ESeffinga

Except that modern photography is much like digital monoprints. And there historically have been MANY photographers in history that couldn't develop their own prints. Mapplethorpe being an easy one to cite. He knew what he wanted to see from his prints, but didn't really know developer from fixative. Not unlike comic art, many of the old guys really knew their craft inside and out. Pretty much agree with the rest. Regarding the Monoprint terminology, it's just a mis-application of the term, that a lot of people use to indicate a piece that is one of a kind print, never to be repeated. Similar thought, not exactly the same thing for obvious reasons. Not unlike the parts of the country that refer to any soda as a "coke"

I've mentioned this before, but there is already something of a model for this that has existed in the art world for a couple generations now. I see the photography art market as pretty similar. From the moment the photo negative was in existence, photographers have had the ability to reproduce more than 1 copy of a given image. Theoretically, why would anyone buy art photography, if the photographer can print as many copies as he wants to? It is not unlike the "limited art print" market that also relies on a number of the same ideas. I don't know how many folks into comic art are into the photography art market. I'd assume few. My wife and I do have a few pieces in our collection. We bought the first almost 20 years ago now. It is interesting, for those that have never set foot in a real gallery that sells photography. Especially those that specialize in it. It's a bit of a culture shock for someone that comes from a background mindset of "the original and only 1 original has value and all else is trash." Here's a brief synopsis of the way art photography functions: Photographer takes art image. Photographer prints art image. Photographer/gallery sells art image. (duh) But then quantities and size come into play, and there are different names for different types of releases. Monoprints. Numbered editions. Open editions. Etc. Monoprint: this originated with artists back in the old days (along with monographs, and monotypes), but as regards to photography, it is self explanatory. There is only 1 copy of the print. Numbered editions: photographer sets a quantity of prints that they will ever produce, and they stick to that. Could be a quantity of 10, 100, 1000. Often with very limited numbered editions (say a quantity of 5-20) for popular artists, the cost of a print goes up as the available stock shrinks. So an image that was sold as #1 might be $3000, #4 might be $3500, #9 might be $4500, etc. The increments and details all vary of course. It seemed very counter intuitive to me at first. But I realize why this happens now, and there is a logic to it. Open editions: photographer can sell as many as they like. As with anything, the pricing on all this depends on the popularity of the photographer, the image in question, size of any editions, or variations of editions, etc. Long-term, the market value sets itself. Just like it does in comic art, comic books, etc. It is always possible that an artist/photographer could print a number of copies beyond what is in a numbered edition, but it would be the death of their career. Their legacy is entirely tied to their reputation, and the universal acceptance and understanding of the wider marketplace. To sell anything outside that would be income/career suicide. So it generally doesn't happen. I think the same thing applies to the digital art market. The market will set itself, as it always does. If an artist is shown to be printing more than whatever was stipulated at the time of a piece's sale, that artist is going to be tainted and see any art value their work had, crash like a stone. So will the collectors of said artist's work. So there is that as a risk. At the end of the day, if you want to see the hand of the maker in the piece, you like the feel that comes from seeing process, or imperfection, or quirks that often come from only holding an original piece in hand, the digital art market is going to leave you feeling disappointed in the end. Even if the image is amazing. It's like owning the only Death Dealer poster, if there never was an original painting. It's all about the image. You ahve a big printout of the image everyone else gets to see for free on the internet, or in print on a comic. But if there is any interest in having that big image hanging in your house, then the next question is, how archival and lightfast is that print? Doing it right can get very pricey very quickly. And even though lightfast printing technology has imprived with UV resistant inks, etc. They stilla ren't exactly perfect, or great yet. So now you have that death dealer poster in your closet, so it doesn't fade. To me the gut feel of it not being hand on paper, is the big killer in 1-off comic art. The second is archival nature of it. The reprint quantity thing would be farther down my own worry-list. And at the end of the day, photography is different in that for a lot of older pre-photoshop photography, much of the printing of the piece involved the hand of the artist. Dodging and burning. Vaseline on the lens to blur areas, etc. Nowadays you hit a print button. You might tweak in Photoshop and hit print again. Not much romance baked into that. -e.

