• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Interesting Kirby debate...

Started by Nexus,

125 posts in this topic

Nexus

Nexus

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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

 

That's funny as bluechip is also anonymous... :makepoint:

 

Meanwhile, it should be pointed out that every one of the collectors who have reservations about the piece, have signed their name to their comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
artcollector9

artcollector9

Posted
Posted

Felix, I have left nearly all of Erik's comment intact; But, I deleted 1-2 that are just repeats of what he has said. He isn't adding new information. This public place would be a better forum than MY CAF page. He's posted 11 times. Everyone understands what he thinks.

 

I don't even disagree with most of what he said!

 

I do think that the piece is accurately and legally and morally 'Studio of Jack Kirby'. That's it.It isn't a 'forgery', and that's where I take issue with Erik. Let others argue the degree that Kirby was involved.

 

I must say though, he comes across a little too smug....

 

Joe Sinnott inked a high quality copy of the piece-- I posted a picture of it-- he inked Jack's name too--was he in on the ' conspiracy', or was he just sincerely 'fooled' like most of us? Did Jack's long time inker not know Jack's work?

 

I've handled original art for 38 years. I manage the Frazetta estate. In my 'old age' I can tell you things aren't always what they seem...so let's not all be so 'sure' of our opinions, especially Erik. When he says 'I guarantee' it wasn't touched by Kirby, he's just not credible...nor is the statement provable.

 

 

 

Rob

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bird

Bird

Posted
Posted

That's funny as bluechip is also anonymous... :makepoint:

 

not to me he isn't and not to many others either

 

does your profile give your name up???

 

no it doesn't. at least bluechips' does not. He is still anonymous as a poster, even if YOU know who he is. It doesn't mean he does not exist. The forger/assistant/other guy or gal is obviously "known" to people, but it this context he is anonymous, like bluechip.

 

-sean wasielewski (in irrelevant arguing mode I guess!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NelsonAI

NelsonAI

Posted
Posted

Rob has a fantastic art collection and his integrity within this hobby is not in question. When it comes to art, everybody has an opinion. As such, Rob should not take things personally since he was the buyer and current owner of the art. He is not trying sell.

 

There are plenty of threads on these boards where questionable art is raised. "Is this real or fake?" - Fill in the artist name - Kirby, Ditko, Schulz, Watterson, Byrne etc. Anyone who studies an artist enough usually has an opinion on these CGC boards. IMHO this is the proper forum for discussion, not CAF.

 

Erik Larsen and Glen Gold have certainly studied enough Kirby to have an educated opinion. Heritage had a vested interest and they couldn't authenticate the piece as Kirby. Many Kirby collectors had similar concerns which is why it sold for what it did.

 

Rob is the rep for Frazetta. This means he is an expert on Frazetta. Is he an expert on Kirby? I'm sure he might have an educated opinion about Kirby. As long as Rob is happy with the piece, that's all that matters.

 

I'm okay with "Studio of Kirby". My personal thoughts are that all assistants were trying raise money for Kirby. Kirby's art and name still commanded the most $. If you were the ghost artist why stay silent? Well, if you intentionally sold the piece as Kirby, you could be accused of fraud.

 

The 1990's were a different time and era. Today, each artist would have contributed a unique piece and signed their own name. Each piece would have been auctioned off with the proceeds going directly to the person in need. Heroes Initiative comes to mind.

 

Again, just my opinion.

 

I do have a few additional thoughts.

 

1) Joe Sinnott was commissioned to ink a photocopy of the art and photocopy of "Jack Kirby's signature". Was Joe asked to authenticate the art as Kirby? I'm sure there are plenty of artists that would ink a photocopy if you paid them.

As such, I'm not sure if this adds to any evidence of it really being a Kirby.

 

 

2) There were some comments that some artists may have seen it hanging on Kirby's wall. If the piece was done as a "commission", this implies it was being sold to a collector. If so, why would it be hanging on Kirby's wall? Shouldn't it be hanging on the collector's wall since he paid for it?

 

 

All the best.

Cheers!

Nelson.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
artcollector9

artcollector9

Posted
Posted

Good points Nelson. I appreciate the kind words too.

 

I don't know the origin of the piece. The story is the piece was hanging up at Kirby's, (two guys have said they saw it hanging) and musician Graham Nash came over and bought several pieces, including the one in question.

 

Nash eventually consigned it to Sotheby's in 1992 along with other comic art property of his.

 

Since Kirby sold it, it's ' Studio of Jack Kirby'. I'm satisfied that accurately describes the piece legally and morally.

 

That's the basis on which I bought it.

 

Erik and other who say 'not Kirby at all' are simply overstating the case, because all they really have are educated guesses. They cannot make unqualified statements.

 

Neither can I of course, but I'm not trying to!

 

I bought the piece after the fact...I understood the issues going in...I'm more objective that you might think as owner.

 

It's Studio of Jack Kirby. To say otherwise is illogical and irrational...and dishonest too.

