[narfstar]

I would have to throw in Kirby's early FF, Avengers and Thor it looked like he was till having fun with the superhero genre and stories.

[JVJ]

I would have to throw in Kirby's early FF, Avengers and Thor it looked like he was till having fun with the superhero genre and stories.

Those were my first exposures to Kirby, narf, and I enjoyed the heck out of them. Up to '67 I think I said. Then it seems he began to phone them in.
(|:{>

[Brainster]

What I like is that while we not agree on who is the best or worst no one looks down upon the tastes of others.

On that note, could some kind soul explain the draw of Kirby to me beyond his historical significance.  When I look at his work, I see poor composition, unimpressive to poor rendering of details, a certain sameness in design, and implausible figure posing.  And yet, I hear the consistent drum-beat that the man was an artistic genius.

Since I find it hard to believe that people prefer reading about rock-monsters dressed as Mexican wrestlers randomly posturing in space (which is what just about every piece of Kirby art looks like to my eyes), I have to assume that I'm missing some key factor that I would otherwise appreciate.

Again, I can appreciate his historical significance, but nobody's into, say, Joe Shuster (who'd be on a similar scale of industry importance) in the same way, and certainly nobody refers to him as a "favorite."  So...what am I not seeing that I should?

As to the rest, I probably agree with the Dick Sprang mention, most of all.  With Carmine Infantino's Silver Age Flash work, they make doing the laundry an epic story.  It's not always pretty, but it's always compelling work.  I'm also a fan of Ditko for the opposite reason, composing scenes so that everything is, well, human.  Both skills have been horribly lost to talking heads and static group shots that might be prettier, but don't tell any story; Jerry Ordway and Joe Rubenstein seem to be among the very few modern artists who have carried on that tradition.

As a youngster reading the Fantastic Four/Thor and other books I tended to agree with you, but as I critique individual issues from that era, I am forced to acknowledge that there's a lot more there than I realized at the time.  If you look at Kirby's art as static, separated panels, like individual works of art, I think most would not rate him highly, although I find occasional panels like these absolutely breathtaking and masterful:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/STtafwwQdWI/AAAAAAAAC-Y/9C9-tEq8Cps/s1600-h/FF076_09.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/SNDEl-4kQ-I/AAAAAAAACtU/QmZAwtQZVX8/s1600-h/X-Men_007-03.jpg

But for me, Kirby's special quality is in the way the story flows through the art.  This is hard as heck to explain, because sequential art involves so many factors: camera angle, perspective, action, page layout, etc.  He got that part as right as anybody.  Pick out an old FF story and instead of reading it, just look at the panels in order and you should get a feel for what I mean.  I often think that one of the reasons Stan had so much interplay among the characters was because when he got the artwork, that's all he had to add.

Like I say, not my favorite artist, but one I've gained much more appreciation for in the last few years.

[OtherEric]

Do you know where they were reprinted, Eric? I have all of the Warren and Kitchen Sink Spirit mags, and I'd love to look them up and reacquaint myself with those two stories. Like too many things in my collection, I haven't looked at them since they were published. Every little bit of data is valuable and I'd forgotten totally about those solo sections. Point me to 'em, SVP.

I'm pretty sure they were never reprinted in the Magazine, Jim, only the Comic Book.  (Side note:  Even grabbing back issues, I have rarely felt money was better spend buying the same stories in the KS Spirit Magazine and the KS Spirit Comic.  Just exceptional extra features in both.  I might have felt different if they weren't so cheap, though.  )

The original section were 7/25/48 and 8/22/48.  Since the Comic was chronological reprints of the post-war stories, that should make the search easier.

[JVJ]

I'm pretty sure they were never reprinted in the Magazine, Jim, only the Comic Book.

The original section were 7/25/48 and 8/22/48.  Since the Comic was chronological reprints of the post-war stories, that should make the search easier.

Alas, Eric, I no longer have the KS comic series. Oh well... Thanks for the info.
(|:{>

[John C]

If you look at Kirby's art as static, separated panels, like individual works of art, I think most would not rate him highly, although I find occasional panels like these absolutely breathtaking and masterful:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/STtafwwQdWI/AAAAAAAAC-Y/9C9-tEq8Cps/s1600-h/FF076_09.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/SNDEl-4kQ-I/AAAAAAAACtU/QmZAwtQZVX8/s1600-h/X-Men_007-03.jpg

Which is funny, because I look at those and think of the imagery as exactly what I was talking about as "Mexican wrestlers posturing in space."  It may be that I just pick up on different cues than most people, now that I think about it, because I see those layouts as lifeless; the Silver Surfer looks like someone told him to pose for the camera.