The worst part is that what many of us thought was “really expensive” when we started out, begins to seem like bargain prices, before very long. People often find themselves normalizing what once seemed expensive, and start drifting over into prices that the next guy looking in from the outside would consider insane. And not really notice the escalation along the way. Once you start swimming in OA, you may just leave the kiddie pool, the deep end, and find yourself out in the ocean with the rest of us, occasionally getting to catch a wave!

I knew a guy that once had a guitar delivered to his house. The box had been punctured by something like a forklift. Went right through the box, and the case, and out the other side. And it was delivered to his house like that. Sometimes things are just gonna get wrecked, no matter the packaging. Whether it’s an accident, neglect, freak occurrence, or just less than stellar packaging. Doesn’t matter how well I pack something I ship, I always fret while things are in transit. There is such a thing as overkill in packing art. I’m sure I’ve crossed that line a number of times. Spending more on shipping than necessary to ease my mind as much as possible.

Wheeeeeee. I’ll be sticking with something with REAL value for my money... the ever reliable Cryptokitties. I mean, some people like art, sure. But everybody knows that the real source of the internet’s power is cats! https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/06/meet-cryptokitties-the-new-digital-beanie-babies-selling-for-100k.html

Depends on the content, for me. An example: I used to own a mess of Tim Sale's Long Halloween art a decade or two ago. I had a couple portfolios of the stuff. A lot of it came from Mitch directly, when it was "dirt" cheap. I remember $75-85 panel pages. I eventually pared it back, sold off a few splashes and spreads, along with most of the panel pages. The single piece from that series I am personally most in love with is this one. It's the whole thing. The art, the timing, the story beats. The way it comes together. Says more of the medium and Tim, than super cool splash of Batman standing triumphant over badguy or whatever. Sometimes I just love my comic art to be really good at it's job. https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=277330 Looking over what's hanging on the wall, I am a sucker for individual panel pages with verbal punchlines, vs something mid-stream in thought or sequence.

Legend.

I've had a few pieces show up over the years that have left me underwhelmed, but those have been pretty rare.

Yes. I only post the illustration/tangential stuff on CAF, because... comic art and tangential. I know a couple folks that post straight up gallery art on CAF, but I've tried to keep things sort of on-topic. Kinda like here. Even as I drift further away. I'll leave it at that. We can have a deeper conversation outside this thread if you like, but I fear it's been way over-derailed. And I need to be away from the web for a bit I think. I've let myself get too sucked in. Who gives a what I think, when they come to this thread? This thread is supposed to be about those auction pieces. I think we should let it go back to that task. And I could do with not typing mini-bios for a bit. I didn't set out to do that. Apologies all.

From where I sit, you are the only one setting goalposts. Moving them, etc. Who said anything about “bawling”? Who said everyone has to? I said I feel sad for people that don’t find art that deeply moves them. Can be joy. Can be heartache. Can be massive inspiration. Can be straight up hatred. Maybe I am punking you, and my art is to illicit your fury? I mentioned I’ve seen people cry at art galleries, not that everyone that enters brings a hankie. When you balk at the assertion you immediately jump to I think everyone must do it? my assertion of your comments speaking more about you than anyone else is simply I think it’s cheap and tacky to jump to, someone cried, ergo they are unstable or have something wrong that isn’t about art. Or that some people can’t be moved by art alone. I do feel sorry for people who aren’t more involved in the art available in the world than a passing, “hey cool. This makes me feel nostalgic.” Or, “man I’m gonna make a killing selling this some day”. A deeper connection with a piece of work generated to share something with the world that is not specifically tied to someone selling someone a product. Some people aren’t wired that way. Many people aren’t wired that way. I can feel sadness for them. I’m not afraid to feel deeply saddened. Empathy is a strong part of the creative process. It’s a great part of why people find something they connect with deeply, they do so. They identify with it on a shared level with that creator. But now we cycle back to human condition again. I know people that never listen to music and derive absolutely no pleasure from it. It’s such a foreign concept to me. Not having the hair on your arms stand up in a gallery of gobsmacking work... is like never experiencing visual art in that same way as those movies or music or even comics can sometimes do. I cried once or twice during my years reading Sandman. I don’t mind saying so. I had nothing going on. No emotional turmoil. There were issues that stirred me. Not to bawling, or weeping, or being loony. Just a couple tears, I am sure. But I remember doing it. I’m sure there have been other instances over the years. If you can’t relate, that is just sad to me. You don’t have to like it. Or me. Or what I’m talking about, for that to be any less true. I’m OK with that. I don’t need a poll, or to feel like I am in a majority. Clearly. I’ll just leave it there. -e.

