Bob Kane - original art?!?!?

[Catwoman_Fan]

Yes,

I'd like to believe that Bob drew this, but I heard rumors otherwise.

 

Does anybody care to share their opinion? Or know who would have drawn this piece?

 

Catwoman Painting on Heritage

 

Best,

Anthony

[MedicAR]

Bob Kane is a tough one, which is really sad considering the contribution he is most often credited with. He had so many ghosts during his "career" that we may never be able to nail down what was really drawn by him. Even his biography, "Batman and Me" that came with a sketch by him has since been called into question. And I have heard some question whether he even signed the lithos and prints that are "authentic." It is near impossible to say when someone actually has information and when they are jumping on the nay-sayer bandwagon.

 

I will say that the layout and general quality of the drawing is bad enough to be him. The color seems very nice, though and aside from his gallery work in the late 60s, I don't know much about his coloring skill. Unfortunately, it has been suggested that he may not have even painted those. I think that it may have been painted by someone else over his drawing.

 

Even if I had money to burn (like Mega Millions money) I would be hard pressed to spend it on this or similar work. But given your screen name, I don't know that I could do much to dissuade you aside from taking credit for the work myself.

 

Look for more work credited to him and make up your own mind. In the end, it may be the only one that truly matters. Personally, I have a three Batman head sketches supposedly by him. One in the "Batman and Me" book, one that is strikingly similar and a small remarque on a print. All came from reputable sources (the books was direct from the publisher) but because of his tainted legacy, solid authenticity will likely never be certain.

 

[Catwoman_Fan]

Thanks for the insight (thumbs u

 

I also have a Bob Kane, that "he" drew for a friend. I like to think that he wouldn't have someone else draw everything, including gifts, but who can say.

 

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before his shadow collaborators are named.

[kbmcvay]

Bob Kane claimed he personally penciled every single Batman story from 1939-1965. I would avoid buying anything reported to have been personally drawn by him.

 

Edited for clarity.

[MedicAR]

The most frequently named associates (he called them "assistants" the world at large considers them "ghost artists") are Jerry Robinson, Sheldon Moldoff, Dick Sprang, George Roussos, Lou Sayre Schwartz, and Mort Meskin. To make it even funnier, it has been suggested that all of his ghosts thought that they were the only ghost.

 

Dial B for Blog posted a great story about Bob Kane and his contributors. I only wish he would credit his sources. He states that this "has been proved" and that "has been discredited" but doesn't specify where it it was shown to be untrue or by whom. Unfortunately, even without resources, I can easily believe every word. I do think he gets carried away with his demonstration of swipes at the end of the article, but overall it is a good piece.

 

Studio styles were commonplace in the Golden Age of comics, The Eisner-Iger Shop is a good example. They would have many artists in a room with reference material on the wall up front and everyone in the room was expected to draw the same characters in the same way ( i believe i saw this in Will Eisner's "The Dreamer" but can't find my copy right now). The key difference in this technique and what Kane inflicted on comics was the Eisner-Iger Shop did it in the open and eventually gave credit to those working for them. Kane apparently kept his stable of artists in the dark about each other and even disputed the claims of the artists after they were repeatedly shown to be correct. Another difference would be that Eisner-Iger did a lot to help their artists beyond recognizing their contributions. They instructed them on techniques and fundamentals, basically adding why to do something on the page instead of just saying "make it look like this." They laid the groundwork that would help these artists expand and make names for themselves where Kane just want robots to make stuff that all looked the same.

 

[MedicAR]

Bob Kane claimed he personally penciled every single Batman story from 1939-1965. I would avoid buying anything reported to be drawn by him personally.

 

I'm not trying to be a grammar Nazi, I just want to be sure I understand your intent in the second sentence. Are you saying that you, personally, would avoid buying anything reported to be drawn by him? Or are you saying that you would avoid buying anything reported to be personally drawn by him? Granted, either way you're not buying it but I am still curious as to the original intent.

[MedicAR]

I also have a Bob Kane, that "he" drew for a friend. I like to think that he wouldn't have someone else draw everything, including gifts, but who can say.

