Interesting Kirby debate...

[dem1138]

Easiest is to upload on photobucket and then they create a link that you can cut/paste here.

[artcollector9]

Sotheby's uses two art attribution definitions as follows:

 

"Studio of Giovanni Bellini-- In our best judgement, a work by an unknown hand executed in the style of the artist under his direct supervision".

 

"Attributed to Giovanni Bellini--In our best judgement, the work can be ascribed to the artist based on style, but less certainty as to authorship than in the previous category (which would be an unqualified attribution).

 

This work certainly falls under either of these two definitions...possibly the later, perhaps the former.

[glendgold]

[Dr. Balls]

I guess I'll ring in on this because to me, the most obvious part is that this is questionable is how the line quality in the silver "highlights" on the Surfer's leg differ from the above example and the Sothebys example.

 

When penciling, I'm going to assume that Kirby used a square/chisel pencil to go from thick to thin lines in the same stroke (similar to how the old hand-letterers worked with the same pencil)

 

The above piece shows it to be nice and fluid strokes, even when they are going at right angles of each other.

 

The Sotheby's piece looks as if the penciller drew a thin line. Stopped. Picked up and drew the wider shading variation. Stopped. Then picked up again to draw the thin variation. Not to mention that it's incredibly sloppy compared to Kirby's pencil work I've seen.

 

 

I don't care how old Jack Kirby got, the way he handles his pencils is not going to change, unless he would have had arthritis and it would not allow his hand or arm to move in one consistent, long movement. If someone can attest he had problems, that might explain the differences in styles - but to me, it looks definitely "not Kirby".

[Solar]

Sotheby's uses two art attribution definitions as follows:

 

"Studio of Giovanni Bellini-- In our best judgement, a work by an unknown hand executed in the style of the artist under his direct supervision".

 

"Attributed to Giovanni Bellini--In our best judgement, the work can be ascribed to the artist based on style, but less certainty as to authorship than in the previous category (which would be an unqualified attribution).

 

This work certainly falls under either of these two definitions...possibly the later, perhaps the former.

 

I'd go with the 'Attributed' tag on this one since the 'Studio' tag implies there was definitely an assistant. It doesn't seem that has been established beyond all doubt.

 

The facts are that Kirby hung the piece on his wall (according to multiple sources), Kirby signed it and Kirby's estate sold it. It was clearly Kirby's intent to represent the work as his, whether or not someone helped him create it. It's obviously not his best work or peak period, but as long as the buyer paid a price reflecting that and is ok with the attributed tag, I don't see a problem.

[Dr. Balls]

The facts are that Kirby hung the piece on his wall (according to multiple sources), Kirby signed it and Kirby's estate sold it. It was clearly Kirby's intent to represent the work as his, whether or not someone helped him create it. It's obviously not his best work or peak period, but as long as the buyer paid a price reflecting that and is ok with the attributed tag, I don't see a problem.

 

It's can also be explained that Kirby may have hung it on his wall because it was a gift from an assistant who was grateful for Kirby's tutelage. It's not uncommon for an inspired younger artist to create something sentimental to give to a mentor as a "thank you" - and it's not uncommon for a mentor to be proud of their students' achievements.

[J.Sid]

I don't care how old Jack Kirby got, the way he handles his pencils is not going to change, unless he would have had arthritis and it would not allow his hand or arm to move in one consistent, long movement. If someone can attest he had problems, that might explain the differences in styles - but to me, it looks definitely "not Kirby".

 

I disagree. Forget comparing strokes from drawings years apart, you can handle your pencil differently from moment to moment during drawing of the same piece.

 

Factors such as which way your art board is rotated, how sharp the tip of your pencil is at that given moment, whether or not your morning coffee has kicked in, or how close you are to missing your lunch appointment can all play a factor in how your line falls on the page.

 

[Dr. Balls]

Factors such as which way your art board is rotated, how sharp the tip of your pencil is at that given moment, whether or not your morning coffee has kicked in, or how close you are to missing your lunch appointment can all play a factor in how your line falls on the page.

 

I agree with the fact that your pencil's edge is going to be of varying degrees, but I don't think a person is going to change their entire style of drawing just because they are running a little late for an appointment.