Which isn't an argument.  I'm starting to see that it's the use of perspective (which feels contrived to me) that people are appreciating, and that's a lot of the information I'm trying to find, here.

[John C]

He could tell a story without even trying and, though it shouldn't be a major factor in appraising his worth, he could do it with a speed that no one else has ever attained. He certainly has his flaws, but I think his vision and his page design was superb. I remember one day at a WonderCon (long ago) I was talking to someone about Kirby's panel layouts and cat yronwode overheard me and quite literally thrust herself into the conversation and asked me to explain to her what I was talking about. The same observation was news to Ray Wyman, Jr. when he was here researching "The Art of Jack Kirby." I had to show him that you could identify a Kirby story simply by the upper right hand and lower right hand panels of each page. No one else so consistently directed the reader through the story as Kirby did.

I really do think that's probably the missing link.  I started reading early, and had comic books in the house from an early age (thanks to Batman reruns, I'd wager), so the language, to me, is "native."  It's like not being able to spot how tricks like alliteration or puns can draw a non-native speaker through a passage.

This is something I'm definitely going to investigate more.

Despite the weak perspective (it's JUST a COMIC BOOK) and the exaggerated anatomy (it IS a COMIC BOOK), he created lasting characters (and some VERY ephemeral ones, too) and influenced almost EVERY genre (including inventing some of them) in comic books. I like Kirby's art up to about 1967, then it became almost perfunctory and the faults you point out became more obvious. No one was reining him in or exercising much editorial control. Kirby always needed, IMHO, that control.

That's also a strong possibility for my dislike.  Being born at the end of '73, I spent most of my life completely unaware that he did any significant work that wasn't the (irritating) Fourth World or (not to my tastes) classic Marvel.

(And it's funny, to me at least, that my favorite of Kirby's characters is Mister Miracle, who only fits into the Fourth World because Jack said so; Miracle would have fit the JSA far better than the New Gods.)

I wasn't trying to end the story, jc, but I wanted your thoughts on what I'd already written so I could take the dialogue forward.

Yes, I didn't mean to seem dismissive (though I did consider that the topic might draw some quieter people out of hiding).  I had planned on being more specific eventually, but was rushing around.  I also figured if anybody felt like gushing, slogging through my five pages of kinda-sorta-rebuttal wasn't going to encourage anybody to talk...

As a sidenote, I was amused by the "divergent stories" at Kirby's return to Marvel.  When I read the two versions, they read identically to me, once you take into account fading memories of what was (probably) not an iconic moment at the time.

(Thanks to everybody who chimed in to "set me straight," by the way.  I now have things to look for, and hopefully I can appreciate Kirby's work, whether or not I grow to like it.  And yes, I know exactly how hokey that sounds.  And no, I'm not drunk.  I am sitting here proctoring an exam, though, and kinda hungry, which might be similar...)

[JVJ]

Being born at the end of '73, I spent most of my life completely unaware that he did any significant work that wasn't the (irritating) Fourth World or (not to my tastes) classic Marvel.

'73 eh? That's the year I first went to Paris. I was almost 27. I'm feeling old again.

As a sidenote, I was amused by the "divergent stories" at Kirby's return to Marvel.  When I read the two versions, they read identically to me, once you take into account fading memories of what was (probably) not an iconic moment at the time.

They are identical, and both semi-self-aggrandizing. I just find the Kirby version to be more likely than the Lee version, because if you remove Kirby from the post-Atlas equation, there is simply more of the same old same old that the inventoried stories provided during 1958. There was no spark of innovation and Lee had NEVER come up with a proven hit in his entire career. I can easily imagine Goodman realizing that his comics weren't going anywhere and having Lee throw in the towel. It would take someone like the old-pro Kirby, with a proven reputation and track record, to get him to give it one more try.

