ESeffinga

...I'm right there with you. Either that or I'm going to need a MUCH bigger deposit box. Heh.

Forgive me if this is belaboring the point, but another possible clearer analogy... One of my first albums as a kid was actually Metallica's Ride the Lightning. As an adult I rarely ever listen to Metallica (and if I do it's old Metallica) and I don't listen to that much metal music at all. But I love select releases by some new bands that drew obvious inspiration from those worlds. And I'd argue much of my interest in someone like the band 3TEETH stems from those other bands like metallica. They primed my interest and helped formed who I am today. It's not a direct nostalgia, but an ingrained one that I unknowingly trained myself for, as I developed my future interests. It's called growth. We are ultimately all a collection of our influences.

I'm actually right there with you to a point. And it's exactly the way that I saw myself for a long long time. My experience pretty much mirrors your own to a T, with the exception that I was buying art at the same time I was buying comics in the 90s. BUt it was new art at the time. No "time" had bassed for it to be "nostalgia". Except that I was already a big fan of the sequential form. Impossible for me to strip that I read comics as I kid out of my self-analysis. In point of fact I can say nothing in my current CAF gallery was something I was into as a kid. Not a single piece. It's all work chosen as an adult, and much of it from the last 10-15 years. Bought when new. But scratching past the surface, I'll pull a more extreme example to pick on myself. This piece is by an artist named Camille Rose Garcia. She's only been producing art for roughly the last 20 years, and it's been within the last decade that she's really made a name for herself. She's represented in large galleries on both coasts of the U.S. and a few international ones now, I believe. Her work is largely caked in symbolism, but the language she's chosen, the visual vehicle, is that of comics/cartoons/children's books/Disneyana. It's like a twisted cartoon/comic come to life. People can find a handful of such pieces in my CAF if anyone cares to look. Clearly this piece didn't exist long enough for me to have nostalgia for it (or any of her other collectors), and at solid 5 figures, her work isn't some little kischy collectible, painted in a shed for fun. But in it is an ingrained acceptance/resonance of the previously mentioned artforms that fuel the language through which she speaks. There's a lot more going on with the piece than just how it looks on first blush, but I recognize that part of that appeal is nostalgia. In fact a lot of the whole indy art and illustration world trades on nostalgia as visual shorthand. Certain elements and approaches have become truly iconic. In some ways a narrative trick to speed things along without having to explain with backstory. But I've seen enough non-comics people see a piece like this and think it's made for some kind of childish weirdos. And as a flipside, if you visit gallery shows by such artists, invariably you find pretty much everyone there was into comics as a kid, and ahve a certain almost shared memory of those times. Even if they have no interest in comics today. Some artist's entire stock and trade is nostalgia. And in some ways it's a lazy cheat to make "meaningful" work. There's a lot at play in my interest in the Garcia piece, and I won't bore everyone to tears with the merits or why it touched a nerve in me, or what makes me a fan. I'd wager few if anybody here would have ANY interest in the piece even though all are into comic art. I'm not saying that being into comics makes everyone have the same kind of nostalgia or interests. I'm saying anyone that has read comics as a kid has feelings of that time. Triggers that may run completely invisible to us as adults. I'd wager most of them good or pleasant. And all have a reasonable vocabulary for the artform, due to what experiences we had. One that makes us more susceptible to continue on that interest as an adult. Whether that translates into art collecting in any form or not isn't the point. But the nostalgia is buried there in an acceptance and understanding of the form. Never seen an adult just start reading comics out of the blue regularly, and stay with it long term. I've seen some start and be into it for a year or three. But none that stuck around. The closest would actually be my own wife, who got into comics in high school when we were first dating. She was indoctrinated I suppose. On the flipside, every single person I've ever met who is into comic OA collecting for the long term started out as a comics reading kid. MANY didn't keep up with it for long periods of their lives. Or left for a few years. Even more don't read any comics now. But they are still into the art. I did buy some comic OA that was 100% from my past as a kid. The last piece I sold like that went to Gene in fact. And I'm glad he has it because it clearly effected him as much as it did me. But it just didn't jibe with the rest of my collection. And off it went. But the nostalgia around comics has permeated me so deeply, it's impossible to say what ways I've been effected. Like I said previously, you could substitute the world "influence" for "nostalgia" if it makes you feel better. But even though they have different definitions, I think there's more overlap than many give them credit for. This is ALL completely hypothetical, and oblique as I said to start, but I've yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

Awesome Con... I think the name says it all. My experience is it's one of those shows that celebrates everything wrong with SDCC, and none of what's good about it. It's smallish, it's mostly about cosplay and getting signed by TV shows folks, and hocking the same kind of merch you can find just about anywhere. It's like a Wizard show, or anything of that ilk. It's an industry. Heroes is a show by folks that have a deep abiding love of comics and comic artists, for artists about artists. It is a comics-centric show with deep deep roots. It's like having the choice between a killer fresh grilled burger, or one from McDonalds, IMO. And hard to say, as my hometown is DC. And so is Rico Renzi's. He has lived in Charlotte and worked as Heroes creative director for the last several years, and is a colorist himself on some very popular books. And before that, a huge fan of Heroes con, when he still lived up here. I can't think of a more creator-friendly show.

