AKA Rick

Also... would any material featuring Gen 13 as "Gen X" be considered their 1st Appearance? Like the TMNT's 1st App as a preview ad, right? I know Fairchild 1st appeared in the Deathmate comic book, but as a team, what is considered Gen 13's 1st appearance?

Nice GEN X piece... was it featured on the back cover ad of an Image comic book? If so, which one? I saw a similar cover for Image's free promotional reader "Image Inside" I think it was called that promoted Gen X, but never saw the comic book you posted, so would appreciate it if you could let me know where it came from and appears. Thanks!

Here's a link to a photo of the 36 year old Carmen Tisch... 'cuz I know a lot of people are probably wondering is she's "hot" or not... http://news.yahoo.com/photos/undated-booking-photo-released-denver-police-shows-carmen-photo-171430847.html This lady sounds like she's expressing sentiments shared by many of the anti-abstract art members of these boards.

Great Article... The reproduction of silverfish is preceded by a ritual involving three phases, which may last over half an hour. In the first phase, the male and female stand face to face, their trembling antennae touching, then repeatedly back off and return to this position. In the second phase the male runs away and the female chases him....

I 100% agree with this posting, especially point #3 I find it odd that some dealers who are in the business of selling artwork don't even take the time to protect their inventory. As a collector, and those who collect comics, nobody puts raw books in boxes without mylars or bags, so why treat even more expensive items like art with any less respect. It's fairly inexpensive. I've explained on several posts in the past the way I preserve my artwork affordably, all-in, about $2-4 to preserve artwork that cost you anywhere from $100 to $10,000+ If you have a small collection, buy mylars (don't shortcut by getting those mylite type bags with the adhesive flap) from Bill Cole or Bags Unlimited, they'll cost you less than $3 a piece (depending on the size and quantity). Here's a link to the mylars for $2-3 a piece: http://www.bagsunlimited.com/p-5164-polyester-mylar-sleeve-4mil-no-flap.aspx Using mylars alone are also not good enough, in that there's an opening at the top that moisture or silverfish can enter through, plus handling mylars can cause aesthetic scratches to the mylar if you're nit picky. What I do is buy a 3 mil (not the flimsy 2 mil, as the thickness of the bag is important for archiving and doesn't add to the cost that much) preservation bags from Bags Unlimited, then put the mylar into that bag, and then tape down the top flap, so the liklihood of having moisture enter or silverfish enter is minimized if not eliminated. For the higher end artwork, or pieces done on thin paper or smaller paper, you can support them with backing boards that either fit in with the mylar or between the bag and the mylar too. Here's a link to those for about $1 a piece http://www.bagsunlimited.com/p-3566-backings-for-original-comic-art-1138-x-1718.aspx If you have a large collection, for $.20 to $.30 a piece you can order perfect archival bags to protect your art from surface wear, handling, moisture and silverfish. Here's a quick link to the right size to get for modern art: http://www.bagsunlimited.com/p-3077-original-comic-art-sleeve-3mil-polyethylene.aspx If you're bagging your mylars, you'll have to go up a size to accomodate the fact that the mylar is larger than the original art, so it's an easy measurement depending on the size mylar you get. Some art dealers should bag their inventory, then they can put the prices on the bags instead of the actual artwork itself, and it's easier to change pricing up or down too. It's amazing to see the neglect some dealers (and even artists) have towards their artwork. I've seen browsing customers flip through portfolios, lift out pages and manhandle 'em with their potentially greasy and dirty fingers all the time. Condition isn't key for one-of-a-kind items per se as it is in the graded/grading community, but collectors generally like to respect their collectibles and it's always nice to keep them in the best possible condition and consider it investing in a measure of insurance and assurance in knowing you're doing your best to preserve the collectible from any accidents. Dang those silverfish !!! I know for some collectors with large collections that are unprotected it may seem like a lot of money to pay up front for, and a lot of time to actually put the pieces in and tape the flaps down, but it's a worthwhile effort. Also, buy more than you need, so then when you get new art, you have the supplies paid for and conveniently available in front of you as your collection grows. * As for framing, make sure your frames are sealed air tight, otherwise, as I'd experienced, silverfish can enter and nibble on the back-sides of the paper (you'll notice rough spots on the formerly smooth surface as indiciation) or the edges or corners. Plus, invest in UV glass, but still display them out of direct sunlight. If using mats, use archival quality acid-free scrapbooking tape if securing artwork with tape to the mat. ** Oh, and for mylars, if you have any pieces with heavy black india ink that's almost globbed on, even if dry, if it looks thick, you should use the polybags not mylars, since it's been my experience that the ink actually ended up sticking to the mylar and when you want to remove the art, it lifts the ink off and the ink sticks to the mylar due to pressure (if in a portfolio) or temperature (natual variance in heat where it's stored), whereas with the polybags, the ink does not stick to that surface.

