so many in this industry,and to compare Rob Liefeld to him,is a insult.That's like comparing Apples to Oranges,neither one have the same taste or are alike.True Kirby's anatomy was different,but that's what made him stand out from everybody else.To me,he was in his peak from,I'd say,the mid 50's up to the late 70's,before the quality of his art started to decline.And you have to remember,at Marvel,from 1961 to around 1966,he was doing Thor,FF,X-men,Avengers,plus almost all the covers for practically the entire line.To this day,I've yet to see a artist who could handle a workload like that,and still maintain the caliber of art that people are used to seeing.Kirby did it and he never complained.As for Rob Liefeld,he's nothing but a overrated swipe artist,who can't even do that right.KIRBY RULES! :banana:

[Mr.Musgrave]

i wonder tho, are we giving kirby a pass because of his place in history? after all isn't someone like liefield also giving his interpretation of anatomy?

to be clear i only compared the 2 in that they may be representative of their respective eras in comix.


Kirby didn't always draw in an exaggerated style. He was originally a very realistic artist, and his wartime artwork shows this especially. Once he was an accomplished artist, he started toying with anatomical perspective.

Liefeld, on the other hand, has never grown as an artist and is drawing exactly the same way now as he did when he started.

[W. Smith]

Liefeld's comparisons with Kirby, in my opinion, were a self generated propaganda machine that Liefeld kicked off shortly after he left Marvel. I do not profess to first hand knowledge, but it seemed that the whole Kirby vs. Lee thing was real big in the early 90's and Liefeld really seemed to empathize with Kirby. It is a shame really, because Liefeld could have/could be the next Kirby-- if he had been willing to really apply himself to his art. But with the launch of the Image titles, he became so popular, and so rich, that he never had to sit down and force himself to improve.

Just as Kirby's art is adored by many, and respected by all, so could be Liefeld’s, had he chosen a different path. It really is too bad, because now he has missed the chance to claim that mantle, and all that is left is a bad analogy instead of a respectful comparison.

[UniverseX259]

Kirby is a master in the genre, but you also have to understand that it was in the early 60's when he was drawing FF and X-Men and Thor. Comic art around that time wasn't as sophisticated as it later was. I think if it weren't for him comics would still be filled with very "amateurish" (If that's even the right word) kind of art. He set the precedent for how comics should look, how stories should be told, and how to create a believable world out of a sci fi story.

[Angel]

Have you ever noticed how you don't ever see Liefield and Kirby in the same room together? Hmmmm......?

[The-Spirit]

Kirby is a master in the genre, but you also have to understand that it was in the early 60's when he was drawing FF and X-Men and Thor. Comic art around that time wasn't as sophisticated as it later was. I think if it weren't for him comics would still be filled with very "amateurish" (If that's even the right word) kind of art. He set the precedent for how comics should look, how stories should be told, and how to create a believable world out of a sci fi story.
In the late 60s Neal Adams hit big and people like Kirby seemed so cartoony next to him. It isn't a negative thing but it's viewed that way. I see the shift towards realistic art today and i think that's more from an outside influence of comics, Superhero comics anyway. If we hadn't had Jack Kirby or someone like him going so far in the other direction, I think the realistic aspect would've won out and comics might have died long ago. I don't think realistically drawn comics are bad but some are so realistic that I yawn at the art it's so real life. I want worlds i can't see out of my window.

You are transported to another world in his comics, I don't get that with super realistic art, I like Alex Ross but do we really want comics to become people dressing up in Superhero costumes and doing a "play" and then the photos being made comics? I'll take Kirby any day over that.

I'm starting to rant. sorry.

[The-Spirit]

Have you ever noticed how you don't ever see Liefield and Kirby in the same room together? Hmmmm......?
Goober.

