Which would you rather have.

[tth2]

But, get this - I had a very interesting conversation recently with my girlfriend, who is an artist (of the contemporary gallery variety). I was professing my love and admiration for Jeff Jones' masterpiece "Blind Narcissus" and asked her what she thought of the piece. Make sure you are sitting down when you read what her response was - she derisively called it..."CHOCOLATE BOX ART". :o

 

In her opinion, the painting is very technically competent and aesthetically pleasing, like the kind of artwork you see...on a box of chocolates. However, it doesn't really break any new ground or win high marks for originality in her book. Now, you can imagine my shock at hearing her talk about one of my favorite pieces of art in this manner!

 

After much protestation, I calmed down and thought about what she had said and tried to understand her point of view. To some extent, I have to admit she is right - truly great art is more than just pretty to look at and technically competent. It also makes you think and is groundbreaking in nature. Does "Blind Narcissus" rise to that lofty standard? Probably not, I have to concede. We were just at the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam in March and saw the John Everett Millais (he being the Pre-Raphaelite painter of "Ophelia") exhibition there. "Blind Narcissus" would not have looked at all out of place among Millais' work - however, the latter were painted more than 100 years earlier, when such work would have been considered groundbreaking.

Your girlfriend has it absolutely right, Gene, and this gets to the crux of why comic OA will always be held in low esteem by the art world's cognoscenti. Comic OA is commercial art, done for a commercial purpose to earn the artist a wage. Fine art, which is what gets the big bucks, is art for art's sake. At least that's the theory, because of course we can all point to any number of fine art masterpieces that were done to earn the artist a wage. But nonetheless that will always be the distinction made which puts a ceiling over the valuation potential of comic OA.

 

OA fans also put way too much emphasis on technical competence and elevate it into an end unto itself. In the fine art world, technical competence is assumed. Virtually every aspiring artist can draw and paint still lifes, faces, etc. accurately. This has changed somewhat in the last 30 years, where some artists who genuinely have no technical skill whatsoever have become darlings of the art world, but for the most part it is still true. If people think that Picasso, Pollack, DeKooning, etc. couldn't draw "well" if they wanted to, they're seriously deluded.

 

What I can't agree with, though, is her diminishing the technical mastery of Jones' work - even if it doesn't break new ground, the execution is superb and is worthy of our admiration and praise. Should it be valued as much as the less aesthetically pleasing Lucien Freud portraits? Maybe not, but the valuation gap is just ridiculous. And, I agree wholeheartedly about which I'd rather have to look at in my house... (thumbs u

Please, I can take you to back alleys in China, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. where there are tons of "artists" who can crank out gorgeous forgeries. They can also do extremely competent original commercial art, but there's no money in it. Technical mastery is essential, but overrated. What separates good comic artists from the run of the mill ones is the ability to develop a distinctive style that for a lot of people find pleasing. If they happen to work on an insanely popular character, all the better, and you would have to say that factor ends up driving valuation as much as anything. Otherwise a Ditko splash page of Dr. Strange should be worth as much as a Ditko splash page with Spider-Man, but we know that will never happen.

 

While I agree with everyone here that the Jones portrait is much more aesthetically pleasing than the Freud, and would much prefer to hang the Jones on my living room wall than the Freud, that perhaps best illustrates that the Jones is safe and non-descript, whereas the Freud is guaranteed to illicit a reaction. You could actually say that Jones' work on Wonder Woman was actually more groundbreaking, because it didn't look like any comic book art that people had seen at the time.

[NelsonAI]

With the emergence of photography, there was no longer a need for patrons of the arts to purchase technically proficient drawings or portraits. Artists began expressing their creativity with more abstract works.

 

While some may not like looking at the subject matter, the second painting is a very good painting from a technical standpoint. I've taken some nude figure drawing classes with models of all sizes. The plus sized women were more interesting to draw because of the additional folds and shadows. Many of the nude models I've seen in the drawing class look just like the woman in the second painting.

 

I happen to like both paintings.

 

Cheers!

