home
What makes a great artist? (Fan criticism of Kirby and Ditko)
Patrick Ford
16 May 2017
COMIC CRUSADER #10, 1970.
Aaron Noble: Wow. Guess Neal's deadline was getting too close for comfort.
Patrick Ford: He couldn't find his Polaroid.
Patrick Ford: This issue of the COMIC CRUSADER contained a long letter from someone who claimed Kirby and Steve Ditko couldn't draw. He compared them to Adams by saying fans praise Kirby and Ditko for the style of their work but that "style" is something people who can't draw realistically use as an excuse to cover up the fact they can't draw.
Chris Tolworthy: To be fair, that's maybe a reasonable reaction from a young person. Or at least, that was how I reacted when I was new to comics. Kirby was OK, but George Perez! He had MUCH more detail, and was more "realistic" and was therefore a better artist to me! I reacted the same way to Picasso or Goya. Why can't they just draw realistically? Or in the style I am used to?
I was particularly confused as a child when I saw Picasso's earlier, more conventional art. I thought, "the guy can obviously draw, so what happened? Did he become lazy?" Then I grew up.
After you've seen a few thousand conventional pictures you no longer need to see every leaf on a tree or every bulge of a muscle. The familiar can be reduced to a few sweeps of the pen, and the artist then focuses on what he can add. So after a while the childish artists become boring and replaceable, whereas the real artist becomes more and more fascinating.
As for the laughable idea that Neal Adams was more realistic, compare those Thor panels to an actual person in that pose (a very strong person, obviously). Those shiny circular muscles and over narrow waists only exist in comics or on body builders. Genuinely strong people need strong waists and a healthy layer of fat. But I suppose if your only experience of real life is other comics, you're going to have a really odd idea of what is "realistic"
Chris Tolworthy: PS regarding Ditko, I am ashamed to say that as a child I was also underwhelmed by Ditko's art. But once again my appreciation has grown. I finally made a web page comparing two consecutive FF annuals, 16 and 17. http://zak-site.com/Great-American-Novel/ff_fine-art.html
One is by Ditko and the other by Byrne. On first glance Ditko's is badly drawn and Byrne's shows an artist at the top of his game. That is the conventional view. But as I read and re-read these stories I grew to love Ditko's annual more and more, and now I find Byrne's stuff to be mechanical pap. One is an artist and one is a competent draughtsman and not a great one.
Though to be fair, even competent draughtsmen are rare in comics: I see Byrne as another Vince Colletta, giving people what they want and no more.
Patrick Ford The popularity of Byrne mystifies me. I'd place his work somewhat in the tradition of a Joe Sinnott, Jack Kamen or Kurt Schaffenberger.
Jim Van Heuklon: Chris Tolworthy sums up my childhood thoughts regarding Kirby and Ditko as well. I only had 2-3 issues in the mid-70's containing Kirby and Ditko art but had just started buying Perez' first Avengers run with 141 and fell in love with the "detail". Same with comparing Romita's 70's (among others) Spidey compared to Ditko's "crude" faces. The poses were dynamic but the finer details couldn't compare with my 10-11 year old self.
Jim Van Heuklon: Patrick Ford guilty as charged. I loved Byrne's run on the FF in the 80's. Loved his story telling and art. Felt like it harkened back to the 60's. But hey, I was only 19-20 years old at the time.
Lynn David Walker: That is a beautiful response.
Patrick Ford: There was also a scathing written reply which accompanied the two illustrations.
home