I think there's at least some nostalgia at play in almost every comic OA purchase, it's just more tangential for some than others. I'm one that thinks of myself as being extremely nostalgic, but also extremely tangential in how the OA I collect relates to that nostalgia. Maybe more so than most here. But it's very much there, and I'm a liar when I deny it. I don't buy a page because I had that comic as a kid. But I do buy a page because I had comics as a kid. Call it interests, hobbies, whatever you like. Maybe semantics but an important distinction nevertheless. Other things that play a part in my nostalgia are music, toy and skateboarding subcultures. Both old and new. I'm not nostalgic for a new piece by a new artist. But there's things in that piece that resonate with me because of the deep influence of those other things, and the nostalgia for the times tied to them. We are all sums of our individually collected influences after all. Art is about the interaction of the viewer with the piece. That interaction and the attraction to it is all predicated on how we see that piece. And how we see it is based on everything that came before it, and drives what we are attracted to. To put too fine a point on something Gene says a lot about OA collectors not coming into the hobby that don't have some sort of background with it. People aren't often attracted to the artform fully-formed and out of the blue. Obliquely speaking, of course.

Oh yeah, and to play along... Shade the Changing Man. A mindscrew of a series that explored the human experience through the most bizarre of events and circumstances. The original Ditko stories are amusing. But the Peter Milligan penned series that started in 1990 was eventually rolled in as one of the cornerstones during the founding of the Vertigo imprint, along with Sandman, Hellblazer and Swamp Thing. Never really attaining the level or notoriety of those other series, it's settled into having a hardcore cult following of folks that appreciated it for the imagination it showed, and the occasionally gut wrenching pathos of it all. This piece is one of Duncan Fegredo's covers for the series. It is of Kathy, Shade's love and often the focus of much of what happens in the Milligan series. She is in SHade's coat here. The title is really as much hers as it is his. Fegredo's work on the covers for this series made me fall in love with his style. Angular, and colorful, with tons of personality injected into the figures. He emotes so well. After his work on Shade, and Enigma, I was unsurprised when Mike Mignola asked Duncan to be the first artist to do the main Hellboy book (other than himself), and Fegredo put on those shoes and went to work. The man has his own style and approach to linemaking. A genuine voice that is his own and not to be mistaken for anyone else's. But my first love will always be for these Shade covers. As with Glenn Fabry's Preacher covers, occasionally some of the Shade covers from Fegredo are a bit wonky. Chalk it up to painting to a deadline. But the ones where he is on... Fegredo does his thing so so beautifully. My wife and I have had 2 boston terriers for about 14 years now. We named them Milligan and Fegredo. http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=314570

It's interesting, and maybe worth a different thread elsewhere. But i find it fascinating that the Death in the Family storyline is panned, but it's one of the most memorable Batman stories there are. Granted it was done as a stunt. And yet, there were narrative repercussions that are still there today (I think). It's not only become canon, but the wellspring from which many Batman stories have been told since. It's interesting to think DC kept all that work. Shouldn't it have been returned to the creative team, per the usual arrangements?

Heroes. No contest. No question.

Ty Templeton is a cool cat. Loved several of his covers for his run on Batman Adventures.

It's a cottage industry. Lightbox a porn image. Color in hair (and maybe pubes). CAF galleries full of the stuff. Some of those galleries are from people who have actually been buying it, and not simply purveyors of it themselves, looking for attention. That's the part that kills me. Oh yeah, and also much higher view counts than pretty much anything in galleries belonging to myself or those that I follow. So, somebody is into it.

I'm not. I'm talking across all strata. I feel like selling art begets selling art. People sell 4 figs to buy 5 figs. 3 figs to buy 4. In an effort to take advantage of upgrade opportunities. I often see what I've assumed to be higher than normal levels of work offered over certain times of year, where there are feeding frenzies. Spikes of activity. But it doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's spurred on by events. Post Christmas bills. Tax season. Pre-SDCC fund raising. Post SDCC bills. Pre-Christmas fund raising. And of course various tentpole auctions and/or collection selloffs. OA is relatively liquid, depending on what one has and what their level of gain/loss tolerances are. And if some big fish sells off a bluechip piece, dozens or hundreds of ancillary auctions may be the result. Call it trickle-down artonomics.

https://wompwompwomp.com/

I've been thinking that pieces for sale generates more sales. Specifically, that OA collectors really are a niche of the comics hobby. So if a handful of collectors put up ordinarily unavailable and great stuff to pay a tax bill or whatever, it means other OA collectors are selling lesser stuff to fund possible larger pickups. Some collectors never sell anything, and all of what they put into the hobby is new money, but I think most move a bit of OA here to make an OA gain there in their collections. And it usually takes multiple smaller pieces to land a bigger fish, so...

