Rick2you2

I feel the same way, except that I haven't sold any. I don't think there would be much of a market for them anyway.

My mistake, it was $1,800, and only on 8.5 x 11 pages (although, it does come with limited backgrounds). http://www.comicartfans.com/subnewsdetails.asp?nid=5996

Moy was/is now listing Bruce Timm watercolor commissions, per character, of $1,700 each (but, all the slots have since been filled).

I have two minds on this one question. I think inks emphasize the decorative aspect of comic art, while the pencils emphasize the artistic aspect. Great inks pull the artistry out of the pencils and amplify it so that the underlyng art can turn into a published page. So, if I saw an ink job which just plain popped, I would prefer it over pencils. If I saw pencil work which had gradations and detailing that would not be duplicated by inks, I would prefer that.

Then that would be your answer. A lot less or just a bit less, or, is it "all over the map"?

The Spawn of Frankenstein back-up to the Vol. 2 Phantom Stranger series by Bernard Baily and Steve Skeates. Awful.

Actually, I think it means a lot. What you are saying is that they have comparable worth. If inkers were consistently paid less than pencilers, or visa-versa, then that would show something different.

Perhaps there is another way to attack the question. When a publisher pays for art, do the penciller and inker typically get the same, or does the penciller get more?

First, I'm ruing the day I used the word "analytics" because I never really expected attempts at quantification. So, I decided to break down what impresses me with a page of OA and give an idea of where I was going. By the way, I'm tryng to consciously identify things which just naturally flow, so some others may occur to me later. Anyone caring to chime in with their own thoughts would also be welcome. For me, this is what I look for: 1. The stronger the images of my targetted character, the better. 2. Whether I like the style of the artist in the piece (Kirby, for example, could draw using quite a few styles). 3. Whether the artist is employing that particular style well to the scenes at hand (e.g. Yes to Byrne in Legends; No to Byrne in WW). This is where I would place the "wow" factor--does it impress or not? 4. If the artist is drawing representational art, did he foul something up? For example, look at a lot of Sekowsky pieces and ask how the heck does a person actually bend that way? But, if it's Scott Adams drawing "Dilbert", I don't care. Stuff in the middle gets "graded on a curve." Representational art with a foul-up really annoys me, but that's me. 5. Do the panels properly propel the page's storytelling along? Once I get past the "wow" factor, this is what I focus on. In this category, add partial splashes-- is the artist using a splash where it helps or is not needed (because maybe he/she is just showing off)? 6. If the page is a basic 6 panel, or could be, has the artist livened it up with creative border work, character angles, pop outs, or somethng else? Those sorts of pages can be deadly dull, so I give extra points to an artist who brings something special to them. Here is where Chaykin was a stand-out (before his Photoshop days). 7. Does the page have particularly interesting or creative bits in it? Adams' Deadman mini-series is border-line unreadable for me, but boy, can he design a page. 8. On the negative end, has the artist employed great stylistic flourishes but either failed to pay attention to the fundimental aspects of story-telling, or obscured it with the flourishes? That's another thing I really dislike. 9. Will I want to look at it over and over again? Purely one of aesthetics, that's really the ultimate test. So, anyone else have some thoughts?

PhD candidate?

The difference is that with live auctions, you have "crowd fever." It isn't quite the same when you are just posting bids on the computer. The numbers flash by, but there isn't the same sense of excitement.

My suspicion is that, despite contrary opinion, proxy bidding w/o time extensions results in higher bidding prices. With proxy bidding, bidders know that there is an undisclosed amount another bidder could post to win a bid. Furthermore, bidders know that the deadline to consider bids is firm. Since one can never be sure if they will get a bid in before the deadline, they would logically bid their highest possible proxy amount as protection. If more than one bidder does this, than the highest proxy will not only win, but be higher than a bidding arrangement where the time is extended. That's because in the latter situation, a person may think he can make his/her bid higher later so the bidder will intuitively hold back (allowing second thoughts to creep in).

That's an interesting observation. By "storyteller", do you mean he was better at weaving the art into the story, as compared to straight-up illustration skills? If my assumption is correct, that's really an interesting way to divine OA pricing--collectors value the use of art to tell a story more than technical skills. That, IMO, would be sensible for this medium.

I agree with you; people buy what they want. But for the OA market, in general, is that a healthy perspective? It has the effect of limiting participants to an ever-shrinking number of comic book readers. Furthermore, it makes cross-comparisons between artists difficult by making their work dependent on the underlying subject matter. Perhaps if there were some generally recognized analytics it would help. For example, why is Byrne perceived as better than Cockrum? I think the imagry is stronger, and the characters appear more exceptional, but that's not a lot of analytics. What about panel layouts and borders? Use of image flow to carry the story? That sort of thing.