My 2

[Yoc]

JC,
If it helps I've always had mixed feelings about Kirby, Ditko and Infantino as well.
All are among most people's top fives.  
I respect them for their influence on the field and have even enjoyed the odd book that I've seen (Loved early X-Men but early FF wasn't nearly as exciting in my eyes and Ditko's Dr. Strange is a thrill to read!) but none would be in my own top five - I've never sat and thought to put them in any order.  
Walt Kelly, Matt Baker, Eisner would be three off the top of my head.  I love Ayers, Barks, Wildey, Fuji, Schomburg, Wolverton and many others but would they be in the top five?  I couldn't say.  To me it's not that important to know - I love the hobby and there's usually something to like even in the badly done books.  You just have to look harder.    
And Fletcher Hanks is my guilty pleasure.

Variety is the spice of life isn't it?

[JVJ]

JC,
If it helps I've always had mixed feelings about Kirby, Ditko and Infantino as well.
All are among most people's top fives.  
I respect them for their influence on the field and have even enjoyed the odd book that I've seen (Loved early X-Men but early FF wasn't nearly as exciting in my eyes and Ditko's Dr. Strange is a thrill to read!) but none would be in my own top five - I've never sat and thought to put them in any order.  
Walt Kelly, Matt Baker, Eisner would be three off the top of my head.  I love Ayers, Barks, Wildey, Fuji, Schomburg, Wolverton and many others but would they be in the top five?  I couldn't say.  To me it's not that important to know - I love the hobby and there's usually something to like even in the badly done books.  You just have to look harder.    
And Fletcher Hanks is my guilty pleasure.

Variety is the spice of life isn't it?

Variety is, indeed, the spice, Yoc,
but often the variety is within the work of an individual artist. If I had to ONLY look at Ditko, Kirby and Infantino post 1960, I would probably not be enamored with ANY of them. Infantino, for example, wins my personal "development" prize for reinventing himself. His early work in the 1940s is weak and, while recognizable, not all that great. Then he and Toth go head to head at DC in the late 1940s and BOTH of them develop a sophistication that in as stunning as it was improbable. But, in the mid/late-50s Infantino becomes a completely different artist - the one you know on The Flash and Elongated Man, etc. By the 1960s, he's synthesized that style to where it's easy to draw and to recognize, but he stopped developing and taking chances. I find that style perfunctory and, while recognizable again, still not that interesting.

Early Ditko, including his Atlas monster work, is exciting and creative and challenging (to him and to the viewer). With Spider-Man and Dr. Strange he was still on top of his form, but you could watch the energy and fun seep away month after month. I didn't mind when he left Spider-Man because he wasn't putting his heart into it any more (for reasons that were certainly valid, but didn't help ME at the time - all I could see were the stories).

So, I tend to agree with your assessments.

(|:{>

[narfstar]

My first real notice of Ditko as impressive was Dr Strange over Spiderman. I was not really a fan of early Spidey art. Ditko's Dr Strange I still like to look at even though I do not like magic characters at all. Some of Ditko's Yellow Captain Atom are some of my favorite comics.

[Yoc]

Well Jim,
Given my first exposure to Infantino wasn't until his short stint on Spider Woman and Dial-H (I collected both despite them) and Ditko on Rom and Captain Universe I think you can easily understand my less than enthusiastic reaction to them.  When I bought the Ditko Dr Strange Pocket book reprints, even in black and white with the layouts destroyed - I STILL loved those stories!  Talk about mind bending work!

I'm shocked I forgot to mention some other favs of mine - MESKIN, TOTH, KAMEN, INGELS and WILLIAMSON! 

And Berni Wrightson was the first artist I really went out of my way to collect.  I'm still a fan.

I collected all the Atlas-Seaboard books from the 4 for a dollar bin in the 80s (limited funds and willing to tryout anything) and really enjoyed Howard Chaykin's Scorpion, Ernie Colon's Grim Ghost, Sal Amendola's Phoenix and a young Pat Broderick's Planet of Vampires all of which could be picked up today and do fine as comics or movies.  IMO.
Even Steve Ditko phoning in his Destructor was fun.  Likely most of it is nostalgia but I still think of them with a smile.
At the same age I stumbled across Adams works on his classic but sadly short runs on The X-Men and Avengers and was blown away!  Because of him I started to finally give DC a try after years of being a Marvel Zombie.  Jim Starlin's Dreadstar and Barry Windsor-Smith doing Conan were also big moments for me in my early years as a reader.

