ESeffinga

I have a 40" x 40" Dave McKean oil and mixed media painting from his Nitrate series in a frame near my front door. Dave did the original frame himself for these pieces, but after being on the wall for a few years, it started to warp. Now, for anyone not in the know about Dave's work, in certain pieces he likes to add stuff to the face of his pieces. In the case of my piece, it has sticks and dried leaves from his garden, as well as dimensional plaster, and whatnot. And the base are is actually about 3/4" thick board. So the piece is actually more like a 4" deep box frame. At 40" x 40", the piece of regular museum glass was ridiculously heavy, and oversized. I ended up upgrading to the highest grade of oversized museum plexi on that piece I could get. It's been a bit of a test case for me, because I wasn't 100% sure about how it would do, given the high traffic area, and potential for scratching. FWIW, McKean had plexi on the original pieces as well, but he was also shipping them around the world for exhibitions, and again, the plexi is half the weight of the glass. I understand they can also present some cleaning challenges if one isn't careful. Normally I'm ok with museum glass on the pieces that warrant it. I don't bother going that route on pieces that are interior walls with no windows or lighting that will cause glare. in those cases, just good UV glass is fine (for me). But this badboy gets a fair bit of glare on it, and you'd never even know anything was there. It was pricier than the glass for certain, but worth every penny. Maybe even more glare-free than my favorite museum glass. And the new frame job looks fab. Before, the original plexi was all glare, and made seeing the details of the work a challenge. Now it's like there's nothing between the art and the eye. I love that about a good museum plexi/glass. That said, it's still a very very heavy piece, so I ended up hanging it with a z-cleat instead of the usual hooks and wire. That way it could go right into the studs with zero flex, or possibility of it being bumped off-level. I could have sworn I had a picture, but I guess I don't. I can take one later if anyone is interested.

Hah! Looks like a number of them are Watkiss storyboard type pieces, but that Governor eyeball popping 2pg sequence... One for framing and hanging in the dining room, methinks!

This show is still on the air?

A headscratcher for me too, but then, hey... sometimes the heart wants what the heart wants. So long as the buyer is truly happy with it after it's all said and done, then the rest is just air.

Gene can speak up as well, but I for one have never seen Seuss/Geisel exhibited in what the folks I know would consider a true high end art gallery. There are all kinds of "art galleries" out there, but most are little more than stores for "low tier" art sales. That sounds nastier than I mean it, but most galleries wouldn't lift a finger to look at most of the work I myself have bought and collected from art gallery spaces over the years. Just because the word gallery is in the name doesn't elevate it to the sort of thing that brings out the real art cork sniffers. Most of the Seuss exhibitions I've seen have been through small local galleries (stores), little museums that cater to niche markets, and children's museums or scholarly exhibitions that show the work more for it's sociological and cultural impact than as "Art" with a capital A. It's pop culture, not unlike comics, most movies, etc. The Met did a show about Tim Burton a while back, but it was again mostly centered on the pop culture aspects of the work. It's another case of putting feet through the door than saying Burton is as important to art in their minds, as say Twombly or Van Gogh.

Count me in as interested to what you find out re: Chubb as well. The thing I don't like with my current insurance arrangement is it is a rider through the same company that my homeowners is through (SF, if you were wondering), and they've been easy going with me. But I'm not sure I want all my eggs in that same basket, if you know what I mean. Should something happen (a plane falls on my house), I'm inxreasingly wary of my chances of recouping even the majority of value. Will they pay out and then boot me as a customer? Probably. But then where do I stand trying to get insurance elsewhere? Of course if a plane falls on my house, I'll probably have bigger fish to fry in the short term. Heh.

I'd wager this is why you are seeing folks like Crumb, Burns, Ware, Bagge etc. with more "highbrow" exhibits at museums and galleries. When I see folks wonder why that is, and not Ditko, McFarlane, Miller, etc to the same degree, I'm left with the sense that it is because the "art establishment" sees them as telling stories of the human condition. They aren't playing with the usual narrative tropes, recycled, repackaged and reissued with new first issues, and new costumes, and new galactic space battles. And I realize it's highly reductive and oversimplified description, but you take my point. I believe the art establishment (if there is such a thing really) sees these other creators as speaking to something more deeply personal, and using what was (and in many ways still is) a throwaway vehicle for streamlined stories, to make a buck. At the risk of bad anaolgy... in the way that Kubrik, Bergman, Fellini, Kurosawa, etc. have done with film. Kirby, Ditko, Romita et al. might prove to be the Lumiere Bros., Fritz Lang, Georges Melies of the medium, whose influence is everywhere, and showed ways the medium could be used, and sent the groundwork for all cinema. I acknowledge a poor comparison, but I think the wider point stands.

Can't beat that for a movie title.