[xombey]

kirby's legacy is not his draughtsmanship--it's his storytelling and his creativity. "His stories were very cleanly told and easy to understand, and as time went by I realized he was working in a sort of shorthand, focusing on telling a story, not on rendering," (Neal Adams)

[MARK A ROBINSON]

i wonder tho, are we giving kirby a pass because of his place in history? after all isn't someone like liefield also giving his interpretation of anatomy?

to be clear i only compared the 2 in that they may be representative of their respective eras in comix.

Absolutely he gets a pass.I think Kirby deserves to do whatever he wants to do considering his body of work.

He's a legend.

Liefield openly admits to having no formal art training...And to me. That's lame.Especially considering the class he came from- somebody had to say something to him.But i guess he was busy doing 501 button fly commercials.

I once did 6 fingers on a cat in a Bloodrayne book one night in a hotel during a marketing tour in Boston out of a crappy hotel room because it was late and I had a deadline and i was super tired.

When i woke the next day and realized it and began to fix it-- my co-worker who was rooming in the hotel with me at the time told me to leave it.

He said it was weird. And to see if anyone would notice.

So i did.

M.

Call it a No Prize.

[W. Smith]

Liefield openly admits to having no formal art training...And to me. That's lame.Especially considering the class he came from- somebody had to say something to him.

He has no excuse whatsoever. He had enough of a foundation to be published. Even without formal training he was surrounded by some of the best artist just as they entered their prime, and was so hung up on his own ego that he didn't bother to sit down, study, ask questions, practice and learn. Can you imagine the dream of being surrounded by the group of creators that made image and (especially if you were Liefeld) never feeling that you needed to strive to improve, to keep up, or feel challenged to do it as well or better than the others?

He was given gift after gift and has squandered it. He will forever be known as the "almost" that somehow made it. Instead of being respected, he'll always be the unexplicable abnormality that got by. :confused:

[MARK A ROBINSON]

He has no excuse whatsoever. He had enough of a foundation to be published. Even without formal training he was surrounded by some of the best artist just as they entered their prime, and was so hung up on his own ego that he didn't bother to sit down, study, ask questions, practice and learn. Can you imagine the dream of being surrounded by the group of creators that made image and (especially if you were Liefeld) never feeling that you needed to strive to improve, to keep up, or feel challenged to do it as well or better than the others?

He was given gift after gift and has squandered it. He will forever be known as the "almost" that somehow made it. Instead of being respected, he'll always be the unexplicable abnormality that got by. :confused:


That is exactly why He is where he is and the rest of them are where they are.


M.

[jeffo46]

The one thing that you can say about Jack Kirby,was that,he was 100% professional.I have never read a interview where he would badmouth anyone,because,he never did.He always felt that by either badmouthing or firing somebody,that he would be taking food away from that man's table.Look at the late Vince Coletta,who was one of his inkers in the 60's and early 70's.Coletta would take Kirby's art,and erase backgrounds if they where too detailed.Jack couldn't bring himself to get rid of him until he went to DC in 1970,and had it pointed out to him,how Coletta was sabotaging his work,and that was the only time that Jack Kirby had to get rid of somebody.Liefeld,on the other hand,had burned so many bridges with his arrogant attitude,and lack of drawing skills.It was no wonder that he was ousted from Image comics.I would not spend any of my money on a book with art by Liefeld.Kirby though, has created a legacy which I feel,will never be topped,and nor should it.IMO,he is the greatest comic book artist of all time,bar none.LONG LIVE THE KING! :)

[Phatman]

Kirby is a master in the genre, but you also have to understand that it was in the early 60's when he was drawing FF and X-Men and Thor. Comic art around that time wasn't as sophisticated as it later was. I think if it weren't for him comics would still be filled with very "amateurish" (If that's even the right word) kind of art. He set the precedent for how comics should look, how stories should be told, and how to create a believable world out of a sci fi story.

I love Kirby, but your categorization of comic book art history and his place in it is way off. What kind of pre-Kirby "amateurish" art are you describing? Certainly, not Alex Raymond, Will Eisner, Joe Kubert, Wally Wood, Steve Ditko, Frank Frazetta, Bernie Krigstein, Lou Fine, Al Williamson, Alex Toth, and their contemporaries.

