What Rob Liefeld's art wants to be when it grows up.
Not even trolling, they share many similarities; big dynamic poses often "borrowed" from artists they admire, cross-eyed characters, grimaces, wide open mouths with crooked teeth, square fingertips, squiggles used to designate metal but on everything (even skin).
You may not want to admit it, but for all of Colletta's shitty shortcuts, he really didn't change things more than any other inker. Guys like Sinnott and Giacoia saved Kirby's ass a LOT. Simon too during the 40s (though that's because he usually did the layouts).
But Kirby knew how to do different genres and was a better storyteller, while Liefeld could only do a very specific type of superhero comics and nothing else.
As an artist, he can create beautiful machinery, but his male faces are always so... Kirbyish.
As a writer, he could be a bit verbose--seemingly mistaking verbosity for quality narration. It works at times, but it can be a bit clunky more often than not.
>As an artist, he can create beautiful machinery, but his male faces are always so... Kirbyish. >the art by the artist looks like it was drawn by the artist drew it
He had a problem with same face for almost all of the characters he worked on (unless they were really distinctive like Darkseid and Galactus of course, just humans I guess) imo but besides that I like it.
Not that anyone's going to believe me but I read the thread after making that comment so count that as a vote in favor of
As an artist, he can create beautiful machinery, but his male faces are always so... Kirbyish.
As a writer, he could be a bit verbose--seemingly mistaking verbosity for quality narration. It works at times, but it can be a bit clunky more often than not.
What a lot of modern fans don't pick up on is the storytelling. Kirby's art has the characters posed so they lead the reader's eye to the next panel and keep the movement flowing. Once you notice this, it's pretty amazing. A lot of current artists do very pretty, glossy stuff but it's not always clear where the characters are in relation to each other or what they're supposed to be doing.
At his best, Kirby had a sense of kinetic energy and drama that's hard to beat. At his weakest, he just turned out pages of slugfests or weird machinery.
It's even more than just good pacing. You rarely even need to read the words. His art tells the story, and a lot of Lee's words actually make it worse overall.
p good for the time. Nowadays looks like shit
What Rob Liefeld's art wants to be when it grows up.
Not even trolling, they share many similarities; big dynamic poses often "borrowed" from artists they admire, cross-eyed characters, grimaces, wide open mouths with crooked teeth, square fingertips, squiggles used to designate metal but on everything (even skin).
You may not want to admit it, but for all of Colletta's shitty shortcuts, he really didn't change things more than any other inker. Guys like Sinnott and Giacoia saved Kirby's ass a LOT. Simon too during the 40s (though that's because he usually did the layouts).
But Kirby knew how to do different genres and was a better storyteller, while Liefeld could only do a very specific type of superhero comics and nothing else.
As an artist, he can create beautiful machinery, but his male faces are always so... Kirbyish.
As a writer, he could be a bit verbose--seemingly mistaking verbosity for quality narration. It works at times, but it can be a bit clunky more often than not.
>As an artist, he can create beautiful machinery, but his male faces are always so... Kirbyish.
>the art by the artist looks like it was drawn by the artist drew it
Oh, c'mon, anon--anybody who's seen Kirby's artwork knows what I mean by "the Kirby face"
Diff anon, but Kirby has 3 faces.
>lead male
>caveman
>girl
He's still an amazing artist, but his faces are the weakest part.
I like his art in general, but his female characters look better when they're drawn by other artists.
I know what you mean and it always bugged me a lot. you mean those broad faces
lmao ugly blocky people doing weird poses. with the occasional page that looks amazing
Pretty great at times.
i agree with people calling him one of the greatest american abstract artists ever
He had a problem with same face for almost all of the characters he worked on (unless they were really distinctive like Darkseid and Galactus of course, just humans I guess) imo but besides that I like it.
Not that anyone's going to believe me but I read the thread after making that comment so count that as a vote in favor of
There was often a majestic quality to his work
What a lot of modern fans don't pick up on is the storytelling. Kirby's art has the characters posed so they lead the reader's eye to the next panel and keep the movement flowing. Once you notice this, it's pretty amazing. A lot of current artists do very pretty, glossy stuff but it's not always clear where the characters are in relation to each other or what they're supposed to be doing.
At his best, Kirby had a sense of kinetic energy and drama that's hard to beat. At his weakest, he just turned out pages of slugfests or weird machinery.
It's even more than just good pacing. You rarely even need to read the words. His art tells the story, and a lot of Lee's words actually make it worse overall.