Dr. Balls

I am not like most people; as I don't have a need to have these items lying around my house, even if they are 'locked up' and I have a state of the art alarm system. It just is not worth the risk; to me. That being said, I fully understand the opposite point of view and highly respect that opinion for what it's worth.

I dunno - I have to agree with this statement. If I had valuable enough books to necessitate an entire safe to store them - I'd probably have them in a safety deposit box. I wouldn't keep anything mega-valuable stored inside my house.

But, back on topic - the question I have is why the preference of a large fire safe compared to a large gun safe?

According to this fire safe article , there were 389,000 home fires reported in 2008. According to the US Census, in 2010 there are 131,704,730 homes in the US - using those two figures (despite the variance of the two years data), that is 0.29% of homes succumbed to fire. That seems pretty long odds for fire.

A four-drawer legal-sized fire safe is $4,460. And it's not waterproof. I watched a building burn downtown where I work and saw fireman put water on it for 12 hours because of the heat. And it's not like the owner of the building was able to walk through and pull out his valuables. I'm going to guess that if your house burns to the ground, the biggest, largest, longest rated fire safe might not hold up to the heat (especially if it's in the basement where the structure would collapse, taking the slow-burning heat with it) and even if it did - I can't imagine that the residual heat wouldn't damage the books, nor the amount of water used to put out a fire would not make it's way into the safe.

If the desire for a safe is simply peace of mind - I would guess a big gun safe with a de-humidifier bolted to the cement from the inside might be the best financial choice? Slap on an insurance rider for your books and that might be enough coverage?

Or, if you have $4000-$8000 for a safe, maybe considering a lockbox type of room that is completely insulated and waterproofed might be the better choice. An aquaintance of mine had one formed into his house when he had the foundation done. It was a separate all-cement room that he raised 6 or 8" above the floor and put a commercial-grade steel exterior door on - he didn't collect comics, but he had lots of coins, gold, guns and things of that nature.

Haha. No kidding!

Excerpts from "Spatial Cognition IV, Reasoning, Action, Interaction" - trying to formulate a cogent theory to how an effective understanding of spatial reasoning is an asset to graphic designers for my class. Interesting and boring at the same time.

This "dress" featuring Roy Lichtenstein?

It costs $2000. And there are only 99 available. Go buy one for the wife.

This is the stuff I have a problem with. Not so much that he licenses it to m0rons who put a $8 silkscreen on a $10 garment and charge idi0ts $2000 for it. But because he swiped the image, composition and style from someone else and he/his estate profiteers greatly from it.

If an artist in this day and age attempted to do what Lichtenstein did - they'd be sued. Just because the laws were lax 50 years ago does not make what he did acceptable. Regardless of "personal expression".

This argument could go on forever, and probably will. Such a shame - I'd rather die a complete unknown artist that had a modicum of integrity, than die knowing that a large portion of the art community thought I was nothing more than a copy artist in a turtleneck.

I'd rather be in an open-minded minority than a closed-minded majority.

 

Have you even read this thread?

We can agree to disagree. There is nothing close-minded about vilifying someone who's entire career and reputation is based upon the stealing of other people's work to make a buck. It's an embarrassment, and standing up for it under the guise of being "open-minded" is insulting to most artists. End of story.

I didn't need to read the thread, and I don't care to. The only people who value Lichtenstein's work are people who own it and need to convince themselves that a lifetime of lifting, lightboxing, photo referencing, tracing or whatever he did was "artistic license", people that actually never realized that he stole his compositions from comic books or people who think that stealing others' art and claiming it's your own is an acceptable form of expression.

This guy might be able to point you in the right direction:

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

Not sure if he's still around, I think he made his point about Lichtenstein's work and let it speak for itself on this website.

Now, I just find it sad that Lichtenstein & co. made money off the backs of others.

 

Looking back on those works, now, I no longer retain any fondness for them, sorry . . .

 

 

As an artist, it breaks my heart knowing that he directly copied a huge amount of his work, gained notoriety and wealth from it. If I were Bill Gates-style rich, I'd buy the entire lot and destroy it. To me, it has almost zero worth, and the only insight it teaches people is that copying someone else's work can be profitable.

 

It's unfortunate that you call yourself an artist, but would destroy another person's work because you disagree with their view of art.

 

Sometimes it's more about an original idea than an original image.

 

Blatantly ripping off someone's work in such a huge, far-reaching manner is not art or expression for that matter. Taking an image the size of a business card and blowing it up 1000% does not constitute as an "original idea".

