Notice the two figures inker Vince Colletta erased and didn't ink in this Thor panel penciled by Jack Kirby - figures which played a part in the graceful design and thrust of the panel's composition.
There are a few artists I like seeing Colletta finish, but Kirby ain't one of 'em. Thankfully Kirby's storytelling was so great that the inks didn't ruin Thor for me.
I do think that, of all the series Kirby drew in the '60s, Thor was the series Colletta's style was most appropriate for. I'm glad he didn't ink most of the FFs!
You referring to the two tiny figures at the bottom of the page? I thought that this juvenile Vince Colletta-bashing finally subsided a few years ago. Why devote an entire post to this? Just wondering.....
Anyway, how do you like the inking on the rest of the page, I'm also wondering?
Clearly, Sno Ball, you don't understand composition. The two figures are both gesturing towards Mangog, so if the viewer's eye hits the bottom of the page, the directionals of all the characters there push the viewer's eye to Mangog.
Colletta was no friend to Jack Kirby or Kirby's fans. He compromised Kirby's artwork by screwing up Kirby's compositions when he left things out.
Well, small but signifigant figures aside, since the author didn't answer my other question, how about you taking a stab at it? What do you think about the inking job that Colletta did on this page? I have heard that the inker was paid something like $50 to ink pages aroound this time which begs another question. Would you or any other readers put in this much time for that amount of money? I can almost see Colletta looking at those two little dwarfs and saying bye-bye you little shit heads as he was erasing them out of existence.
As Mark Mayerson wrote, the figures Colletta erased were purposely placed where they were to guide the eye to what's most important in the panel. Colletta's erasing elements of the compostion defeats and lays impotent that directive.
I seriously doubt that "Colletta bashing" will ever subside (that is, criticism of Colletta's artistic decisions). Instead, as Jack Kirby's strengths and importance as an artist are better appreciated, I suspect the Colletta criticisms will increase.
Why devote an entire post on this? My original post only contained 34 words. A book could be written about the subject.
How do I like the inking on the rest of the page? I don't. The same goes for the next page and the next.
>Would you or any other readers put in this much time for that amount of money?
I routinely do (inflation accounted for). It comes down to this: did Colletta care about the quality of the work he was laying down? Was he faithful to the intent of Kirby's pencils? Did he have a care for composition and design? The evidence indicates "no".
Michael, always glad of an opportunity to bash Vince... he had as much regard for Kirby's storytelling gift as Lee did. They both took something coherent and mutilated it.
Not really sure what's juvenile about pointing out what Colletta did, especially since it's detailed right there on the pages. Granted that it's old hat by now, but I didn't buy any issues of Thor for the sake of seeing Vinnie's idea of artistry.
You nailed it, Al - "old hat." A redundant blog post (regardless of how skimpy) at this point in time. However, Michael inadvertently posted some beautiful Kirby - Colletta art for all to see so it's not a total loss. I'm more a fan of reading, um, fresh material, like that hasn't been regurgitated at least a thousand times. Using the Vince Colletta name in the title most certainly guarantees you a bigger readership so A+ for good SEO practices.
It was years before I was aware of this controversy. This is the first time I have ever been an example of it! I do think it's shocking and, as much as I have appreciated a lot of Coletta's work, I have loss a great deal of respect for him.
11 comments:
There are a few artists I like seeing Colletta finish, but Kirby ain't one of 'em. Thankfully Kirby's storytelling was so great that the inks didn't ruin Thor for me.
I do think that, of all the series Kirby drew in the '60s, Thor was the series Colletta's style was most appropriate for. I'm glad he didn't ink most of the FFs!
You referring to the two tiny figures at the bottom of the page? I thought that this juvenile Vince Colletta-bashing finally subsided a few years ago. Why devote an entire post to this? Just wondering.....
Anyway, how do you like the inking on the rest of the page, I'm also wondering?
Clearly, Sno Ball, you don't understand composition. The two figures are both gesturing towards Mangog, so if the viewer's eye hits the bottom of the page, the directionals of all the characters there push the viewer's eye to Mangog.
Colletta was no friend to Jack Kirby or Kirby's fans. He compromised Kirby's artwork by screwing up Kirby's compositions when he left things out.
Well, small but signifigant figures aside, since the author didn't answer my other question, how about you taking a stab at it? What do you think about the inking job that Colletta did on this page? I have heard that the inker was paid something like $50 to ink pages aroound this time which begs another question. Would you or any other readers put in this much time for that amount of money? I can almost see Colletta looking at those two little dwarfs and saying bye-bye you little shit heads as he was erasing them out of existence.
As Mark Mayerson wrote, the figures Colletta erased were purposely placed where they were to guide the eye to what's most
important in the panel. Colletta's erasing elements of the compostion defeats and lays impotent that directive.
I seriously doubt that "Colletta bashing" will ever subside (that is, criticism of Colletta's artistic decisions). Instead, as
Jack Kirby's strengths and importance as an artist are better appreciated, I suspect the Colletta criticisms will increase.
Why devote an entire post on this? My original post only contained 34 words. A book could be written about the subject.
How do I like the inking on the rest of the page? I don't. The same goes for the next page and the next.
>Would you or any other readers put in this much time for that amount of money?
I routinely do (inflation accounted for). It comes down to this: did Colletta care about the quality of the work he was laying down? Was he faithful to the intent of Kirby's pencils? Did he have a care for composition and design? The evidence indicates "no".
Michael, always glad of an opportunity to bash Vince... he had as much regard for Kirby's storytelling gift as Lee did. They both took something coherent and mutilated it.
Mark's "New Gods for Old" (TJKC 14) is my favourite take on Thor, that it was a training ground for the Fourth World.
Not really sure what's juvenile about pointing out what Colletta did, especially since it's detailed right there on the pages. Granted that it's old hat by now, but I didn't buy any issues of Thor for the sake of seeing Vinnie's idea of artistry.
You nailed it, Al - "old hat." A redundant blog post (regardless of how skimpy) at this point in time. However, Michael inadvertently posted some beautiful Kirby - Colletta art for all to see so it's not a total loss. I'm more a fan of reading, um, fresh material, like that hasn't been regurgitated at least a thousand times. Using the Vince Colletta name in the title most certainly guarantees you a bigger readership so A+ for good SEO practices.
It was years before I was aware of this controversy. This is the first time I have ever been an example of it! I do think it's shocking and, as much as I have appreciated a lot of Coletta's work, I have loss a great deal of respect for him.
Post a Comment