 

I forgot this part in my earlier post. There are several anecdotal stories of him being seen to draw items for fans and even

so we can say with fair certainty that there are some drawings the he genuinely did floating around in the world. Looking at the drawing he can actually be seen creating, he either does a perfect formula type drawing, one that is practiced and repeated over and over and looks essentially the same every time or he does bad art.

[kbmcvay]

Bob Kane claimed he personally penciled every single Batman story from 1939-1965. I would avoid buying anything reported to be drawn by him personally.

 

I'm not trying to be a grammar Nazi, I just want to be sure I understand your intent in the second sentence. Are you saying that you, personally, would avoid buying anything reported to be drawn by him? Or are you saying that you would avoid buying anything reported to be personally drawn by him? Granted, either way you're not buying it but I am still curious as to the original intent.

The latter. I will update my original post.

[MedicAR]

Bob Kane claimed he personally penciled every single Batman story from 1939-1965. I would avoid buying anything reported to be drawn by him personally.

 

I'm not trying to be a grammar Nazi, I just want to be sure I understand your intent in the second sentence. Are you saying that you, personally, would avoid buying anything reported to be drawn by him? Or are you saying that you would avoid buying anything reported to be personally drawn by him? Granted, either way you're not buying it but I am still curious as to the original intent.

The latter. I will update my original post.

 

No worries, it's like art and literature. In the end, it is what it means to the viewer or reader but I always like to know the intent of the creator and how it jibes with my interpretation.

 

I guess since we are talking about art and ethics, I really wanted clarification on this one!

[bluechip]

Bob Kane is a tough one, which is really sad considering the contribution he is most often credited with. He had so many ghosts during his "career" that we may never be able to nail down what was really drawn by him. Even his biography, "Batman and Me" that came with a sketch by him has since been called into question. And I have heard some question whether he even signed the lithos and prints that are "authentic." It is near impossible to say when someone actually has information and when they are jumping on the nay-sayer bandwagon.

 

I will say that the layout and general quality of the drawing is bad enough to be him. The color seems very nice, though and aside from his gallery work in the late 60s, I don't know much about his coloring skill. Unfortunately, it has been suggested that he may not have even painted those. I think that it may have been painted by someone else over his drawing.

 

Even if I had money to burn (like Mega Millions money) I would be hard pressed to spend it on this or similar work. But given your screen name, I don't know that I could do much to dissuade you aside from taking credit for the work myself.

 

Look for more work credited to him and make up your own mind. In the end, it may be the only one that truly matters. Personally, I have a three Batman head sketches supposedly by him. One in the "Batman and Me" book, one that is strikingly similar and a small remarque on a print. All came from reputable sources (the books was direct from the publisher) but because of his tainted legacy, solid authenticity will likely never be certain.

 

 

....his "career" .....

 

When you put quotes around a word it's supposed to mean you are quoting someone or alluding to a quote, and you suspect it's not real. It's like writing "sic" (which means "spelling is correct" -- and that you think the spelling is actually incorrect but you're saying, in effect "that's how this insufficiently_thoughtful_person spelled it."

 

Saying he had ghosts is accurate. Saying he had a "career" is like writing that he had a "face" or was a "person." And it shows a certain "maturity" that can undermine the statement.

 

 

[Solar]

Bob Kane claimed he personally penciled every single Batman story from 1939-1965. I would avoid buying anything reported to have been personally drawn by him.

 

Edited for clarity.

 

Why does it matter if it was personally drawn by him? Just assume it's by "Bob Kane or assistant" and you'll be fine.

[DeadpoolJr.]

 

I would imagine this would be one of the few seen where he was seen drawing it by person that originally got it.

http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/28111528_cartoonists-an-excellent-65-x-10-white-card-featuring

[MedicAR]

Bob Kane is a tough one, which is really sad considering the contribution he is most often credited with. He had so many ghosts during his "career" that we may never be able to nail down what was really drawn by him. Even his biography, "Batman and Me" that came with a sketch by him has since been called into question. And I have heard some question whether he even signed the lithos and prints that are "authentic." It is near impossible to say when someone actually has information and when they are jumping on the nay-sayer bandwagon.

