Publisher:
Marvel Comics Group
Cover Date:
May, 1970
Art Type:
Panel
Story:
“Inferno!”
Character(s):
Fandral, Hogun, Loki
History:
Published
Size:
10.9 x 15.9 in. (27.7 x 40.3 cm)
A proof that Kirby was a genious is that his art survived the experience of being inked by amateurish Vince Colleta and his shortcuts, like the darkening of the figures in the last panel.
I must disagree with Ferran on two counts. First, the inks depicting the shadows and flow of Loki's robe are incredible. Second, Colletta's silhouetting of the small characters in the background draws your attention to the main characters in front.
Even if you are thoroughly conditioned to hate Colletta you must see that much. In panel two he shades the underside of Loki's arms but then in the other panels, especially the last one, he painstakingly inks the muscles giving a real vs. slick look to them. There is nothing lazy or amateurish about this page.
Colleta's fan number one has landed here, hooray! (also rumored to be one of his sons).
Your second point is just a lame excuse for silhouetting, because at the right of the last panel you have a character who IS speaking also silhouetted. Which is the excuse for that? There are plenty of samples of Colleta's shortcuts, so I'm not discovering anything. It was a common practice for Colleta.
Of course, I disagree in your first point.
"painstakingly inks the muscles"
EVERYBODY knows that you can't ink realistic muscles in a Kirby drawing, it simply DOESN'T work.
"painstakingly"
I could hardly call "painstakingly" to add countless and randomly amateurish brush strokes all around the drawing. I'd bet that Sinnott would need much more time to throw few beautiful brush strokes wisely placed.
Colleta and his shortcuts...
A proof that Kirby was a genious is that his art survived the experience of being inked by amateurish Vince Colleta and his shortcuts, like the darkening of the figures in the last panel.
Look at the folds in the clothing, etc.
I must disagree with Ferran on two counts. First, the inks depicting the shadows and flow of Loki's robe are incredible. Second, Colletta's silhouetting of the small characters in the background draws your attention to the main characters in front.
Even if you are thoroughly conditioned to hate Colletta you must see that much. In panel two he shades the underside of Loki's arms but then in the other panels, especially the last one, he painstakingly inks the muscles giving a real vs. slick look to them. There is nothing lazy or amateurish about this page.
Colleta's brush strokes are amateurish to me.
Colleta's fan number one has landed here, hooray! (also rumored to be one of his sons).
Your second point is just a lame excuse for silhouetting, because at the right of the last panel you have a character who IS speaking also silhouetted. Which is the excuse for that? There are plenty of samples of Colleta's shortcuts, so I'm not discovering anything. It was a common practice for Colleta.
Of course, I disagree in your first point.
"painstakingly inks the muscles"
EVERYBODY knows that you can't ink realistic muscles in a Kirby drawing, it simply DOESN'T work.
"painstakingly"
I could hardly call "painstakingly" to add countless and randomly amateurish brush strokes all around the drawing. I'd bet that Sinnott would need much more time to throw few beautiful brush strokes wisely placed.
Post new comment