Coming to the defense of someone who's entire reputation is based on infringing on other people's art? I'm pretty sure you're going to be in the minority on that.

Now, I just find it sad that Lichtenstein & co. made money off the backs of others.

 

Looking back on those works, now, I no longer retain any fondness for them, sorry . . .

 

As an artist, it breaks my heart knowing that he directly copied a huge amount of his work, gained notoriety and wealth from it. If I were Bill Gates-style rich, I'd buy the entire lot and destroy it. To me, it has almost zero worth, and the only insight it teaches people is that copying someone else's work can be profitable.

Linsner sketch

 

Wow. And I mean, wow.

So no one knows?

The first one with Monroe goes for thousands, but the others really don`t have much juice.

I had the Bo Derek one and couldn`t even get $5 for it.

Trekkers don't mind digging to pay for the Denise Crosby issue. Well, before the internet - that is.

I'm thinking that perhaps the visitors to this thread may appreciate a neat piece of original art I picked up a while back. It's not The Crow... it predates The Crow by quite a bit. Although I've always wanted a Crow page and never found one that had the right combination of eye appeal and affordability for me, I did manage to acquire a couple really early O'Barr submission pieces.

 

I picked up this piece along with another one, which O'Barr had sent to California Comics in the 70's, hoping to be hired as a comic book artist. Back in the 90's I was lucky to have found this piece, along with a companion piece and O'Barr's original handwritten letter and postmarked envelope from the submission.

 

 

Wow. Early submission from the artist-yet-to-be? That's really awesome.

I'm still trying to track down a set of Crow Caliber books after getting rid of them about 14 years ago. However, I did manage to pick up a nice sketch by O'Barr awhile back:

maxx 1/2 red and blue 10 copies each.

 

Not sure if you count this, Ive only ever seen one other, and may have very well been the same one cuz i saw it raw and it was a long time ago on ebay.

 

I am very surprised CGC refers to this as a "printer error". It's not an error, it's a make-ready copy (for registering the print run, setting up the bindery machines, or for setting up the cutter) that found it's way through the printing production.

An error would suggest that it was a mistake - it was not, it simply didn't get thrown out with the other make readies, and got past quality control. It's a defect, not an error.

I'm not sure what the more accurate term would be, but since CGC detracts points for miscut covers (also a bindery problem) this should be graded down for actually being a very significant defect.

I have about twelve 30¢ variants, and they are mostly hammered. I can't believe that 9.6 one.

Early Adam Hughes....1st app. of GHOST, double signed Hughes and cover artist Dave Dorman.

 

Still the only s/s to date

 

I loved 'Ghost' - it was a great book. I officially envy your SS.

Well packed and quickly shipped. Well-sought after item becomes a treasured gem. Thanks!

The Green Machine was definitely one of the reasons I grew up to love hot rods. I mean, look at that thing compared to a plain ol' Big Wheel. It was awesome, and everyone wanted to take it out for a spin.

My Uncle Don worked for Mattel and my dad did some PR work for the original Battlestar Galactica TV show, so in 1979, I got a bunch of BSG toys from my uncle and a presskit with photographs of the cast from my dad. It was awesome.

Seconded only by:

Superbly packed, prompt shipping - thank you!

In other news - anyone have any ideas on when the next Artists Assemble thread is going to be thrown out there?

Holy cow - all this started over a Liefeld comment? An accurately-worded and rather generous comment at that?

For what it's worth, I'm fairly sure that no one intended anything other than implying that Rob Liefeld can't draw feet. Or bodies, for that matter...

Maybe if Liefeld used photo ref he wouldn't have to put feet behind a rock

Nice burn.

You would make a great Doodle Art artist,remember those.I loved them.

 

...totaly forgot ..I have posted these pencil drawings some time ago :blush:sorry

Nothing to be sorry about - I never saw them! Those are great - I have much respect for that kind of style. I'm sure I could never focus long enough to create one gigantic cohesively linked piece of art like that.

I actually like that it was done and signed in 1973. Vintage original work is awesome!

finally more art being posted

 

I'm eagerly awaiting the next Artists Assemble thread.

 

 

I dont even know what that is but it sounds sweet..I dont have any new pics to put up on here though

It's like an art assignment from what I was shown - a topic or character, and you have a week or so to create a piece of art. There's a couple links I think one or two pages back. Sounds fun.