Rick2you2

He doesn’t have to keep the originals to retain the copyright on them. He can self-publish, lawfully, with copies. The buyer of the page does not acquire the copyright, just the image, and has no legal right to publish and sell them. But, he may just want to keep them because they are his “babies”, a fair reason to do so.

You are represented. And representatives delegate to people who know better. You wouldn’t expect, or want, a parent to tell the school how to design an HVAC system. Why do you think the average person can design a school curriculum? General directions are one thing, not this.

When I was a child, my father was given a book containing the great political cartooning from the beginning of the Republic to the swearing in of JFK (old book). The cartoons made history come alive. Instead of reading how the 19th century had the era of Big Business, you had cartoons of the giant trusts and Teddy Roosevelt swinging his axe at them, the coffin handbills of Andrew Jackson and his alleged duels, the uselessness of Benjamin Harrison as President (so small in the President’s chair he was virtually covered by Uncle Sam’s hat), and too many other things to mention. Cartoons have always driven home a message in the strongest terms; the fact that parents want the message watered down speaks ill of their recognition of the subject.

Actually, it’s a great way to do so. I still remember film clips from TV of what the GI’s found when they went into the concentration camps. Real horror is unforgettable.

Not good enough for me. You want to control their education, send them to private school where you can teach them about witchcraft for all I care. But as beneficiaries of a public education, they should be required to learn things the parents might not like but are in the interests of the public for them to learn.

Actually, rocks have gone up over the years. Go check the historical price of valuable minerals as collectables. They have gone up. Some, by a lot. Mind you, I still think this is a hobby, but when people treat it mainly as a business opportunity, it drives out a lot of those who consider it fun.

So, in other words, we don't really want the kids to feel the horror of what happened, and thereby help prevent it in the future; we just want to mouth the words and let it blend together with other words like "in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue."

Which raises the question of why we permit parents to make those decisions, even if it is their own children. If parents decided that Hitler was a good guy, should they permitted to promote the “benefits” of Naziism in schools? If a school district wants the subject of WW 2 in its history class, then it should have the right to teach it as it sees fit, within State guidelines (which presumably would prevent something like teaching Naziism as a good thing).

Excessive and inappropriate sensitivity is the biggest problem, with a little leaning towards those “nice white men in their clean white sheets”.

Apparently, it started with some parents objecting to 8 words and a picture. Then, one of the Board members decided that 8th graders should generally be protected from anything involving the Holocaust. I wonder if 8th graders are taught about our use of internment camps for Japanese Americans? Remember the controversy about Huckleberry Finn and the use of the word “N****” before Jim? Same fundamental problem. I guess that’s why they still read Shakespeare in schools. The language is too archaic for the parents to pick up on all the naughty slang and naughtier concepts.

I recently went looking for some artwork by Phil Winslade, and after contacting him, he responded that he doesn’t sell his art. Checking on CAF showed that there is, indeed, very little published work of his out there that has been sold. As a convenience to the community, I was wondering what other artists, aside from Walt Simonson, also make it a practice not to sell. Even then, some things will occasionally slip out, or the artist does’t follow that rule, like with Simonson’s preliminaries. I also don’t count commissions since their whole purpose is to be sold. So, anyone to add, with qualifications or otherwise?

I hope it has this one.

This is how Tulipmania started—speculators who didn’t know squat about tulips. Let me add that you become part of the problem if you aren’t part of the solution—stop buying the overpriced art that you love and buy something else you can learn to love. Byrne’s X-Men work is excellent and expensive, but lots of his other work is way cheaper and he didn’t lose his skills, either (well, maybe on his Wonder Woman work, but that was probably his stylistic choice). Then, buy the anthology of the series. So, swear off and you won’t have reason to complain. By the way, I am not disagreeing with your anger, just suggesting you direct it towards a solution.

Frankly, I think this post is annoying. I don’t want to buy or learn how to buy crypto. I want to buy art. I sure as hell don’t want to go through a second set of hoops for a purchase and probably end up paying a premium for the effort (as I doubt I will catch it at a price downturn). Glenn could have, and in my opinion should have, post prices in both dollars and crypto. What’s so terrible about complaining about pricing? Why move on? Let someone vent and get it out of their system. Besides, it’s nice to know who others think price on the high side so we can think twice about buying something we cannot price ourselves. We also get to learn little things, like who plays games with their pieces or who has engaged in price manipulation. They are both instructive about the character of the dealer. The boards, almost by definition, include gossip. You don’t like it, don’t read it.

It never fails to frighten me how the name of the artist triumphs over the quality of the art.

I have wondered about that, and I came to the conclusion that some dealers are concerned they can’t get good product at a good price in the future to make an easy profit. Let’s say a dealer has a nice piece which cost him $50, and he decides to list it at $125. If he accepts, say $80 for it, he has made $30, but he then needs to find inventory which will earn him the “lost” $45. You may say, wait a minute, he never lost the $45. But, with the history of rising prices of art, he has good reason to think it will eventually sell for the $125, particularly as so much of this stuff is bought on impulse, or non-rational thought. And he doesn’t have to do anymore work to earn it. So, if he doesn’t need to sell it, let it ride. The fly in the ointment, however, is that aging will reduce demand for non-classic pieces, of which there are a lot, and the dealer will get stuck. Which is one reason why, if you get off the escalator and look for unpopular artists or works that you like, you can make deals and build up a nice collection—not a valuable one, but nice.

A fool and his money are soon parted.

It’s terrific to find something you really want, and get it. I haven’t been too fortunate for quite a while.😭

You may be right, but that doesn’t mean a disaster always awaits. I recently bought some inked pages from Daniel Henriques in Spain, and the shipment was faster than most things I buy here. The only hick-up was the DHL driver who couldn’t find the building (obviously not the artist’s fault).

So, he’s only taking etherium? At first, I thought he meant ethyl, like in gasoline. Has he refused US funds for anything?

Not at all. I like painted works and covers when I can find one. Paint has layers of complexity which you just don't get with CYMK. What I don't like is the disco era or that cover. It doesn't particularly promote the story or tell me anything about the subject except to expect guest stars in the firmament of a fundimentally flat period of time where Gordan Gecko was real. The one below doesn't tell me anything significant either, except it looks way cooler.

Honestly, it doesn't do anything positive for me. Yes, the artist has a skill set, but the whole disco/1980's scene to me was flashy but flat. If it were a poster of the period, it works. As a part of the period I lived in, no thank you. As a comic book cover? It doesn't pull at me to buy what is inside, and shouldn't that be the real test of whether a cover is good or not? Does it sell the contents? Anthony's similarly had art on his table that shows skill, but that didn't make it worth buying.

From Wikipedia: "Dazzler was originally developed as a cross-promotional, multi-media creation between Casablanca Records and Marvel Comics until the tie-ins were dropped in 1980." She was a character, who, with DC's Looker, well-represented the shallowness of 1980's culture. Saturday Night Fever says it all.

If you go to a comic art show, Anthony sometimes has a table with a pile of loose junk on it, which can include the covers of crummy old paperbacks from the 1960’s-1970’s (and includes painted covers by comic artists). This one reminds me of a piece he couldn’t move for $600.

But, that’s focused on top tier pieces. Most work sells for less than $5,000, perhaps less than $2,000. While some artists get hot, I don’t see that in the pieces which interest me. Worst case so far for me is around 50% in 2 years, but many increases barely move the needle.