Interesting Kirby debate...

[Dr. Balls]

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?

 

It's interesting, because the aspect of assistants for Kirby's work is what drew me to this conversation. Gustave Doré - who is one of my favorite artists, and who inspired me to be an artist - had many assistants (apprentices) to help him with his engravings, to which he would sign his own name. Doré became so popular and in-demand at the time for illustrations, he had no other choice but to have help.

 

Did Kirby do the same thing? It sounds like it. Did he do that with your Surfer piece? We don't know - it would seem there's plenty of points to show for or against it. And it's a matter of perspective in how people take it, because he's gone.

 

I would never think that Jack Kirby would look at an assistant or apprentice as "churning out" work - it's a very noble and rewarding position, and seeing that he was an old school illustrator - I don't think that he would see it as ripping off his fans, either. I think that it may have been how studios ran back then (and before his time). Again, part of the mystery and the perception of how it came about.

 

Erik might be simplifying it too much, and maybe he's doing it for brevity (which I don't seem to subscribe to)

 

And artcollector9, by no means is this an attempt to belittle the piece you have - I think you have a wonderful piece of history that inspires people to look and study Jack Kirby's art - and that's really pretty cool. It's allowed me to research his work a bit more and change my views on it, just within a few pages.

[bluechip]

In all the talk about whether Kirby did this or how much he did it, two things seem to be overlooked or glossed over. One is that Kirby had not previously done recreations or commissions of this sort, so it would make sense that he would approach the work differently then he would other work that he knew was going to be pencilled by someone else, or that was just a knocked off sketch for a fan. This was the first time period in which he created finished commission pencil pieces, so that in itself could explain some differences. Age could explain some more. But, we all know that many artists do things a bit differently when they are doing them for a different purpose. Kirby certaily did rougher pencils for a fan sketch than he did for published pieces. Might he not have done tighter pencils when he knew it was going to be a finished pencil piece to be sold through a world-famous auction house, like a "real" piece of art. That was a new thing, and a big deal. it's not conceivable he would take more time and that, being old and in failing health, might go over some rough edges to try to improve them, etc?

 

Sure, there can be some concerns based on differences, but I am uneasy whenever somebody says "I know absolutely that';s fake because it's clearly done differently," when there are, as in this case, other reasons it would have been different. Also, it's problematic to me when people say they know a piece was done by somebody else and won't say who that persoin is. If you're going to do deliberate harm to the value of something, it shouldn't be anonymous. (and, yes,I think being anonymous when you're out to somebody do harm is not quite as innocent or explainable as being anonymous when you're lending somebody support). Aside from that, dog in this fight I do not have.

[artcollector9]

well said Blue chip.

[bluechip]

I tried to post that on CAF but got an error message.

 

I have seen this tendency too many times in comics and art collecting. Perhaps it exists in other fields as well and I just don't know it. But there's a presumption that one can attack another's property with immunity and reckless disregard for the verifiable facts (or, perhaps more accurately, for the totality of facts), and without regard for the damage caused. Worse, often, with an express desire to cause damage.

 

Kirby drew things differently depending on the circumstances. His convention sketches look different from his published pieces, which he knew were going to be inked. If there were only a handful of conventions sketches, you might look at them and say "Kirby never drew like that,"

 

These commission pieces were unique situations which Kirby had never before been in. He was doing pieces meant to be auctioned by a major auction house with great publicity, and the pieces was meant to be a finished pencil piece -- not to be inked afterward.

 

That his hand might move sligfhtly differently, or that he might go over small sections to complete lines in ways he didn't normally do -- all that should not be surprising. That is not to say I know there wasn't any work or even a lot of work done by assistants, but to say the reverse, that you know that all of it was done by assistants, isn't really fair. If you persoinally had lots of pieces of work by Kirby -- done under precisely the same circumstances -- and you saw differences, that would be one thing. But nobody has lots of pieces done under the same circumstances. And to say you know it's fake because the guy who faked it told you so, but the faker won't reveal his name and you won't, either, despite knowing his name and using his word to undermine the value of someone's property, well, that's not fair, either.

