Bernie Wrightson - Quite possibly my favorite all around artist. I fell in love with his inking especially when I first discovered his work. I met him once a few years ago now at Baltimore ComiCon and he signed my edition of Frankenstein. I was a bumbling idiot fanboy.
Hal Foster- Over the past few years I've grown a great appreciation for his work. Prince Valiant is beautiful and I highly suggest to anyone you should be collecting the collected editions being put out by Fantagraphics. Unparalleled work. Nice big coffee table or shelf books collecting his work in two year increments.
Joe Kubert- What can I say? He was the man. His anatomy knowledge, skill, speed, professionalism, and inking are very influential. Forever grateful I was fortunate enough to be taught by him. Every now and then I glance at that diploma signed by him and it gives me that extra kick in the pants I need to persevere.
Erik Larsen- I started collecting his work in the 80's as a kid when he took over Amazing Spider-Man after McFarlane. I'm much more a fan and influenced by Larsen. Not only his art but his work ethic is inspiring. He's the only Image creator/founder still writing and drawing his own book since day one, and I've been collecting Savage Dragon since 1992. He's very much from the Kirby school, heavily infuenced by him in my opinion. I'm still developing an appreciation for Jack Kirby myself. I know most think I'm crazy for that, but I consider myself to be more influenced by Larsen and Simonson.
Oh, I've been a regular letterhack in Savage Dragon since issue #112 I think. It's now on issue #192. It would be more of a dream come true to draw a backup in the pages of Savage Dragon, or draw a mini-series with Larsen characters at this point, than it would be for me to draw a major character at the big two. Not that I would turn down the big two, just saying I'm a huge fin-addict.
My own appreciation for Jack Kirby's art and his style has only grown, over the years. Savage Dragon has just never grabbed me, though. Granted, Eric Larsen's art style certainly has Kirby-esque elements to it, at times, but my eyes don't drool over the Savage Dragon pages or images that I have seen, like they tend to do with a lot of Jack Kirby's stuff.
For Jack Kirby, I think that it boils down to the fact that, for him, a whole multitude of different techniques had long since evolved into being just second nature. Rather than effort, it became effortless.
Being no artist, myself, I certainly don't profess to know with certainty. However, I really do think that Jack Kirby reached a point where his artistic mastery simply opened up new ways of approach art, which simply didn't dawn on on the bulk of artists whose own mastery of artistic techniques were not as developed.
Many of the characters that Jack Kirby drew were simultaneously ugly, from an aesthetics standpoint, but gorgeous, from an artistic standpoint. In other words, an awful lot of them weren't pretty, but Jack Kirby managed to make them beautiful in indirect ways, rather than direct ways.
Epic is often a word that I see associated with Jack Kirby's comic book artwork. And, in all fairness, if that word doesn't apply to Kirby's art, then who does it properly apply to?
Jack Kirby was well-versed in representing even numerous abstract things in his artwork, even though I don't tend to think of him as an abstract artist. His visual representations for energy and power, for example, are showcased in that trademark of many of his pieces, good old Kirby krackle.
With Savage Dragon, there's no doubt as to who the visual star of the show is. With that character's look, he tends to visually dominate most any scene that he is depicted in. Compare Savage Dragon to Kamandi, in that sense. Many of the characters in scenes that Kamandi is depicted in grab the eye far quicker and command one's attention far longer than the star of that comic book series. I think that this approach/technique was one thing of many that helped Jack Kirby to imbue his artwork with an epic feeling.
Not being an artist, I don't know what the right term or phrase is to describe what I am referring to. It just strikes me that Jack Kirby had a pronounced appreciation for the indirect's role in art, relative to the direct.
Then, too, Jack Kirby has a supreme mastery of the art of exaggeration. His approach to art, in that sense, reminds me of how comedians such as Bernie Mac and Jerry Clower approach comedy. Both of them utilized exaggeration in "painting" their comedy routines onstage. Giant machines dominating a given scene's visuals tended to visually overwhelm even the most interesting of humanoid characters depicted in the same scene.
In essence, Kirby would intentionally draw the human eye away from the characters, by providing visual contrast in a very pronounced manner. Not so much in a dark/light contrast sense, but rather, in a big/small sense. Kamandi's world dwarfed Kamandi. Apokolips dwarfed Darkseid. There was also so much more waiting in the wings, no matter where Jack Kirby took the reader.
