Jim lee vs Jack Kirby!

[CLARK BENT]

Who 's the best between the two! I have so much repect for kirby and lee that i don't even want to say...

[EZMOHR]

I'll say Jack Kirby because I'm a guest here, and it seems like you are saying you want to kill puppies if you even question Kirbby.

[CLARK BENT]

Dude!...did i kill a puppy? I know what your saying and i'm probaly going get my butt kicked now!

[EZMOHR]

Nah, if anybody likes anybody they like...it's cool. And Kirby is the father of great artists in his day, and the days after.

[CLARK BENT]

Can't argue with you there friend!

[Gozwald73]

Lee. No question.

[Red Jack]

You can't compare them, really.

But, without Jack, there'd be no Jim Lee.

Jack gave us the language of superhero comics that pretty much everybody speaks today.

If you remove Jack Kirby from the history of comics, the entire face of the industry changes. As amazingly gifted as he is, Jim Lee as an artist jus doesn't have that sort of impact.

[Lester C.]

This isn't fair to Jack for the following reasons.

1. There was no direct market back then so Jack had to write several books a month which diminished the quality of his work.

2. The coloring, paper, etc was really crappy back then.

If you don't believe me look at Neil Adams. The stuff that been digitally redone and colored looks as good as anything by today's artists.

[Erik Burnham]

Who 's the best between the two! I have so much repect for kirby and lee that i don't even want to say...

How do you quantify best?

Whose original artwork goes for more money? Kirby's. (Granted, he's dead, but still!)

Whose art sold more comics... well, Kirby. (Again, granted, this is from a time when you could get comics anywhere and he was drawing so many books)

Who your favorite is? (Either way.)

Technical (dis)advantages informed their style of work as well -- Kirby was drawing for horrid printing/coloring conditions. Lee, for most of his career, faces excellent printing and color and can therefore worry less about any muddying of the linework.

And it's been said (even Neal Adams says so) that style is what you do wrong... how does their artwork compare when not utilizing their own personal comic book shorthand?

Really, outside of Kirby's approach redefining much of the language field -- as Red Jack said, there's not much you can compare them on fairly.

(Well, I suppose you could compare their work as visual storytellers... and certainly some of Lee's 90s work isn't going to pass that test. But he ain't alone in that boat.)

Just rambling. Ditko fan myself. (;

[Erik Burnham]

This isn't fair to Jack for the following reasons.

1. There was no direct market back then so Jack had to write several books a month which diminished the quality of his work.


He had to draw several because it was standard to pay by the page at that time. Even if a direct market had been in place, it STILL would likely have been the standard.

Comics made money hand over fist at the time... it took a long while for creators to get anything turned their way. (Though some were enterprising enough to figure out how to cash in back then.)

And even doing several books a month (DC had him on the "laid back" schedule of 15 pages a week when he went on over) those big, imaginative KirbyMachines were incredible.

No, he drew in anticipation of poor reproduction -- but still, fast is fast. (;

[The Mirrorball Man]

Yes, you can compare them and yes, Jack Kirby is superior in almost every conceivable way, and if Jim Lee posted here, he would probably tell you that himself.

[Lester C.]

Yes, you can compare them and yes, Jack Kirby is superior in almost every conceivable way, and if Jim Lee posted here, he would probably tell you that himself.
Let's not discount Jim. I will grant you he is more flash than bang but in image driven medium flash counts big.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Yes, you can compare them and yes, Jack Kirby is superior in almost every conceivable way, and if Jim Lee posted here, he would probably tell you that himself.

Completely true.

[Jeff Brady]

Lee. No question.

Yeah, on Bizarro World.

[Michael P]

I don't really consider myself qualified to judge between them critically, but speaking just in terms of preference, I'd go with Kirby.

[Lester C.]

Is it wrong to admit I love them both?

[sk716]

I love Jim Lee, I really do.

But Jack Kirby is still King.

[Gilda Dent]

Kirby by a wide margin.

[rebelchelle]

Jack Kirby, without even having to think about it!

[Sabrinaset]

Well, let's not overlook the obvious ... Kirby, with Stan Lee, has created scores of imaginative characters, practically created a house-style for Marvel, had an imagination equaled by very few, and had a solid work ethic for the business.

Jim Lee ... draws a page a month ... well, if he's having a good month ... and lives on his MySpace page.

I'll go with Kirby for the win.

[Alex Dragon]

This was actually my reply from another thread but it can be applied here also....


