Offensive Meetings, Antagonistic Communications

[arbre_rieur]

Anyone know why the hell this book is part of DC's "Edge" line? It's probably the least edgy book they're putting out outside the Johnny DC line (not that that's a bad thing).

Comments

[mrosa]

Then they'll only succeed in being second-rate Kirbies, which sadly seems to be the zenith of most people's ambitions working in comics.

[arbre_rieur]

Keith Giffen's art is obviously Kirby-inspired, but I don't think anyone can argue that he doesn't take it in his own direction. The similarity only stands out because Kirby himself has such an idiosyncratic style, but you could probably find dozens of artists just as heavily influenced by, say, Neal Adams or Buscema. It's just less noticeable in those instances because those two's styles are less off-beat.

[mrosa]

Yes, I agree that Kirby was very distinctive. But I think artists should strive to find their own style. And in Giffen's case, I know he can draw without aping Kirby. It's the nostalgia that upsets me the most. It's like I wrote before, knowing what little I know of Kirby, I think he'd rather people drew the way they want instead of being beholden to him.

[arbre_rieur]

And yet you were the one who appreciatively posted pages from the Jack Kirby tribute issue of Supreme, a comic that aped other artist' styles in almost every issue (not to mention all the homages in the plotting). I suspect you don't have a problem with that because you know that's not the only thing Alan Moore does, just one work in a larger body of works. Well, you yourself point out this isn't the only kind of art Giffen does, so what's the problem?

[mrosa]

I believe there's a difference. For one thing, Rick Veitch wasn't just aping Kirby, but EC, MAD and other styles. For me, that was part of the big metatextual commentary Moore was making about the medium, painstakingly duplicating the visual and literal style of old comics and then contrast them to their modern counterparts. I don't think we'd have the same story without tose pastiches because they were story. There was an intellectual reason for them.

But in OMAC there's no reason for it, not to me anyway. For me nothing's gained by it. It make as much sense as drawing Thor, the X-Men or the Avengers in Kirby's style.

[arbre_rieur]

The amount of meta-commentary in SUPREME varied from issue to issue. There were some issues where it was integral to the story, but there were others that were heavy on the "meta' with little in the way of "commentary," beyond one or two line of "Wow, weren't thing (insert adjective) back in those days," from the characters. For issues that fell in the latter category, there wasn't any purpose to so painstakingly mimicking comics of yore beyond fun and nostalgia.

"But in OMAC there's no reason for it, not to me anyway. For me nothing's gained by it."

It looks beautiful, it's not to the point where Giffen's own style is lost, and it suits the kind of story being told. That's reason enough, to me at least.

"It make as much sense as drawing Thor, the X-Men or the Avengers in Kirby's style."

See, I'd say, given the right kind of story, that would work really well. There was a mini-series years ago, THOR: GODSTORM, drawn by Steve Rude, that fits your description, and it was a lot of fun.

http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=495089&gsub=14993

[the_eleven]

But in OMAC there's no reason for it

OMAC is a Kirby book in the first place? That seems like the whole point of this exercise, two old Kirby fans having fun with a piece of the legacy.