I will offer a word of advice I wished I'd heard more clearly and still to this day wished I abided by... Don't buy based on boredom or impulse, nor a perceived "it's cheap, it's only $##.##" I've got so many pieces in my collection, both commissions and published pages that are a tad mediocre that I purchased because either I was bored and hadn't made a purchase in a while so was craving to buy something, anything... or it was a late night and surfing the web and finding stuff that was relatively cheap. I will say this as an example... It's easy to say "It's only $100" ten times, then get 10 pieces you're somewhat not passonate about... or you could add those together, and get one single $1,000 piece that you'll appreciate and treasure. Heck, even 5 $20 pieces by unknown artists VS one $100 piece by an artist you like when it comes to commissions. Pace yourself out. Save up for when what you want becomes an available opportunity you'll be ready to afford to take advantage of it. Quantity isn't always better than Quality, so if finances are of concern or not wanting to have a collection riddled with mediocrity, then just save up and stay focused to your collecting goals without deviating too far off the characters, art or whatever genre you collect. It's hard to sell off junk or stuff not too many people want, so not only are impulsive buys sometimes hasty lapses in judgment, but are bad investments too.

Thanks! I was just wondering, since I did think I saw that page on the website and it mentioned a first appearance, but it didn't look like a remarkable piece and I've not gotten to that issue or storyline to read yet. I notice there's not a whole lot of pages with action/zombie scenes, but there's a lot of great pages of interaction between the characters. This is a case where I think if the original art contained the dialogue (even as paste ups) it would make the artwork even more meaningful, aesthetic and it's a case where the definition of art is much like in music, the lyrics (writing) is as equally if not more important than the beats (artwork). There isn't any significance...yet. More or less, it's a speculative buy in the hopes that whoever this mystery person is becomes a new major character.

I'm new to the Walking Dead. What is the significance of Walking Dead #91 - The Final Page? As for the art, is there a difference between Charlie Adlard's art and Tony Moore's as far as collectibility as well as fandom? It seems it could be a mixed opinion, where Tony Moore is the creator or 1st artist, right? Charlie Adlard has had the longest and current run and whose style is most familiar to fans, right? I saw Splash Page Art had quite a bit of original art from the series, a lot to choose from. I guess with nearly 100 issues and 20+ pages per book, there's nearly 2,000 pages to choose from out there... where to start! The guy who bought it is a , I can tell you that much already...

I do think that is the sound of opportunity knocking... Is the hunt on for Lichtenstein-source originals? It does make you wonder if any of the other original comic art is out there...

I think if Heritage or the right auction house got a hold of this piece and marketed it right, it could command prices in the five figures fairly easily. I'm sure the owner of the Lichtenstein would pay at least $100,000+ for the original just to keep them paired together, destroy the comic art an attempt at publicity, or control the value of the Lichtenstein piece by removing the true original from the marketplace. I'm sure right now most of us on CAF would pay $2,000-3,000 on the spot based on speculation investment looking at this under $500 opportunity with great 20/20 hindsight of a real opportunity that passed us all by... and the key words were all there for a search, so it wasn't really hidden treasure more than something that we were all oblivious to knowing about. Thanks for posting this, now I'm searching eBay all weekend for needles in a haystack for burried treasure

Yes... over $43 Million... http://news.yahoo.com/roy-lichtenstein-canvas-pops-43-million-record-025714881.html Like it or not, that's real money and a legit transaction, not a price guide valuation, or something like on the Coollines Website or any other art dealer looking to get a certain rate with prices listed that the market doesn't support. It takes two to tango in an auction, so that means there's someone out there who would have paid $40 million, so it's not just one obsessed fan with deep pockets determining the valuation and price realization here. I hope this bodes well for the potental of comic art as well as a sign the economy isn't all doom and gloom.

