Bob Kane's paintings - where are they?

[tilleycs]

I recently read "Batman & Me" by Bob Kane, and I was, of course, drooling over the artwork in the book. There are several pictures of Kane's "fine art" paintings of Batman and the other characters. They also show a billboard advertising one of his art shows from back then.

 

Anyone know whatever happened to those paintings? I'm sure I couldn't afford them, I'm just curious if they were sold, or if the family still has them. Anyone know where they are? Do they ever show up on the market?

[Mac Man]

Wonder if he actually did them or if it was something he took credit for from Finger/Robinson?

[tilleycs]

From the impression I got from the book, I don't think so. He let the other guys take over the series so he could do them.

 

Guess nobody has any info?

[Mac Man]

From the impression I got from the book, I don't think so. He let the other guys take over the series so he could do them.

 

Guess nobody has any info?

 

And yet took credit for much of their work... from the little research I have done about the issue, Bob Kane wasn't the most generous with spreading the weath to Bill Finger and Jerry Robinson as co-creators of Batman and the IP related to it. Someone else can probably chime in on this though.

[georgehagenauer-migration]

The ywere pretty awful and did not sell ver ywell -some wherea round here i have a copy of the Circle gallery show list. The goal there was to have some high priced (and these were in the thousands in the 1980's - his large oils were priced like at $25,000 and were pretty crude) art there to sell the several hundred dollar silk screened prints.

Sad thing was that the show was advertiseid by a Batman Collage sign board out front that Bob did- on it were cut up originals of 2 Infantino Detective covers- I beleive the first block buster was one of them.

I had heard rumors that he didnlt do some ofthe art i tnhe show- the quality really varied from some very nice pen and inks to the paintings.

I believe he did do the paintings I have seen better art in high school fanzines

I wrote about this in one of my modules in CBG- the lsit fro mthe show may be up on the cbgxtra site under original art

Best

George Hagenauer

[comicartcom]

just a note about the relationship Bob Kane had with other artists doing Batman comics

 

#1 Jerry Robinson worked as an assistant. That role is verey simple.. you do your work, I get the credit

that's how it always was, and that's how it will always be

 

#2 Though Bill Finger wrote the very first Batman stories and many more, you must remember that authors rarely - if ever - got any credit for anything.

 

#3 Bob Kane did create Batman and regardless of anything else, that's why he gets the lions share of money as well as appreciation

 

#4 by contractual agreement until 1967, Bob Kane's name was to appear in the familiar box - alone - as sole credit.

 

those are the realities of life. Siegel & Shuster had similar arrangements with many artists and DC comics until the finality of the 1947 lawsuit ended that practice and their contract with DC.

 

In today's world, this practice is still in place, but in comics it is less all the time because everyone wants credit.

 

An assistant, is just that..

[Mac Man]

just a note about the relationship Bob Kane had with other artists doing Batman comics

 

#1 Jerry Robinson worked as an assistant. That role is verey simple.. you do your work, I get the credit

that's how it always was, and that's how it will always be

 

#2 Though Bill Finger wrote the very first Batman stories and many more, you must remember that authors rarely - if ever - got any credit for anything.

 

#3 Bob Kane did create Batman and regardless of anything else, that's why he gets the lions share of money as well as appreciation

 

#4 by contractual agreement until 1967, Bob Kane's name was to appear in the familiar box - alone - as sole credit.

 

those are the realities of life. Siegel & Shuster had similar arrangements with many artists and DC comics until the finality of the 1947 lawsuit ended that practice and their contract with DC.

 

In today's world, this practice is still in place, but in comics it is less all the time because everyone wants credit.

 

An assistant, is just that..

 

Oh, I'm not disputing that it happened, but is it necessarily fair? If you buy a sketch that was actually done by Robinson by has Bob's name on it, does the law actually make it a sketch by Kane? My father-in-law was going to buy me a Batman head sketch by Bob Kane, but you'd never really know for sure if he did it. Kind of puts a sour taste in my mouth (at least).