 

Jack Kirby's line work is fluid and consistent from it's starting point to it's finishing point. That's his style and the way he uses the tools. It's apparent in many of his drawings both ink and pencil. He does not draw, pick up, draw, pick up. And his style is established at that point with 40+ years of experience. There is no need to change the way he draws because his board isn't rotated in a way that is more comfortable to draw with.

 

This is a little like saying a construction worker who drives a nail with two strikes of the hammer would suddenly decide he needs to hit it six times because he's come to work hung over.

 

No one can definitively say any more if it is a Kirby piece - too much debate. And that's unfortunate because the seller now has something he has to constantly justify. That's never a good position to be in, because it takes some of the fun out of owning an original.

[Solar]

The facts are that Kirby hung the piece on his wall (according to multiple sources), Kirby signed it and Kirby's estate sold it. It was clearly Kirby's intent to represent the work as his, whether or not someone helped him create it. It's obviously not his best work or peak period, but as long as the buyer paid a price reflecting that and is ok with the attributed tag, I don't see a problem.

 

It's can also be explained that Kirby may have hung it on his wall because it was a gift from an assistant who was grateful for Kirby's tutelage. It's not uncommon for an inspired younger artist to create something sentimental to give to a mentor as a "thank you" - and it's not uncommon for a mentor to be proud of their students' achievements.

 

If that was the case, it would be a little odd for Kirby to sign the work front and center.

[Dr. Balls]

The facts are that Kirby hung the piece on his wall (according to multiple sources), Kirby signed it and Kirby's estate sold it. It was clearly Kirby's intent to represent the work as his, whether or not someone helped him create it. It's obviously not his best work or peak period, but as long as the buyer paid a price reflecting that and is ok with the attributed tag, I don't see a problem.

 

It's can also be explained that Kirby may have hung it on his wall because it was a gift from an assistant who was grateful for Kirby's tutelage. It's not uncommon for an inspired younger artist to create something sentimental to give to a mentor as a "thank you" - and it's not uncommon for a mentor to be proud of their students' achievements.

 

If that was the case, it would be a little odd for Kirby to sign the work front and center.

 

The assistant could have asked Jack to sign it at an earlier date, then gave it to him as a gift later on after he (the assistant) was established, or died, or took a one-way trip to Kukamunga.

 

I get your point, and it's valid - I'm just trying to say that simply stating Jack Kirby had it hanging in his house when people are questioning the authenticity of the style isn't going to close the case I don't think.

[glendgold]

Jack wasn't signing his work by that time. Usually it was Roz.

[J.Sid]

I agree that the pencil quality does not look as nice in the first scans as it does in your 2nd ones, but part of my point is that drawing to Jack was a job. Certainly a job he loved, however we as fans likely romanticize it much more than he did.

 

Yes, he was a seasoned pro, but as with anyone at their job, some days he was in the zone, and some days he was just hitting deadlines.

[Dr. Balls]

I agree that the pencil quality does not look as nice in the first scans as it does in your 2nd ones, but part of my point is that drawing to Jack was a job. Certainly a job he loved, however we as fans likely romanticize it much more than he did.

 

Yes, he was a seasoned pro, but as with anyone at their job, some days he was in the zone, and some days he was just hitting deadlines.

 

That could be very true, too. And, like I said, the real sad part is that the owner now has this specter of doubt around this piece of artwork. If he's good with it, that's great - but if it's taken some of the fun out of owning it, I truly feel some sympathy over that for him.

[artcollector9]

Hi,

 

I'm the owner, and I understood all this debate prior to acquiring the piece, and the price I paid reflected the uncertainty of the attribution.

 

I'm not convinced that Kirby and/or his wife churned out recreations and commissions completely done by assistants, without some input from Jack.

 

I'm happy to own it, and keep it... it isn't for sale, and if in the future it is, all this information will be made available to the prospective buyer, and the price would reflect all that.

 

 

[bluechip]

I guess I'll ring in on this because to me, the most obvious part is that this is questionable is how the line quality in the silver "highlights" on the Surfer's leg differ from the above example and the Sothebys example.

