Don't get me wrong--the guy has had a great career and is responsible for many classic comics I love. But I just get underwhelmed when I start reading something and realize Kane has done the art and I'm going to be treated to the usual series of people sprawling upside down and backwards with their limbs flailing and dramatic upshots of their noses.

You nailed it.

If I'd not read the subject title my first thought would have been that you were talking about Gil Kane. Noses, noses, noses!

Kudos instead to such as the penciller Ron Wilson and to Ross Andru.

Yes. I love Gil. His Batgirl Backups were great

But then again I suck for thinking Jack Kirby is very over rated

yep, up the nose shots, never have liked Kane, respect yes, want to look at his work, no(se).

Gil Kane was like Dan Jurgens - he could pencil any comic and make it passable reading, his style was instantly recognizable, but something about his art always felt hollow. He wasn't dramatic or experimental like many other Silver Age artists. To me, he always felt like a decent, well-rounded fill-in artist with little to no real creative vision.

I couldn't have said it better myself, Superboy. I could always read a comic Kane drew, but they never had the excitement of, say, Romita, Buscema, or (cue the angelic choir)...Kirby. Or plenty of others from the Silver or Bronze Ages, actually.

Or even better...

Curt Swan, Jim Steranko, and Bill Sienkewicz

For a second there I thought you were saying you didn't like those guys. I was going to mail you a bomb if you were knocking Steranko!

Until Neal Adams took over GL I just collected GK's back issues just to complete my collection. His art isn't bad but leaves a lot to be desired. He's on par with Irv Novic, Bob Brown, Vince Colletta, Dick Dillin or whomever was working at DC at the time. I thought even Dick Giordano was a better artist.
The only other artist working for DC back then that stood out was Jim Aparo. His early work on the Brave and the Bold was awesome.

No, you don't suck for not liking his art. Everyone has different tastes.

I didn't care for Kane's work when I was younger, but as I've grown older I find I appreciate his art more. I kinda like his sprawling poses.

One thing that does bother me about his art though-- it always looks to me like he inked it with a felt-tip pen. Every line is exactly the same weight and thickness. Virtually every other comic artist out there inks their work with a brush or some sort of brush pen, giving their lines a beauty and weight that Kane's lacks. There's no variation of line whatsoever in Kane's art, which sucks a lot of the energy out of his work.

Bill Sienkewicz's early work didn't do anything for me. I thought he tried to be too much like Adams. Check out his work on Moon Knight. However, he became one of my favorite artist with his later works when his own style emerged.

You may suck for not having the confidence enough to say "Gil Kane sucks!" But, no you don't suck for saying "Gil Kane sucks!"

I'm not a fan of any silver age art and I don't suck. It's just not my cup of tea.

I didn't mind his work. But like others have said, I always felt it was lacking.. I still like reading Sword of the Atom.

You cant beat a cover done by Sienkewicz!

What do you guys think of Irwin Hasen and Sheldon Moldoff while were on GL?