 

I'm a newb though in the greater collecting world, so that's just my

[comicartcom]

there is no reason for there to be a "sketch" with Kane's name on it if Kane didn't do it. Published comic book pages yes - on the first page of course

 

is it fair? of course it's fair. Robinson or Moldoff etc all gave up the rights to anything back then because that's how it worked at the time

 

Wayne Boring started working for Shuster in 1939. He never got an artist credit until the mid 40s. His first cover is Action #25 and then Superman #5. He never got credit for those, he got a paycheck and that's all he was looking for.

 

Some guys like Kane were a bit smarter & made sure they maintained a copyright interest.

 

These guys after all were just trying to feed the kids.

[Detroit MIke]

I read that during the 1960s, Kane implied he wasn't of legal age when he signed his original contract. This made DC more friendly toward working out a deal with Kane. Kane was a real character.

 

But where are those cool paintings?

[Mac Man]

But you didn't really address the primary question I was asking: If you buy a sketch that was actually done by Robinson but it has Bob's name on it, does the law actually make it a sketch by Kane? And my point to asking this question is if the legal system doesn't reflect the reality, well, that strikes me as a law that is not well grounded. Just because that's the way it was done doesn't necessitate its validity.

 

By all means, Kane was clearly a smart business person. I think many of us can think of people at all levels who have surrounded themselves with associates that have resulted in that individual's failure, so good for Bob to have a smart eye for talent (not to take away from his own creative ability either). I'm just saying it's a bit disingenuous to say he is completely responsible for all things Batman when fact (not legal statute) show otherwise.

 

there is no reason for there to be a "sketch" with Kane's name on it if Kane didn't do it. Published comic book pages yes - on the first page of course

 

is it fair? of course it's fair. Robinson or Moldoff etc all gave up the rights to anything back then because that's how it worked at the time

 

Wayne Boring started working for Shuster in 1939. He never got an artist credit until the mid 40s. His first cover is Action #25 and then Superman #5. He never got credit for those, he got a paycheck and that's all he was looking for.

 

Some guys like Kane were a bit smarter & made sure they maintained a copyright interest.

 

These guys after all were just trying to feed the kids.

[Detroit MIke]

I don't pretend to know anything about the law. I would think that the "sketch" in question would be an original Batman drawing from the Bob Kane Studios attributed to Jerry Robinson... not a Bob Kane sketch. That is, if Bob Kane paid Jerry Robinson to draw the sketch, thereby becoming a property of Bob Kane.

 

I would pay the same for either.

 

[comicartcom]

But you didn't really address the primary question I was asking: If you buy a sketch that was actually done by Robinson but it has Bob's name on it, does the law actually make it a sketch by Kane?

 

pay attention

there are no sketches known to exist signed by Bob Kane that were done by Robinson or anyone else

 

if on the other hand you're asking some hypothetical question, then I say you have a low forehead

[Mac Man]

But you didn't really address the primary question I was asking: If you buy a sketch that was actually done by Robinson but it has Bob's name on it, does the law actually make it a sketch by Kane?

 

pay attention

there are no sketches known to exist signed by Bob Kane that were done by Robinson or anyone else

 

if on the other hand you're asking some hypothetical question, then I say you have a low forehead

 

Wow... what is that supposed to mean? I seriously hope you're not resorting to insults. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't.

 

 

In any event, you seem to be dodging the point of my question (sketch, art, whatever--law doesn't equate to reality) so I'll move along.

 

 

[comicartcom]

No, I haven't dodged your question.. But you clearly either can't or don't want to understand it. There are no SKETCHES drawn by Robinson and signed by Kane.

 

There are only comic pages that are by Kane and assisted by Robinson and any intelligent art dealer or collector knows the difference between that and a page drawn solely by Kane or by Robinson. Moreover, even though all Batman stories say "by Bob Kane", if you look at golden age Batmans, Robinson frequently has signed his name on the art..

 

Kane art is Kane art

Robinson art is Robinson art

Sprang art is Sprang art

and

Moldoff art is Moldoff art

 

it doesn't get any simpler

[Mac Man]

I understand the sketch issue just fine, and I'm willing to concede that sketches most likely were done by Bob. However, I guess what I keep driving at is your initial point that because the law allowed Bob Kane to take credit for published art that he did not do, it was still his art. The fact is that it was NOT Bob Kane art despite a legal statute. THAT said, someone who has no problem taking credit for someone else's work when they did not do it w/o giving credit (plagiarism in most other's books) makes the rest of that person's work highly suspicious in my books (and many others)--why I thought it worth mentioning from the onset. I realize the comic art field does not operate in the same way (from a legal standpoint) as writing, but the principle is the same. So, yes I should have been saying published art instead of sketches to avoid confusion, however, you have also dodged the point of my question. Suffice to say, we'll call it a draw.