This one of those personal tastes things but even though fans have given Kirby the "King" title it actually could be argued that Kirby wasn't the "best" artistically. If you got right down to it on a technical level John Buscema and John Romita were better artists. Buscema and Romita drew beautifully rendered people and backgrounds that were much more accurate than the stuff Kirby did. Kirby drew people with bodies that didn't resemble real in the least in impossible poses.

The thing that made Kirby "king" was the fact that he set the standard for powerful superhero comics and practically created the way those stories would be told through pictures. When Stan would tell other artists to draw like Kirby he meant for them to have the same type of "power", "excitement", exaggeration and creativity in their pages as Kirby did.
Kirby's real strength was his creativity, exaggeration, powerful poses of his characters, not really so much his drawing/rendering skills. Yeah, he was a technically good artist for the times but as far as pure drawing skills he couldn't measure up to other artists of the time like John Buscema, John Romita, Gil Kane, Curt Swan and plenty of others who may have lacked his creativity and power on the page but were for the most part better artists.

Kirby shined the brightest on over the top superhero stuff like FANTASTIC FOUR and THOR. Kirby did romance but Romita did it better. Kirby did War comics but Kubert did it better. The down to earth quirkiness of Spider-man Ditko did better. The more quiet and emotional moments Buscema did better.

That's why many fans of today look at Kirby's stuff and wonder what all the carrying on is about. Taken out of text of what comics were like back then and not realizing the trail Kirby blazed and judging the work soley on his artistic skills I can easily see why a fan would put Jim Lee's work above Kirby's. I would too. Jim draws prettier pictures. As far as powerful images in the Kirby tradition goes, it's hard to get worked up over Kirby when Walt Simonson's work is probably just as powerful and drawn much better. If you notice, whenever an artist draws in that Kirby style it doesn't exactly rock the industry. The nostalgia crowd likes it but the rest of fandom pretty much ignores it.

[Jeff Brady]

That's not entirely true, Alex. Before Timely/Marvel, Kirby was working at the Eisner & Iger studio, where he was drawing as realistically as anyone else at the time. Once he was paired up with Stan Lee and had to crank out multiple books a month, he had to develop a powerful but fast drawing style to keep production high.

[Ryan Day]

Well, Jack Kirby created the Fantastic Four, the X-Men, the Hulk, Thor (the Marvel version, anyway), the Silver Surfer, and Captain America.

Jim Lee created Ninja Psylocke and the Wildstorm characters, which are (to be generous) on a par with the New Gods or Eternals - the lesser of Kirby's creations.

Lee's a good artist, occasionally very good. But Kirby was just a crazy fountain of creativity and innovation.

[howyadoin]

I'm a Jim Lee fan, but this question is still fucking ridiculous.

[Tad Sivana]

No contest; Kirby.
Now if you ask who was the better businessman....?
Lee, hands down.

[NickThompson]

I'd rather look at Jim Lee art, but Jack Kirby is more important to comics.

[the4thpip]

Mort Weisinger.

[Alex Dragon]

I'd rather look at Jim Lee art, but Jack Kirby is more important to comics.

That pretty much sums it up for me also. I'm sure if you showed samples of both of their art to people who know nothing of comics The Jim Lee art would be the runaway winner. Kirby is more creatively gifted but the pretty picture guy almost always wins.

[Alex Dragon]

That's not entirely true, Alex. Before Timely/Marvel, Kirby was working at the Eisner & Iger studio, where he was drawing as realistically as anyone else at the time. Once he was paired up with Stan Lee and had to crank out multiple books a month, he had to develop a powerful but fast drawing style to keep production high.

I've never seen any of that work. I remember seeing one portrait of someone (Stan Lee maybe) that Kirby supposedly did but I have no idea how he managed to pull that off. Based on his his early work that he did before Marvel I just don't see him having a "realistic" style. But that would depend on how "realistic" you're talking. I could be wrong though. I'm just guessing on what I've seen from him.

[Rick Shambles]

[QUOTE=Alex Dragon]This was actually my reply from another thread but it can be applied here also....


This one of those personal tastes things but even though fans have given Kirby the "King" title it actually could be argued that Kirby wasn't the "best" artistically. If you got right down to it on a technical level John Buscema and John Romita were better artists. Buscema and Romita drew beautifully rendered people and backgrounds that were much more accurate than the stuff Kirby did. Kirby drew people with bodies that didn't resemble real in the least in impossible poses.