Oops! I got a little side-tracked there. I understand why you say that Larsen and Simonson influenced you more than Kirby did. It's probably true, too.
Ironically, though, I see more of Jack Kirby's art technique in your comic book art than I see in Savage Dragon. To be certain, and make no mistake, there's more of Kirby in the Savage Dragon series, than there is in the Jesus E. Lee series, but compare the respective spans of both titles.
In fairness, though, maybe I just haven't seen the same issues or the same scenes featuring Savage Dragon that have been the primary influences for you. Certainly, I haven't seen every issues. Also, maybe I am just missing something, something subtle or maybe I am missing the visual forest for the trees with Savage Dragon.
Even if in a separate blog posting, are there areas where you feel that Larsen's approach to comic book art is superior to Kirby's? Just wondering what, specifically and exactly, attracts and retains your attention to Savage Dragon and Larsen's work?
P.S. Sorry, but I had to break my response into two separate postings, to accommodate the blog's character length limit.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not professing that Larsen's work is better than Kirby. I would be lynched for saying something like that! I don't like to paint broad pictures of who is a better artist than another artist. All have their merits, and those merits are different to each individual fan and appreciator.
Larsen's work just floors me, knocks me on my butt. Frankly I'm afraid of becoming a Kirby-holic at this point. I mean I'm a Joe Kubert-holic, and when I take on a new artist as a fan I tend to want to track down all of their work and buy it. I can't imagine doing that with the vast quantity of work Kirby did in his lifetime. I have to refrain and maybe get collections of his work. I just haven't made the dive yet.
It's flattering if what you're saying is you see more of a Kirby influence in my work. I'll absolutely accept that. It just baffles me because he directly isn't as much of an influence on what I try to as Larsen, or Simonson even. One of the stranger comparisons I've gotten a few times is how my stuff resembles Richard Corben's, and I absolutely don't see that at all.
I've recently gotten interested in the work of Christopher Mitten for example, and he is still relatively new in the industry so it isn't hard to track down and collect his various comic work.
Bernie Wrightson - Quite possibly my favorite all around artist. I fell in love with his inking especially when I first discovered his work. I met him once a few years ago now at Baltimore ComiCon and he signed my edition of Frankenstein. I was a bumbling idiot fanboy.
ReplyDeleteHal Foster- Over the past few years I've grown a great appreciation for his work. Prince Valiant is beautiful and I highly suggest to anyone you should be collecting the collected editions being put out by Fantagraphics. Unparalleled work. Nice big coffee table or shelf books collecting his work in two year increments.
Joe Kubert- What can I say? He was the man. His anatomy knowledge, skill, speed, professionalism, and inking are very influential. Forever grateful I was fortunate enough to be taught by him. Every now and then I glance at that diploma signed by him and it gives me that extra kick in the pants I need to persevere.
This may take awhile, so I'll post more later.
Erik Larsen- I started collecting his work in the 80's as a kid when he took over Amazing Spider-Man after McFarlane. I'm much more a fan and influenced by Larsen. Not only his art but his work ethic is inspiring. He's the only Image creator/founder still writing and drawing his own book since day one, and I've been collecting Savage Dragon since 1992. He's very much from the Kirby school, heavily infuenced by him in my opinion. I'm still developing an appreciation for Jack Kirby myself. I know most think I'm crazy for that, but I consider myself to be more influenced by Larsen and Simonson.
ReplyDeleteOh, I've been a regular letterhack in Savage Dragon since issue #112 I think. It's now on issue #192. It would be more of a dream come true to draw a backup in the pages of Savage Dragon, or draw a mini-series with Larsen characters at this point, than it would be for me to draw a major character at the big two. Not that I would turn down the big two, just saying I'm a huge fin-addict.
DeleteMy own appreciation for Jack Kirby's art and his style has only grown, over the years. Savage Dragon has just never grabbed me, though. Granted, Eric Larsen's art style certainly has Kirby-esque elements to it, at times, but my eyes don't drool over the Savage Dragon pages or images that I have seen, like they tend to do with a lot of Jack Kirby's stuff.
ReplyDeleteFor Jack Kirby, I think that it boils down to the fact that, for him, a whole multitude of different techniques had long since evolved into being just second nature. Rather than effort, it became effortless.