 

And at this point, it's probably easiest just to agree to disagree and call it a day. I think we can both agree that there's been entirely too much drama on the boards as of late

[comicartcom]

Mac, I'll try to make sure you understand what I'm saying - because I don't believe you do

 

If a batman page is drawn by Robinson, any dealer worth his salt is going to sellit as a Robinson page - regardless of the Bob Kane signature. We know what Bob did, and what Jerry did etc.

 

It does not become a Bob Kane page because his name is on it. It's a Robinson page. Peiople who are less knowledgable say it's Bob Kane because they don't know what's going on.. Very simple

 

by the way, when you see the title and it says "Batman, by Bob Kane", it's the same as when a movie gets made from a Stephen King novel - but uses little of King's original concept making it really a different story. The credits will still say "Stephen King's Cujo" or "From the story by Stephen King". It isn't his story ultimately, but he was paid for the rights and contractually he gets credit. The same goes for Bob Kane. Batman was his creation, and he willalways get credit - just like Siegel and Shuster do for Superman or Shakespeare does for anything he wrote.

 

and for everyone, this thread started about Kane's paintings. By coninkedink someone actually emailed me this picture asking me for info 2 days ago.. isn't that prescient

 

[Pryte Quarlo-migration]

Voila!

 

[Mac Man]

Mac, I'll try to make sure you understand what I'm saying - because I don't believe you do

 

If a batman page is drawn by Robinson, any dealer worth his salt is going to sellit as a Robinson page - regardless of the Bob Kane signature. We know what Bob did, and what Jerry did etc.

 

It does not become a Bob Kane page because his name is on it. It's a Robinson page. Peiople who are less knowledgable say it's Bob Kane because they don't know what's going on.. Very simple

 

by the way, when you see the title and it says "Batman, by Bob Kane", it's the same as when a movie gets made from a Stephen King novel - but uses little of King's original concept making it really a different story. The credits will still say "Stephen King's Cujo" or "From the story by Stephen King". It isn't his story ultimately, but he was paid for the rights and contractually he gets credit. The same goes for Bob Kane. Batman was his creation, and he willalways get credit - just like Siegel and Shuster do for Superman or Shakespeare does for anything he wrote.

 

and for everyone, this thread started about Kane's paintings. By coninkedink someone actually emailed me this picture asking me for info 2 days ago.. isn't that prescient

 

 

Actually, it sounds like you're finally getting my point! (thumbs u

 

Now, back to our regularly scheduled thread....

[Stromm]

What do you think of this comicartcon?

 

[comicartcom]

who knows what to think of it

but it may not actually be a real design sheet as Bob Kane stated he created Batman in 1939, yet this piece is dated 1934. It may be a piece he did later, or maybe not a Kane piece.

 

It could also fit into another category - the one where Bob was continually "pre-dating" stuff he drew. For instance there are numerous oversized drawing of batman that we know were drawn by Kane in the 60s-70s period that have things like "Batman 1939" signed onto them, indicating to many that the pieces would have been drawn in 1939 - which falsely indicates to fans in incorrect date of creation for those pieces.

 

If you ever met Bob, you would know he had an ego the size of the Empire State Building and at times he would make "revisionist" statements to boost his stature (for what reasons I'll never know seeing as he had everything to be proud of concerning Batman)

 

another thing is that Kane's seminal drawings of Batman did not look like the Batman we know and the image above looks like he finished his design. But it is known that his Uncle at DC (I can't remember which one was his uncle dammit - Jack Adler maybe?) had mentioned numerous changes, resulting in the 1939 Batman look.

 

I suggest that Jim Steranko might be able to better judge what that piece is above & to better detail the creation of Batman and that his "History of Comics vol 1+2" would be helpful as it has a top-quality description of Batman's creation