 

There is a whole world of difference between posting anonymously to express appreciation and support for an item, and speaking anonymously, or posting on behalf of someone speaking anonymously, when their intent, and yours, is to ruin the value of something. Doesn't make anyone's comments true or false, but whether right or wrong the naysayers aren't going about this in a completely correct way

[artcollector9]

Your comment was too long for CAF so I posted it in three smaller posts, thanks.

[bluechip]

Oh, that. Editing is harder than writing. Anywhere, this would be my parting comment for what it's worth.

 

Imagine if you deposited a big check and the bank called you to say they bounced your check because some guy told them it was a forgery. And he says he knows it's a forgery because he knows the guy who forged it. So you ask the guy if he's gonna tell you, or tell the bank, who the forger is. And the guy says "nah."

[Nexus]

Oh, that. Editing is harder than writing. Anywhere, this would be my parting comment for what it's worth.

 

Imagine if you deposited a big check and the bank called you to say they bounced your check because some guy told them it was a forgery. And he says he knows it's a forgery because he knows the guy who forged it. So you ask the guy if he's gonna tell you, or tell the bank, who the forger is. And the guy says "nah."

 

A closer analogy to this situation is if you deposited a big check THAT YOU KNEW AHEAD OF TIME MAY BE FORGED. But you deposited it anyway, hoping it was real. And when the guy at the bank told you it was forged, you told him that was his opinion.

[glendgold]

Bluechip, about your points:

 

You say:

 

>Kirby had not previously done recreations or commissions of this sort

 

That's incorrect. He'd been doing stuff like this for over ten years. He'd done Surfer/Doom commission pieces as early as 1972, and Surfer/FF pieces as late as 1987. They don't look like Rob's piece. They were drawn the way Kirby drew every other day of his life, as reinterpretations of scenes with poses that weren't flipped or lightboxed from previous panels but instead reimagined.

 

You say:

 

>Sure, there can be some concerns based on differences, but I am uneasy whenever somebody says "I know absolutely that';s fake because it's clearly done differently," when there are, as in this case, other reasons it would have been different.

 

How's this? In the past, the Kirby estate has declared that Jack didn't pencil something when the back of a piece is clean. The back of this piece is clean. Is it possible he still drew it? Sure, anything is possible, but when there's a clear indication that a piece is problematic, then why not listen to that?

 

 

>Also, it's problematic to me when people say they know a piece was done by somebody else and won't say who that persoin is. If you're going to do deliberate harm to the value of something, it shouldn't be anonymous. (and, yes,I think being anonymous when you're out to somebody do harm is not quite as innocent or explainable as being anonymous when you're lending somebody support)

 

 

I've addressed this elsewhere, but let me be clear about this: I don't know who the assistant was.

 

As far as impacting its value, that's irrelevant to Rob. He knows he paid less for it because of those flags, and he's said he's keeping it. So that seems to me to be a non-issue.

 

(Edited for typos.)

[AtlasFan]

Are there any known photographs of Kirby drawing these pieces? That would show that these pieces of paper were at least touched by Jack.

 

Also, I wouldn’t get too hung up on the lack of dirtiness on the backs of these pieces. If Jack was doing this for a high-profile auction, then he may have been given instructions that the final piece was to be as clean as possible.

 

Those who have a vested interest should check with the auction house - they must have publicity photos or even videos of Jack creating these pieces.

 

Also, wasn’t the "assistant" routed out in a recent Kirby book? Why not just compare these pieces to that alleged assistant and look for similarities? You dont need to be Reed Richards to figure that one out!

[AtlasFan]

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

 

 

 

 

People tend to forget that Jack was kind of bitter in his twilight years.

 

It was common thought that Stan Lee created Marvel, Kirby still didn’t have all his original art, nor the creator credit he felt he deserved.

 

And while Stan was a wealthy man, Kirby (not the greatest of businessmen) was not in the place he wanted to be financially - his 1970 move to DC ended badly and his career went south ever since.

 

After the Kirby returned to Marvel "hat in hand" in the mid-70s (writing & drawing books like Devil Dinosaur and Machine Man) he was roasted almost monthly by the typists at the Comics Journal. They would openly lambaste Jack's work. A lot of new artists at the time were glad to join in....just read the interviews from the CJ from the late 70s and early 80s. After Jack passed, most people tend to want to forget all that Kirby-bashing.

