Question about Gil Kane
0

45 posts in this topic

Hey guys, I was reading an interesting blog about Jim Shooter's legacy - worth a read if you haven't seen this one.

In one of the comments, a suggestion is made that things weren't so good between Shooter and Kirby's heirs because he refused to return his original art, and that this is what caused Gary Groth to hate Shooter too.

In his reply, the author dismantles this commenters statements, but interestingly, in one of the explanations he gives why Gary Groth hates Shooter, he states:

"I can’t speak for Gary Groth, but I suspect the heart of his antipathy to Shooter has nothing to do with the original-art situation. I don’t think he cares about it beyond its handiness as a cudgel to hit Shooter with. He’s actually on the record in believing that the decisions in the matter were being made by the Marvel executives above Shooter. I also note he was best friends with artist Gil Kane, who was well known for stealing original art out of the Marvel offices. Based on what I’ve seen of Gary’s conduct in various situations, his hostility towards Shooter is most likely rooted in Shooter’s decision to voluntarily testify on Michael Fleisher’s behalf in the libel suit Fleisher brought against Harlan Ellison and the Journal. "

Admittedly, this is the first time I've heard or read such a statement (i.e. the bolded part in the above quote). Did I misunderstand or read this incorrectly - Gil Kane "was well known for stealing original art out of the Marvel offices?"

Is this something that is as "well known" as the author states, and I've just never read or heard this, and is there any basis to this claim?

Edited by comicwiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that I have read similar statements in the past. I KNOW that I have read statements that talk about an artist doing this but cannot recall definitively if those statements identified the artist as Kane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, comicwiz said:

Hey guys, I was reading an interesting blog about Jim Shooter's legacy - worth a read if you haven't seen this one.

In one of the comments, a suggestion is made that things weren't so good between Shooter and Kirby's heirs because he refused to return his original art, and that this is what caused Gary Groth to hate Shooter too.

In his reply, the author dismantles this commenters statements, but interestingly, in one of the explanations he gives why Gary Groth hates Shooter, he states:

"I can’t speak for Gary Groth, but I suspect the heart of his antipathy to Shooter has nothing to do with the original-art situation. I don’t think he cares about it beyond its handiness as a cudgel to hit Shooter with. He’s actually on the record in believing that the decisions in the matter were being made by the Marvel executives above Shooter. I also note he was best friends with artist Gil Kane, who was well known for stealing original art out of the Marvel offices. Based on what I’ve seen of Gary’s conduct in various situations, his hostility towards Shooter is most likely rooted in Shooter’s decision to voluntarily testify on Michael Fleisher’s behalf in the libel suit Fleisher brought against Harlan Ellison and the Journal. "

Admittedly, this is the first time I've heard or read such a statement (i.e. the bolded part in the above quote). Did I misunderstand or read this incorrectly - Gil Kane "was well known for stealing original art out of the Marvel offices?"

Is this something that is as "well known" as the author states, and I've just never read or heard this, and is there any basis to this claim?

I have also heard about the Kane allegations for many years.   It's been out there forever.  I was not there of course and I have ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS to say if it's true or not.  Just saying I've heard it many times from multiple sources.  And not just Kane.  Others too.

Scott 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first read the statement, it irked me because it seemed out of place. But then I realized it was injected into the statement as a way to debunk the claim that Groth hated Shooter because he held back Kirby's art, when he seemed perfectly fine with being friends with Kane. I have heard claims about things walking out of Marvel's office, sometimes those claims did include theft.

But never did I see such a bold claim naming an artist. I'm assuming he has Kane or someone under oath/testifying, or being on record saying he did this?

Edited by comicwiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, artdealer said:

But if Gil did take art that didn't belong to him, it's not as if he was the only artist to do this.

MI

A wonderful artist told me that he once was at the DC Comics office in the early 1970s and there was a table of art and he was told to take as much as he wanted as they were tossing it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Michael (OML)1 said:

A wonderful artist told me that he once was at the DC Comics office in the early 1970s and there was a table of art and he was told to take as much as he wanted as they were tossing it.  

The rumors abound as to whether it was DC or Marvel, and the stories vary from person to person. 

Gil is dead, and what's the purpose of discussing this topic?

MI

Edited by artdealer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have to look at this through the eyes of 1960-70 and not 2017. In the 60/70's art was not returned to the artist and was given away to visitors and friends. I'm sure Gil Kane could never steal as much art as was stolen from him. If the story is true I like to think of it as trading.

Now on another Gil Kane story, at a Toronto show I was talking to Klaus Janson ( a Great guy) about Gil Kane who he liked a lot and he said Kane was a big ladies man and thats now how I see him, like a nice Don Draper.

And yes, I am a big fan of Gil Kane's art so I might be biased. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, artdealer said:

The rumors abound as to whether it was DC or Marvel, and the stories vary from person to person. 

Gil is dead, and what's the purpose of discussing this topic?

MI

There's a big difference to insinuate art walked out, was salvaged from a dumpster, or was "saved" by an artist before it was being thrown away. And someone saying Gil Kane "was known" for stealing. Frankly, the legacy I've known is one of a great artist, someone whose figurework and structural anatomy was second to none.  It does matter to me.  I tried to ask the author in one of my comments, and now I'm asking this community if anyone knows where this person got this information, since the claim is it's "well known."

BTW: In case you didn't read the quote, it's Marvel's offices that is being referred to.