Me too

Speaks more of you than I, or anyone else. I feel genuinely sad for anyone that hasn’t been moved, and I mean truly moved, by a piece of art. That is what it is for. If the world lacks that for you, how tragic. But as you mostly like commercial Work, I can see why that might be. To that all I can say is, enjoy.

Nice. Classy.

Illustration doesn't have to be such a nasty derogatory word. The "Fine" art market has tried to make it so. Work created for money, vs work created for the pure pleasure of it is a kind of myth and misnomer. There are artists (including the comic variety) who do their work with an eye towards commerce be damned, I just have to do this project. But most folks in the "Fine" art world are as guilty as anyone of work-for-money. It's just work for a specific gallery to sell on for them. Often thee "Fine" artists are just flogging more of the same thing that got them noticed, or a new gimmick, to sell more art widgets. I've shared it before, but if anyone wants to read a very highly informative blog about the worlds where art and illustration collide, should be following David Apatoff's wonderful illustrationart.blogspot.com He regularly delves deep into extolling the virtues of many a form of illustration, and also calling out lazy work as well. With examples. And it's one of the few places on the internet, where the comments section is often as interesting and vibrant as the article itself. He doesn't do them a lot, and some are better than others, but I've been a fan for years. And he does occasionally have comic art based articles. He is a collector himself. Also author of several books on illustrators.

I actually agree with you 100%. It's just that while I can love Mad and Popular mechanics as humorous/engaging reading material, I don't generally want to hang it, and ultimately have sold all such material from my collection. And the comics that delve more creatively deeply into the human condition, or push the artistic boundaries of the medium are the ones that I find most interesting. So you've put your finger on the through line for me. Perfect. It's entirely possible (for some) to not be hung up on the context, and still collect comic art. And that the artistically driven comics scene is a thriving one. And those single-artist human condition books are the self same that seem to get a grudging acceptance by the Art Museum crowd. And one can extol the virtues of a poorly drawn piece of to the moon and back, heaping on context to justify buying it or it's price. Maybe not coincidentally, that's how much of the Contemporary Art market is sold by "Fine Art" galleries.

I know you said almost, but as someone that has seen people moved to tears more than once in their lives, by a simple painting, photograph, or piece of music... that's horsepucky. I mean how do you want to define context? Context in that we are all human beings and have many shared experiences, having never met each other on opposite sides of the globe? Or do you actually mean context in that A1 being what book it is, representing what it represents to American history? That second kind of context is what I don't subscribe to in my collecting. I can appreciate it where it sits in history without feeling it's drive in my choices. I know this is the vast gulf between you and I. We can't really avoid the context of being human and having human thoughts, etc. And when viewing work there is all the baggage we bring to viewing a particular piece. Especially "blind" for the first time, and absent any back story. When something can move you, make you ache or feel. THAT is an artistic reaction. The give and take of the work and the viewer. That's what I respond to most in art. And in comics. My love of Sandman wasn't because it was a fun read. Or mind blowingly technical in literacy. It was because I connected with it on a human gut visceral level. The stories, the art, etc. That is it's own kind of context I suppose, but I consider it the human condition. The accolades for Sandman, it's watermark in history, the bandwagon jumping all came after I was well entrenched. The only context for me and Sandman was seeing the McKean cover and picking it up. It's a shrewed effective marketing move made by an artist who really just set out to make art. That context I appreciate on the historic side of my brain. The one that doesn't go doe eyed at talking to Neil Gaiman or Dave McKean. The side that would rather spend the $50-60K this Sandman cover may easily bring at auction on work that few will care about, but would work me over mentally and emotionally by living with it. Rather than spending 50-60K on a piece that almost everytime I looked at it would go "wow that's cool. I own that piece of history. Look at that gaffer tape!" I've explained that I love process, and fully admit this is my blind spot. The area where it just doesn't work for me. By all the laws of Context, I should love this cover. I even like it more than at least half of the early covers, including some infamous ones. And yet, I say meh... can't help it. And apologies to everyone that read this far, for derailing the thread with my own philosophical horsepucky. I feel like I am abusing you with longnonsense I'd love to chat about in person some day. If we can ever get the world back to normal.