 

So when it appeared that his health was failing and he wanted to make sure his family was provided for, it probably wasn’t too tough a decision for Jack to have artists assist him so his family would be financially secure.

 

[artcollector9]

Makes sense Atlas fan.

 

Key sentence= jack had artists assist him...

 

This is correctly stated to be a piece produced by 'the studio of jack Kirby'.

 

Rob

 

 

[bluechip]

Bluechip, about your points:

 

You say:

 

>Kirby had not previously done recreations or commissions of this sort

 

That's incorrect. He'd been doing stuff like this for over ten years. He'd done Surfer/Doom commission pieces as early as 1972, and Surfer/FF pieces as late as 1987. They don't look like Rob's piece. They were drawn the way Kirby drew every other day of his life, as reinterpretations of scenes with poses that weren't flipped or lightboxed from previous panels but instead reimagined.

 

You say:

 

>Sure, there can be some concerns based on differences, but I am uneasy whenever somebody says "I know absolutely that';s fake because it's clearly done differently," when there are, as in this case, other reasons it would have been different.

 

How's this? In the past, the Kirby estate has declared that Jack didn't pencil something when the back of a piece is clean. The back of this piece is clean. Is it possible he still drew it? Sure, anything is possible, but when there's a clear indication that a piece is problematic, then why not listen to that?

 

 

>Also, it's problematic to me when people say they know a piece was done by somebody else and won't say who that persoin is. If you're going to do deliberate harm to the value of something, it shouldn't be anonymous. (and, yes,I think being anonymous when you're out to somebody do harm is not quite as innocent or explainable as being anonymous when you're lending somebody support)

 

 

I've addressed this elsewhere, but let me be clear about this: I don't know who the assistant was.

 

As far as impacting its value, that's irrelevant to Rob. He knows he paid less for it because of those flags, and he's said he's keeping it. So that seems to me to be a non-issue.

 

(Edited for typos.)

 

I don't think the sotheby's pieced equate to ordinary commissions. The Sothebys pieces gave the pieces a cachet that would certainly have made an impact on Kirby. (Now, that could have made him go over the lines AND/OR look for help, but it certainly is not the same as previous commissions. It was a big step up, I am sure, in Kirby's view)

 

I think if a person sets out to devalue something by calling it a forgery, and says they know it's a forgery because they KNOW THE FORGER (!!) then it's their responsibility to say who the forger is.

 

The people who say "I know the forger and i won't tell you" have done harm to the value of this piece, as well as the value of the other pieces, as well as to Kirby's reputation, as well as Sotheby's reputation.

 

They are willfully harming all of those people, companies and pieces of art and the only person or thing being protected... is the forger.

 

 

 

[glendgold]

>I don't think the sotheby's pieced equate to ordinary commissions. The Sothebys pieces gave the pieces a cachet that would certainly have made an impact on Kirby.

 

 

I'm sorry but the facts keep changing on me here. I thought this piece is alleged to have hung in the Kirbys' house for years. How was it a Sotheby's commission if it was hanging on Jack and Roz's wall?

 

This piece first sold in the 1992 auction. The recreations were in the 1994 auction. These are two different issues.

 

Also: just because you've put it in caps and added exclamation points doesn't in any way cause me to know who the assistant who executed the work is. Also, I'm using the word "assistant" and you're using the word "forger." I think one of those is a little more pejorative and perhaps harmful to legacy, reputation and whatnot.

 

 

[comicartman]

Anyway seems like everyone can agree on one thing, which is to disagree on this topic. Bottom line and most important thing is artcollector9 enjoys the piece now and will give full disclosure to a prospective buyer should he ever choose to sell it in the future. Must commend you for taking it so well and seeing the point of view of both camps. Most people won't be such good sports.

[artcollector9]

Glen, not so speak for the other fellow, but I believe his comments are more to Erik than you.

 

Yes, I thought the piece was hanging in Kirby's house, the Mike T. and Greg T. supposedly both corroborated this.

 

Then, the piece was sold to Graham Nash who owned it for an undetermined period of time.

 

Nash then consigned it, along with other art, to Sotheby's in 1992, where it sold.

 

Regards,

 

Rob

 

[bluechip]

>I don't think the sotheby's pieced equate to ordinary commissions. The Sothebys pieces gave the pieces a cachet that would certainly have made an impact on Kirby.