 

When penciling, I'm going to assume that Kirby used a square/chisel pencil to go from thick to thin lines in the same stroke (similar to how the old hand-letterers worked with the same pencil)

 

The above piece shows it to be nice and fluid strokes, even when they are going at right angles of each other.

 

The Sotheby's piece looks as if the penciller drew a thin line. Stopped. Picked up and drew the wider shading variation. Stopped. Then picked up again to draw the thin variation. Not to mention that it's incredibly sloppy compared to Kirby's pencil work I've seen.

 

 

I don't care how old Jack Kirby got, the way he handles his pencils is not going to change, unless he would have had arthritis and it would not allow his hand or arm to move in one consistent, long movement. If someone can attest he had problems, that might explain the differences in styles - but to me, it looks definitely "not Kirby".

 

I am dogless in this fight but generally intrigued by the way tiny differences in art are taken as proof of authenticity or inauthenticity. People notice something that supports or disproves a theory and then don't notice things which may deviate from the theory. I couldn't help but get drawn into looking at the drawing and it quickly seemed obvious to me that the line on the left was drawn with one stroke and then a line added over it. (if you look at it closely, there is a continuous line underneath which seems to match the style on the right).

 

I don't know what it means. And don't want to draw a conclusions. I'm just saying that when people look for differences and find them, there is a tendency to want the difference they've discovered to be of significance.

[Dr. Balls]

I'm happy to own it, and keep it... it isn't for sale, and if in the future it is, all this information will be made available to the prospective buyer, and the price would reflect all that.

 

 

 

Thanks for being cool about everyone debating about it!

[Kevin.J]

Hi,

 

I'm the owner, and I understood all this debate prior to acquiring the piece, and the price I paid reflected the uncertainty of the attribution.

 

I'm not convinced that Kirby and/or his wife churned out recreations and commissions completely done by assistants, without some input from Jack.

 

I'm happy to own it, and keep it... it isn't for sale, and if in the future it is, all this information will be made available to the prospective buyer, and the price would reflect all that.

 

 

[Lethal_Collector]

I'm happy to own it, and keep it... it isn't for sale, and if in the future it is, all this information will be made available to the prospective buyer, and the price would reflect all that.

 

 

 

Thanks for being cool about everyone debating about it!

 

+1

 

Whether someone believes its authentic or not, you are the only winner with such a nice piece

 

 

Jerome

[Dr. Balls]

I'm just saying that when people look for differences and find them, there is a tendency to want the difference they've discovered to be of significance.

 

It's one of the things that sticks out to me in that drawing. Another is the cross hatching/shading differences. Another is the varying pressures the graphite is put down in the shading.

 

Jack Kirby shades his pencils by laying down graphite in the visual direction the eye is flowing for that particular area or muscle group. That's one of the things that makes his pencils look so amazing. They visually flow, and that has a lot to do with the details of his style - like shading. This is a significant difference worth noting because in some areas of the Surfer drawing, it fits his style, in some areas, it doesn't.

 

It's a curiosity for sure - part of what makes the debate fun. I haven't spent this much time looking at Kirby stuff in months.

 

 

 

 

[artcollector9]

I agree, it's fun to discuss this... I think the answer isn't as easy as Erik seems to want to make it out.

 

I represent Frazetta. I've seen him sign things in his old age that anyone might say 'it isn't Frank's, look at this, look at that, wrong angle, bla bla bla...' but I WATCHED him sign or initial it.

 

If this was done in the 90s , Jack was old. Who the 'F' knows what he did and didn't do?

 

Two old time guys Mike T. and Greg T. say they saw it hanging in his home, though I haven't spoken with them about it.

 

But here is a very moral guy, true to his sincere Jewish beliefs, having done drawings of GOD in his spare time, a good man, genius creator, etc. and you are telling me he OK'd assistants churning out works he had nothing to do with to sell to unsuspecting fans, without his input whatsoever-- pieces that look like his work by way, albeit not his best prime time work?

 

I don't think so. I'm happy to say the piece is 'Studio of Jack Kirby' since Jack sold the piece. I believe he had enough to do with this to consider it 'his' work.

 

 

 

R