Deconstruction and comics

[cliffhanger]

People said you were putting quantity over quality because you were talking about quantity, not quality. Look at this post of yours



You're not arguing about Kirby being qualitatively better than Moebius there AT ALL.

This



Here, a list. That doesn't speak to quality. You didn't say why any of those are of higher quality than Moebius, you just list a bunch of stuff he did and get indignant. You rarely speak to the quality of Kirby's work but instead use adjectives like prolific to describe him. If you want to argue that Kirby is qualitatively the best artist that has ever worked in comics, you should probably frame your arguments differently. When you add this to your complaining about people reducing Kirby's work to less than it was WHILE reducing others work to less than it is, you look like a tool.

First if you read the question is how many MEMORABLE characters has Moebius created. Yes that does speak to quality. You think all those creations don't speak to quality? Creating one memorable character is an accomplishment yes, how about 30 or more? Yes that speaks to quality and quantity. Not mention worlds for them to live in. And yeah if people can reduce Kirby to nothing I can reduce others to nothing. It goes both ways.

[Mr. Holmes]

But quality vs quality aside, has Moebius done anything that's as gigantic, mythic, and poignant as the New Gods? Kirby pretty much created an entire mythology that speaks to the nuances of our current era.

[cliffhanger]

I was right the first time. Later.

cue Lou Ferrigno Hulk T.V show end theme.

[Ed Cunard]

Who reduced Kirby to nothing?

[cliffhanger]

But quality vs quality aside, has Moebius done anything that's as gigantic, mythic, and poignant as the New Gods? Kirby pretty much created an entire mythology that speaks to the nuances of our current era.

No he hasn't. But I realize that most of the Kirby haters here haven't read any of his work.

[cliffhanger]

Who reduced Kirby to nothing?

Oh there were a few people but I can't remember their names...

[FanboyStranger]

Look it's an accomplishment but can you really compare that to New Gods? Or TheLosers? Or Jack Kirby's run on F.F?

I think you can.

Kirby was an unrivaled "ideas" man in comics, but even in his most prolific period, he had developed his default style and didn't play around with his storytelling all that much. (Quite frankly, he didn't have to-- it always worked.) It's undeniably incredible (and important) work, but it's also fits very squarely within a certain template for action/adventure stories.

Sim, crazy as he is, continually experimented with his storytelling, really pushing what you can do with sequential art. What makes those 300 issues of Cerebus remarkable is that he rarely repeats what he's doing-- it doesn't always work, particularly in the last 100 issues, but there's still this effort to expand and experiment with how he's telling the story.

Now, I think the argument that can be made was that Kirby was primarily working to entertain children, and his work reflects that aesthetic-- it's big, it's powerful, and it's relatively easy to follow. Sim was working to entertain an older audience, one that had grown up with comics and wanted something more sophisticated than big action scenes. Sim takes Kirby as channeled through Barry Windsor-Smith as his starting point and moves in an entirely different direction, evolving his storytelling as the story he's telling grows beyond an action/adventure story.

Both are excellent, and both created extremely important works for the medium. I don't think they were doing the same thing. There's no denying Kirby's impact on the American superhero comic or even the action/adventure comic in general, but when you branch out from those kinds of stories or out of the Anglophonic market, his influence isn't quite as present.

[dupont2005]

Retelling real events in mouse drag is creative to you?OK. And the success of Maus had nothing to do with marketing lol. you guys are hilarious.

Nah, I think it had to do with it's Pulitzer prize. It was originally serialized in a small self published magazine that was distributed in person by the editor. It took over a decade before it had really gained mainstream attention. And it really still hasn't. I doubt most people who think Kirby is "The best evar!" have read it. It's been curriculum in classrooms though. Not silly elective classes either.

[dupont2005]

But quality vs quality aside, has Moebius done anything that's as gigantic, mythic, and poignant as the New Gods? Kirby pretty much created an entire mythology that speaks to the nuances of our current era.

Moebius is basically a national treasure in France. Like what Mark Twain is to Americans. I don't think any American comic creators have achieved that domestically. Except maybe Walt Disney, but he didn't actually write or illustrate all those stories that made the Disney Empire.

[Johnny P. Sartre]

But quality vs quality aside, has Moebius done anything that's as gigantic, mythic, and poignant as the New Gods? Kirby pretty much created an entire mythology that speaks to the nuances of our current era.

Incal, Blueberry, Airtight, everything that has been printed in the Epic comics.