 

Rob

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nexus

Nexus

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Felix, I have left nearly all of Erik's comment intact; But, I deleted 1-2 that are just repeats of what he has said. He isn't adding new information. This public place would be a better forum than MY CAF page. He's posted 11 times. Everyone understands what he thinks.

 

I don't even disagree with most of what he said!

 

I do think that the piece is accurately and legally and morally 'Studio of Jack Kirby'. That's it.It isn't a 'forgery', and that's where I take issue with Erik. Let others argue the degree that Kirby was involved.

 

I must say though, he comes across a little too smug....

 

Joe Sinnott inked a high quality copy of the piece-- I posted a picture of it-- he inked Jack's name too--was he in on the ' conspiracy', or was he just sincerely 'fooled' like most of us? Did Jack's long time inker not know Jack's work?

 

I've handled original art for 38 years. I manage the Frazetta estate. In my 'old age' I can tell you things aren't always what they seem...so let's not all be so 'sure' of our opinions, especially Erik. When he says 'I guarantee' it wasn't touched by Kirby, he's just not credible...nor is the statement provable.

 

 

 

Rob

 

 

Rob,

 

Bluechip said something earlier in this thread that I agree with and I think it applies here. That is, we all see what we want to see, and believe what we want to believe. So if this piece looks like a Kirby at first glance, then "facts" like "I know someone who saw this hanging in Jack's home" and "a previous owner told me it's all-Kirby" become all the proof we need. For ourselves and for others.

 

Of course, as the new owner, you'd like Kirby to have had MAJOR involvement with this piece. The more the better! That's clear enough in your CAF description and in your follow-up comments. But whether intentional or not, it felt like that was how the piece was being steered. And when you produce your credentials as a collector of 38 years and the handler of the Frazetta estate, impressive as those are, it may read to others as "If this art (and the corroborating circumstantial evidence) is good enough for ME...then it's good enough for YOU."

 

I agree that terms like "forgery" and "fake" are too strong to use in this case. That aside, I do find that Erik makes a compelling argument.

 

As a fellow oldster, I also try to keep an open mind. I sincerely hope you get to enjoy this piece in your collection for the next 38 years!

 

Felix

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nexus

Nexus

Posted
  • Author
Posted

That's funny as bluechip is also anonymous... :makepoint:

 

not to me he isn't and not to many others either

 

does your profile give your name up???

 

Actually, it does. Just click on the link in my signature line. Or ask, I'll tell you. Not so with bluechip. You and a few others may know who his is, but to the majority of us, he's functionally anonymous. Which is his right.

 

Which is also not so different from the hypothetical anonymous "forger", whom you object to. Logically inconsistent to be OK with one but not the other. :makepoint:

 

(BTW, good luck with your sale...some really great pieces :foryou:)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nexus

Nexus

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Rob has a fantastic art collection and his integrity within this hobby is not in question. When it comes to art, everybody has an opinion. As such, Rob should not take things personally since he was the buyer and current owner of the art. He is not trying sell.

 

There are plenty of threads on these boards where questionable art is raised. "Is this real or fake?" - Fill in the artist name - Kirby, Ditko, Schulz, Watterson, Byrne etc. Anyone who studies an artist enough usually has an opinion on these CGC boards. IMHO this is the proper forum for discussion, not CAF.

 

Erik Larsen and Glen Gold have certainly studied enough Kirby to have an educated opinion. Heritage had a vested interest and they couldn't authenticate the piece as Kirby. Many Kirby collectors had similar concerns which is why it sold for what it did.

 

Rob is the rep for Frazetta. This means he is an expert on Frazetta. Is he an expert on Kirby? I'm sure he might have an educated opinion about Kirby. As long as Rob is happy with the piece, that's all that matters.

 

I'm okay with "Studio of Kirby". My personal thoughts are that all assistants were trying raise money for Kirby. Kirby's art and name still commanded the most $. If you were the ghost artist why stay silent? Well, if you intentionally sold the piece as Kirby, you could be accused of fraud.

 

The 1990's were a different time and era. Today, each artist would have contributed a unique piece and signed their own name. Each piece would have been auctioned off with the proceeds going directly to the person in need. Heroes Initiative comes to mind.

 

Again, just my opinion.

 

I do have a few additional thoughts.

 

1) Joe Sinnott was commissioned to ink a photocopy of the art and photocopy of "Jack Kirby's signature". Was Joe asked to authenticate the art as Kirby? I'm sure there are plenty of artists that would ink a photocopy if you paid them.

As such, I'm not sure if this adds to any evidence of it really being a Kirby.

 

 

2) There were some comments that some artists may have seen it hanging on Kirby's wall. If the piece was done as a "commission", this implies it was being sold to a collector. If so, why would it be hanging on Kirby's wall? Shouldn't it be hanging on the collector's wall since he paid for it?

 

 

All the best.

Cheers!

Nelson.

 

Some great points, Nelson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluechip

bluechip

Posted
Posted

It is extremely, extremely odd to me that someone would say "I must go public with the fact that I know a guy who forged a piece of art. But, tell people who the forger is? No way."

