Question about Gil Kane 0

[artdealer]

3 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

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

There is obviously a deep, dark reason for wanting to know more about the rumors. 

Whether I'm a Mega Ignoramus or not, no one will give you an answer. That should make your OCD jump off the meter.

MI 

[comicwiz]

Just now, artdealer said:

There is obviously a deep, dark reason for wanting to know more about the rumors. 

[artdealer]

1 minute ago, comicwiz said:

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.

Because, it looks to me, like you're trying to disparage the name of Gil Kane. It's a witch-hunt.
Asking and asking and asking for information that no one is going to give.
I doubt very highly that Gil ever testified, especially anything having to do with supposedly taking art.
But I'm done with this thread. 
Have a nice evening.

MI

[SquareChaos]

I don't really know what is going on here, maybe there is some history, but I see no reason not to take him at his word if he says he isn't attempting to disparage. I agree with the point that there are no answers forthcoming through - this is just how artists got art out the doors back then, it was an ugly time for the industry.

[comicwiz]

20 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

I don't really know what is going on here, maybe there is some history, but I see no reason not to take him at his word if he says he isn't attempting to disparage. I agree with the point that there are no answers forthcoming through - this is just how artists got art out the doors back then, it was an ugly time for the industry.

No history, never once interacted with him before this thread, and you know as much as I do about his motives. Anyhow, I contacted the person who wrote the post, I'm interested to see what he says since he's the one who wrote what he did. I half wonder based on the reaction I got if people realize when you quote something, it's actually being written by someone else.

[Ghastly542454]

Loved Gil Kane's work on Green Lantern, the Atom, and Captain Action!!!

Edited November 9, 2017 by Ghastly542454

[John E.]

This emoticon is severely underused

[vodou]

7 hours ago, comicwiz said:

No history, never once interacted with him before this thread, and you know as much as I do about his motives. Anyhow, I contacted the person who wrote the post, I'm interested to see what he says since he's the one who wrote what he did. I half wonder based on the reaction I got if people realize when you quote something, it's actually being written by someone else.

Having an amount of respect for both yourself and Mitch beyond the standard benefit of the doubt I'll suggest that everybody take a break from the personality clash. As to the off-site blog post, as Nexus and Mitch wrote, it's a well-known rumor-thing, and maybe some people know a lot more, may even have been witness or party to some actions (receiving stolen goods?) but it's all water under the bridge...that's why nobody is going to talk about it, and certainly not publicly. There's no legal angle (in 2017) and the writer, IMO!!, is just shooting off his mouth, voicing aloud a long-whispered (not so secret) secret without any deeper basis (testimony, etc) to back it up. He also knows that Wrightson will not conjure forth Gil to rise from six feet under to sue him!

Seriously though, just a writer putting to print (bloggy-style) something juicy that not everybody may have heard yet. But everybody 'round these parts doing art seriously for the last ten to thirty years...it's old hat. And we've all moved on.

[comicwiz]

Appreciate it @vodou.

For what it's worth, I loath double standards, and in this context, I see people aggressively ripping a customer complaint issue a new one in another thread becase the buyer didn't keep "logs" of conversation, or a trail evidence of what was said, because it seemingly can harm the reputation of the seller, and yet here we have a serious aspersion being cast against a creator, and it's somehow offside to ask who the source of these allegations is, and for proof.

My general feeling towards people that make such aspersions, especially toward someone who is unable to defend those claims, are cowards. I won't speak to any of these points further, but these are talking points which should further add context to why I asked.

BTW: for anyone who cares, the blogger responded, and I now know the source of these allegations.

[PhilipB2k17]

9 hours ago, artdealer said:

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

We have Fred Ray’s iconic Superman #14 Cover only because Jerry Robinson “rescued” it. 

[PhilipB2k17]

I remember reading about the art issue from Jim Shooter’s perspective on his blog. His explanation was that by the time he had any say in the matter, the art was being stored pal mal around the offices, so he had it all boxed up and put into storage. He tells about one box that seemed to go missing, at the time, but that the sone of the art was casually given away to visitors, or as gifts, or kept by artists who used pages for reference, etc over the years before his tenure. 

