| Author |
|
Knut Robert Knutsen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2006
Posts: 7374
|
| Posted: 28 February 2008 at 11:28am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
"Well, in that the anatomy of his characters wasn't always that precise.
But then, that wasn't what Kirby's art was about - it was about storytelling and energy. And Liefeld's work doesn't have that. It just has a bunch of freakish muscles and really bad anatomy."
If you look at Kirby's earlier work you'll notice that he had a solid grasp of anatomy. And body language, and composition, on storytelling etc. He learned everything he could about it and THEN let it fall behind, as part of a more expressive style.
Kirby is "imprecise" because he knows what he's doing and is unrestrained by rules that he knows by heart. He uses "artistic licence" in its proper sense. He's earned it.
Liefeld is imprecise because (certainly at first) he didn't know any better. He hasn't "earned" the right to invoke "artistic licence" for what can just as easily be attributed to incompetence.
It's like when people point to guys like Picasso when they're talking about not having to be "realistic", forgetting all the while that Picasso was an expert draughtsman who had no difficulties in drawing "realistic pictures". He just needed to express something that realistic pictures couldn't. He "earned" the right to his abstractions.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Paulo Pereira
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 April 2006
Posts: 15539
|
| Posted: 28 February 2008 at 11:30am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Precise anatomy is not a very common thing in superhero comics to begin with. What you're hoping for is believable anatomy. Kirby drew believable anatomy. Even though he bent the rules, he stayed true to a basic structure. Also, he knew the rules before he started bending them. I don't think Liefeld ever even knew the rules.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robert Bradley
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 September 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4887
|
| Posted: 28 February 2008 at 11:32am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Well, right Knut, I think that's pretty much what I was trying to get accross. By the late 60's and the 70's Kirby's art was quite a bit different than the early 60's. But he did understand how to draw a human figure. I don't think Liefeld ever learned that.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133577
|
| Posted: 28 February 2008 at 11:44am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
But (Kirby) did understand how to draw a human figure. I don't think Liefeld
ever learned that.
••
Or clothes, cars, planes, buildings, chairs, phones…
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Armindo Macieira
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 October 2006
Location: Portugal
Posts: 955
|
| Posted: 28 February 2008 at 11:54am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
One must learn the principles of anatomy and perspective in order to bend them. That's what Kirby did, in no way related to what Liefeld does.
I wonder how comics would look like today if Liefeld would be the Kirby of an alternate (and very disturbed) reality...?
Geez... that's scary!!
Edited by Armindo Macieira on 28 February 2008 at 11:58am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Paulo Pereira
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 April 2006
Posts: 15539
|
| Posted: 28 February 2008 at 12:06pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Liefeld is Bizarro Kirby...naahh, I wouldn't even go that far.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Charles Valderrama
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4861
|
| Posted: 28 February 2008 at 12:11pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
For awhile there artists were trying to mimic Liefeld's style. Remember
that at one point Image became a bunch of different studios headed by
Liefeld, Lee, and Silvestri where the goal seemed to mimic the respective
styles. Sort of how Neal Adams ran Continuity Comics.
What it all boils down to is productivity.
The really good artists seldom put out monthly books.
-C!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Donald Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 February 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3601
|
| Posted: 28 February 2008 at 12:27pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
What it all boils down to is productivity.
The really good artists seldom put out monthly books.
I need an elaboration here, why do you think is so?
Byrne is a phenomonal artist and he doesn't put out monthlies for a combination of reasons...but none of them are productivity...
Don
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Knut Robert Knutsen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2006
Posts: 7374
|
| Posted: 28 February 2008 at 12:34pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
"The really good artists seldom put out monthly books. "
Eisner, Kubert, Kirby, Buscema (both), Romita (both), Ditko, Aparo, Swan, Schaffenberger, Alcala, Andru, Kane. There's more. There's even another list with people who have drawn monthlies most of the their career, but not so much now.
Name 10 artists who are better than those and don't do monthlies.
I'm sorry, but that's just backwards. I'd say that most of the really good artists can handle a workload of 22 pages a month. Or more.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Erik Larsen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 344
|
| Posted: 28 February 2008 at 12:41pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
I love Jack's stuff--but that guy did more than "bend" reality--he
outright broke it.
There are muscles and shapes on some of his people that have no basis
in reality. It still looks awesome--and he makes it work--but if you're
looking for accurate anatomy--it's not always there.
As the years went by it drifted farther away from reality and squiggles
and slashes took the place of accurately rendered anatomy. Kirby found a
way to make it look convincing. In the reality he created--it looked right-
-it felt right. I think--where a lot of Kirby imitators fall flat--is that they
try to use the dynamics but fix the anatomy and it just doesn't work that
way. With muscles in their proper place that leg looks impossibly long
and everything kinds of falls out of whack. Jack made it hard to take his
dynamics without taking the whole ball of wax (especially in his later
days). When Gil Kane swiped from Jack, Kirby's work wasn't yet as
distorted as it would later become and it still looked okay--but yikes--
some attempts to recreate certain covers and poses have led to some
really funky drawings (and I'm as guilty as anybody).
As the years went by--Kirby was more of an impressionist than a realist.
Fists looked like packs of hot dogs--knees were impossibly big--noses
were triangular slashes and anatomy was all over the place. But the
power and placement of details pulled it together and made it a thing of
beauty.
A number of Rob's fans look at Kirby's stuff and see all the distortion in
his later work and then question why, "Jack Kirby's 'bad drawing' equals
GOOD while Rob's distortion equals BAD" to Rob's detractors. They think
it's a double standard to have Kirby get praise for the same reasons Rob
gets panned.
And remember--these guys aren't art students or artists--they have no
background in art--they're just reacting to what they see in front of their
faces. To them--it's unfair that Rob is held to a different standard than
Kirby.
Of course--one could point to the thirty year stretch of pretty accurate
anatomy from Kirby--but that's not an answer that's going to fly with
these guys given where Kirby's art drifted.
A lot of it comes down to the layman simply not grasping all of the
elements that go into a page. They don't get how important composition
is and how important storytelling is. To a number of readers--a big, cool
shot of a favorite character is what sells a page. They see a dense Kirby
page on a six-panel grid and just doesn't look as exciting to them as a
three-panel page from Rob with a giant drawing of Cable, with no
background, dominating the page.
Like it or not--a decent-sized portion of our audience consists of people
that do not have the ability to understand the difference between good
art and bad. They can react to the superficial sheen of a drawing and
admire that but they don't get why Kirby is revered at all. A lot of people-
-including creators--just don't get it.
An editor pal of mine once said that, "The fact that Carmine Infantino
ISN'T a 'fan fave' is PROOF that readers DON'T KNOW what they're talking
about."
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Armindo Macieira
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 October 2006
Location: Portugal
Posts: 955
|
| Posted: 28 February 2008 at 12:56pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Just curious here, mr. Larsen, if I may (and please don't take this the wrong way):
Would you (Image) accept a series submited by Liefeld (had you not known him)? Some random Joe with art exactly like Rob.
Let's say the script was fine, not brilliant, but fine and also include a couple of swipes in the art.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Pascal LISE
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 July 2006
Location: France
Posts: 1111
|
| Posted: 28 February 2008 at 1:00pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
John Byrne wrote:
If I am enjoying the writing on a comic, I can endure a few
issues of questionable art.
••
Lucky! I find the opposite -- bad art can destroy a good story, while great
art can elevate a poor story.
|
|
|
Same here.
I guess it's called visually oriented.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
