Aman619

oh ok. me too.

not sure you're disagreeing with me or agreeing. Im saying that we buy comic books they turn up their noses to, while they pay millions for the artworks that seem completely ridiculous to us….

thats part of the resin we see 100 million dollar formaldehyde sharks and pischrists….. TO PROVOKE A REACTION = ART. but we don't have to deal with that because we don't live in that "art world" but thats how THEY think, and they are playing the game. We collect comic books. We find each others interests equally absurd don't we?

When I was in Art School in the 70s, the common declaration was that "painting is dead" and as performance art was the new rage, testing the boundaries of "Art" Sure most of it was crapp and completely forgotten, but the concept of Art being outside of just drawing and painting well underway and established even then.

"drawing" is the layman's understanding of "art". it hasn't been the the art worlds definition for over 50 years, maybe even 150 years since photography came along and could effortlessly reproduce in photo realism.. As technology has advanced, the idea of an "artist" as someone "who can draw" is a very specialized and limited view of Art today, maybe felt strongest right here in comic books where the adherence to anatomy is crucial to an comic artists reputation.….

I don't theres such a HUUGE difference, but I understand why so many think there is. Do you realize you are being "snobbish" in your disdain for "some" artists and media. You elevate comic book pen and ink "illustration" while denigrating the very similar profession of graphic design. Both require a keen design sense that begins with a blank white page. As a matter of fact, with the separation of pencilling and inking common to comics artwork, who are you actually elevating over the other? The penciller is the graphic designer parallel, while the inker "merely traces" (as its commonly referred to derisively and sarcastically) to the best of his particular talents. The inker relies on the talent of the penciller to a great degree and is NOT the "creator" of the artwork at all… merely the typesetter, to mangle my analogy. The penciller has supplied the layout (the design) upon which the inker applies his contribution to that design. which -- ironically --- is all thats left of the pencillers efforts which get erased out of existence with only the inkers interpretation left to posterity. anyway,

what the heck . heres a copy paste of the entire piece… Who Made That Campbell’s Soup Label? By HILARY GREENBAUM MAY 9, 2011 3:25 PMMay 9, 2011 3:25 pm 2 Comments Andreas Rentz/Getty Images In 1962, Andy Warhol produced “Campbell’s Soup Cans”: 32 paintings, each representing a flavor of Campbell’s condensed soup. “With these works, Warhol took on the tradition of still-life painting, declaring a familiar household brand of packaged food a legitimate subject in the age of Post-War economic recovery,” according to Christie’s. Warhol appropriated the famous soup can and reinvented it as a work of art. He can be credited with converging the world of high art and supermarket branding, propelling the pop-art movement forward and possibly even boosting the sales of canned soup, but the label that he rode to stardom was not his design at all. Campbell's soup label from 1900.Campbell’s Soup CompanyCampbell’s soup label from 1900. Sixty-five years earlier, Dr. John T. Dorrance created the first condensed soups for the Campbell Soup Company. Originally, the label that was affixed to those first soup cans was orange and blue. The following year, in 1898, Herberton L. Williams, who subsequently became the company’s treasurer, comptroller and assistant general manager, attended a University of Pennsylvania versus Cornell football game at which Cornell first played in red and white uniforms. Williams was so impressed with the color scheme that he proposed the labels be changed to match. Regarding the other elements of the design, “We do not have specific information on who designed the label, mostly because our records indicate that it was a cooperative effort,” Campbell’s corporate archivist, Jonathan Thorn, told me in an e-mail. “Also, the small evolutions of the label in the early years help to indicate this. The Campbell -script for instance is very similar to Joseph Campbell’s own signature, which may have been used as a basis for the label -script.” The -script “was designed to appeal to the housewife of the time,” Thorn said. “It was intended to look like cursive handwriting of the day that one would find on handwritten recipes, equating to ‘Homemade.’ ” The medallion on the center of the label went through a number of different iterations from 1898 to 1900, ending with the version seen in this post, which represents the medal the Campbell Soup Company received at the Exposition Universelle de 1900 in Paris. Thorn noted: “The 1900 Paris medal was designed to replicate as accurately as possible the actual medal itself. It would be my guess that an engraver or the printing company’s engraver would have been employed to replicate the medal for printing.” That said, the first printer to produce the labels, Sinnickson Chew & Sons Company, is also credited with aiding in the design of the original label. Small adjustments to the label have been made over time, but the original concept is easily visible in all the iterations that have been conceived, making it the icon that it is, Warhol or no Warhol.

an excerpt: Regarding the other elements of the design, “We do not have specific information on who designed the label, mostly because our records indicate that it was a cooperative effort,” Campbell’s corporate archivist, Jonathan Thorn, told me in an e-mail. “Also, the small evolutions of the label in the early years help to indicate this. The Campbell -script for instance is very similar to Joseph Campbell’s own signature, which may have been used as a basis for the label -script.”

