The Troll King

Update. I purchase this full story. When I get it in I'll do it justice with some nice full size scans.

Ramos isn't in the same league as Warhol or Lichtenstein, but he's pretty well know in the fine art world for his pop art. Wiki entry And his intent, just like Lichtenstein, was to exhibit publicly, his works are quite valuable Ramos Green Lantern sells for $600k I'm familiar with his pinup pieces of course but didn't realize that these superhero ones had ever been sold.

The Atom is the cover image from The Atom #1 Looks to me like Ramos was no better than Lichtenstein. Did Ramos do those because he's a fan or did he do them to exhibit?

This is what it states that you have to agree to on the Lichtenstein Foundation web site: Oh the irony!

It does speak, very loudly in fact. It's quite obvious how poor the draftmanship is of the originals. In many cases the women look like they have facial deformities. I see nothing inspiring at all in his copies and anyone who claims that the original panels are simply just throw-away art really need to look again. Throw-away or not, they are crafted far better than the Lichtenstein copies. What this reminds me of is a child who is aspiring to be an artist and uses comic book panels as "practice". Sure they look similar to the originals but there's usually something that's either just a little off or missing.

Kinkade was almost purely about marketing and speculation, and that market was house of cards that came crashing down. Re Lichtenstein et al., I'd argue that were part of a viable movement (pop art) that really captured a time and place. There's also a nostalgia factor associated with it, a factor which also seems to drive another hobby where many "hack" artists garner a fair chunk of change. Well, with comics there is an amount of bragging rights too. We all post our latest art and book pick-ups because we're looking for community acceptance of what we collect. Community acceptance let's us know we're not alone in our genre of collecting. What is a collection if we're unwilling to show it off other than an accumulation of things? I have no desire to own an Action 1, Detective 27, or even an AF 15. Would I be grateful if one fell in my lap, sure, who wouldn't. I feel that many people that actively seek these books are simply doing it so that others know... I have the grail of grails. There aren't a whole lot of us around any more that can speak of the nostalgia of those major keys (with the exception of AF 15 of course) so to own one usually is to simply say, "I have it". The same can be said of the fine art world in many respects.

Ok Gene, let's talk something we both know. Pin-up art. Just because I like Earl Moran and Fritz Willis better than Elvgren doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about with the subject. Art is personal preference above anything. I could elaborate on why I prefer Moran and Willis over Elvgren but that is not what's at issue. This issue is that because more people know who Elvgren was and are familiar with his work they will blindly claim him as a favorite. I feel this comparison is frequently made with the abstract painters as well. Picasso is a household name and I feel that his paintings only command the prices that they do, not for the subject matter but for the name recognition. Same with Pollock and even Warhol. These people became celebrities not just in their own circled but worldwide and to say it's simply because of the art they produced is truly elitist. As I mentioned above, Picasso hated the art community and found it riddled with hypocrisy. Once he had the critic following and the public following he did everything he could to get rid of it. He mocked everyone including his own work. To some this would seem more like the modest hero of the art world but he would have detested that title too. We can read all the history and critical review of these "pop" artists all we want. When I read them I see a lot of attempts at justification of because of celebrity. We all agree now that Britney Spears is mostly but there was a moment when she was at the top of the world. Someone cared and it wasn't just 'Tweens buying CDs. I feel like the only reason the art world hasn't finally come out and admitted that Pollock, Lichtenstein, etc are is because it's now become value protection to the owners and to the future commission earners. No one wants to suffer a loss and it's become a badge of honor with bragging rights to own a piece by them. Thomas Kinkade is and people finally came to their senses over that, why not these other artists? I guess the foundation question really should be... Is it the art that's worthy or the artist and why? If it's simply the artist and everyone across the board accepted that I could accept that too. Unfortunately that won't be the case.

I'm thinking it's a Star Hawks character since that's what the back seems to be promoting.

Anybody old enough to remember Henry Fonda doing Viewmaster commercials? (and please don't say "who's Henry Fonda"?) didn't he invent the automobile?

I picked this up too. A seemingly unused set of Batman Viewmaster reels featuring Catwoman The same dealer had many TV show sets still in the original cellophane.

Went to a City-Wide Garage Sale in Austin yesterday and found these... Mark Bode' convention sketch from 1989. I edited it out as to not offend anyone. Gil Kane sketch from a Houston comic convention that took place in 1980. I'm not sure who the character is. The second image is what's on the back of the sketch. George Perez sketch probably from the same convention? This is a Dave Stevens print and it's actually signed by him.

To me the big difference is you have Everhart taking a known character and doing an interpretation that is very different from the source material and thus original to the artist. Plus he is doing that work via a contract with the copyright holder. Lichtenstein took the source material, bkew it up and took out a few words. By subtracting a few words it changed the meaning and subtext of the art (I'm speaking solely of the panel with the man looking through the peephole here. I found no value artistic or otherwise from the other examples beyond the original panel.). While that IS inspired, it speaks nothing of his artistic ability. All it says is he saw something a little different that the artist who created it. As for if he did it with permission or not, work for hire or not, and all that I will say this. IF he had written permission from the copyright holder at the time (with no evidence to attest to that, one must assume he did not) then the pieces are legit. Otherwise, they are theft plain and simple and the copyright holder should be compensated, whether that holder is a publishing company or an individual. Regardless of anything else though, one can surely say that Everhart, Picasso, and even Pollack CREATED their art. Lichtenstein copied his. Your final sentence is an excellent point of which I hadn't ever considered. Very nice.

Well, that poster was me and $6000 is about his bottom price. Unless you want a litho and that will run you about $2000+

Right on, my thoughts exactly. I wonder if the people buying these aren't just rich clients buying them as... decoration. You have to have a pretty huge house to hang a painting that large. If you have a house that large maybe you don't mind spending 30k on something with no value as an art object simply to decorate. They aren't all huge. Many are only 30x40 with some smaller.

Wow. I would have walked too. I don't think its really a comparable example here though. This guy is more like modern comics with 76 different cover variants. Lichtenstein, Pollack and Warhol worked 50 years ago in a very different time in the Art game! And their splashes on the scene, fueled by gallery hype etc has faded. But their works still inspire, move, and --clearly -- ANGER many many people out there. That's Art with a capital A baby. This Tom guy won't last the decade. Everhart's Peanuts paintings have been featured at the Lourve, among other places. When I said he was the "official" Peanuts painter what I meant was that he has q contract allowing him to paint these characters for the duration of his life. His paintings are already selling for 10's of thousands. I imagine that when he dies we'll see some stupid money spent. wow. really? Just another reason the Modern art game is so messed up. Makes the earlier artists work look even more conservative and successful, doesnt it? Everharts approach doesnt seem pinned on any idea besides hype and cashing in... a sort of eighth (in-bred) cousin to previous ideas and formulas... Lichtenstein may have actually have been after the same thing, but at least latched onto an idea of substance that intrigued peoples interest and made them reevaluate something they took for granted. Seeing Snoopy like this doesnt do a thing for me. Do you like them? Or do you see them purely as a short term investment vehicle? I like them purely from a decorative aspect. Tom isn't doing anything expression-wise that Schultz didn't already do. There's just no way I'm ever spending 10's of thousands on one. My biggest problem to over-come is seeing something and realizing I could copy it and be just as satisfied with my copy. Mind you, the inspiration started with someone else but most art usually does.

I have no way of knowing the details obviously other than I know Tom worked for Schultz and is responsible for the murals at the museum.

Wow. I would have walked too. I don't think its really a comparable example here though. This guy is more like modern comics with 76 different cover variants. Lichtenstein, Pollack and Warhol worked 50 years ago in a very different time in the Art game! And their splashes on the scene, fueled by gallery hype etc has faded. But their works still inspire, move, and --clearly -- ANGER many many people out there. That's Art with a capital A baby. This Tom guy won't last the decade. Everhart's Peanuts paintings have been featured at the Lourve, among other places. When I said he was the "official" Peanuts painter what I meant was that he has q contract allowing him to paint these characters for the duration of his life. His paintings are already selling for 10's of thousands. I imagine that when he dies we'll see some stupid money spent.

(thumbs u My Pollock appears heavy handed because I did it on a small canvas panel. Had I of had more room offered than the island in my kitchen it would have been rendered differently. I was more concerned about the clean up of the paint I was slinging on the kitchen cabinets and floor and really trying not to get it on the ceiling. As I stated in the Great Art thread it actually was fun painting it as abstract is not my area of interest as I've been painting figures. Although, I regress and admit that I have copied abstracts for decorative purposes in my home. Pollocks paintings are huge in comparison to mine so he had the ability to do his drunken aboriginal dance around his entire studio.

Allow me for a moment to compare something a little closer to the soul of this thread rather than Picasso or Pollock. I give you Tom Everhart Now, obviously Tom didn't create the Peanuts characters as we all know who did. I kind of like Tom's paintings, but it's mostly because I like the source material. I was given the opportunity to purchase the above painting by an extreme high pressure sales women at the gallery that handles Tom's work exclusively. It's not a particularly large painting at approximately 20x24. The price on the painting at the time (which was many years ago) was $6000. I really did consider purchasing it due to the high pressure my wife and I were enduring. I then learned that this was actually from a series of paintings titled "76 Dog Salute" when I asked about the series I then learned that it was a series of 76 versions of the same painting! Mind you, they are all different, in a sense, as some of them have Tom's foot prints and hand prints on them. He's the official Jackson Pollock of the Peanuts world as it were. When I learned that there was actually 75 others of essentially the same painting, we quickly got up from the private viewing room and left. Why? And why do I relate this story? Because true artistic originality matters to me, in composition, and in creation. I was willing to ignore the originality aspect and focus on the creation but then was instantly turned off when realizing that this living artist was simply creating these pieces as a means of financial gain off of them. That is the true realization of art, looking past the "tortured soul" stories and accepting why it was created. Lichtenstein, Picasso, Pollock, Warhol, etc. They're only as "tortured" as the gallery representatives make them out to be. Creating art as a job is far and away different than creating art simply to be an artist. Michelangelo created art because it was his job, not because he was wanting to make some inspirational statement as an artist. I feel that many artists that are purposely trying to inspire, fall flat on their faces. At least Picasso understood this.

We have to separate artistic ability, which should be lauded, and marketing ability, which can be good or bad depending on what's being sold and what the buyer is being told. We have to be careful not to laud someone just because they got rich. These comic panels would have been transformed into new art if he would have told his appreciators where the panels came from, how he interpreted them and then RE-interpreted them. Madoff turned nothing investments into a multi-billion dollar ponzi scheme. Not all marketing jobs should be applauded. Selling people something that's really nothing is a talent and a skill that most people don't have or would not use if they did have it. I just got an email today, that will allow me to buy my first Licht. piece, it's from an enterprising Nigerian man promising millions for allowing him to use bank account. What ingenuity on his part. I think you and I are getting close to a agree to disagree point, so I'm hesitant to quarrel on new points with you. But here I'd like to comment on your use of the phrase "artistic ability" I find that for most people who can't or don't draw, or Do not consider themselves artists of any sort, tend to glamorize the ability or the talent level of artists, or artistic persons. They also limit it to the artist's ability to wield instruments in fashioning realistic looking two dimensional images on paper or canvas. Yes thats a simplification that doesn't encompass artists other than painters and drawers. But these are the talents we are discussing so its apt. You guys decide who draws the best looking (most realistic) images and that guy is a good artist. The anti Lichtenstein position here is basically that he CAN'T draw, and the comics "hacks" can, so Roy stole from them. I say hacks here not because I think the guys whose panels were lifted we're the hacks in our world, but because these little images were very much indistinct from the thousands of comics panels created by lesser artists, and these guys best works as well. But, those of us who don't mind lichtensteins use of the source materials to fashion a larger and bolder statement to a wider or more "elite" audience do not limit the phrase "artistic ability" as narrowly as you do. Drawing well, drawing with lifelike realism is in many ways, while amazing and commendable, and not easy, really little more than a parlor trick that some can do and most can't. But ART Has always been about the human condition, and spirit. About our minds as well as our hands and eyes. ARTISTS have strived to archive a deeper penetration in our minds than that of photographic realism. It's why Frazetta is so much cooler than Boris, for example. Anyway, I'm losing my train of thought.... Basically we give Lichtensteins lifting and transformation of these panels a pass because he put them to far better use than the comics did. It's not about which of them could draw and who couldnt. Not anymore. Those days area long gone back to choosing a portrait painter. Who does that anymore based on who can get the best likeness?? Who even has a portrait painted? I'd also like to add that many abstract artists are in fact excellent draftsmen. Who excelled in art schools in their early years. But the styles they settled on that made their reputations were distiller to say a brushstroke, or an attitude. Mondrian is one example. Picasso another. Even Leroy Neiman could draw as realistically as Neal Adams or Russ Heath!! He just liked the dynamism of dripped paint a lot more once he got there. And yes, that's a reference to poor defamed Pollack too! He chose to pour paint like that on purpose. And please go out and TRY to duplicate their finesse at it sometime ! Looks easier than it is. Here's my problem with several of the artists you mentioned and what I believe is the general problem with the art world itself. People are giving too much credit to certain artists simply because of who they are rather than what they created. Warhol was fascinating as an individual but as an artist, not so much. Not every "expensive" artist is some other-worldly, tortured genius that we attempt to understand through their creations. They are people, just like us, and they care about the same things as many of us. Picasso detested the art world. He frequently stated so in numerous interviews. I touched on this in the Great Art thread in the WC but Picasso purposefully started painting pretty much anything, no matter how bad, just to see what the next one would sell for. Picasso was an unusual artist in that his paintings started selling for large sums well before he died. He, much like some contemporary comic artists, started writing his own paychecks and it didn't matter how good or bad his next piece was. It's well known by most anyone even remotely familiar with abstract art that Pollack was an alcoholic. What we've been given from this is the most expensive painting in the world was created by a dancing alcoholic that liked to play with paint and use unconventional items to sling, drip, or rub it on extremely large canvases. Because of this, the art world considers him a master? I consider it pure rubbish. Plain and simply. It's easy to say that not anyone could create the composition that he did but that statement goes against the entire grain of what he was doing. The lack of composition is what he was achieving in his paintings. Much like photographs of garbage dumps. In the other thread I spoke about Pollack at length. I even went so far as to create a "Pollack" piece specifically for Bedrock. I called it, "The Tall Texan" Of course my piece wasn't completely dry yet when I photographed it for the thread but it pretty much looks like 95% of Pollack's paintings. Anyone who doesn't believe so is only believing the commission based lies they're told about art. It's true that not art has to be realistic. That doesn't always make good artists. At the same time though, don't ever kid yourself into believing that all well known expensive artists were doing anything more than earning a living, no matter what the subject matter. It sure beats a desk job.

It's not a ponzi scheme--the art world has always been a case of the market being heavily influenced by a few kingmakers, and those artists who were lucky enough to be favored by those kingmakers. It then takes the passage of time to separate those who were just popular flashes in the pan from those whose appeal continues to last (and those who weren't appreciated in life but become popular only much later). This has been compounded in the post-photography era, as Aman has pointed out, because simply being a good or great draftsman, which seems to be where your interests lie, is no longer good enough (arguably it was never good enough). You've got to do something that stands out, whether that's creating formaldehyde sharks or Campbell soup cans. For what it's worth, I like Warhol a lot. Lichtenstein I can take or leave, but I can understand why others, particularly non-comic readers but of course who are aware of comic strips and comic books, appreciate his work. Well the Ponzi scheme analogy is Aman's, not mine..but it makes sense when you think about it. Too many galleries, pumping too many substandard pieces and artists as the next "BLANK", while wanting nothing more than to sell pieces they already have in inventory or collect commissions. Horrible conflicts of interest, compounded by ever climbing dollar amounts. Give a piece or set of pieces enough exposure, enough backing, enough of just the right people saying it's great, and you will have all the people who with to be on the same level as those "right people" nodding their heads to the beat. Too many people in the art world collect what people tell them is great, or tell them is valuable, or tell them is a masterpiece. That's where I think Aman's point comes from. My feelings exactly on Jackson Pollack.

Went to a City-Wide Garage Sale in Austin today and found these... Mark Bode' convention sketch from 1989. I edited it out as to not offend anyone. Gil Kane sketch from a Houston comic convention that took place in 1980. I'm not sure who the character is. The second image is what's on the back of the sketch. George Perez sketch probably from the same convention? This is a Dave Stevens print and it's actually signed by him.

You guys should really have read the discussion in the WC in the Great Art thread.

That's pretty tempting but I have no idea if the price is fair.

Well, I learned one thing from this post. I had no idea that Sasha Grey was even on HBO's Entourage. For one, I never watch that show but more than that, I'm surprised they gave a role on the show to an Internet porn star. Dave Navarro has been managing her and has taken her mainstream. She's done regular (read, non-porn) films also.