Your analysis doesn't really look at the past or what happened in the 70's very accurately.

[jeffo46]

Phatman, Let's not also forget Angelo Torres,who was doing work in the warren B&W horror mags.There's also Curt Swan,Bob Brown,Neal Adams,Jim Steranko,Kurt Schaffenburger,Bob Powell,Bill Everett,etc.I don't think any of these guys were slouches either.

[hellblazer72]

i'd take liefeld over kirby, liefeld has given us a ton of characters..what has kirby given us? :har:

[xombey]

late books! That kirby!

[W. Smith]

I love Kirby, but your categorization of comic book art history and his place in it is way off. What kind of pre-Kirby "amateurish" art are you describing? Certainly, not Alex Raymond, Will Eisner, Joe Kubert, Wally Wood, Steve Ditko, Frank Frazetta, Bernie Krigstein, Lou Fine, Al Williamson, Alex Toth, and their contemporaries.

Your analysis doesn't really look at the past or what happened in the 70's very accurately.


Did all of these guys pre-date Kirby? :blink:

[BKMDog]

Alex Raymond, Will Eisner, Joe Kubert, Wally Wood, Steve Ditko, Frank Frazetta, Bernie Krigstein, Lou Fine, Al Williamson, Alex Toth

With the exception of Alex Raymond ( who was roughly 15 years older than Kirby ), the rest are Kirby contemporaries - they all began working within a period of about 15 years or so - between the late / mid-thirties and the early 50's, just as Kirby did. As I recall, Kirby's first pro work appeared some time in the mid 30's. Here's the link to Wikipedia so you can check it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kirby

You should be able to find bios on the other gents at WP as well.

[SDulaney]

Look at the late Vince Coletta,who was one of his inkers in the 60's and early 70's.Coletta would take Kirby's art,and erase backgrounds if they where too detailed.Jack couldn't bring himself to get rid of him until he went to DC in 1970,and had it pointed out to him,how Coletta was sabotaging his work,and that was the only time that Jack Kirby had to get rid of somebody.

IIRC, Kirby was well aware of the erasing for a long time and even when it was pointed out, he was resistant to ask for him to be removed. I seem to remember hearing the final straw was Kirby hearing that after Vinnie would pick up Kirby's pages at DC's offices (Kirby had moved to California towards the end of his Marvel tenure), he would go to Marvel to pick up his work there and procede to show off Kirby's Fourth World pencils. That was the last straw and Mike Royer (who was in California as well) became Kirby's default inker/letterer from issue 5 of NEW GODS & MISTER MIRACLE, FOREVER PEOPLE #6 and #146 of JIMMY OLSEN up until the mid-point of KAMANDI.

The Colletta to Royer switch gives a peek at the production of the issues as Colletta did the bulk the Jimmy Olsen issues (production started prior to the rest of the Fourth World books?) and Forever People #6 actually inked half by Colletta and half by Royer.

[j giar]

The first comic page I ever did was I copied a page of Kirby's Demon (yes..I swiped.)...Issue 1 where Etrigan leaps into Lefays oncoming hordes...the shrapnel the pieces flying everywhere...I grew up on Kirby. Mostly his Marvel stuff...Kamandi (the issue with the Bat's inside the biosphere....I'm misting up :cry: ) The only similarity with Kirby and Leifeld is their energy. Rob has a genuine love for comics...second to himself. That's the difference. The story comes first.

[jeffo46]

To Sdulaney, Kirby getting rid of Colletta after all those years at Marvel of him sabotaging his art,was the best thing from a professional view point that he ever did.As a reasult,we were suddenly treated to IMO,Kirby's 2nd best inker,Mike Royer,with Joe Sinnott being Jack's best inker,ever! Royer added a energy to Jack's pages during his stay at DC,and later at Marvel.In the mid to late 70's at Marvel, a lot of the production staff were referring him as, Jack the Hack.After all he did for Marvel,that was the respect,or should I say,lack of,that was shown to him,with the final insult being ,the lawsuit that the Kirby's had filed against Marvel concerning Jack's original artwork being returned to him.