N

 

 

 

 

[delekkerste]

OA fans also put way too much emphasis on technical competence and elevate it into an end unto itself. In the fine art world, technical competence is assumed. Virtually every aspiring artist can draw and paint still lifes, faces, etc. accurately. This has changed somewhat in the last 30 years, where some artists who genuinely have no technical skill whatsoever have become darlings of the art world, but for the most part it is still true. If people think that Picasso, Pollack, DeKooning, etc. couldn't draw "well" if they wanted to, they're seriously deluded.

 

That's another point my girlfriend made, though, as you said, I'm not sure that holds true anymore for many artists in the last half century.

 

 

Please, I can take you to back alleys in China, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. where there are tons of "artists" who can crank out gorgeous forgeries. They can also do extremely competent original commercial art, but there's no money in it. Technical mastery is essential, but overrated..

 

Having been to the back alleys in Vietnam and seen first-hand these ramshackle studios which crank out reproductions of whatever you want, I see your point, though would these "artists" have the imagination and the original composition skills to create a "Blind Narcissus" as opposed to merely reproducing it? One thing I will say is overrated about many comic book artists is how their work is viewed by comic fans when they do a traditional fine art painting, as most of us are merely judging the technical mastery. If you stuck these paintings in a gallery and covered up the artist's signature, I doubt most of us would find them half as interesting as if they showed up on ComicArtFans.com or a major comic book dealer's website heralding so-and-so's painting ability in addition to his comic book credentials.

 

What do you think about Bernie Wrightson's "Frankenstein" plates? There, you are probably talking about the absolute pinnacle of technical mastery when it comes to art by a comic book artist. Many here would argue that they cross over into the realm of fine art. My personal view is mixed - they are no doubt gorgeous and masterful examples of the genre, though I'm not sure how much new ground they really break. French illustrator Gustave Dore did these wonderfully detailed illustrations and engravings with very much the same level of detail and creating very similar moods, a century before Wrightson's plates. Of course, Wrightson did all of his work by hand...but are we again just judging technical competence here? I'd love to hear some thoughts from people here...

 

 

Otherwise a Ditko splash page of Dr. Strange should be worth as much as a Ditko splash page with Spider-Man, but we know that will never happen.

 

I've always felt that this would ultimately end up limiting outside interest/investment in comic book OA. It's not enough to judge the technical merits of an artist or even the artist's work on a particular character, but one has to be versed in the history and continuity of comic books - try explaining to an outsider why a plain looking panel page from X-Men #94 is worth so much more than a better-looking page a few issues later. No doubt in my mind, nostalgia and passion for comic books is a greater driver of value than the art itself. This is a niche hobby and will never be fully mainstream - and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

 

While I agree with everyone here that the Jones portrait is much more aesthetically pleasing than the Freud, and would much prefer to hang the Jones on my living room wall than the Freud, that perhaps best illustrates that the Jones is safe and non-descript, whereas the Freud is guaranteed to illicit a reaction.

 

Sure, but the rub is that the Freud costs more than $33 million more!! For all the eccentricities and quirks of the comic art world, the contemporary fine art world is a beast unto itself - it is the biggest bubble on the face of the planet and makes every single other market, even those arguably in bubbles themselves, look cheap by comparison.

[westform]

Otherwise a Ditko splash page of Dr. Strange should be worth as much as a Ditko splash page with Spider-Man, but we know that will never happen.

 

I've always felt that this would ultimately end up limiting outside interest/investment in comic book OA. It's not enough to judge the technical merits of an artist or even the artist's work on a particular character, but one has to be versed in the history and continuity of comic books - try explaining to an outsider why a plain looking panel page from X-Men #94 is worth so much more than a better-looking page a few issues later. No doubt in my mind, nostalgia and passion for comic books is a greater driver of value than the art itself. This is a niche hobby and will never be fully mainstream - and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

I agree with your point Gene, but I don't necessarily buy the premise about the Ditko splashes. I think there are Ditko Dr. Strange splashes that would easily surpase his spidey ones in value based on image and technical factors. Both of these criteria tug at comic art collectors like a see-saw, but I agree that if you are not in the hobby this little slice of production process seems very arcane, if that's the word I want. I still get a chuckle as about 99% of people who visit the house and see some examples of my collection. And, I mean framed up on the wall black and white big images in all there glory... and still remark, 'wow, cool comic books you have'. I don't get it, but it's happened too many times to count now. There is a total disconnect between the general public with these images that we covet and 'art'... who knows if that will ever change.

