PhilipB2k17

1 hour ago, zhamlau said:

Ok, where would we move cooper age to? What would be the real start of this? Like what was the origin point (or the "harbinger"...sigh....cheesy)?

I think DC stopped putting Comics Code bug on their books in 2011. And it pretty much ceased functioning in 2009. I'd say the end of the Comics Code would mark the beginning of the true modern era. Frankly, the Silver Age began as a direct result of the self-regulating of comics content because of the backlash against EC and other horror, and crime books in the 1950's. The Bronze Age (IMHO) started when the Comics Code relaxed their standards on content. Then the Direct Market circumvented the comics code. I'd use Dazzler #1 as the beginning of the Copper/Direct Market age, as it was the 1st Marvel exclusive Direct sales regular comic book. That came out in 1980. Bronze would be, where the Comics Code authority loosened its standards in 1971 to allow more horror themes. I have no problem with using GA/GL 76 either, as its about the same time. 

So, when does the copper age end? 1980-2009 is 29 years. People have suggested the Image era, but how about the Overprinting Era, starting with X-Men #1 in 1991? 

Then Id probably end the overprinting/speculative boom era at point when the X-Men film came out. That marked the beginning of the Mumtimedia era, which we are still in. 

32 minutes ago, zhamlau said:

I see your point. Do we however think that really defined the start or end of an age of comics? Like was it game changer? Starts of Era's are easier then ends to find, but I like looking for bookends. Do we all think that the nature of how comics were made and their stories told shifted for the majority of editors/creators because of the 80s direct market independent boom?Like did it change the trajectory of thought for Marvel/DC? Maybe you can argue actually that spirt and focus is what allowed DC to do Dark Knight and Watchmen, eventually Sandman.

I think it did. Marvel and DC had to create creator owned branded titles to compete. So Marvel created Epic and DC created Vertigo, which both resulted in some important properties and characters (Vertigo, epecially). The Direct market era changed everything. It broke the comics code, for one. It was the end of the comics code era. That's a huge demarcation point.

On 7/28/2017 at 11:56 AM, zhamlau said:

Golden Age: Action 1 (1938, Start of Superhero Comics) - More Fun 108 (1946, post-war beginning of transition from hero to humor/alternate content)

Atomic Age: Atom Man Comics 1 (1946, Start of post bomb era comic book themes) - Tales from the Crypt 46 (1955, last pre-code EC flagship issue, end of artistic freedom)

Silver Age: Showcase 4 (1956, re-introduction of superhero-centric genre in comics) - Avengers 65 (1969, end of 12 cent era-could be any issue in that 2-3 month window for the big two)

Bronze Age: Green Lantern 76 (1970, Beginning of gritty social aware multi-issue arcing storytelling) - Brave and Bold 200 (1983, end of the run for anthology mainline books, also MTIO 100 and House of Mystery/secrets, Adventure ended same year)

Copper Age: Secret Wars 1 (1984, limited series universe spanning "event's", series birthed start of black suit spidey additionally) - Spider-man 1 (1990, New direction artist focused trend for on-going series started at Marvel/DC)

Modern Age (Foil Age):  New Mutants 98 (1991, introduction of post modern superhero Deadpool)- Wolverine 189 (2003, final issue for era defining book)

Digital Age: Walking Dead 1 (2003, start of decompressed art indy comic boom) - Present

 

I sometimes wonder about using secret wars and not contest of champions, but CC was to gimmicky and its effects were negligible even though it was i think marvels first limited series. If the book never happened nothing really changes except i think for "the collector" (been years since i even looked at, but that was always my impression). Secret wars was a critical/commercial huge success and the black suit Spidey roll out was major event so i count that instead. Anyway thats my list.

We have to use "Direct Market" age as a demarcation point because with apologies to Image, you had a new crop of independent publishers come onto the scene a result of the direct market in the early 1980's. These were Eclipse, Pacific, Comico, First, among others. And these independents produced some pretty monumental characters and titles, such as Groo, American Flagg, Grimjack, Starslayer, Grendel, Mage, Rocketeer, TMNT, etc. All of which were creator owned well before Image ever showed up on the scene. 

I think people get touchy about this stuff because they may have invested a lot of money into art by a particular artist. So, if he (or she) gets criticized on this board, which is the most prominent discussion board for OA collectors, it could harm the value of their pieces. Or, on a more basic level, they consider it a criticism of themselves, because art they enjoy is being attacked, and it it is an implicit criticism of their taste or choices.

But, this hobby is so subjective in so many ways, I see no reason to attack other artists. I am very willing to say what I do like, and that I do not prefer some artists, but I would never criticize their art, because it is a subjective thing. My preferences are just that; mine. Someone else may, and probably does, disagree.

I think its fair to say WHY you like a particular artists, an why you think her or she may be underappreciated. But, again, you might not convince many others of that idea. 

There is art from a modern book I am collecting right now that I think is fantastic, and it is by a name artist who just came off a highly regarded run on a book by one of the Big Two, where this artist drew a major character. I believe this art is a bargain where it is currently priced at, for various reasons I won't go into. But, it is not selling out like some other modern books. (Again, for reasons that have to do with marketing, availability, and speculation, more than the quality of the art, IMHO).