[xombey]

on bad anatomy from the "masters"

does this make my hips look too big?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3e/CaptainAmerica%28Atlas%2978.jpg

[jeffo46]

Nothing like some early Romita art to get things going,huh?

[Phatman]

I'll take the Romita Cap over this any day:

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/7802/liecapamericavm0.gif

[Cat]

on bad anatomy from the "masters"

does this make my hips look too big?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3e/CaptainAmerica%28Atlas%2978.jpg
actually that is a bad example if you are trying to prove a point.


To the original post..this is probably the most important thing said on this subject.

The difference between Kirby and someone like Liefield is that Liefield didn't know how to draw his anatomy is always off he edits out or obscures the things he doesn't know how to draw, Kirby never did
And therein, at least to my way of thinking, lies the difference between a true artist and someone who uses "style" as an excuse to cover up what they don't know, or would rather not learn.

[xombey]

the point i'm trying to prove, is that even the artists we admire put out work that was questionable. they may have the ability to do better, but the work is out there--published. and, it's a cover.

the orginal post said "Sorry this is getting silly but I just have to say Jack Kirby never did bad anatomy in his life. Jack Kirby knew more about anatomy than a surgeon!


He learned all the rules, perfected them, and then bent them to his will. "

i'm applying this to romita to show that everyone makes anatomical, perspective, whatever mistakes. granted, this "mistake" probably saw print because of a deadline, but i think that if i took off his signature and tried to post it as something i did the crits would say "Learn Anatomy!" and some in very nasty tones--which is why that kirby illo was posted in the original thread.

[Cat]

the point i'm trying to prove, is that even the artists we admire put out work that was questionable. they may have the ability to do better, but the work is out there--published. and, it's a cover.


But I am saying what is the questionable part of this ...his hips? His hips are fine and proportioned. High waisted trunks always lead to the illusion of broader hips even in REAL life (Linda Carter Wonder Woman anyone) While the Kirby Cap may be exaggerated/stylized anatomy it is still correct/proportionate. So I don't think is a good example of what you are trying to say.

[xombey]

well that's what came to mind--his lower torso looks like a woman's. i don't think any high wisted clothing would give this illusion. but even if it did, the artist can choose to draw his heroic character in such a way that he seems more than masculine (as in the bulging muscles of the upper torso) art is not just about copying real life. but i disagree that it's his pants that give him that fem look on the bottom

[jeffo46]

I think that for the era,the artwork on that issue of Cap,is perfectly acceptable.True,it's not as detailed as his later work,but obviously,somebody in the Timely,or should I say,Atlas offices,liked what they saw,and gave Romita some work.I know I should be the last one to be talking about anatomy,but that cover that Xombey posted,is a lot better than some of the stuff that Atlas was selling at the time.

[Cat]

but i disagree that it's his pants that give him that fem look on the bottom
whatever you say

http://www.stagesixteen.com/images/r_26.jpg

:p

[xombey]

i've got to change my pants.

that post has me giggling like a school girl

[The-Spirit]

whatever you say

http://www.stagesixteen.com/images/r_26.jpg

:p
Oh No you Din't!

[Moonrider]

The difference between that Romita cover and Liefeld is that Romita drew everything else but the part between Cap's torso and legs just fine. Liefeld's work is wrong all over. I think that Romita example only show a common perspective mistake that anyone could have done on a bad day.

[Newt]

I think Cat's largely right about the high-riding trunks; the only real problem in the shape of Cap's pelvis is the little curve connecting Cap's abdomen and left leg, where there should be an overlap instead. If anything, the major anatomical problem in that drawing is Cap's ankle, which appears to be broken.