oh jeeze. The Campbells soup packaging is fine, but certainly not worth ANY special attention whatsoever when compared to other packaging on supermarket shelves. Not nearly an "award winning" design by any means. Clean and simple and professional is all. ONLY after a Warhol makes it into "something else" and foists it onto the art world in a completely different light was it even thought of as a design by anybody other than that guys boss and the Campbells Art Director/Marketing team back then. this is getting silly. I don't have reference as to the development of what became THAT particular Campbells packaging design, but Im guessing it was a slow maturation from very similar packages beginning back in the 1890s. heres what a 3 second google search turns up, from the NYTimes article in 2011. I was guessing about the year, but it was 65 years before Warhols work in 1962. Nice guess! http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/who-made-that-campbells-soup-label/?_r=0

As befits this discussion, Scott Edelman has a blog about a new gallery showing of comics artists take on Lichtenstein appropriation of Comics creators panels. Dave Gibbons odd a brilliant take on Whaam.

pssst… Drew copies from swipe materials and photos. does he credit the sources? Many times from unit photography shot by guys paid by the day or the film who don't own their work any more than Heath etc ever did. Lichtenstein gets singled out because he worked in the comic book printing style, but he was far from the first or last to reuse others' works.

Why is it silly to be upset fifty years later, how do you know he wasn't upset before? Seeing your work get copied and sold without a mention is something that anybody would get angry about it doesn't matter how much time went by when that piece you worked, and taken on gets considered to be so iconic. Also its not just the money, if Lich had asked permission to use it then people would have been ok with it, because at least he acknowledged that he was using the work from another artist, and that $50 fee you said it would cost would be nothing for him. But no he didn't even do that, but hey I guess since it wasn't you he stole from its ok right? you misunderstood me as I wasn't specific. Im calling out the defenders of Heath here, not Heath. His cartoon reads whimsical to me and more as a thank you to Hero Alliance than a serious gripe against Lichtenstein. He has a good point to make, and made it well. But ask him back then, and over his career and he'd say that as hard as he worked on every job he did in comics, it was throwaway work. None of these guys felt working in comics in the fifties was all that grand. And if the "swells" in the gallery world thrilled at the reuse of one his panels, back them Im sure he was laughing at how dumb the rich were…. and not that he had created a masterpiece with panel six on page 7 of a story he drew late one night. I think he thinks it would be "nice" to have seen some of that money, but not that he is entitled to any of it, just as he's not seeking a piece of every Haunted Tank slabbed comic that resells on Heritage. Its the so many comics fans who are bent out of shape far more than the actual artists I was speaking to.

Have Flash prices been affected by the TV show yet? Any movement on key Rogues appearances that have already appeared on the show, or are upcoming? Weather Wizard, Grodd, Captain Cold, Heat Wave, etc? I know that the early Flashes were hot when considered very scarce years ago, then cooled off ... Think the TV show will boost Flash back to a hot book? Or has it already begun?

Yeah. It's just like DC with say Action 1. They got a few pennies each when they sold it, and not a dime on each resale of any of the printed copies. It was the galleries ( dealers) and investors (comics fans) who Mae the long green in each case.

; )

Nah. It was never scarce. And most of the issues are probably under 9.0. Having sat up bagged in a longbox and jostled around for 40 years.

And, just wait til gene comes home and posts on the subject!!

All revisionist history and nonsense. Let's say Lichtenstein did "the right thing" and contacted DC for the rights to the Whammm panel. DC would have had to cover the receiver so Roy didn't hear them laughing, and the fee would have been like $50. AND Riss Heath wouldn't have seen a dime! Is that what would have been okay by you guys crying foul?? And, having secured the rights Roy would have been free and clear to sell the paintings and never share another penny. Somehow I think you'd still be saying DC and Heath were left out of the money, even though it was a fairly negotiated exchange. So, it's silly to be so upset now, fifty years later because if how things worked out. Heath is near broke NOT because Lichtenstein ripped him off, but because the comics industry did! Never paying enough money so the artists and writers to save up for retirement... But gee, in this economy, lots and lots of professions don't pay enough either. Maybe Lichtenstein is to blame there too.

Sobering to look at, but all the bronze books are potentially stocked in depth like this out there. Except maybe for run of the mill issues that suddenly now have movie value. But a Marvel first issue? Enough people were savvy enough to stock up. And some even never sold them.

have you all noticed theres so much less "back on/off the island for 5 years " alternate storyline this year? Is there less to say now? because the switching was always a major plot development tool in the past few seasons.

number one seller? thats it then, all downhill from here! I guess we now know the answer to the title of this thread! : )

Ezekiel's tiger!

haha As an example of why this discussion is taking so long, and is so maddening to all of us with every other post (the ones promoting the other side…), I actually agree with the above … and yet it reads like you have it backwards to me. In my world, the one that I think of as the "real" world -- the ones we fans live in, that DC published comics in, their "Publication History" says #54 to me, and it's the fans today that are demanding that #60 be their first appearance. THIRD BASE!

Yes. And that's because having been there buying them off the news stands and reading the issues, it was perfectly clear what happened when, and which caused which. S to us it has always been 54 where the Teen Titans began. That's not to say things won't change, like with OAAW 83, but I don't know that we are at that point yet. But I guess if you youngons make it happen, anything could happen.