-Yoc

[John C]

Being born at the end of '73, I spent most of my life completely unaware that he did any significant work that wasn't the (irritating) Fourth World or (not to my tastes) classic Marvel.

'73 eh? That's the year I first went to Paris. I was almost 27. I'm feeling old again.

Heh.  Well, I can't do much about that, but I've been assumed to be "old" often enough (couldn't be because I read old books and comics or watch silent movies) that I'm pretty sure it's not a relevant concept.

As a sidenote, I was amused by the "divergent stories" at Kirby's return to Marvel.  When I read the two versions, they read identically to me, once you take into account fading memories of what was (probably) not an iconic moment at the time.

They are identical, and both semi-self-aggrandizing. I just find the Kirby version to be more likely than the Lee version, because if you remove Kirby from the post-Atlas equation, there is simply more of the same old same old that the inventoried stories provided during 1958. There was no spark of innovation and Lee had NEVER come up with a proven hit in his entire career. I can easily imagine Goodman realizing that his comics weren't going anywhere and having Lee throw in the towel. It would take someone like the old-pro Kirby, with a proven reputation and track record, to get him to give it one more try.

Oh, doubtless Kirby's assessment of Atlas was the more objective, which was sort of my point.  Lee's version reeks of "we'll pull through, we always do" optimism, which I'm sure he felt.  What makes his story more credible in my eyes is that he doesn't mention originating any ideas, here; that he really only remembers having a brainstorming session that drove him to Goodman for another chance is very unlike his usual "I created everything and those other guys just helped with the details" attitude.

The way I reconstruct the event, Lee asks Kirby what sorts of things he'd like to work on.  That, and contributing the occasional "that's good, but what about this?" would qualify as contributing as much as anything.

[John C]

JC,
If it helps I've always had mixed feelings about Kirby, Ditko and Infantino as well.
All are among most people's top fives. 

Oh, I can understand that, and agree that the variety is necessary.  But as I said, this is sort of a selfish thing, here.  When just about everybody loves a particular artist, there has to be SOMETHING to it other than tastes.  I was hoping to find out what those other "things" are...and I think the responses have pointed me in the right direction.  The "story direction" alone seems worthy of examination, even if I can't stand anything else about it.

To use your example of Fletcher Hanks, even if someone didn't like it, you can point out that every last piece of imagery is SO melodramatic that it's like reading the sorts of comic books that soap opera characters probably had available.  But I had never seen anything that specific when talking about Kirby, other than the "energy" that...I happen to not see.  (Same with Alex Ross; people tell me all the time how lifelike his work is, and I just see fleshy mannequins.  Contrast that with Mike Sekowsky, whose figures literally seem in constant motion, but few people see it.)

[Yoc]

Hi JC,
With Hanks a lot of the fun is the sheer lunacy of the stories.  How Stardust will event some 'completely just' form of vengeance that is so over the top it's nuts!  Then toss in his 'unique' art style and it's just wild.  I've seen Hanks called a 'poor man's Wolverton' but they are so wildly different that I don't consider them in the same class.  Wolverton was a MUCH more accomplished artist and thankfully had a very developed sense of humour that always seemed more important to him than the actual story.  Except of course his Bible adaptations which blew my mind when I first saw them.  Talk about scary images and with NO humour at all.

I think sometimes an artist will catch fandom's fancy because he's just so different than what we've seen before him.  Alex Ross is a fine example of that.  I have to agree with you, his figures seem very posed and static to my eye but there is no denying they are very eye catching covers and very different from what we've been used to.  After decades of giant boobs and terrible anatomy here are paintings that for the most part of very realistic, well designed with wonderful full colour paintings - absolutely nothing like your typical Image cover of the 90s, etc that have become pretty much the norm.
I can think of other artists in the past that had the same type of fandom reaction though not to the extent of Ross.  The first was Bill Sienkiewicz whose kinetic style blossomed during his run on Marvel's Moon Knight.  I enjoyed the freshness of it after years of tried and true 'normal' artwork.  But by the time he was doing New Mutants he'd gone over the edge and I just wasn't enjoying his stuff.  Sure it remained very experimental but it was so 'out there' it was killing the stories for me.
And I recall the stir that Dave McKean's Sandman series for Vertigo made.  Wildly new at the time I was blown away by their artistry.  He had added a depth of story to his covers that conveyed so much more than a 'normal' comic.  DC was smart to keep him ONLY on covers and they must have been popular as they were collected into covers only books by Titan.  But would I want to see an entire book done by him?  Sure, just to see what McKean would do but I don't see it beyond a one-shot or annual.
So you can see how something 'fresh' and 'different' can attract attention but do they stand the test of time? 
We shall see.