Ok, rather than respond to your entire message, I'm just going to be short and respond to this one section, which essentially has the same meaning as the rest of that post. '

First off, I'll start by saying that Jack Kirby is still, in my opinion, a hugely underestimated designer and draftsman. Its true that his characters and design sense are less "classical" than some of the other people you mentioned (such as Buscema or Romita), but to say that they are "better artists" because of it is unfair and untrue. Kirby's skill with a pencil stands up to any draftsman's in all time. The man was a powerhouse of drawing. What many people mistake as a lack of skill was actually his deftness as a designer. Too often, people make the mistake of believing that it is a noble goal, or even worse off, the artists goal, to make things appear more realistic or more "beautiful" (which is a relative term anyway) in a classical sense. Kirby was clearly NOT interested in illustrating in a classical manner. What imagery from his entire career, save some of his very earliest works, even hint at that? His work was a sonic boom of raw emotional and design power. When people close their eyes and picture Jack kirby, often times they picture a more generic, banal type illustration of one of his characters staring off panel into space perhaps muttering some cheesy line of Stan Lee dialogue--but those images aren't what show his true artistic muscle. When I look at a Buscema illustration, or even an Alex Raymond, I know exactly what he's thinking--I see his goals, how he's using reference, and can see where he succeeds and fails in such goals. With Kirby it's different--when I look at one of his best images I'm blown away and dumbstruck as to his thought process. The man was a phenomenal designer, successfully blending (more so than any of the other people we're talking about, IMO, the abstract with the representational. Also, let's not forget that Kirby was doing what, 20 pages per week for how many years on end? if you want to judge a draftsman by something, you should consider judging him also by his consistency and speed. In those two categories I challenge you to find one person dead or alive who could match.

[Alex Dragon]

Ok, rather than respond to your entire message, I'm just going to be short and respond to this one section, which essentially has the same meaning as the rest of that post. '

First off, I'll start by saying that Jack Kirby is still, in my opinion, a hugely underestimated designer and draftsman. Its true that his characters and design sense are less "classical" than some of the other people you mentioned (such as Buscema or Romita), but to say that they are "better artists" because of it is unfair and untrue. Kirby's skill with a pencil stands up to any draftsman's in all time. The man was a powerhouse of drawing. What many people mistake as a lack of skill was actually his deftness as a designer. Too often, people make the mistake of believing that it is a noble goal, or even worse off, the artists goal, to make things appear more realistic or more "beautiful" (which is a relative term anyway) in a classical sense. Kirby was clearly NOT interested in illustrating in a classical manner. What imagery from his entire career, save some of his very earliest works, even hint at that? His work was a sonic boom of raw emotional and design power. When people close their eyes and picture Jack kirby, often times they picture a more generic, banal type illustration of one of his characters staring off panel into space perhaps muttering some cheesy line of Stan Lee dialogue--but those images aren't what show his true artistic muscle. When I look at a Buscema illustration, or even an Alex Raymond, I know exactly what he's thinking--I see his goals, how he's using reference, and can see where he succeeds and fails in such goals. With Kirby it's different--when I look at one of his best images I'm blown away and dumbstruck as to his thought process. The man was a phenomenal designer, successfully blending (more so than any of the other people we're talking about, IMO, the abstract with the representational. Also, let's not forget that Kirby was doing what, 20 pages per week for how many years on end? if you want to judge a draftsman by something, you should consider judging him also by his consistency and speed. In those two categories I challenge you to find one person dead or alive who could match.

All good points. I understand where you're coming from but I still stand behind what I said. I still think Kirby's greatest strength was his imagination and creativity. You basically say the same thing within your post. I don't think Kirby was a poor draftsman but I think there were better draftsmen doing comics at the time. I really doesn't make sense to argue on who was better because it's all about tastes and opinion. You look at a pic and see some sort of wonderful thought process, I look at it and see poor draftsmanship. We aren't going to change the other one's mind about such things.

As a designer, I think Kirby was hit or miss. Some of his designs were strong, clever and perhaps ahead of their time and some were just plain goofy. But I have to admire the amount of creations he managed often on the fly and in such a realitively short amount of time. Again that goes back to his amazing creativity.

Also, I'm well aware of the workload Kirby had at various times in his career. However, if you look at the era when when he was doing what many consider his best work he wasn't puting out the same volume of pages as he did earlier in his career. I think during those days he was averaging about 4 pages a day (I think) which is a lot compared to day's standards but also keep in mind that the inkers carried a much bigger load of the final art back then as compared to now.

I gladly give Kirby his props for his contributions to comics. As a comicbook artist he's tops, as an artist in general he's less impressive in my eyes.