I should have clarified. Great as a piece of history. For it's context. And by in a museum, I meant like the American History museum, not an art gallery. Perhaps that explains my stance. I don't think it is a great work of standalone art. I think I made that bit clear. I'm not negating that context matters. Just not in its necessary importance to me. I weigh that differently than most, clearly. As a different analogy... meeting famous people. I know many MANY people that get googly eyes when meeting a "hero" personality. I see people go gaga and gush, and cry, and get all flustered at their apparent majesty. It's a response I apparently lack. To me they are people that have a very high profile job, and some of them are warm and kind, and some are distant, but I don't put them on a pedestal the way many many people do. I might be wired different, but my reaction is the same as meeting anyone for the first time. Their context means little to me. Even when I am in awe of the deeds of some.

Ages ago. And a few of the covers, not just #8. I mentioned 8 because the fake vines that were later added to it would drive me mental if I were to look at it every day. For me the real kick in the gut was Death painting just underwhelmed me, when I saw it. It is what it is. Everyone was gushig over it. I followed the advice of if you don't ahve something nice to say... At one point (maybe in my 20s), I was in awe of McKean's painting skills at the comic level. It didn't take long for me to outgrow that though. Everybody knows a kid in school who is like the best drawer evar! Like I said, IMO, Dave's real painting skills and style developed later. At this stage he's just doing illustration (which most comic art is, of course), but his unique voice and painting artistry comes later. I actually like the Dee painting (the one up for auction now) better than the Death. But of course you have those folks who fetishize (oooooh, it's first Death, must have!). That just ain't me. I am still in awe of Dave's audacity (and that of DC Comics) to run his cover art. It was groundbreaking. And I can appreciate it. I genuinely appreciate the Constitution too. I don't have a copy hanging on the wall at home. Normally I LOVE process. I like seeing stats on panel pages and covers. Whiteout, pasteovers, you name it. Duncan Fegredo's pages for the Enigma mini-series are one of my greatest collecting regrets, as Scott Eder used to have stacks and stacks of those pages (he also coincidentally owns the first 2 Sandman covers), and those Enigma pages were a downright patchwork. This was right after publication, and I wasn't in a headspace where I appreciated that cut up stuff, I was bummed. I wanted it to be cleaner like most of my other comic art pickups had been. Those early to mid 90s years where art was cheap, and you could afford to turn your nose up at work because none of it had any real value, and so you could pick and choose the best of the best based on superficial aesthetics alone. Only I was wrong. Because sometimes the pasted together stuff is it's own art form. Sometimes the cool thing isn't the painting, but the reproduction of that painting as photograph, taken after the lens was smeared with pretroleum jelly, and manipulated in the developer, and fix, and then drawn over with a pencil. Or in the case of those Fegredo pieces, the working method was absolutely fascinating. But I had to grow up a bit first, before I truly came to appreciate the art form. And even with that later appreciation, I just don't care for the Sandman covers enough to want one on the wall. If I could have grabbed one of the first 8 in 95, sure, I'd have done it. I probably would still have it. It was cheap, and bragging rights, etc. But I have sold so much art over the years because of things that grew to bother me about it. Things that I outgrew. Or things that worried me (like marker use), given that I hang my art at home. I can't say for certain I wouldn't have sold that early cover by now too. I sold the other Sandman cover I had. I've passed on a couple opportunities at others. Maybe it's just me, and I'm broken? I dunno. People go all gaga over first appearances and keys. I was never a proper comic collector. I have always been a comic reader, and lover of the storytelling form. I never sat around and had discussions of what character would beat who in a super powered fist fight. Or debated what comic should sell for more. I wondered how did the artist get that effect in the ink, or wondered at how a composition was constructed, or the flow of the art in the panels. I was more interested in the stories and process, and how engaged they made me feel on a personal level. And that's where I've stayed. With the comics I still choose to read, and the art I choose to keep and hang. And if the process is part of the engagement, the better. But the blocked in board constructions that had to be made in order to turn what were pieces that were shot for reproduction as a Sandman comic cover, into something that could be hung on a wall... I love them on paper and in theory, but in reality, they might as well have pink frames with clowns and donkeys painted on them. Doesn't matter the bit that's in the center, it's the other bit that totally distracts me from enjoying that center bit. I can't engage in the piece properly. It's why I like frames that get out of the way of the art. Let me look at the art and tune out the rest. I think Eder's covers are cool as hell. I just have to mentally block the outside parts. haha. Once something bugs me about a piece, it's hard for me to enjoy it. All I ever see it the part that is distracting. It's like having something wrong with a tooth, and you cant stop yourself running your tongue over the spot. Even subconsciously. It just goes there. And that's no fun.