Still and all, the silver age guys like Kirby and Romita were cranking out art so hard and fast, and did so much for the medium, that a few errors can be forgiven. I don't particularly like Kirby's style, but to put the King in the same league with an amateurish artist like Liefeld is ridiculous. That's like saying Elvis Presley is comparable to whoever the pop princess of the month is.

[W. Smith]

Liefeld=Hanson---HAIL TO THE KING BABY!!!!!!!!!!! :har:

[xombey]

question--was liefield always bad--thruout his whole run on new mutants/x-force? didn't he give us cable and that weird alien shape shifty guy?

i'm not a fan of his, but i think that there's a lot of excuses made for less-than-perfect art on the part of the "greats" and then no credit to liefield. isn't there a reason he was asked to be a founding member of image? i don't think i hear half as much criticism of bad anatomy on someone like michael turner.. what's the deal, is it hate for hate's sake? blind devotion to what has come before?

[Newt]

I think the reason that people pick on Liefeld is that he became one of the biggest and most visible "talents" in the industry, surpassing any number of more talented and more deserving individuals. If he had remained a B-lister like Turner has, you wouldn't hear so much about him.

That said- yeah, Liefeld was always bad. I don't care for any of his characters, but he could have invented the best comic book characters ever and he'd still be a lousy artist. He just doesn't have the fundamentals down. There are many struggling amateurs on this site alone who are far better artists than Liefeld at his best.

[W. Smith]

question--was liefield always bad--thruout his whole run on new mutants/x-force? didn't he give us cable and that weird alien shape shifty guy?

i'm not a fan of his, but i think that there's a lot of excuses made for less-than-perfect art on the part of the "greats" and then no credit to liefield. isn't there a reason he was asked to be a founding member of image? i don't think i hear half as much criticism of bad anatomy on someone like michael turner.. what's the deal, is it hate for hate's sake? blind devotion to what has come before?

I was a huge Liefeld fan...Well I was more of a comic book fan then, and not so much an art critic, but Liefeld was really flashy and it was easy to overlook the flaws as a teen-ager. He joined a group of soon to be elites, largely based on a close association with Todd McFarlane, and the fact that he was an X-book artist with a strong following. He, as a young man, followed the rebellious tendencies of most young men and really became a maverick at marvel before the split. So in essence he kinda became a poster boy for a inspired movement, and never had the goods to back it up.

At Image, everyone was late, everyone had delays, and everyone's work was suspect at one time or another... but Liefeld seemed, well, largely unrecoverable. He surrounded himself with some friends that were not very good artists and they didn't really come up with anything that mattered. They squandered a great team concept in Youngblood, and he has never re-captured the imagined magic.

All of that tangent aside, he was at his best when other good artists would ink for him. McFarlane did a couple of early issues of the New Mutants and those were okay. He got worse when the deadlines of Image loomed and he either had a crony ink for him, or inked his work himself.

All this goes without mentioning his writing... :yuk:

[jeffo46]

I was never a Rob Liefeld fan.When I saw his work on Captain America over 10 years ago,I couldn't believe that Marvel felt that they had to put him on the book.At the time,I'd say that the creative team that was on the book,Mark Waid and Ron Garney,were doing a spectacular job,and it was a must read that was getting a lot of praise.Along comes Liefeld,and he just ruined the book as far as I'm concerned.I wouldn't waste any of my money on anything with Liefeld's art in it.

[W. Smith]

I was never a Rob Liefeld fan.When I saw his work on Captain America over 10 years ago,I couldn't believe that Marvel felt that they had to put him on the book.At the time,I'd say that the creative team that was on the book,Mark Waid and Ron Garney,were doing a spectacular job,and it was a must read that was getting a lot of praise.Along comes Liefeld,and he just ruined the book as far as I'm concerned.I wouldn't waste any of my money on anything with Liefeld's art in it.


He was messing up art long before this adventure! New Mutants ended in 89-90?