Probably a dumb question, but I stopped watching the show like 2 seasons ago. Does this "scene" appear in the show at all in some form?

Amateurs. Stan Lee would have signed right over his face.

Bam... the Thor piece and the Madman piece are both pretty keen! Nice stuff fellas.

^Exactly that. And if a piece has overlays, it should be noted what is original to the production process and what was recreated after the fact. Chances are in-hand it's much easier to tell than it is in scans for online bidding. At least for folks that are familiar with the materials used for old overlays and stats, vs modern attempts. Permanently altering an original will get you a smack where I come from. And IMO there's a world of difference between restoration (which still needs to be disclosed when, where and by whom) and alteration. -e.

Totally forgot to post this... duh.

My own framing approach has become so much more simplistic, and was based on a few simple words from Jeff Jones via the Comicart-L many many years ago. Jeff said simply, white mat, black frames. At the time I wasn't sold on the idea. I had sunk a lot of money into some very carefully composed frames, with no expense or color spared, so long as the individual frame looked very pleasant. Not unlike the way Madman's pieces are shown above. But when I moved into the house we are in now, and started struggling with making the collection of pieces work on the walls together in a very pleasant way, I gave Jeff's approach a shot on one wall. For that area I did it with black and white comic art pages, because that seemed a natural choice. But when applied to color paintings in other rooms, I found it solved all kinds of visual problems. It has greatly improved the pleasure of the pieces in my home. In choosing what mats and frames to use. In moving pieces around from one room to another and not having to worry about things clashing or looking cluttered. And it's not a summary judgement on folks that choose to frame colorfully or otherwise. I promise I'm not picking on anyone. I too used to frame every single image based on pulling complimentary colors, and frame moldings. And while it can and often does make the object seem complimented, and pleasant, the visual issue I ultimately had was that I was in essence, visually extending and altering the visual impact of the art by putting more color and texture/detail beyond the artist's vision. Adding color and detail impacts the composition intentionally or not. Expanding it's borders. Shifting the balances in the art. In staying neutral, I feel more like I am presenting the piece to be seen for what it is and as it was drawn. I'm not adding ornamentation onto it. And the knock on effect is that having multiple such images in a room, the images can hang together better without the colors fighting each other as badly. I go further than the above in the way I curate what hangs on the walls at home, but the gist is, I feel like the rooms where my wife and I have hung line art along with watercolors, photographs and acrylic paintings in a room together, the room never feels cluttered, overwhelming, contrasting or otherwise distracting. It all just works without pieces competing for attention. When we had the frames done the other way, it just felt messier and more cluttered. This is what works for me. I know some folks much prefer salon style hanging at home. I may not, but have seen some nicely done versions of it. Even then, I like the clarity of the white mat, black frame approach. I bodged together a couple sets one old, one new. Apologies in advance as I'm not trying to imply anything as being inherently better than another, just demonstrating an approach that I employ. Take it or leave it as it works (or doesn't) for yourselves. The last 2 are actually lousy shots from my house. I wish I had more and better shots to share. I should take some at some point.

Its true. It looks like Ditko left the top 1/4 - 1/3 of all his panels for whatever lettering was needed. Plenty of space for the copy/dialogue, but allowed for plenty of goings on unfettered below it.