 

I will say that the layout and general quality of the drawing is bad enough to be him. The color seems very nice, though and aside from his gallery work in the late 60s, I don't know much about his coloring skill. Unfortunately, it has been suggested that he may not have even painted those. I think that it may have been painted by someone else over his drawing.

 

Even if I had money to burn (like Mega Millions money) I would be hard pressed to spend it on this or similar work. But given your screen name, I don't know that I could do much to dissuade you aside from taking credit for the work myself.

 

Look for more work credited to him and make up your own mind. In the end, it may be the only one that truly matters. Personally, I have a three Batman head sketches supposedly by him. One in the "Batman and Me" book, one that is strikingly similar and a small remarque on a print. All came from reputable sources (the books was direct from the publisher) but because of his tainted legacy, solid authenticity will likely never be certain.

 

 

....his "career" .....

 

When you put quotes around a word it's supposed to mean you are quoting someone or alluding to a quote, and you suspect it's not real. It's like writing "sic" (which means "spelling is correct" -- and that you think the spelling is actually incorrect but you're saying, in effect "that's how this insufficiently_thoughtful_person spelled it."

 

Saying he had ghosts is accurate. Saying he had a "career" is like writing that he had a "face" or was a "person." And it shows a certain "maturity" that can undermine the statement.

 

 

Thank you for the lesson but the usage is correct. He likely drew the first few stories but put his name on everything after whether he did it or not and claims to have done work that has been shown to have been done by others. That, to me, isn't a career in any normal sense.

[MedicAR]

Bob Kane had a career, but much in the way Mickey Rourke has a face. Both fabricated.

 

There you have it. Is it me or does Mr. Rourke looks more natural as Marv in the Sin City movies than he does without makeup?

[bluechip]

Bob Kane is a tough one, which is really sad considering the contribution he is most often credited with. He had so many ghosts during his "career" that we may never be able to nail down what was really drawn by him. Even his biography, "Batman and Me" that came with a sketch by him has since been called into question. And I have heard some question whether he even signed the lithos and prints that are "authentic." It is near impossible to say when someone actually has information and when they are jumping on the nay-sayer bandwagon.

 

I will say that the layout and general quality of the drawing is bad enough to be him. The color seems very nice, though and aside from his gallery work in the late 60s, I don't know much about his coloring skill. Unfortunately, it has been suggested that he may not have even painted those. I think that it may have been painted by someone else over his drawing.

 

Even if I had money to burn (like Mega Millions money) I would be hard pressed to spend it on this or similar work. But given your screen name, I don't know that I could do much to dissuade you aside from taking credit for the work myself.

 

Look for more work credited to him and make up your own mind. In the end, it may be the only one that truly matters. Personally, I have a three Batman head sketches supposedly by him. One in the "Batman and Me" book, one that is strikingly similar and a small remarque on a print. All came from reputable sources (the books was direct from the publisher) but because of his tainted legacy, solid authenticity will likely never be certain.

 

 

....his "career" .....

 

When you put quotes around a word it's supposed to mean you are quoting someone or alluding to a quote, and you suspect it's not real. It's like writing "sic" (which means "spelling is correct" -- and that you think the spelling is actually incorrect but you're saying, in effect "that's how this insufficiently_thoughtful_person spelled it."

 

Saying he had ghosts is accurate. Saying he had a "career" is like writing that he had a "face" or was a "person." And it shows a certain "maturity" that can undermine the statement.

 

 

Thank you for the lesson but the usage is correct. He likely drew the first few stories but put his name on everything after whether he did it or not and claims to have done work that has been shown to have been done by others. That, to me, isn't a career in any normal sense.

 

The word career is not defined by whether you think he did as many drawings as you think he should have.

 

Whatever you think of him, the man was the guy in charge of the shop that produced the Batman comics for a very long time. Otherwise he would never have had the authority to do any of the things you didn't like. He had authority and he was paid to do a job. That's a career.

 

You can say that he wasn't the artist on as much work as he said he did, and that would be true.

 

But there's nothing in your opinion that changes the definition of the word career.