 

 

I'm sorry but the facts keep changing on me here. I thought this piece is alleged to have hung in the Kirbys' house for years. How was it a Sotheby's commission if it was hanging on Jack and Roz's wall?

 

This piece first sold in the 1992 auction. The recreations were in the 1994 auction. These are two different issues.

 

Also: just because you've put it in caps and added exclamation points doesn't in any way cause me to know who the assistant who executed the work is. Also, I'm using the word "assistant" and you're using the word "forger." I think one of those is a little more pejorative and perhaps harmful to legacy, reputation and whatnot.

 

 

In each point we're all discussing other people here.

 

So that's how I mention a guy used the word "forger" and it doesn't necessarily mean you did yourself.

 

But I will put it more broadly and say that anybody who is actively trying to devalue a piece of art by saying they know that Kirby didn't do it because they know the person who did, then there's something wrong in their motivations and their behavior if their goal is to harm every thing and person who had a stake in the art while quite deliberately hiding the most pertinent information and protecting the one person living who is most responsible for the alleged deception

[comicartcom]

In each point we're all discussing other people here.

 

So that's how I mention a guy used the word "forger" and it doesn't necessarily mean you did yourself.

 

But I will put it more broadly and say that anybody who is actively trying to devalue a piece of art by saying they know that Kirby didn't do it because they know the person who did, then there's something wrong in their motivations and their behavior if their goal is to harm every thing and person who had a stake in the art while quite deliberately hiding the most pertinent information and protecting the one person living who is most responsible for the alleged deception

 

very well said Bluechip

 

anony-mouse doesn't cut it in my book

[artcollector9]

excellent and well said bluechip!

[Nexus]

>I don't think the sotheby's pieced equate to ordinary commissions. The Sothebys pieces gave the pieces a cachet that would certainly have made an impact on Kirby.

 

 

I'm sorry but the facts keep changing on me here. I thought this piece is alleged to have hung in the Kirbys' house for years. How was it a Sotheby's commission if it was hanging on Jack and Roz's wall?

 

This piece first sold in the 1992 auction. The recreations were in the 1994 auction. These are two different issues.

 

Also: just because you've put it in caps and added exclamation points doesn't in any way cause me to know who the assistant who executed the work is. Also, I'm using the word "assistant" and you're using the word "forger." I think one of those is a little more pejorative and perhaps harmful to legacy, reputation and whatnot.

 

 

In each point we're all discussing other people here.

 

So that's how I mention a guy used the word "forger" and it doesn't necessarily mean you did yourself.

 

Fine, but you are still wrong about this piece being one of the Sotheby's recreations.

 

But I will put it more broadly and say that anybody who is actively trying to devalue a piece of art by saying they know that Kirby didn't do it because they know the person who did, then there's something wrong in their motivations and their behavior if their goal is to harm every thing and person who had a stake in the art while quite deliberately hiding the most pertinent information and protecting the one person living who is most responsible for the alleged deception

 

I think you're hung up on the identity of the forger. Those expressing doubts about the piece, aren't relying on hearsay. They're certainly not saying "This is a fake Kirby because I know the forger and I'm not telling you." No, they are questioning how much Kirby drew BASED ON THE ART ITSELF. They are telling you why Kirby may have had very little to do with the piece, strictly by analyzing the art, without resorting to "because a forger told me so". No one else is making the "forger" the focal point of their argument. Ironically, it may be in Rob's best interest that the identity of any "forger" not be revealed as the ambiguity is better for the art's value than knowing for sure.

 

I also disagree that anyone is out to "harm" anything. Especially since Rob already knew the attribution was problematic when he bought it. In one of Erik's now-deleted comments, he mentions that collectors are spending ever increasing amounts of money for Kirby art, and they deserve to know. Before Erik spoke up publicly, this piece was accepted by the hobby at large as 100% Kirby. Given the questions that have been raised, I know I'm glad someone said something.

 

 

[Bird]

I also don't think people are out to "harm" anyone, quite the opposite in fact. I think they are trying to protect potential buyers while still maintaining some sort of weird loyalty to those involved. Yes, they want to have their cake and eat it too, but not out of malice. that is how I see it at least.