-Yoc

[JVJ]

'73 eh? That's the year I first went to Paris. I was almost 27. I'm feeling old again.

Heh.  Well, I can't do much about that, but I've been assumed to be "old" often enough (couldn't be because I read old books and comics or watch silent movies) that I'm pretty sure it's not a relevant concept.

It's only relevant in a perspective sort of way, jc. We are all a product (of sorts) of our childhood. For some people, that seems to be enough. I wouldn't classify anyone here in that category. Obviously we have ALL wanted to see more than what we were exposed to growing up. My first exposure to comic books was around 1956 in David Butler's basement in Pittsburgh, PA. My next exposure was Spider-Man #33 in 1965, but neither of those experiences imposed boundaries on my curiosity or tastes. Obviously your upbringing/childhood instilled a curiosity in you just as mine did. Age, in absolute numbers, is immaterial to me (except for the ever-developing aches and pains, but let's not go there...) when it comes to friends, but it's very helpful to keep in mind when exploring possible shared experiences. Yours are not going to be the same as mine, simply because when you were growing up and experiencing things, I was an adult choosing and discarding experiences to suit my tastes. I need to remember that. But, please don't for a minute think that I consider MY age to be an advantage of sorts or YOUR age to be a detriment (or vice versa). As I tell Karen (all too often in her opinion) "it is what it is."

As a sidenote, I was amused by the "divergent stories" at Kirby's return to Marvel.  When I read the two versions, they read identically to me, once you take into account fading memories of what was (probably) not an iconic moment at the time.

They are identical, and both semi-self-aggrandizing. I just find the Kirby version to be more likely than the Lee version, because if you remove Kirby from the post-Atlas equation, there is simply more of the same old same old that the inventoried stories provided during 1958. There was no spark of innovation and Lee had NEVER come up with a proven hit in his entire career. I can easily imagine Goodman realizing that his comics weren't going anywhere and having Lee throw in the towel. It would take someone like the old-pro Kirby, with a proven reputation and track record, to get him to give it one more try.

Oh, doubtless Kirby's assessment of Atlas was the more objective, which was sort of my point.  Lee's version reeks of "we'll pull through, we always do" optimism, which I'm sure he felt.  What makes his story more credible in my eyes is that he doesn't mention originating any ideas, here; that he really only remembers having a brainstorming session that drove him to Goodman for another chance is very unlike his usual "I created everything and those other guys just helped with the details" attitude.

The way I reconstruct the event, Lee asks Kirby what sorts of things he'd like to work on.  That, and contributing the occasional "that's good, but what about this?" would qualify as contributing as much as anything.

Please do NOT take my retelling of these events as an accurate statement of what happened. I'm paraphrasing other people's reconstructions in what I considered a very general introduction to Jack Kirby. Still, I totally agree with you that Lee's retelling of that seminal event is atypical of his otherwise selective recollections of how things were.  I would have LOVED to be the fly on the wall in that encounter.

(|:{>

[John C]

With Hanks a lot of the fun is the sheer lunacy of the stories.  How Stardust will event some 'completely just' form of vengeance that is so over the top it's nuts!  Then toss in his 'unique' art style and it's just wild.  I've seen Hanks called a 'poor man's Wolverton' but they are so wildly different that I don't consider them in the same class.

That's sort of what I meant, but I was trying to be a little more specific in what I see, there.  When I read his stuff, I imagine a pretentiously weighty stage production with loud, over-enunciated declarations for the smallest thing.  Like when middle school kids put on productions of Shakespeare.

It's like looking into the fantasy world of some OTHER universe.  Like that issue of Superworld (I think it was), where they all look a lot like comic book stories, but they're almost entirely alien in their structure and content that the writers probably had never read an actual comic.