Me. I’d be so much happier with different art for much less money. My only interest in Action 1 would be to sell for good stuff. But hey... IMO a piece like that belongs on a museum. And it’s not uninteresting. Visually that art is iconic. But I’d not want it on my wall. Different strokes...

I think McKean covers for Sandman are a bit tough to my mind. They probably sound amazing to people who see the size and have seen the comic covers in person, but as an objet d'art, I think a lot of folks might find them weird, odd and even underwhelming in person. I think the idea of them and what they represent is super cool, but in reality, they can have some really fugly bits going on around the periphery of the cool stuff. Black boards with glue goop, etc. They were made for the photographic reproduction. Many of them had things that have died, fallen off or otherwise didn't hold up to posterity. Some have had bits replaced, so they don't leave empty holes. They are a bit Julian Schnabel in MOMA with the plates falling off, to differing degrees. And to be frank, I don't think the central paintings that McKean did are all that great on many of them. They were fine, again, reproduced small, but when you see the whole thing at full scale... for my money, it's just not where McKean is great. Great McKean painting comes MUCH later in his career, as he really stretches out and develops his artistic chops. But then those pieces aren't Sandman. So there's the rub. I think of the early Sandman covers, this one is certainly one of the cooler ones, for the objects in the shelves. I thought the TPB cover Heritage auctioned off a few years ago was pretty stellar. I think that went in the 20s? I cant remember the Dream of 1000 Cats cover sold for, but that one was super rad as an art piece, as well as bragging rights for a Sandman cover. Also not as huge. I dunno if any of this goes through the minds of other Sandman fans, like it does mine, but I had and sold my Sandman cover (Game of You arc), and never went hunting for another. Remember when Eder revealed he had a couple, and seeing the Death one for the first time. I was disappointed, actually. It's total history, but it's just not that attractive to look at IMO. Be sure to blow the second Heritage image up that shows everything around the central image. The hanging electrical/gaffer tape. And the odd goopy stuff down at the bottom? Might look less obtrusive in the flesh, but my experience is that it just jumps out more. And the linger it's around the more I find myself looking at that stuff and not the art. I'm sure this one will do OK. People spend lots on stuff irregardless of how it presents, just for the ever more important bragging rights in the internet age. My £.02

Goes with the drawing, which you guessed it, also looks like arse!

This. ^^^^^ That piece is so fudged up it’s not even funny. I don’t even have to ask my brother what he thinks.

Then there was this little ditty... What he is capable of, indeed. https://inerd4u.com/blogs/my-rss-feed/arthur-suydam-responds-to-killing-joke-homage-cover-swipe-claims

He has had a reputation for years and years... https://www.google.com/amp/s/vertigology.net/2015/07/04/arthur-suydam-steals-other-creator-tables-at-montreal-comic-con-called-out-by-mark-waid/amp/

It’s not such a foreign concept to me. Not as much as the misnomer that additional detail in any way = more value or quality for a given piece of art. As one who also used to have a very deep character-based collection, I remember the mindset well. In my case it was having examples of my character of choice, by as many artists as I could get, especially those that I admired. Even to the point of disliking the actual work. Ever seen Jack Kirby’s Deadman? Yucky poo! But I had it. Deep in my portfolio. Dan Jurgens, Action Comics... I had much buried deep in my portfolio. When my priorities shifted, and the nature of my collection shifted, it was so easy to get rid of these pieces. And then I couldn’t believe how much of what I had tied up in stuff I really didn’t like, just because I thought it gave the collection some imagined intellectual/checklisty importance it never really had.