But, I am super happy with what I have, and expect that within a year or two, pages from this series and artist will explode in value. But, I bought them because I really love the art! So, if they go up, great. If not, oh well! 

8 minutes ago, Skizz said:

That sounds completely valid. I guess the biggest sin in storytelling is losing the audiences' interest. Anything that disrupts the reader's immersive experience is a problem. 

Did Nick Fury looking like Samuel L. Jackson distract from the storytelling? 

1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

I would argue that, from a storytelling perspective, no, it does not matter if the art was photo-referenced, unless it is done to an extent where it becomes distracting to the reader (e.g., swiping well-known likenesses of people, or very distinctive poses, composition, etc. from other popular media).  

From an artistic perspective, though, yes, I would argue that it does matter.  I really enjoyed CrossGen's fantasy series "Sojourn" back in the 2000s.  I think the artwork by Greg Land really worked too, for the most part...from a storytelling perspective.  But, the photoreferencing/swipes became more and more obvious over time ("hey, that was the pose from the SI Swimsuit issue!"), to the point where I felt it did become unnecessarily distracting.  And, I did not feel as good about owning the art as a result (I ended up selling all the Land pieces I owned). 

I think the really blatant Land photo referencing/swipes peaked in the mid to late 2000's. After 2010, I think he did less of it (although it crops up in some covers from time to time).

16 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

I believe it is possible to have an objective conversation about comic art. But having attempted to do so on these boards in the past, I'm now in the camp that it is a bad idea for a public thread - as a group, we're not mature enough to handle it. Especially me, I always feel an incredible urge to post images of Liefeld's Enchantress... I rarely resist said urge.

I'm so glad I skipped the whole 90's comics scene. 

7 minutes ago, eewwnuk said:

Michelangelo used photo referencing for his art?   

No. That was the Ultimate Michelangelo.

3 minutes ago, drdroom said:

Latest Heritage results are 2012, 2013 and those have run-of-the-mill panel pages in the low hundreds. Maybe they've gone up since then? Also, can someone clarify, did The Ultimates cast Samuel Jackson as Fury BEFORE the movie did?!?

Yes. Ultimates depicted Samuel L. Jackson as Fury ~before~ Iron Man came out. That's why they cast Jackson as Fury.

8 minutes ago, Marwood & I said:

I'm confused by this thread. We seem to be debating whether Brian Hitch's photo-referenced art is a good (Michelangelo) thing or a bad (photo-tracer) thing. If so, and looking at the thread title, which one of 'threat' and 'menace' represents the good thing?

What am I missing?

 

 

I think the thread is kind of discussing why Hitch (and Greg Land) and their Ultimates work doesn't get more hobby (value) love, and discussing the reasons why they may or may not.

12 minutes ago, Skizz said:

I have to say, I have only seen a few pages from Ultimates 2 come up for a few hundred.  I haven't seen any from Ultimates 1, at least in the few months that I have searched.

But if it is true that Ultimates is underpriced, I might posit a theory for that.

As edgy as Ultimates was at the time (it certainly brought me into comics), looking at it with some hindsight and objectivity, I would say that everyone in this story was kind of an A-hole.  All the aspirational character we look up to like Captain America, Iron Man etc, pretty much everyone in it was self-serving and/or callous in their attitude towards human life.  

Art is supposed to be a mirror to society and may be our own image that Ultimates showed us is not a very flattering.  If this is the case, then the normal response would be to ignore it and forget it exists and go back the original Marvel universe where the heroes act like how we expect heroes to act.

Just a theory, but may explain why Ultimates to underrated and not talked about much.

Regarding photo referencing, I am in two minds about this.  Ultimately, comics are a storytelling medium and photo referencing is just a tool.  An interesting question to ask is that as long as the page makes an emotional impact to the reader, does it matter is any portion of it was photo referenced? 

If I am not mistaken, Bruce Timm and Alex Ross used to be good friends in the early days and they used to critique each others work.  But ultimately Bruce Timm Tim felt that Alex Ross's work was overly photo referenced and was stifling as a result of this.  Alex Ross disagreed that felt that Bruce Timm did not understand that he was trying to bring in almost a Renaissance style of painted quality to comic art which it was lacked up to that point.  Arguably both are correct. 

The Ultimate universe, though, is partially a template for the current MCU. Hitch, for example, used photo referencing to depict Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury in Ultimates 1. I should think those pages - if only a couple hundred bucks - are probably undervalued quite a bit.

You know, I don't feel the need to criticize artists' work that I don't like. I'm not sure what purpose it serves. If I don't like it, I don't buy it. And, if others do, and drive up prices for it beyond where I think they should be, what do I care? I'm not buying any of it. Let those folks who like the art enjoy it. Or, if they are speculating on it, that's on them.

I buy stuff that I like. 