I think in this case, from an art community perspective of both fans of the original artists (on this comic book forum, so of course more are critical of his work than defensive to protect his creativity) and artists alike, it's less an issue of what is legal (copyright violations) or not, but more of a moral obligation to acknowledge those facts and ultimately do the right thing and give credit where credit is due. I don't think even Lichtenstein can deny the influence of the original artists to his work, it's not coincidental in creation he was working on at the same time as the orignal artist, it's a purposeful effort to reimagine the work of another artist for profiteering. I wonder if someone took Lichtenstein's work, and either printed them as "reverse negatives", recolored them, produced them in B&W, changed the text in the word balloons, or any other minor modification and then marketed them as their own new creation, if his estate or the art community would be in an uproar?

I guess it's all subject to intrepretation. When does the inspired copy... (Vanilla Ice) ...become more popular, or a greater commercials success than the orignial: (Queen) AND ...and when does use of the original material... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir7-R8WdtcM (Supertramp) ...have enough elements borrowed for a composition that it becomes a new creation that is different enough to stand on it's own at a certain level: (Gym Class Heroes) OR (Notorious BIG) VS (Isley Bros) OR http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPpE_BrX0FM (Puffy Daddy) VS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_qrCzILxjk (Diana Ross) ...so I think the difference is in the music industry now, credit is given where credit is due, and payment is made where clearly influence, creative elements and participation is borrowed or sampled. It's about creative integrity and respect, so when an artist clearly "remixes" another artists work without any acknowlegment, putting the financial aspects aside, whether that acknowlegment is to the original artist or to the public audience and art community, many feel emotionally and intellectually insulted by the new work. I see artists today in comic books clearly give that respect when they "reimagine" certain cover layouts with comments next to their signature such as putting "after (artists name)" or another note which clearly acknowledged they're paying homage to another artist. That's credit. Some may negativley call it a swipe, others positively, a tribute, so that debate can go on, but at least the original creator is credited. Did Lichtenstein in interviews or articles even ever give credit, whether an in passing comment about the influence or an outright statement of inspiration, to the comic books or artists he sampled off of? I'm not sure nor familiar with the man behind the work and whether he had that integrity and honor.