But Romita isn't Picasso, at least not to anyone who isn't into comics. And that is a very big difference. It is what separates the collectible from the permanent art collection and dooms its 20 year future.

I don't think we are using "context" in the same way. I view "context" as involving matters outside the comic, and more narrowly, outside the particular page. So, a crummy page from the Spider-man wedding issue does not deserve a high price just because it is a wedding issue, or because it was written by Michelinie and Shooter (for example). I think you are using it to refer to the combination or art and -script.

The comparison wouldn't work. You have to look at things like when it was painted: Picasso's cubist period, pre-War, post-War, etc. Then, you start getting into things like composition, color balance/contrast, imagry, and a whole host of things I don't know much about. If you mean Marie-Therese, one of his mistresses, Picasso's variations are extensive. If you look at this Wikipedia site, it lists various paintings and busts with links to what they are. Take a look at them for a few seconds. It's worth it. Now, look at Romita's drawings in ASM (from my recollection, sorry), they aren't all that different--at least not when compared to Picasso.

I think you are undervaluing the specifics of a particular piece of fine art. Every artist has good and bad days; that applies to the artwork, too. Not all Pollock is great either. And, don't forget that people are sometimes buying as an investment in a recognized market. OA isn't there. When fine art has been reduced to a collectible status, it has a tendency to rise and then fall with popularity. Traditional landscapes and realistic artwork used to be more highly valued (inflation adjusted) than now. So in my opinion, while context does have an impact, it ought not be valued as highly as it is.

I would rather have a great Spidey fighting Tombstone page than a mediocre page from when GS was killed. I passed up bidding on a John Byrne page from Legends with a mediocre Phantom Stranger image for that reason (and which ultimately sold for just a little less than 2K). Whether the strength of the story matters, is a different question. In my view, not so much.

From the perspective of how I framed my initial comment, your view is more compatible with the "OA as a collectible" than "fine art" approach. That's fine, but I don't think it is universal. It isn't my approach. A piece of fine art stands on its own, so long as you understand its context (which a modern teenager may not). But understanding context is not the same as appreciating what is on the canvas. For another example, look at Don Quixote, a masterpiece of writing. On one level, it's a darn good story. But, it is also a political satire of the governing institutions of Spain at that time. You don't need context to still like it. Every collector obviously has different interests which propel his/her purchases. For me, I don't want a totem and I wouldn't care about buying a full book. If I want the full book, I'll get the comic--for a lot less money, the publishers even throw in some color. The teenager may be thrilled with a "seniorita on black velvet" painting, but I don't think that's a fair sort of standard when considering OA as the equivalent of fine art. I look at a page from the perspective of whether it is doing what it is supposed to do in order to move the story along. Does it do a good job conveying narrative, like a traditional six panel, without losing the reader's interest? (This is why I always like sophisticated border work) Does it emphasize a point to the reader like a splash? Does it combine action and narrative which balance the two in the context of the story on that page? For a collection, I like focusing on a single character. It let's me compare styles, adding to my personal appreciation. For people who are interested in financial value, by all means, nostalgia matters a lot (for now). And I'm not so pig-headed to think it should be entirely left out of valuation. But to elevate OA to another level, the primary consideration should be the "canvas", not the other stuff.

My immediate reaction was to wonder if Cap had his fly open. Then I remembered he didn't have one. Nice imagery, by the way.

Balls.

All of which raises another question: can we fairly consider OA as comparable to fine art when much of the value of a particular piece is rooted in comic book knowledge? The logical answer is no. It is merely a collectable which will die with generational change. Picasso's Guernica raised all sorts of political hackles, but its value is based on the intrinsic impact of the piece--the brutal violence of the Spanish Civil War. It would be considered a masterpiece even if it were quietly hung somewhere in a museum. Honestly, I think too much comic book trivia is affecting price. People have a right to buy what they want no matter what the price, of course, but some of the level of detailing seems to have grown to excess. What should matter most, in my view, is the quality of the page at conveying a story while keeping the reader intrigued by the story. But that's me.

I gave this some more thought and changed my mind. I really like Arthur Ranson (British artist). Two pages from Batman & Phantom Stranger were available, and I bought the better one, I think, for about $600. I wish I also bought the other one, too, with Batman and PS talking on a fire escape in a way which disoriented the reader. Great work.

Not for the women, it isn't. You can tell those panels are old. MJ looks like she's only a B cup.