Rick2you2

Good list. I would probably substitute Art Spiegelman for Dan Clowes, because of the impact of Maus.

That’s definitely more famous. Hell of a story, too. Remember “Starchie” and “Batboy and Reuben”?

Every kid who bought it as a poster and later made a ton of money will want a shot at this. I see it setting a new record of over $3 million.

Yes...ever hear of Alfred E. Neuman? He changed the rules with those first comic book issues of Mad. This is not the relative pablum in the Magazine.

Absolutely. And where are more modern artists like Adams, Miller or "Synkavich" (phoenetic) and other classic book artists like Lou Fine and Mac Raboy (split work, strips and books)?

Curiously, everyone forgets Dale Messick, one of the earliest female artists to have a strong strip, namely Brenda Starr. It used to be a big deal.

I wouldn't call it "elite", but there are some who have been in it a very long time and know a heck of a lot about a small slice of our human existence. If you express a real interest in learning, it's very welcoming actually. This also tends to be a pretty polite board, and it is a relatively small community. Don't miss shows where you can learn a lot more. I, for one, would love to know when artists only go digital and if on all of their work or not. It would save me time mourning the gaps in my collection.

I think they are both great artists, but why Mt. Rushmore? For example, what did Byrne do that Adams didn't?

I can only name 3 for Mt. Rushmore: Eisner, Kirby and Adams. Each one of them contributed in ways which moved the way in which sequential art is drawn. Eisner introduced the concept of time to panels and their layout (as well as nifty logo's) instead of drawing in stiff boxes. Kirby added a dynamism to the art which infected the field. Adams added greater idealistic realism to the art while using the whole page to advance the story in ways not really done beforehand. Others, like Barks, Miller and Crumb may be great artists, but can you say they actually changed the direction of the art itself? I'm tempted to add Miller, but does he really advance the field with the grittiness he introduced? Maybe. I've left a blank space on Mt. Rushmore, but there is no reason to be parsimonious with acknowledging greatness. Using that standard of changing the art's direction, who else belongs?

Is there any known protection advantage to storing vertically instead of horizontally? Assume they are stored in mylars, books or both.

How about Toth?

If this Hulk stood up straight, he'd have a little pot belly.

Not as small a minority as you might think. It's not very graphically interesting, and you are right about the anatomy. The head looks sort of dumb, too. Those eyes are awfully deep set to throw off that kind of a shadow.

I was comparing it to the colors in the actual, final art you posted where the images look a bit crisper.

If you go to conventions where he is a guest, he usually brings pages to sell. Try him directly here: https://tommandrake.wixsite.com/tom-mandrake/tommandrakeart

I think you can also give it to Goodwill Industries and take a tax deduction on the FMV. That may be a good way to get rid of things, too.

Are you restoring the original colors before what looks like fading? I didn't know that was possible.

In the abstract, what you are saying makes sense. But look at it a bit differently: are people making predictions accurate or not? Some of them know things about private sales, others just develop a sixth sense about it. I have been watching Phantom Stranger pages byJim Aparo, and I think they have stabilized for now, with prices for typical stuff down slightly. That’s just based on a small sample of less than half a dozen. It’s a small market, and it just feels right.

I understand your perspective, but very view things are the Sistine Chapel. Ever see all those landscapes from the mid-nineteenth century (the Hudson River School). After you seen several, they are no longer particularly breath-taking. Yet do they still qualify as little more than a clever little joke? Or just someone with an easel who has learned how to push the right buttons in someone’s emotion box? Or what about sequential art, taken as a whole? We regularly comment on relatively small details, classifying some of it as good and some not so good. Some of it is also “pretty thin”, yet by and large the people here generally see a difference. Whaam! is not the Sistine Chapel. I still think it is good.

You may well be right. Back then, a lot of people hired him to do the same for their own portraits. It’s not like his Campbell’s soup can which treated the ordinary as an icon.

This one is not illuminating comic art. It is stripping an icon of its sexuality and deliberately reducing it to an object. It is a commentary, in my view, on society which is not particularly flattering. Warhol must have been laughing his off when he saw how people didn’t mind what is a pretty brutal view of things. And yes, it is also good art.

I really don't understand why people buy recreations, unless they want to see how a particular artist interprets a scene which is different than the original artist, or, is a deliberate homage. I mean, really, how many times have we seen Superman or someone else holding a dead Supergirl (or equivalent) from Perez's Crises on Infinite Earths cover? Occasionally, however, I have seen snarky recreations which bring a smile to my sarcastic inner self. A version inspired by George Herriman would be cool. Maybe Officer Pup holding a dead Krazy Kat?

Try typing in "Itoya" in the search box. There are more than these, and the second involves books, but it boils down to the same thing. Mylar to fit into Itoya Portfolios and Artists Editions discussion

Then clearly, this is not art because it is just a doctored photograph, duplicated: Then, let's discuss the comic artists who do tracings of images which they then modify to suit their needs. That's not art either under your definition. And in the writing end, parody can't be great writing because it is just an off-center version of the original writing. Turning your definition inside out, what is artistic about the Mona Lisa? It's just a portrait: a duplication of a woman sitting in front of a painter because they didn't have photography back then? Since when did a smile amount to artistry? Now, I may agree that some of the on eBay does not deserve to be called art; but it is, just bad art. I don't think that art has to be a "spiritual thing" at all. It is a personal statement, made in a creative way, which communicates something personal to a viewer, reader or listener. It may not be "good", but it is still art. Whaam! is good art. It communicates the artist's personal statement of the subject by illuminating characteristics of comic art which have made it so popular. It pulls it all together, and the artist's pallet makes it fun to look at, as well. That's good art, in my book. I also like Rothko, but that's just me.

F**ing demented lack of morality by the thief on display.