Yes, this seems like the same controversy as what happened in the music industry, more specifically with Hip Hop/Rap, and DJ's sampling the works of others where what were claimed as backbeats were the foreground to a claimed to be new creation or remix. Here's an interesting bit of information on that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(music) So, the question is when does the reimagination become it's own stand alone entity and separate creation. I think Lichtenstein's work, although altered, if not for the marketing and economics tied to the supply/demand of that artists work for some reason, is cute at best, but not so much unique nor innovative, so to me, the artists who created those Topps "Wacky Packages" parody artwork has more creative skills in both conceptual work, creating a new image based on an exisiting one, as well as doing so with a distinctly different style. It's also sort of like what the Adult Entertainment is doing with the Super Hero movie category, and taking wholesome licensed characters, and just by putting "a parody" at the end of the title, are somehow able to use that characters likeness and name, and profiteer as well as sensationalize, manipulate and alter the characteristics of those characters without neither the consent or control of the character owners, on top of that, not even involving them in the economic gain. To me, it seems like sort of an easy way out type of uninspired, if not flat out exploitive profiteering, in an almost leech like, symbiotic relationship where the guest would never survive ecomonically on their own artistic merits without a host that has a healthy body of established work they invested time and money to build. But just like people who complain about the media, the state of Reality TV, and everything else - if nobody truly liked "Jersey Shore" or hearing about "The Kardashians" or "Teen Mom" then, the laws of supply and demand would phase them out, and they'd simply go away due to a lack of economic relevance to their financial supporters, but just like the people who will be participating and bidding up Lichtenstein's work, there's an obvious supply/demand relationship that exists, albeit if indeed it may be short lived and a house of cards waiting to crumble, only time will tell, and who knows what the future holds for the sustainability. History shows, nothing lasts forever, and some of the most established companies like most recently, Borders Bookstore, and in the recent past, Mervyns, Montgomery Wards, Tower Records, Sharper Image, Washington Mutual, and so many other casulties of war has seen big empires crumble. Heck, even Marvel Comics went bankrupt, leaving stock investors in the 1990's with a nice tax write-off to their losses (and oddly enough, even when they re-emerged after re-organizing, the stock holders to the original Marvel stock were not compensated one penny). That circles back to the philosophy of buying what you like, knowing it may be worthless or hard to sell, rather than buying for the dollar signs of investment, especially with artwork. Art isn't as fickle as the music industry, where those who touted "Hootie and the Blowfish" as "The Next Rolling Stones" back in the 1990's as today's pop culture sages feel "Lady Gaga" will be around in 10 years with the longevity of "Madonna", whereas most do end up here today, gone tomorrow flash-in-the-pan icons. Comic Art seems to have a fan following that, once established maintains a certain base standard, like Ditko, Kirby, Kane, Infantino, Steranko, Starlin, Adams, Smith, Perez, Simonson, Byrne, etc of yesteryear... and today's more modern stars like Jim Lee, Todd McFarlane, Adam Hughes, Tim Sale, and Mike Mignola seem to have established the same stable place within the hobby, with if anything, increasing fans and supply/demand valuation to their work. It's the artists with great potential who need a little bit more to their portfolio to establish them as more solid name brand artists who currently command decent values, but to me, may seem built on a less steady longterm foundation like Josh Middleton, Ian Churchill, Chris Bachalo, Joe Mad, Bryan Hitch, Steve McNiven, etc. who produce quality work that sells decently in the marketplace based on their past hits, but I think still needs to produce quality to maintain relevance and grow. The combination of the captions and comic style art is the whole point of Lichtenstein`s work. He wasn`t trying to create comic style art. He was bringing out the pop art-ness of everyday things such as comic panels when they are presented out of context, in the same way that everyday branding or pictures of celebrities became pop art in Warhol`s hands. I understand what you are saying, but using the word "combining" suggests he joined 2 disparate things into one piece. The captions and word balloons and sound effect blurbs were all part of the original panel he lifted. And all of that would be fine if, in the first line of the piece's description he would have stated "originally created by X artist, in X title and re-imagined here." Artistic honesty. Not all of Roy's pieces are line for line copies. Some of them are reworked slightly altering the position of the word balloon or changing some of the lines of the panel he painted over. Those are his most original. They also look the most amateurish of all his pieces, but at least you can see he tried to alter them slightly. Which is a positive. As Aman mentioned the art world ponzi scheme....enough people with too much cash sit around contemplating their own navel and trying to be sophisticated and stuff like this, or the shark, or Campbell's soup cans suddenly become introspective masterpieces on the human condition.

I just saw a news clip (link below) about how Roy Lichtenstein's "I Can See The Whole Room and Nobody is in it" (1961) sold for $2 million in 1988, and is up for auction in 2011 with an estimated value of $35-45 million. Within the story, it was mentioned that the original art market seems more recession proof and people I guess are turning to art for investments because record prices are still being paid for key pieces. VIDEO LINK: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44991840#44991840 Here's a link to a more close-up view of that artwork estimated to be worth over $35 million: IMAGE LINK: http://dome.mit.edu/handle/1721.3/18028 In the video, it was mentioned that Roy Lichtenstein's work commands an average of $10-15 million per original painting. There's an interesting critique of Roy Lichtenstein's work, most relevantly shown on David Barsalou's website illustrating comparisons between Roy Lichtenstein's million dollar paintings compared to the comic book work that "inspired" those paintings. So, I would wonder, were Lichtenstein's works done as a process of "lightboxing" and heavy near if not verbatim photo/image referencing? If so, he was (since he passed away) or his art rep is/was the greatest marketers, enabling him to command millions for his paintings while he was still alive and now multi-millions since he passed away. GALLERY LINK: http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html Similar Article Link: http://www.notcot.com/archives/2007/10/deconstructing.php I hear of similar artists in comic books accused of lightboxing, photo referencing, tracing, etc., so does that hopefully mean their artwork might become seen and praised as the genius and inspirational artwork of the future and command high demand and dollars, like Lichtenstein? It still takes talent and is artistic interpretation, so any art is indeed... ART. Heck, if I could buy a $300 lightbox or a tracing projector, some paper, ink, canvas and paint and make millions, I would... but I know I can't. As for the 35 million dollar Lichtenstein "I can see the whole room..." piece... somewhat related to the hot topic of a week or so ago... of course anyone can buy a print (sort of like the new wave of artists selling digital prints) for under $60.00, albeit, not one of a kind nor original, have the image, and save the extra millions to buy a huge mansion to hang it up in, and have a couple of Yachts, and a private plane to go with it instead of buying the original art... LINK TO BUY - http://www.postercheckout.com/PictureFull.asp?PrintID=8634 What do comic art fans think of Lichtenstein's work? Also of the work of his modern contemporaries in the comic book industry who use similar art styles in their published work?