Being no artist, myself, I certainly don't profess to know with certainty. However, I really do think that Jack Kirby reached a point where his artistic mastery simply opened up new ways of approach art, which simply didn't dawn on on the bulk of artists whose own mastery of artistic techniques were not as developed.
Many of the characters that Jack Kirby drew were simultaneously ugly, from an aesthetics standpoint, but gorgeous, from an artistic standpoint. In other words, an awful lot of them weren't pretty, but Jack Kirby managed to make them beautiful in indirect ways, rather than direct ways.
Epic is often a word that I see associated with Jack Kirby's comic book artwork. And, in all fairness, if that word doesn't apply to Kirby's art, then who does it properly apply to?
Jack Kirby was well-versed in representing even numerous abstract things in his artwork, even though I don't tend to think of him as an abstract artist. His visual representations for energy and power, for example, are showcased in that trademark of many of his pieces, good old Kirby krackle.
With Savage Dragon, there's no doubt as to who the visual star of the show is. With that character's look, he tends to visually dominate most any scene that he is depicted in. Compare Savage Dragon to Kamandi, in that sense. Many of the characters in scenes that Kamandi is depicted in grab the eye far quicker and command one's attention far longer than the star of that comic book series. I think that this approach/technique was one thing of many that helped Jack Kirby to imbue his artwork with an epic feeling.
Not being an artist, I don't know what the right term or phrase is to describe what I am referring to. It just strikes me that Jack Kirby had a pronounced appreciation for the indirect's role in art, relative to the direct.
Then, too, Jack Kirby has a supreme mastery of the art of exaggeration. His approach to art, in that sense, reminds me of how comedians such as Bernie Mac and Jerry Clower approach comedy. Both of them utilized exaggeration in "painting" their comedy routines onstage. Giant machines dominating a given scene's visuals tended to visually overwhelm even the most interesting of humanoid characters depicted in the same scene.
In essence, Kirby would intentionally draw the human eye away from the characters, by providing visual contrast in a very pronounced manner. Not so much in a dark/light contrast sense, but rather, in a big/small sense. Kamandi's world dwarfed Kamandi. Apokolips dwarfed Darkseid. There was also so much more waiting in the wings, no matter where Jack Kirby took the reader.
Oops! I got a little side-tracked there. I understand why you say that Larsen and Simonson influenced you more than Kirby did. It's probably true, too.
Ironically, though, I see more of Jack Kirby's art technique in your comic book art than I see in Savage Dragon. To be certain, and make no mistake, there's more of Kirby in the Savage Dragon series, than there is in the Jesus E. Lee series, but compare the respective spans of both titles.
In fairness, though, maybe I just haven't seen the same issues or the same scenes featuring Savage Dragon that have been the primary influences for you. Certainly, I haven't seen every issues. Also, maybe I am just missing something, something subtle or maybe I am missing the visual forest for the trees with Savage Dragon.
Even if in a separate blog posting, are there areas where you feel that Larsen's approach to comic book art is superior to Kirby's? Just wondering what, specifically and exactly, attracts and retains your attention to Savage Dragon and Larsen's work?
ReplyDeleteP.S. Sorry, but I had to break my response into two separate postings, to accommodate the blog's character length limit.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not professing that Larsen's work is better than Kirby. I would be lynched for saying something like that! I don't like to paint broad pictures of who is a better artist than another artist. All have their merits, and those merits are different to each individual fan and appreciator.
DeleteLarsen's work just floors me, knocks me on my butt. Frankly I'm afraid of becoming a Kirby-holic at this point. I mean I'm a Joe Kubert-holic, and when I take on a new artist as a fan I tend to want to track down all of their work and buy it. I can't imagine doing that with the vast quantity of work Kirby did in his lifetime. I have to refrain and maybe get collections of his work. I just haven't made the dive yet.
It's flattering if what you're saying is you see more of a Kirby influence in my work. I'll absolutely accept that. It just baffles me because he directly isn't as much of an influence on what I try to as Larsen, or Simonson even. One of the stranger comparisons I've gotten a few times is how my stuff resembles Richard Corben's, and I absolutely don't see that at all.
I've recently gotten interested in the work of Christopher Mitten for example, and he is still relatively new in the industry so it isn't hard to track down and collect his various comic work.