[comicwiz]

33 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

I remember reading about the art issue from Jim Shooter’s perspective on his blog. His explanation was that by the time he had any say in the matter, the art was being stored pal mal around the offices, so he had it all boxed up and put into storage. He tells about one box that seemed to go missing, at the time, but that the sone of the art was casually given away to visitors, or as gifts, or kept by artists who used pages for reference, etc over the years before his tenure. 

Yes, I have been reading through his blog particularly after the bloggers response. Although this stems (I'm pretty certain) from an incident involving Starlin.

Edited November 9, 2017 by comicwiz

[vodou]

2 hours ago, comicwiz said:

Appreciate it @vodou.

For what it's worth, I loath double standards, and in this context, I see people aggressively ripping a customer complaint issue a new one in another thread becase the buyer didn't keep "logs" of conversation, or a trail evidence of what was said, because it seemingly can harm the reputation of the seller, and yet here we have a serious aspersion being cast against a creator, and it's somehow offside to ask who the source of these allegations is, and for proof.

I couldn't agree more, except that I call it hypocrisy. There is no shortage of it in this hobby or the human disease race at large. Actually it's quite fun to topple the high 'n mighty. Sometimes they even do it to themselves and you can just quietly and patiently watch it all unfold.

Anyway, seems you've ultimately gotten what you wanted and that's good. FWIW I don't think the sins of one should be quieted because everybody else was doing it too (or a variation of samesuch). It is what it is and should always be judged in the context of not only the present day but also the day that it happened. And that's probably the real bottom line, it was never "a-ok" but it was not frowned upon "then" the way it is "now" (and values also changed approximately 100x since too. Oddly that fact seems to have vastly improved a lot of memories of things and hearsay of things that happened forty and fifty years ago )

[delekkerste]

15 hours ago, comicwiz said:

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?

It's very well known.  I've heard numerous stories and anecdotes over the years that originated from various Marvel artists/staffers, my favorite being when Gil was walking out the door with some art and the EIC called out to him and said something to the effect of, "Hey, Gil, could you at least let us publish that artwork first before you take it?"  

Felix apparently even knows who he sold the art through afterwards (I don't know, personally).  Gil taking art for himself from the Marvel offices is just a case of it is what it is.  Doesn't make me love his art any less.  

[comicwiz]

1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

It's very well known.  I've heard numerous stories and anecdotes over the years that originated from various Marvel artists/staffers, my favorite being when Gil was walking out the door with some art and the EIC called out to him and said something to the effect of, "Hey, Gil, could you at least let us publish that artwork first before you take it?"  

Felix apparently even knows who he sold the art through afterwards (I don't know, personally).  Gil taking art for himself from the Marvel offices is just a case of it is what it is.  Doesn't make me love his art any less.  

That story is one I read last night, and along with it was the incident with Starlin retold by Shooter.  There's a manner in its retelling that's consistent with stories of old, where stuff was being "saved", rather than it was "stolen."  Maybe it's got something to do with what others are saying about a pent up perspective that's evolved from low brow art, to art that commands good money now.

[comicwiz]

40 minutes ago, Bill C said:

His early silver age stuff is some of my favorite. I always assumed his art would be thought highly of, so I've been surprised a number of times on this board when it appears his work isn't thought of highly by many or seemingly in high demand. Growing up, it seemed to me he basically was Marvel for a while there in the bronze age.

This is something I have always struggled to understand myself. And then when I read about this subject, I wondered if this has had any impact.

One other point, and I am really not sure how the narrative formed around my initial question about the source, however these rumours do not change my views/perspective on his body of work one bit.

Abstractly, some of the things mentioned in this thread (particularly @Nexus's comment) have only helped reinforce my reasons for being cautious moving forward. At the risk of sounding like I'm on a moralist high horse, I have walked away from deals which I had a bad feeling about for the reason that I didn't want to find out later the items had been acquired in less than charitable means.

