opfprofits.blogg.se

My observation would be that the subtlety and variation in Kirby diminished over time, as he relied on previously invented techniques all the while his creativity blossomed, but that it depends upon the comic and the page and the panel. Also the actual Kirby hand is obscured by his reliance on inkers, who influence the finished work, making it difficult to judge accurately. Kirby, as an illustrator, relies more on eye hand coordination and technical proficiency, which can diminish with age.

(Artists who spent careers in continuous reinvention would be more like David Hockney or Bruce Nauman) Like one honing a craft of their own making, but resulting in a practice that may seem repetitive and limiting. The result was those artists making some of the best versions of their work later in their lives. Most of the mentioned artists forged a new aspect of art in their 30s, then proceeded to investigate that same newly discovered aspect for the remainder of their careers, instead of continually inventing even more new aspects. I would say, in reality, it’s more nuanced than any binary (good/bad) mindset would make it and the comparison to the artists you mentioned is not straightforward. You had to pass by Frank Stella, Ellsworth Kelly, Josef Albers, Victor Vasarely and Bridget Riley to land on that one, unless art history classes highlight different artists now since a couple decades back. First…Bravo for a Carmen Herrera name drop.