 

 

I don't mind people expressing their opinions whether or not I agree completely. But I do mind when people bring things to the argument that make no sense or when they attempt to redefine words. If Kane deserves your disapproval, it doesn't help to throw in things that are illogical or contradictory or that sound like simple name calling. In fact it hurts the argument and obscures the facts

 

 

 

[Koa]

Bob Kane is a tough one, which is really sad considering the contribution he is most often credited with. He had so many ghosts during his "career" that we may never be able to nail down what was really drawn by him. Even his biography, "Batman and Me" that came with a sketch by him has since been called into question. And I have heard some question whether he even signed the lithos and prints that are "authentic." It is near impossible to say when someone actually has information and when they are jumping on the nay-sayer bandwagon.

 

I will say that the layout and general quality of the drawing is bad enough to be him. The color seems very nice, though and aside from his gallery work in the late 60s, I don't know much about his coloring skill. Unfortunately, it has been suggested that he may not have even painted those. I think that it may have been painted by someone else over his drawing.

 

Even if I had money to burn (like Mega Millions money) I would be hard pressed to spend it on this or similar work. But given your screen name, I don't know that I could do much to dissuade you aside from taking credit for the work myself.

 

Look for more work credited to him and make up your own mind. In the end, it may be the only one that truly matters. Personally, I have a three Batman head sketches supposedly by him. One in the "Batman and Me" book, one that is strikingly similar and a small remarque on a print. All came from reputable sources (the books was direct from the publisher) but because of his tainted legacy, solid authenticity will likely never be certain.

 

 

....his "career" .....

 

When you put quotes around a word it's supposed to mean you are quoting someone or alluding to a quote, and you suspect it's not real. It's like writing "sic" (which means "spelling is correct" -- and that you think the spelling is actually incorrect but you're saying, in effect "that's how this insufficiently_thoughtful_person spelled it."

 

Saying he had ghosts is accurate. Saying he had a "career" is like writing that he had a "face" or was a "person." And it shows a certain "maturity" that can undermine the statement.

 

 

Thank you for the lesson but the usage is correct. He likely drew the first few stories but put his name on everything after whether he did it or not and claims to have done work that has been shown to have been done by others. That, to me, isn't a career in any normal sense.

 

The word career is not defined by whether you think he did as many drawings as you think he should have.

 

Whatever you think of him, the man was the guy in charge of the shop that produced the Batman comics for a very long time. Otherwise he would never have had the authority to do any of the things you didn't like. He had authority and he was paid to do a job. That's a career.

 

You can say that he wasn't the artist on as much work as he said he did, and that would be true.

 

But there's nothing in your opinion that changes the definition of the word career.

 

 

I don't mind people expressing their opinions whether or not I agree completely. But I do mind when people bring things to the argument that make no sense or when they attempt to redefine words. If Kane deserves your disapproval, it doesn't help to throw in things that are illogical or contradictory or that sound like simple name calling. In fact it hurts the argument and obscures the facts

 

 

 

Kane seems to have left a trail of disgruntled artists a mile long. I'd love to know more about this guy and what he actually did in relation to batman and the comics themselves.

 

Does this have any merit?

http://comicsalliance.com/ty-templeton-draws-batman-as-created-by-bob-kane-art/

 

[alxjhnsn]

The best place to start to learn about Bob Kane's contribution to comics is 3 part Dial B for Blog entry on him.

[MedicAR]

Bob Kane is a tough one, which is really sad considering the contribution he is most often credited with. He had so many ghosts during his "career" that we may never be able to nail down what was really drawn by him. Even his biography, "Batman and Me" that came with a sketch by him has since been called into question. And I have heard some question whether he even signed the lithos and prints that are "authentic." It is near impossible to say when someone actually has information and when they are jumping on the nay-sayer bandwagon.

 

I will say that the layout and general quality of the drawing is bad enough to be him. The color seems very nice, though and aside from his gallery work in the late 60s, I don't know much about his coloring skill. Unfortunately, it has been suggested that he may not have even painted those. I think that it may have been painted by someone else over his drawing.

 

Even if I had money to burn (like Mega Millions money) I would be hard pressed to spend it on this or similar work. But given your screen name, I don't know that I could do much to dissuade you aside from taking credit for the work myself.