Rare is a subjective term as it relates to the economics of a collectible. From a circulation and population standpoint it can be meaningless without the proper laws of supply and demand. One good example is within the original comic art hobby. Every single page, whether a cover, a splash page or panelled page are one of a kind, whether it's from Amazing Spider-Man #1 or from Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends #1... so from the standpoint of being something unique, they're equal as one-of-a-kind items... and that out trumps any low print runs or high grade condition scarcity based on population reports, in my opinion. ...But from the standpoint of the number of people who want it, and also the amount of money people would pay for it, then that's a different story. I think that's something speculators and investors in the marketplace always should keep in mind. "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" If a comic book is declared scare and no one is around to buy it, is it worth anything?

Are there any current female comic book artists outside of Amanda Conner who are rising stars that need the added exposure either in the collecting community or getting assigned to the right published book for more fans to take notice of? Jenny Frison ? Sarah Wilkinson ? Katie Cook ? Tara McPherson ? Stephanie Lantry ? Nicola Scott ? Giovanna Casotto ? Amy Hadley ? Chrissy Zullo ? Mariah Benes ? Emily Stone ? Adriana Mello ?

How about Jo Chen? Great series of covers for Buffy the Vampire Slayer... epic run similar to that of James Jean and his Fables covers. I'm also a fan of Nick Bradshaw, his stuff when he takes it up a notch reminds me of the same detailing that Arthur Adams produces. There's a lot of talent out there... it's nice to hear some new names to get turned onto to check out... THANKS!

...and how about artists who appear at comic book conventions who flat out just do an amazing job of high quality regardless of being published or popular? There are so many rising stars, especially those like Michael Broussard, Sheldon Mitchell, Scott Koblish, and others who put in a whole lot of effort with good if not great results at conventions in their sketch and commission work... ...and there are others who charge $100, $300, or more sometimes where their convention commission work pales in comparision to their published work and are sometimes a tad disappointing from both the artistic and the value (for what you've paid) standpoint.

I totally agree with Steve Mannion, as a lesser known, but big talent artist who just needs to get on the right book for exposure to garner the popularity he may or may not be seeking, but definately deserves. What do people think also of: Sean Philips - The next Mike Mignola or Frank Miller? Josh Howard - The next Bruce Timm or Darwyn Cooke? Eric Basaldua - The next Jim Lee? Stephane Roux - The next Adam Hughes? Ale Garza - The next J. Scott Campbell? Ian Churchill - The next Ed Benes? Phillip Tan - The next Neal Adams? Shelby Robertson Michael Ryan Mel Rubi Paul Renaud Tim Seeley Budd Root (or is he already considered an All-Star?) I know some of these names have been published artists for many years and far from new comers or rookies, so maybe it's just a matter of either getting the right inker, getting the right exposure (with the right publisher, characters, titles or writer), or maybe even an evolution in their art style...

With the decade that brought popularity to artists like J. Scott Campbell, a renewed interest in Jim Lee, and continually rising values for artists like Adam Hughes and James Jean now entering a new decade... Which artists today, either rising star or up and comer, do you see as the next all-star artist either in the world of convention commissions or with published artwork? I'd love for some of the art fans to share insight and turn each other onto new artists on the scene...

Dave Cockrum did some recreations of the Giant Sized X-Men #1 cover that he originally did with Gil Kane, with the last one being dated 2002. Does anyone know if Gil Kane did any recreations of the Giant Sized X-Men #1 cover?