 

Also a bit weird is the way that people say "this can't be Kirby because it looks different from his earlier work" and, in virtually the same breath, say "Kirby couldn't have drawn any of it, whatsoever, because he was sick and aged and could no longer draw the way he did before." WTF? So, there's nothing between Kirby drawing it exactly as he did before, and being absolutely incapable of drawing at all? No middle ground where he continues to draw but draws differently due to age?

 

 

Here I was, feeling like the OA side of collecting was worthwhile, in part, because the people seemed more sane than some comic collectors have become, and that you could collect and talk about collecting without having conversations like the ones you do with books, where people obsess not only about whether a book has a tiny mark on the cover but about whether the mark occured accidentally or deliberately, and how the determination would mean a difference of 95% of its value. OA seemed to be a bit more about the work itself, and the beauty and functionality of it, and its role in storytelling, etc. Now there is this issue, which, in much the same way, threatens to make my head explode. Why? Because while I understand wanting to protect buyers and I also understand someone wanting to get the truth out, and I also understand someone wanting to protect an assistant who worked with Kirby, those are all completely contradictory goals and values, and I can't understand why some here seem unable to realize that and insist on holding fast to all them simultaneously.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nexus

Nexus

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Also a bit weird is the way that people say "this can't be Kirby because it looks different from his earlier work" and, in virtually the same breath, say "Kirby couldn't have drawn any of it, whatsoever, because he was sick and aged and could no longer draw the way he did before." WTF? So, there's nothing between Kirby drawing it exactly as he did before, and being absolutely incapable of drawing at all? No middle ground where he continues to draw but draws differently due to age?

 

The way I read the comments is this: If the piece was done in the '70s, then it looks nothing like other pieces Kirby did in the '70s. If it was done in the '90s, then it looks nothing like other pieces Kirby did in the '90s...EXCEPT for the Sotheby's recreations.

 

Beyond that, there are several inconsistencies/oddities with the art that make it seem unlikely that Kirby drew the piece. It's interesting to study the piece and examine it with that knowledge, but to be fair, it's also not ironclad proof. I will say, though, that for me personally, the evidence used to support the piece such as "a previous owner says it's all-Kirby" and "someone saw it hanging in Jack's house" and "it was listed as all-Kirby in an auction catalog" are even less convincing to me. Especially the last one...check out the Conan thread going on right now if you think auction houses never make any mistakes.

 

I understand why anyone owning the piece wouldn't want to believe Kirby didn't draw it. I also understand why those who view Kirby as their hero, don't want to believe he may have sold something he didn't draw. But again, speaking for myself, none of that means that much to me when looking at the art.

 

We all have to draw our own conclusions.

 

Here I was, feeling like the OA side of collecting was worthwhile, in part, because the people seemed more sane than some comic collectors have become, and that you could collect and talk about collecting without having conversations like the ones you do with books, where people obsess not only about whether a book has a tiny mark on the cover but about whether the mark occured accidentally or deliberately, and how the determination would mean a difference of 95% of its value. OA seemed to be a bit more about the work itself, and the beauty and functionality of it, and its role in storytelling, etc. Now there is this issue, which, in much the same way, threatens to make my head explode. Why? Because while I understand wanting to protect buyers and I also understand someone wanting to get the truth out, and I also understand someone wanting to protect an assistant who worked with Kirby, those are all completely contradictory goals and values, and I can't understand why some here seem unable to realize that and insist on holding fast to all them simultaneously.

 

In the end, OA's no different than any other hobby where you have people motivated by their own self-interests and where you have some people who don't collect so much as seek out value, opportunity, and upside.

 

Welcome to the hobby:P

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
glendgold

glendgold

Posted
Posted

One of the good byproducts of this discussion is that it's made me start thumbing through issues of the JKC and look at Kirby's post-'82 commission pieces. I hadn't realized there are so many of them. I'm also starting to see some patterns starting to emerge that maybe I'll have time to explain in the coming days -- they might not explain much about the piece at hand, but they could give people a scaffolding when they talk about Kirby's work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AtlasFan

AtlasFan

Posted
Posted

. Now there is this issue, which, in much the same way, threatens to make my head explode. Why? Because while I understand wanting to protect buyers and I also understand someone wanting to get the truth out, and I also understand someone wanting to protect an assistant who worked with Kirby, those are all completely contradictory goals and values, and I can't understand why some here seem unable to realize that and insist on holding fast to all them simultaneously.

 

 

I think an individual can hold all these principals without any contradiction.

 

1) The Truth. It’s important that the truth be known - this way the OA community can learn from the mistakes of the past.

 

2) Protecting the Buyer. No one want to pay top dollar to buy something that pretends to be something grander.

 

3) Protecting the assistant/ghost artist that actually did the piece. Makes sense to me. The individual probably would like to be better known for their own body of work and not as the "Kirby ghost". Most likely the artist did it as a favor to the King given his financial woes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing