Rick2you2

Unpublished pieces should be identified as such. That is not the published cover to B&B 89.

I have no problem criticizing either an artist or art—if done fairly. There are artists who are great guys but mediocre artists and artists who are great but leave something to be desired as human beings. You can find a whole Facebook page on the latter involving artists who accept commission payments and don’t produce. Lim is not on that list, I believe, and I have no reason to think any bad thoughts about him. But, I can still criticize that page for 33k. Basically, I think it lacks balance. The dynamism of the Surfer’s attack in the upper right ought to be mirrored in the rest of the page, particularly in the lower left. If Thanos is going to swat Captain America, why isn’t it given a stronger artistic role, even while showing the insignificant effect on Thanos? Something better than a slightly large rectangle was due the reader in order to set up cross-page balance. Even odd shaped panels would be an improvement. As I have said before, I regard most professional artists as very good or better, with differences often a matter of a buyer’s stylistic preference than real quality. The page is nice, and my criticism is more lengthy than harsh. Stylistically, the commission for sale is a better example of his skills, I think, although it can’t be fairly compared to a published page which has a plot baked into it. But do I think criticism is fair? Absolutely.

It's a lot more fun if you stay away from nostalgia-based purchases because you read the published version as a kid. If you love it that much, buy the comic book again. There is a lot of new and old stuff that is not fan fav material but is great. Love what's easier to stomach. I do, and I almost never get a stomach ache. I just bought this, with a separate pencil page, for all of $350. Have I spent more? Of course, would I spend more on other pieces? Yes. But this was a fun buy.

It may not be about the ultimate cost of the piece. It gives the seller extra bargaining room to lower his price-- by a lot. Perhaps you've seen this listing on eBay (gotta love the shipping charge): JLI 18 ORIGINAL ART PAGE 22 GUY GARDNER SPLASH BY KEVIN MAGUIRE SIGNED GRAIL $50,000.00 Top Rated Plus Was: Previous Price $100,000.00  50% off or Best Offer +$5.00 shipping

Has the Gray Morrow page from All Star Western even gone up from either the $100 or $125 prices.? A good example of worst OA— very good artist, dull subject, virtually no appreciation.

Better art, too.

So that’s what happens when you don’t treat a foot fungus.

Straight commissions don't really interest me anymore. Why waste an artist's talent on a simple image when you can have him do something original and different? So, when I ran into an old friend at a recent show, Chris Battista, I asked him to draw something special that I described in detail. He came through with flying colors (although, I was expecting an annoyed Hoppy instead of a smiling one). After Chris posted it on Facebook, someone decided that they liked it so much, they colored it. Here's the original and the color version.

I was joking. Although, a little time looking at Catawiki auctions makes me wonder where “art” crosses the line (which isn’t so bad, either).

Ah, European art.

For our generation(s). Prices don’t move in monolithic blocks, with at least some art from the 1990’s apparently increasing in value more quickly than the older stuff (excluding icons/hi interest pieces). Personally, on the right subjects, I like him better than the Buscema’s, but that doesn’t mean the newer kids will spend that type of money—even on Sal or John.

Yes, but how will it hold up price wise, particularly since he is an older artist? Compared to an icon, like Miller, I doubt it. Price and quality are very different, once you add nostalgia into the mix.

I agree with you; she’s terrific and underappreciated. I have 3 of her pages from Madam Xanadu, and would love to get the cover to no. 7, wherever it may be. Several years ago, she even did a convention sketch of my better half (the one I plan to keep), even though she didn’t think she was good at drawing real people. She is.

May be true, but whose gonna crash the worst? Jim Lee? Steranko? Mignola? Sal?

That’s a modest view of what I was hoping to elicit. If the average price of OA goes up, say, 100% in 20 years, but Gil Kane’s GL work only goes up 20%, I would consider that in the “worst” category— unless BWS Conan stuff only goes up 10%, which would be worse. Of course old 1960’s Marvel art will generally rise—so will the price of a chocolate bar—but in proportion to newer stuff? On average, I doubt it, except for dealer to dealer swaps or iconic pieces which break the rule.

Was someone looking for proof that the cover for Detective 27 still exists?

Not sure which one it is, but I don’t think Gil Kane’s work will hold up well for the new generation. While it has a clean, meticulous quality to it, the artwork generally feels cold and studied. That could also affect Starlin’s pricing (even while having an awesome feel to it). Of course, maybe the next generation likes that.

Interesting choice. Certainly, his later stuff, of which there is too much. Some of his books, like Batman, are iconic and may keep moving up. Any one else care to jump in here? Book titles, too?

You’ve never been particularly shy before. Who or what is high now but won’t maintain high appreciation, or may sink, and is big now? Since I feel like painting with a broad brush, my suspicion is almost any 1960’s Marvel page or cover will not appreciate (or maybe hold onto its value), as the stuff which is coming out in the last 25 years. The primary reason is nostalgia. The secondary reason is changing artistic styles. What was stunning in the 1960’s now look like “old hat”. Will a first appearance by Wolverine hold or increase? Of course, so would Action No. 1, even though the raw aesthetic of the art isn’t so hot by today’s standards. But that’s easy. Pick hard. No one will remember later.

David, You’ve been doing this a long time. What do you think has a poor future? This is not about aesthetics, but as this hobby is so nostalgia based, is least likely to do well? Rick

That works. So does the Alex Ross example from grapey. Now, what candidates are the worst of the worst? The Forever People? Devil Dinosaur? FYI, I was actually toying with the idea of buying comics based on old television shows just for giggles and laughs. Camp Runamuck was really terrible. It only lasted 1 pitiful half-season. I wonder if anyone tried to do a comic based on My Mother the Car?

Bad in this context means low future value, mostly due to lack of nostalgia for the piece. Good aesthetics can still be "bad" art when used in this context. The winners of the contest are the biggest projected losers in the future.

Why is everyone ducking the question? People had no problem expressing their views on the "greatest" art. So, just flip it around (but, don't count obvious things like eBay rubbish)

That's fine, but you do get the point I am trying to make. What candidates might qualify?

You're missing the point of what I wrote: The words "good" and "bad" are too subject to evaluate without a standard. The standard is highlighted above.