Edited by comicwiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

There's a big difference to insinuate art walked out, was salvaged from a dumpster, or was "saved" by an artist before it was being thrown away. And someone saying Gil Kane "was known" for stealing. Frankly, the legacy I've known is one of a great artist, someone whose figurework and structural anatomy was second to none.  It does matter to me.  I tried to ask the author in one of my comments, and now I'm asking this community if anyone knows where this person got this information, since the claim is it's "well known."

BTW: In case you didn't read the quote, it's Marvel's offices that is being referred to.

And I'll ask again.

What difference does it make at this point in time? If you're going to think less of him, I could (but won't) supply a long list of other artists who took art that didn't belong to them. But it's a moot point, as most are dead. You might be horrified at some of the names.

Keep the legacy of Gil alive. Not by denigrating his name, but by appreciating the body of work he created.

Harping on what you might have heard, or heresy or rumors will just make you seem like an old Yenta.

MI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, artdealer said:

Keep the legacy of Gil alive. Not by denigrating his name, but by appreciating the body of work he created.

I'm not sure how you've arrived at this conclusion, but I'm asking you here and now to not speak for my intentions.

My asking has to do with repudiating these claims to preserve his legacy. If you don't have any way to confirm this, please just go back to doing what you were doing before you clicked and read this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of art walked out the door of both places in the 50s, 60s, and 70s and I think some of it happened while heads were turned the other way... because of the situation that is well tread by now. I've read various reports of such in more than a few articles online, and in a few books as well I think.

I don't personally think this is a black mark against the late, great Mr. Kane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

I'm not sure how you've arrived at this conclusion, but I'm asking you here and now to not speak for my intentions.

My asking has to do with repudiating these claims to preserve his legacy. If you don't have any way to confirm this, please just go back to doing what you were doing before you clicked and read this thread.

Preserving his legacy by making a nuisance of yourself? You can't/won't get a straight answer from anyone as they don't want to possibly disparage his name. Topics like this have been covered in the past to no avail.

Fortunately, I know what happened, but won't say either way. I've been around for over 40 years selling art, and have seen many, many things.

Now maybe YOU can go back and stop thinking of ways to make yourself obnoxious.

MI 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

I think a lot of art walked out the door of both places in the 50s, 60s, and 70s and I think some of it happened while heads were turned the other way... because of the situation that is well tread by now. I've read various reports of such in more than a few articles online, and in a few books as well I think.

I don't personally think this is a black mark against the late, great Mr. Kane.

I agree with you.

But some people obviously have OCD problems and won't rest till they get an answer.

MI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, artdealer said:

Preserving his legacy by making a nuisance of yourself? You can't/won't get a straight answer from anyone as they don't want to possibly disparage his name. Topics like this have been covered in the past to no avail.

Fortunately, I know what happened, but won't say either way. I've been around for over 40 years selling art, and have seen many, many things.

Now maybe YOU can go back and stop thinking of ways to make yourself obnoxious.

MI 

There is nothing obnoxious about wanting a straight answer on a claim a person is a thief. Would you want that kind of aspersion cast against your name/integrity?

The peripheral concern (and one which I'd think would sink in as an automatic for someone whose alias is "artdealer" of 40 years) is the negative trickle effect of tainted works.

Edited by comicwiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, comicwiz said:

There is nothing obnoxious about wanting a straight answer on a claim a person is a thief. Would you want that kind of aspersion against your name/integrity?

The peripheral concern (and one which I'd think would sink in as an automatic for someone whose alias is "artdealer" of 40 years) is the negative trickle effect of tainted works.

1. There is no set list for works that were taken by ANYONE from ANY company. I don't know what was taken, or by whom. NOBODY does.
2. Said art has passed through many, many hands by this point. Makes no difference now whether anyone has any of the supposed stolen art. No one filed a police report, so it's only considered stolen in heresy.
3. Virtually no one will say anything bad about a beloved artist such as Gil Kane, or any other well known, beloved artist. 
 

You keep harping on needing that answer. It's not going to be answered with any authority. Is it an OCD thing with you?

Leave Gil's legacy as it is. 

Mitch Itkowitz
Graphic Collectibles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's with the ad hominem attacks? The author of that blog sounds like someone who knows an awful lot about case law to be just throwing out baseless claims.  My guess is he's a lawyer or has reviewed past cases against Marvel's people. Simply put, not the kind of risk a person in any legal profession would assume for a thrill or views.

I figured I would ask the boards here if anyone knew where this person got his information, but since you're playing forum police, I'll go back and ask him.

I'm glad you put a name to MI since I was starting to think it stood for Mega Ignoramus

Edited by comicwiz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stories are well-known. Art was funneled to a now-deceased dealer. There are Marvel staffers and artists who are still around who could share/confirm. Probably not publicly, though.

As Mitch notes, there were others, as well. In the last few years, some of that art has been moved privately, for some obvious (and not-so-obvious) reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nexus said:

Stories are well-known. Art was funneled to a now-deceased dealer. There are Marvel staffers and artists who are still around who could share/confirm. Probably not publicly, though.

As Mitch notes, there were others, as well. In the last few years, some of that art has been moved privately, for some obvious (and not-so-obvious) reasons.

I appreciate it, but I don't understand what's up the guys to show the hostility he did. He knows, doesn't want to talk about it fine, move along. I don't get why he needed to be a about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0