 

Look for more work credited to him and make up your own mind. In the end, it may be the only one that truly matters. Personally, I have a three Batman head sketches supposedly by him. One in the "Batman and Me" book, one that is strikingly similar and a small remarque on a print. All came from reputable sources (the books was direct from the publisher) but because of his tainted legacy, solid authenticity will likely never be certain.

 

 

....his "career" .....

 

When you put quotes around a word it's supposed to mean you are quoting someone or alluding to a quote, and you suspect it's not real. It's like writing "sic" (which means "spelling is correct" -- and that you think the spelling is actually incorrect but you're saying, in effect "that's how this insufficiently_thoughtful_person spelled it."

 

Saying he had ghosts is accurate. Saying he had a "career" is like writing that he had a "face" or was a "person." And it shows a certain "maturity" that can undermine the statement.

 

 

Thank you for the lesson but the usage is correct. He likely drew the first few stories but put his name on everything after whether he did it or not and claims to have done work that has been shown to have been done by others. That, to me, isn't a career in any normal sense.

 

The word career is not defined by whether you think he did as many drawings as you think he should have.

 

Whatever you think of him, the man was the guy in charge of the shop that produced the Batman comics for a very long time. Otherwise he would never have had the authority to do any of the things you didn't like. He had authority and he was paid to do a job. That's a career.

 

You can say that he wasn't the artist on as much work as he said he did, and that would be true.

 

But there's nothing in your opinion that changes the definition of the word career.

 

 

I don't mind people expressing their opinions whether or not I agree completely. But I do mind when people bring things to the argument that make no sense or when they attempt to redefine words. If Kane deserves your disapproval, it doesn't help to throw in things that are illogical or contradictory or that sound like simple name calling. In fact it hurts the argument and obscures the facts

 

 

 

Last post on this.

 

It has nothing to do with my definition of anything. It has everything to do with his grandiose claims.

 

From your point of view his career was running the Batman shop. In every sense that is a career and a valid one at that. Will Eisner and Joe Simon ran shops and admitted it even though they were also writers and artists. Mr. Kane claimed a very different career, claiming that there was no shop and that he did all of the work. He never wanted anyone to believe that it was a shop producing the art but rather that he, alone, did it all. The history that he perpetuated has been discredited repeatedly by the very people that did the work. So the career he claimed and the one he had are very different. I referred to the one he claimed, hence the quotation marks.

 

 

[MedicAR]

The best place to start to learn about Bob Kane's contribution to comics is 3 part Dial B for Blog entry on him.

 

I had linked the third installment earlier, but yes, all three parts are relevant and are the widely accepted version of events. I've got a copy of Bill the Boy Wonder as well as Jerry Robinson: Ambassador of Comics but haven't had a good opportunity to sit down and read them. I imagine both will make solid cases against Mr. Kane.

 

So many books…so little time!

[Dave Aikins]

Jerry Robinson was a class act. His book reflects that, so don't expect any real trash talking in it. Jerry also seems to have lived a lovely life, so there's no bitterness, resentment or regret to be found- which is great (it also helps that Jerry lived long enough to be properly acknowledged for the work he did). The book doesn't waste any time complaining about Bob Kane at all, if I remember correctly, preferring to just write about the work Jerry and the rest of the team did at the time. It also writes about how Jerry considered the work he was doing as valid art, which is why he thankfully kept many of his early covers. So, if there's any case against Bob Kane, it's that the book mater-of-factly talks about the team working on Batman- but these days, that's nothing really new. If this had been written in 1968, well...Bob Kane's head would've probably exploded.

 

Plus, which you probably already know, at the time, comic & comic strip artists were used to working as a group in a studio, as well as being ghosts. Some didn't even want to use their real names- hoping to save their names for better work (like Stan Lee). So, the notion of Bob Kane's taking credit for everything wasn't all that unusual back then.

 

Obviously,Bob's tenuous grip on reality eventually grew to become the train wreck we all know and love, but back then when Jerry was a part of the Batman team, it was more business as usual.

 

Anyway...

It's a great book!