He's loved all over the world, has had his own exhibition, had a shared exhibition with Hayao Miyazaki (they're best pals and Nausicaä is SO heavily influenced by Moebius and Moebius named his daughter Nausicaä) and is considered the one of FINEST comic artists in the world.

EDIT: One of the co-creators of Heavy Metal

[Johnny P. Sartre]

Oh there were a few people but I can't remember their names...

Because they're all in your head, that's why

[Ed Cunard]

No he hasn't. But I realize that most of the Kirby haters here haven't read any of his work.

You're kidding, right? You have to be kidding.

[Johnny P. Sartre]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlH9JBIHdmk

[Eumenides]

I disagree with all that. Just because something is old doesn't make it good. People who think nobody has managed to write a better story since The Illiad just like old stuff because it's old, in my opinion. I know Rolling Stone left Motzart off their top 500 songs list. It's all a preference. There was good stuff in the past, there's good stuff in the present. Some people think Charlie Chaplin's "The Kid" is the best movie ever. I think Goodfellas was just a little bit better. People like Pekar and Crumb are not typical of Silver Age comics.

Mozart didn't write pop songs the RS snub doesn't surprise me. I'd be more worried if Fanfare Magazine, a mag devoted to classical magazine, had snubbed Mozart in a top 500 list. I also have more favourite epic poems, but no one can rightly say The Illiad isn't the most important of them in Western Civilization, it's the basis, the source, which others imitate or react against. As for Pekar and Crumb and the Silver Age, let's start with the fact the SA is a category used in the narrow confines of superhero history; the '50s and '60s were diverse eras that had lots of different people working in them. Personally I don't even use these categories, golden, silver, bronze, they all seem so absurd and reductive to me. Pekar and Crumb are only atypical if you think people were only making superheroes then, but that's why knowing history helps.

It's an extraordinary picture in its design and dynamism. It has movement and energy. It's genuine comic book art. Batman is punching a guy in the face, and thanks to the motion line you can actually imagine the arc of his arm gaining balance to hit him harder. This motion line helps give the illusion of movement in the picture. That illusion is also aided by the neat touch of having the hat fly off with the impact; sure it's exaggerated, but it communicates information better that way. Also remarkable is the electric-yellow background, lighting up with the impact of the punch to emphasize its strength. And Batman is punching him from left to right, as our Western eyes would expect, respecting the most basic of visual storytelling rules. It's perfect for what it's meant to accomplish.

This, by comparison, isn't very good:



(Steve Epting, Captain America v.5 #26)

In the first panel there's no sense that Bucky is using any strength in his fists, no illusion that his arm is moving across the air; that's because Epting is too incompetent to use motion lines. The figures are also so far away from each other you can't even believe his arm hit the guy; if he wanted to transmit the idea the guy was being pushed back by the impact, Epting failed because he didn't add any motion or impact lines to transmit the idea of energy, strength and movement. It's just a still figure, it could easily be the cover of a book or an illustration.

In the second panel we have Bucky bizarrely striking the air when his opponents are all far away from him. This man is supposed to be a professional fighter? The art doesn't show that.

There's no continuity between panels two and three. In the second panel Bucky is stupidly opening his defenses, exposing himself, and allowing his rear guard open to a guy with a stick to hit him; strangely that figure disappears and Bucky is next seen punching someone else. Needless to say the punch in the third panel lacks any impetus, any sense of force or movement because, again, Epting never heard of motion lines. It's just two figures who look more like they're choreographing a harmless ballet dance than actually having a bar brawl.

By comparison, Kirby's fight sequence:

is gorgeous! And clear, and full of power and movement. Almost every gesture is captured in this lovely decompressed fight scene. You see Bartroc lift his leg, then kick and Cap defends, then he attacks him and takes him down, but on the ground he sweeps Cap's legs, who hits from the ground, etc., step by step. This is comic book storytelling at its best!

And the motion lines, this is a textbook example of how to use them to create the illusion of dynamism. I believe these characters are moving, I believe their punches and kicks are full of strength and agility. When characters are moving, you show them moving! Then, for contrast, in the final page, when the fight is over, look at the stillness, no motion lines. Sheer brilliance of design.

Most comic book artists nowadays don't know how to draw comics; they know how to draw pin ups, book covers, wall posters and playing cards, and somehow they've fooled buyers into thinking that's actual comic book art. It's not. Kirby drew comics. People like Epting (and sometimes Moebius too, especially in Arzarch) drew illustrations.

[dupont2005]

Batman is punching a guy in the face

You just summed up every issue of Batman ever printed.

And the whole "Motzart didn't make pop songs" would kind of mean nobody that makes "pop comics" could be compared to hum, huh?