You, too, John.

I'll try to post some passages from this interview, and some from a Chaykin interview in CBA#5 about Kane, a little later tonight.

about the cover from Comic Book Artist 2:
"...represents a dual homage of sorts: One to Bill Everett and his creation, Amazing-Man; but primarily to celebrate the glorious collaborations between Gil and Roy Thomas, most of which were inspired in some way by Bill's A-Man, which include some of the most well-remembered strips of the '70s-Warlock, Captain Marvel, and the origin issue of "Iron Fist".

from the interview:
"...the best western cover I ever did; it's Kid Colt lying by a ditch of water, with his hand scooping the water up to his face-but in the water you can see the reflection of a gunman with a gun pointed at Kid...

about the 70s, during which he may have done 800 covers for Marvel, Starhawks, Tarzan:
"...didn't you jump around to sustain some interest in the work??
"No, it was just the money, my boy.  I was under pressure...Through that period I was the workingest guy in comics...They always knew that if they wanted stuff done overnight, they called me.  That was the most money I ever made in my life through that period.  And I also did the best work I ever did in my life.

from an interview with Howard Chaykin, from Comic Book Arist 5:

"What is your assessment of Gil?

"He was a giant. He's my hero-everything I wanted to be...Working for Gil was the single most important educational experience in my professional life...

Baryshnikov looks like a Gil Kane hero. Gil's figures were dancers as opposed to wrestlers. I gained an enormous amount of my own professional sensibilities by watching Gil work...

Gil always said he was predominantly influnced by Jack Kirby and Burne Hogarth.  For me, I never understood his obsession with Hogarth. I never understood his appeal. It still escapes me. The work is pretentious bullshit. Gil was so much better an artist than Hogarth ever was. One of the few things Neal and I agree on is that Gil transcended anything Hogarth could have done...

(Interesting considering JB's comment)

(This next part looks critical out of context, but I think it was intended as analysis)
"The problem with Gil's stuff is he never got past the idea of producing work on a mechanical, machine-like basis.  He never bothered to seek out reference, never worked from photographs.  I'm not talking about for characters, I'm talking about the worldview. There were always generic airplanes, generic automobiles, generic suits.  It became a glib cliche."

(That's interesting, because something that occurred to me looking at all the art posted on this thread is how UNdated it all looks; it doesn't look stale, even though it's 30+ years old)

Chaykin again: "...Jack's work had developed weight and heft, but for me at least, had lost much of its sense of mobility.  Gil's stuff was always about movement.  I understand that Stan always thought Gil's work was faggy, and I think that just missed the point.  But it's a typical reaction to Gil's elegance.  For me, Gil's stuff was just the greatest.  I love his Superman stuff from the mid-80s."

So many artists draw figures that look somewhat flat - but Kane's figures just have a certain depth, shape and weight to them.  Not to mention the motion and energy you sense in his drawings.

Those Warlock and Captain Marvel pictures are just so different than anything else that was being produced at the time.  Same with his 1960s THE ATOM and GREEN LANTERN.

Gil Kane: Like Carmine Infantino one of those artists with an unique style, so original that it's a whole world by itself.

Both are favorites of mine.