[Jasen Smith]

First don't get angry at me for what I'm about to say.

I don't get why Jack's art is praised so highly. I admire him for drawing several books at one time but his style looks to me like alot of other artists of the time.
I may not be educated that much in his work, I haven't ever browsed the interenet or read anything he has done.

Maybe, if it was explained to me why he is regarded so highly as one of the best artists.

Again I admire the man and will read articles all day about the man but as for his art I haven't really ever seen anything that explodes to me.

[W. Smith]

First don't get angry at me for what I'm about to say.

I don't get why Jack's art is praised so highly. I admire him for drawing several books at one time but his style looks to me like alot of other artists of the time.
I may not be educated that much in his work, I haven't ever browsed the interenet or read anything he has done.

Maybe, if it was explained to me why he is regarded so highly as one of the best artists.

Again I admire the man and will read articles all day about the man but as for his art I haven't really ever seen anything that explodes to me.

And you may never see anything that just blows your mind... Like JRJR. None of his stuff makes me drooll, but for consistency and capability he is amazing...

[Newt]

A couple of things:

First- Kirby's style became the house style at Marvel- those contemporary artists with similar styles were mostly Marvel employees instructed to ape him.

Second- Kirby is not respected for his draftsmanship, which was nothing much out of the ordinary, but for his composition and story-telling abilities. He changed the way comics were drawn- the whacky angles, extreme foreshortening, and hyper-dynamic action sequences that are the hallmarks of action-adventure comics are largely his doing.

Compare the superhero comics of the Golden Age to Kirby's Marvel and DC work and you'll see a huge difference- the older comics are more restrained, with characters frequently assuming static poses, and lots of straight-on medium or head shots with few extreme close-ups or strange angles. I'm sure there's a lot more that some of the more knowledgeable board members could go on about.

[Jasen Smith]

Okay that makes sense to me and those are the reasons why I can read so many articles over the man.

During that same time though Frank Frazetta was doing comics too and I felt his art was much more intense.

Though like you said, story telling, and frank wasn't that great as a story teller (not counting his paintings.)

[Newt]

Okay that makes sense to me and those are the reasons why I can read so many articles over the man.

During that same time though Frank Frazetta was doing comics too and I felt his art was much more intense.

Though like you said, story telling, and frank wasn't that great as a story teller (not counting his paintings.)

Certainly Frazetta's work has a different feel- more brooding and dangerous- but he didn't have the kind of boundless energy that Kirby's work was infused with. Kirby was a more flexible (see his romance comics and westerns) and innovative artist as well.

[jeffo46]

Kirby's art from the beginning( take a look at some of his golden age stuff)up
to the late 70's,had a sort of I guess you could call it,kinetic energy and a certain flow to it.Whether he was drawing a quiet scene or doing an all out free for all,there was no mistaking his style.And as Newt said,Kirby,s style was the house style at Marvel from 1961 up to ,his leaving in 1970.With the exception of Steve Ditko and Don Heck,just about everybody who was on the Bullpen back then looked to his art,so they could see how Stan Lee wanted the books to be done.Even when John Romita Sr. returned to Marvel in late 1965,his 1st pencilling assignment was Daredevil,and he had to have Kirby do the layouts for his 1st issue so he could see how the Marvel style was done.Kirby was truly one of the ,if not the most influential artist in comic book history.Everybody that is working in this field today,owes him a debt of gratitiude!

[Mr.Musgrave]

Certainly Frazetta's work has a different feel- more brooding and dangerous- but he didn't have the kind of boundless energy that Kirby's work was infused with. Kirby was a more flexible (see his romance comics and westerns) and innovative artist as well.


I've honestly always found Frazetta's work to be very dull. It's not bad, but it's like looking at a barbarian still life. Flat and emotionless.

[Newt]

I thought Frazetta's work was pure awesomeness when I was in high school, but I've since gotten over it; he's got a great pallette, and I like the body type of the women he usually paints, but otherwise I agree with you.