As someone with most of his collection on a wall somewhere in the house, and a great many pieces 4ft square and above, it's always an underlying concern. I've never needed to place a claim for art or any homeowner's need in general. Knock on wood. The premiums are indeed high, and may prove to have been money thrown down a black hole, should filing a claim ever truly happen. I've never been a gambler or a participant in games of serious chance, so this may be as close as I ever come to that.

A great read. Thanks for sharing it!

For the interested... https://news.artnet.com/art-world/assess-loss-damage-art-insurance-claim-1071725

If this had been part of a 70s reprint run, any production transparencies would actually be separated into the CMYK plate colors. So there would in effect be 4 separate transparencies, one for each color on the press. And this long into their life, I would expect some yellowing to the clear film, even if archivally preserved. At no point in production would all be combined into a single color film transparency. These generally only exist on eBay from unscrupulous entrepreneurs.

Somebody gonna be pissed when they crack open that package.

Oooh. Cool! But wait, did you write your name on the back of it? Trying to decide whether to look at it or not. (pssst. It's a joke!)

Totally agree with you here!

I'd never do it myself. It runs against how I am wired. If maybe it had always been the way things were done, I'd be wired differently, but at this late stage of the game, it just wouldn't sit right with me. And I have bought from artists and dealers that would pencil prices on the pages in the margins, or on the back. Pretty much since I started buying art. But always in pencil, as it is the least permanent/destructive method. And I'm the sort that leaves those on. I know some folks who would erase that as soon as it came in. As to writing in pen... boy that CAN become an issue that causes damage. It depends on what's used. Not all comic artists use materials that are lets say, as quality as others. So yes it can show through. More concerning to me is what kind of pen? Some folks might be signing stuff with a felt tip pen. Doesn't have to be a sharpie. Those Micron pens for instance, can bleed. Markers or felt tips of many kinds can and do fade, but also bleed. And sometimes the solvents bleed even faster and leave behind a very light yellow "ghost" onto other surfaces. I once had a small stack of cheap inconsequential sketches in the pockets of one of my old portfolios. One of them was done by the artist with a mix of ballpoint and felt tip micron pen. Totally forgot they were in there, until one day I cleaned out the portfolio like 10 years later. The solvent used in the micron pens not only bled through to the back of that drawing, leaving a reverse light yellow drawing on the back, they also migrated onto the piece is was sitting against, so that drawing had a yellow ghost on the face of it from the drawing it was behind, and the drawing on top of it had the solvent lightly bled onto the back of it. That one was a heavy paper, and it didn't make it to the front of it. And I've mentioned here before a series of marker based drawings that have left similar ghosting on the portfolio sleeves I've kept them in for years. Or the ballpoint pen where the ink stuck to a sleeve. Anyway, the takeaway from me was I don't much buy marker based art anymore. Forget the fading, what about the bleeding issues, long term? Not worth the risk to me, when there's so much out there worth while. I don't let any art touch any more, no matter how cheap. For these same reasons, I'd be too afraid someone who isn't so self conscious, would sign the back with whatever they writing implement they have lying around. No thanks!

I do hope that was intended as hyperbole...

Hah! I bet. KJG always makes me think of that guy that draws cityscapes from memory based on a photo he sees once. Ony with KJG it's like he imagines the scene and then attacks it that same way. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/autism-artist-stephen-wiltshire-cities-genius/

Stumbled across an article that I thought some here might find interesting, in regards to the "is it Art with a captial A" discussion. The article seems at least on first glance to be fairly even handed. Pointing out factual errors in other articles that decry his work, while also taking time to criticise under other criteria. I thought to post it here, because if Wyeth's Christina's World is struggling to be taken seriously, even the best of the best Kirby has little to no chance... unless the prevailing perspectives among the fine art establishment (curatorial, educational, etc) are all at some point either broadened or shifted in some enormous way. That said, the bit about Wyeth bringing bodies to the building could be similarly repeated at some future time, should a Kirby (etc.) work be exhibited. I could see future generations of folks that have seen all the movies, etc not ponying up for the OA themselves, but being at least interested in going to a museum to see such historic work. Even if it is by the water fountain.... And of course I've said in other threads on the topic, I'd think we'd be more likely to see Kirby OA on display in the Smithsonian American History museum than in the Smithsonian National Gallery of Art. https://hyperallergic.com/397350/a-retrospective-of-andrew-wyeth-a-painter-both-loved-and-loathed/

He's a Richard Prince imitator... https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/30/8691257/richard-prince-instagram-photos-copyright-law-fair-use

Another fun listen.

You gotta get a copy of that pinball machine for yourself! Love the look of your original and comparing to the backlit board in the machine. Totally cool.

Holy moley! This is hilarious and fantastic.

Boy that orangey red/blue just pops off of there. Dig it.

This is where I fall as well.