Probably a rhetorical question but... 1. There was no such thing as acid free materials in popular circulation prior to the early 80s (if my memory isn't for total mess), and the general populace didn't really start to become aware of them until late 80s. In the 90s more artists started paying attention to their materials. And the manufacturers of the standard art boards and much of the materials used in comics creation became more aware of their longevity, based on what they were seeing from the old material. So a lot of more modern art uses acid-free creative substrates. And as old photographic repro techniques were phased out, so too were many of the chemicals and adhesives employed by those production techniques. 2. Smoking was everywhere. Everybody smoked. Dad, Mom, the kids. Men had various smoking outlets, from cigarettes and cigars, pipes, etc. Nuns blew smoke rings. 3. UV. It's true that modern UV blocking films don't block everything that will protect a given work (and anyone that thinks it does, needs to do some reading/testing), but modern windows, UV framing glass, etc. do help. 4. Not all framed exposures are created equal. All light can have SOME effect on a piece of art. The degree of which is directly proportional to where it hangs, the amount of light in a room, the placement of that room to the sun and it's angle. The kinds of artificial lighting used in the room in evening hours and that exposure. Then there's the manufacture of the windows, the way the piece is framed. What wall of the room it's on, etc. and so on. The point being, it all depends. How old is the art in question. How was it made and with what tools? Depending on what the answers are, certain concessions may have to be made. If you want art from the 40s on your wall, you might have to pick a better spot for that, or buy it understanding it may not be a good wall contender, just like a marker drawing, or a watercolor painting. You can double-bag a marker drawing and put it in a folder, in a acid free photo box, in a bigger acid free archival box, in a fireproof safe elevated in your dark closet, and none of that will stop the solvents in that marker drawing from migrating (causing all kinds of weirdness) if the wrong markers were used. And by wrong markers, I mean just about all of them. It just depends on how long you think such a drawing should last. I once had several drawings in a portfolio, where the markers bled out a super bright yellow halo all around the drawing portion, and eventually impregnated into the mylar, so when the art was removed, you could see a ghost of the art on the mylar. And these were black "permanent" markers from the late 90s, where the manufacturers were trying to improve the quality. Older pens were worse. I don't buy marker based pieces if I can help it. On the flip side, I've got some watercolor paintings, which are just about the worst thing in the world for fading, and they've been framed and on my walls for over 20 years now. If they've even faded a little, I'd be hard pressed to tell. The difference is, I've been able to see them every single day for those 20 years. If I popped them out and discovered that they had faded in some discernible way, would I trade 20 years of happily looking at those pieces for 20 years of them staying super color perfect in my closet, where I only saw them 3 or 5 times a year, while instead looking at a lackluster color copy in a frame? Yeah, I'm gonna say no to that. But there are things I don't do. I don't hang photos on a wall that gets full sun during the day. I close blinds in rooms that I'm not currently in, where there is art. My wife and I have art in pretty much every room, including the hall bathroom. The stuff that is more sensitive ends up in the hall with no windows, or downstairs in our half basement. If any of the comic pages have yellowed at all, it's so very slight I really honestly can't tell. And we've had art of all kinds on the walls for 25 years now. I occasionally reframe things. Never noticed any issues. I'd never do something like say, those lovely logo overlays or text bubbles on mylar that seem to be all the rage these days for covers that lack the original components. At least not if I planned on framing the piece. Why not? Because the light that hits the piece is not going to get behind those overlays. There's a very real chance of shadowing taking place. So what might seem to be an almost imperceptible darkening of the paper, or fading of colors on a painting when the whole piece is exposed, become "shadows" on the art when the overlays are lifted up. I've seen it happen to other folk's pieces before. Maybe it helps that my wife operated a series of frame shops for about 7 years and was archival museum trained. But I'm willing to say it might just come down to thinking about what we were doing and using a bit of common sense than anything. I'm as big of a proponent as anyone about being a custodian rather than a user and owner of OA. But that doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed. Just my .02¢

Actually John Butler (who some of you may only know from listening to Felix's podcast) had the chair made for Dave. He's done a few of these chairs for some folks over the years...

I've said that before, and also when people bring up things like Certs of Authenticity, authenticating services, etc. The way an artist makes their marks in their work is every bit as indicative of their identity as their signatures, and there's more to go by. Being familiar with the artist's work is, one would think, a big part of that person's fandom of it. But maybe less so for people collecting for "name" or a character rather than as a fan of the actual work of a given artist?

And while the above may happen, I suspect Bird is more correct in his points stressing that it has nothing to do with either of those things. This stuff is a matter of perceptions/perspectives. Because someone has set themselves a goal could make no difference to the other person who indirectly is standing in the way of it's success. And that obstacle is more than likely not an intentionally personal one. It is entirely plausible (I'd argue even more likely), that someone that owns or buys a single page to a book might just want that page. I have many single pages from different titles. I've had some of them for more than 20 years. If I found out someone had come along and spent the last 10 or 15 years trying to assemble that book, I'd be as inclined to sell my single page to that person as I would to sell any other piece I've held onto for years. Which is to say, I'd tell them I'm not interested. Make me high offers, I don't care. It's not always about money (until it is). But that decision to keep what is mine is NOT to spite anyone. It's not because I am being an or attempting to bilk anyone. I am a fan, and that piece has as much or more interest for me as it might for the guy trying to complete the book. All kinds of things get tied up in these OA purchases. All of my art has one story or another. Especially because I don't ever buy art to sit on, or flip or trade for profit or giggles. That just isn't in my DNA. If I see something I know someone else will be into, I contact that other individual and give them the heads up so they can snag it themselves. What I buy, I buy because I plan to keep and enjoy a piece long term, and for whatever meaning it has for me. Whether it's a whole book or a single page. The idea that someone is putting a book together and all others should compromise or step out of the way rings as a bit self absorbed and entitled to me. Better to approach the task with eyes wide open, fingers crossed, and ready to take on any and all competition. Any anyone putting together a scattered book has my sympathies. It seems like a real challenge. Especially as the OA market and the art in it seems to get ever more dispersed.