Edited November 9, 2017 by comicwiz

[SquareChaos]

1 hour ago, comicwiz said:

This is something I have always struggled to understand myself. And then when I read about this subject, I wondered if this has had any impact.

One other point, and I am really not sure how the narrative formed around my initial question about the source, however these rumours do not change my views/perspective on his body of work one bit.

Abstractly, some of the things mentioned in this thread (particularly @Nexus's comment) have only helped reinforce my reasons for being cautious moving forward. At the risk of sounding like I'm on a moralist high horse, I have walked away from deals which I had a bad feeling about for the reason that I didn't want to find out later the items had been acquired in less than charitable means.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think if you seriously take that type of stance then you must have trouble considering a huge amount of art... probably the majority of art over 30 years old. I would think that it must be next to impossible to know for certain that every page from those times were acquired in the most upright of ways.

Anyway, my personal stance is on the 'context' side - all actions should be viewed in the context of their surroundings, otherwise it makes it nearly impossible to form an accurate view of how said action was likely viewed in it's time. The art just wasn't valued by most people, so while it was officially frowned upon, no one seemed to care a great deal, heads were turned the other way, jokes were made about it, etc.

[vodou]

7 hours ago, Bill C said:

...I would get over it as there are many beloved comic creators that aren't really credible as people imo. Never meet your heroes, I think is the saying?

Yes. This goes to that discussion a month or so back about Gerard Jones that devolved into the (thinly-veiled) suspicion that I was defending pedophilia (lol, I am very much not and never would, anybody that knows me, really knows me, knows that 100%). You can love the art without loving the artist (or his non-art actions, what-have-you.) Reading it, buying it, collecting it, doesn't equate to approval and acceptance of everything that person ever said or did.

[comicwiz]

6 hours ago, SquareChaos said:

I understand where you're coming from, but I think if you seriously take that type of stance then you must have trouble considering a huge amount of art...

Sadly, not just art. Some years back, a large collection of toys appeared at a show. People were lining-up to buy out of the guys van. Over 100K was dropped in no time, with the promise of the person returning with more. The problem was a few people going through the stuff started making the connection between what he had brought, and a collection stolen out of storage from a NY dealer called Toy Tokyo roughly a decade earlier. The guy caught on and never returned, everyone kept their mouths shut, threads asking questions never got answers. And whoever walked away with stuff seemingly could care less. When pressed, a few eventually spoke out, and rationalized the whole thing by suggesting "it was probably covered under insurance" (which it wasn't) or "if it wasn't me, someone else would." Sorry, that's where I draw the line. There is no justification for it, and no way I need anything that bad.

Edited November 10, 2017 by comicwiz

[The Shoveler]

I stumbled into this long-held, "open secret" wormhole within the past year or two when I was perusing Shooter's posts and the associated comments.  I ended up at that post at rsmwriters, and on another site (which I can no longer find) which provided the name of the EIC before Shooter who had observed this alleged activity and intervened to recover a portion of what was allegedly taken.  That in-turn led me to chromiumcomics' photobucket entry, the third link below (yes, this is such a well-known secret that there is a cartoon about it):

http://jimshooter.com/2011/06/rooting-out-corruption-at-marvel-part_20.html/

 

http://jimshooter.com/2011/12/surprising-sinnott-and-items-of.html/

 

http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/chromiumcomics/media/bWVkaWFJZDoxMjk0NzQxNTk=/?ref=

 

Taken as a whole, the context of the time seems to generally regard the alleged actions as theft.  By one artist against several other artists (or against one company that had ownership/custodianship of the art).  These reports seem consistent in framing that it wasn't about a) rescuing pages that were about to be thrown into a shredder or dumpster, b) being offered pages from employees of the firm, or c) taking home some reference work and then forgetting to return it.  It was taking someone else's property and then selling that stolen property for personal gain.

It appears that nobody was ever formally charged, so there's no conviction or exoneration to enter into the record.  However, as Shooter states in the first link, Marvel's Financial V.P. said that he would never allow the company to cut the guy a check again.  That says a lot about the context of the alleged actions in the context of the contextual period.