[NelsonAI]

off topic .....

 

...... to address the last point by Dan, the average person does not realize how the production of comics are made. I get the same reaction from friends when they first see some of my art. If they saw a framed black and white piece, they may assume it's a black and white comic book you framed.

 

I do have a cover matted and framed along with the published color comic book. When friends see that specific piece, they make the connection and ask "Is that the artwork used to make the cover?".....

 

..... now back to our regularly scheduled program.

 

Cheers!

N

 

 

 

 

 

[tth2]

Please, I can take you to back alleys in China, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. where there are tons of "artists" who can crank out gorgeous forgeries. They can also do extremely competent original commercial art, but there's no money in it. Technical mastery is essential, but overrated..

 

Having been to the back alleys in Vietnam and seen first-hand these ramshackle studios which crank out reproductions of whatever you want, I see your point, though would these "artists" have the imagination and the original composition skills to create a "Blind Narcissus" as opposed to merely reproducing it?

Probably not, so there is of course always a premium paid for originality and creativity. And I should say I like Jeff Jones a lot, although I`m not such a big fan of Blind Narcisssus. I prefer his/her rougher, moodier works.

 

But this gets back to the fine art vs. illustrative/commercial art distinction. While there is a degree of creativity and style in the illustrative/commercial field, which allows some artists to emerge as stars, it is relatively muted because the artists are forced to work within commercial constraints. In contrast, whether you like Damian Hirsch or not, everyone always remembers vivisected animals.

[Bronty]

[

 

What do you think about Bernie Wrightson's "Frankenstein" plates? There, you are probably talking about the absolute pinnacle of technical mastery when it comes to art by a comic book artist. Many here would argue that they cross over into the realm of fine art. My personal view is mixed - they are no doubt gorgeous and masterful examples of the genre, though I'm not sure how much new ground they really break. French illustrator Gustave Dore did these wonderfully detailed illustrations and engravings with very much the same level of detail and creating very similar moods, a century before Wrightson's plates. Of course, Wrightson did all of his work by hand...but are we again just judging technical competence here? I'd love to hear some thoughts from people here...

 

.

 

Always thought they were massively overrated. A lot of detail for detail's sake but no 'life.' Much prefer other works. With Wrightson I find there was a pretty quick drop off. His very early work in the late late 60s to very early 70s was great but after that the downturn in quality is pretty significant IMO

[Bronty]

 

Sure, but the rub is that the Freud costs more than $33 million more!! For all the eccentricities and quirks of the comic art world, the contemporary fine art world is a beast unto itself - it is the biggest bubble on the face of the planet and makes every single other market, even those arguably in bubbles themselves, look cheap by comparison.

 

I have to admit I'm liking the Freud more every time I look at it. Its like a train wreck; can't stop lookin'. What I like about it is that it strikes the right balance - its just on the edge of being an ugly painting without really being one. Its not vivisected animals here - its a little daring and thought provoking without being over the top and disgusting.

[Bronty]

OA fans also put way too much emphasis on technical competence and elevate it into an end unto itself. In the fine art world, technical competence is assumed. Virtually every aspiring artist can draw and paint still lifes, faces, etc. accurately. This has changed somewhat in the last 30 years, where some artists who genuinely have no technical skill whatsoever have become darlings of the art world, but for the most part it is still true. If people think that Picasso, Pollack, DeKooning, etc. couldn't draw "well" if they wanted to, they're seriously deluded.

 

 

conversely I think fine art and its fans put way too much emphasis on provoking a reaction for the sake of provoking a reaction.

 

The vietnam war provoked a lot of reactions too but it sure wasn't art!

[tth2]

Hey Gene, have you seen the reports indicating that the buyer of the Freud was none other than your favorite football club owner? And apparently he was the buyer of the Bacon for over $80 million. Apparently his new girlfriend aspires to being a gallery owner or some such.

 

Maybe he's simply transferred his drunken sailor spending from football players to art.

[delekkerste]

Well, you know how they say that the lottery is like a tax on stupid people? The modern/contemporary art market has become a tax on hedge fund managers and Russian oligarchs. :yeahok:

 

If true, Mr. A would be far from the first heavy hitter on the scene throwing his money around on overpriced art at the behest of his significant other.