Originally Posted by Saint
I don't think it really matters either way. I prefer black, but in every single way that actually matters, Batman has been blue for decades. I mean, if Spider-Man was coloured yellow and somebody said "Well, the yellow is symbolic of red," would that matter? Visually, he would still be yellow. Visually, Batman has been blue for a significant portion of his history. It doesn't matter if it's supposed to be black because it is blue.
The comparison here is invalid—no reasonable person would argue a symbolic relationship between yellow and red. However the idea that “blue is symbolic of black” is reasonable in terms of both comic convention and textual evidence. I happen to agree with the idea that “blue is symbolic of black” but I did not—nor do I—deny that Batman is often colored blue. That being said, that Batman is “meant” to appear clad in black is undeniable to anyone who chooses to consider the matter objectively. And lest we forget, the argument here is not black vs. blue, or Kane's 'Batman' vs. Finger's or Finger’s vs. Adam’s, etc., etc., etc. The argument is whether or not this statement—Blue was supposed to be Black is a weak attempt at trying to undermine the use of blue
—is valid statement. It is not. That “blue is symbolic of black” is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable response to the question.