Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Daredevil 84 Cover Progression by Gil Kane

In 1971, Gil Kane drew a number of Daredevil covers.  I came across Daredevil #84 in various stages of production.



Pencilled version.  Kane's ability to draw a fluid body in motion is fantastic. 


Inked Version.  Notice that Daredevil's face has been touched up a bit.


Actual cover with colors.  Wouldn't it be great to see an Artist's Edition with Gil Kane's artwork?  Nuff Said!

5 comments:

  1. Are you the person who thought that pencil image above was done by Gil Kane? If so, you really need to bone up on Gil's line work because that's NOT Gil. It's not even a good imitation. First, there's no consistency in the line work. Look at those big open feathering lines and then those tight straight lines shading the belly. Look at those weirdly constructed, straight line construction of muscular ribbing. That this has passed for a genuine Kane is beyond ridiculous. There's not only an incredible lacking of consistency, but the lines themselves are amateurish, nothing like the confidence of a seasoned artist like Gil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, Rick, I think it is indeed by Gil Kane. I did a search and everyone else, including ComicArtFans, Marvel Wikia, even Marvel.com says this cover is by Gil Kane.

      http://marvel.com/comics/issue/8436/daredevil_1963_84

      Delete
  2. That means nothing. Do a comparison to his other work. Here's what you and others don't get, the system does not always work. In this case a fraud has been perpetrated long enough that even as inane as it is has been accepted as a fact. It's a tracing or a copy but that is not Gil's line. Just show me one comparison where this correlates with another of his work. The real irony here is when Gil designed covers he rarely put this much detail, (on those occasions it was far better than this mess) and when he did it it was ready for HIM to ink, not others. Look at all the useless line work and the lack of confidence in that line. It's like the copyist tried to copy the inked version than purposely added texture and line as if the inker was too lazy to go to the trouble. I really hate to sound insulting but to believe this is the real deal is why I have so much trouble with fans. They THINK they know and they don't and that's the ultimate insult to the artist. Take this image to people who knew Gil, actual friends. I worked with Gil to create a retrospective of his career for the Art Show at San Diego so I do have some level of intimacy with his method seeing as I saw a lot of it at his condo when he lived off San Vincente in LA. I'm also an artist. I can see with complete confidence that I've never seen Gil's work look like this. It's amateurish looking and sloppy, the exact opposite of Gils' very practiced method.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The pencil image is certainly Gil Kane, but I don't think that the inks are. Compare the penciled and inked hand under the logo. Kane constructed that hand in the pencils, but a lot of the structure is lost in the inks. Kane wouldn't have lost it. If Kane is attributed as the inker, then he had an assistant do a lot of it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The pencil image is certainly Gil Kane, but I don't think that the inks are. Compare the penciled and inked hand under the logo. Kane constructed that hand in the pencils, but a lot of the structure is lost in the inks. Kane wouldn't have lost it. If Kane is attributed as the inker, then he had an assistant do a lot of it.

    ReplyDelete