I probably have a higher opinion of Greg Land than most people. So what? It means I can buy some really great pages for much cheaper than I'd have to pay for them if he was a big favorite. That's good for me! Especially his later stuff where he's not doing as much photo-referencing (or tracing, for the people who like ragging on him). This hobby is really quirky, and tied to nostalgia and sentimentality so much that if a couple of collectors with deep pockets just happen to have the same sentimental attachment to a particular comic, by a particular artist, pages from that book could sell for quite a bit and ignite the market for that artist. 

3 minutes ago, visarspike said:

you can't put greg land on the same level....he didn't do any memorable comics, although authority and ultimates were a revolution in comics at the time they were printed, and set new levels for comics (in my opinion)

It depends. The Thanos invasion storyline crossover for "Infinity" in Mighty Avengers might actually be featured in the new iInfinity Wars film. That's the book where Doctor Strange was induced to call Shuma-Gorath by Ebony Maw (who will be in the film, and will fight Strange).  

Here's my page, and I like it. :-)

http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=1409203

I like Aparo Batman stuff generally, but I am not a fan of the inking job on that piece. 

This thread can also be about Greg Land. I feel like his later stuff is actually quite good, however. I have a pretty kick DPS from Mighty Avengers, that is probably criminally undervalued, mostly because it's by Land, and despite the fact that the Thanos invasion plot line might be part and parcel of the Infinity Wars film coming up.

I could see that one cap battle page, depending on the auction,  go for above $400, easily. 

I have a golden age page that has glue stains in some places. I talked to a local art dealer (not OA, but Art) who appreciates comic art and has had some pieces in his gallery. They do art restoration, cleaning, etc all the time and have a national rep. 

Was going to get a quote on removing the stains  

38 minutes ago, Brian Peck said:

Was talking to someone about this at SDCC. Can't believe they didn't ask about those painting and maybe buy some of them. I tried to see if I would figure out the artists but couldn't.

One of them kind of looks like a Boris painting. But, could just be a print. Or fuzzy resolution. 

4 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

To me, the most convincing part of the drawing is the squiggle shadow under the figure. It was done without trying to be anything but what it is. A pen squiggle. It looks effortless and natural. Every other line seems to be worked on, with the strokes going over and over again.

I'm totally with Bronty on this one. Sketches look like sketches. Quick fluid lines. They can be loose. They can be "sloppy" or wonky, but they don't look pressured or belabored. This mostly looks like both of those.

The only way I see any angle of this being any kind of "pro" is if it was done by a very very old hand that has lost it's control and IS belabored to try and make the right strokes of the pen. The mind knows where they should go, but the hand can't make it happen.

...Think late retirement age comic artists doing the con circuit in their 80s & 90s.

But I think that is a very long shot, and even if it was the case, the possibility of ID-ing the piece is next to none unless a previous owner was to surface and say they witnessed so and so doing it at a show for them, etc.

And even THEN, there'd be no way to corroborate that story. And experts in said creator's art are not likely to make an ID simply because it doesn't look like that artist's known/published work.

 

 

I also think the coloring (the shading inside Donald's sleeve and under his belly) indicated it might be more than just an amateur. But, I defer to the people here with much better knowledge than mine.

Thanks for all of your input. It basically confirms what I suspected initially, that this is probably not by a name artist; and even if it were, there is no way to give proper attribution. I didn't buy it. It is just something I saw at a flea market, in a frame. The fact that it was lovingly framed, kind of gave me a bit of pause, suggesting that maybe it was more than just a doodle. So, because I know little about this type of art, I thought I would take a photo and run it by more experienced folks.

11 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Cool cover!  Nice to see MOKF get more and more love these days.  

Yes. And....the ridiculously under-appreciated Ernie Chan!

Hey, I'm just learning this stuff. I never thought it was by a Disney animator. Or a high level comic book artist. I thought maybe it was a quickie drawing done by someone at a fair or something. Almost like a Disneyland sketch by someone creating souvenirs, for example. 

6 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

So, I actually looked into this at one point (which later became the source of some confusion in my Felix Comic Art podcast).  The benefit to running an art business is:  sales tax exemption and ability to deduct many expenses as a business that are not deductible as a hobby.  The downside is that the corporate tax rate is higher than the collectibles capital gains tax rate (if you have enough expenses, though, your effective rate could end up being lower).  But, here's the killer:  you have to pay self-employment tax.

I concluded that it wasn't worth it.

My research on this also shows that you can declare a capital loss on the sale of  collectible art, only if you do not benefit from personal use of it. So, if you hang it up on your wall, you can't claim the capital loss if you sell it. (No gain to report and get taxed on either, of course). But, if you store them in files and keep inventory, you may be able to claim a capital loss.

In any case, consult an accountant or a tax attorney before making a decision to sell your art! And keep good records!

22 minutes ago, stinkininkin said:

EXCELLENT advice.  So not worth effing around with this stuff.  You'll be SOOOOOOOOO sorry.

Scott

This explains why some people might incorporate, or become subchapter S corporations, to buy and sell art via their "business," so they can report losses and gains, and be taxed at the corporate rate.

I have a question on taxes. If you buy a piece of art for cheap. then sell it for a lot of money, you make a capital gain on it. Do OA collectors who come out ahead on net gain on an annual basis report the gain to the IRS? Or is this all under the table?