Collecting Original Comic art: What is it really about?

[COI]

Ok, first off, David(Dam) has inspired me to post this topic on the forum.

 

I recently purchased 3 cover re-creations. They were re-do's of 3 of Jim Lee's recent Hush covers; #608(RRP), #609 and #615. They were not done by Jim Lee(obviously), but appear to be stunningly accurate as far as I can tell(I've only seen scans...don't have them yet). Now of course, I would love to collect exclusivley original material, but those three covers(not that they're even available) would cost a good 15-20K, assuming you could even get them. So then I started thinking about the fact that even the biggest BSD art collectors will probably never get more than 25% of the art they want if they are only willing to buy originals. Then, Dam forewarded an email from the comic-l art newletter, and it was very well written and deserves to be shared:(Hope the author dosen't mind)

 

I've been studying Jack Kirby, on and off, for a few years now.

 

So I've had to look into the "world" of original comicbook art to an

extent.

 

I'm no expert but I have a few questions and some comments I'd like

to make:

 

First of all, I believe that the prices for most of

the "original 'comic' art" I am seeing are way over-inflated.

 

What do you think?

 

Think about the paradox: You wish the art you *want* was cheaper but

you wish the art that you "own" was more VALUABLE.

 

The silver/golden age pieces that I'm seeing (on-line) are falling

apart/yellowing. Plus the absolutely FLOODED market (of new artwork)

results in the work being virtually worthless (in terms of $$$$).

 

This is just my opinion: BUT we are talking about pieces of

paper/bristol board here containing water-based india ink...

 

I'm especially speechless when it comes to covers/splashes, that are

predominately stats, that are glued on w/ paste that will

inevitably destroy the stat and the board + covered w/ white-out/zip-

a-tone etc. I realize that these cover/splash images are *dramatic*

but the ACTUAL production piece itself is flawed/disentegrating.

 

Any restorers out there have any estimates on how long a page of

comic art will really last? I'm curious, I see comics I did as a KID

are starting to deteriorate! Talk about a reality check!

 

How can an "original" piece of comic art be worth so much $$$? It

will not last! Think about how relatively new this market is...

Comic art isn't really even looked upon as legitimate art by the so-

called "legitimate" art critics. Maybe a few museums will BUY a few

pieces, but there are ILLIONS of comic art originals floating

around. There will be more out there soon if the economy takes a

nosedive or if owners of art need cash.

 

In my opinion: this art will be virtually valueless in about 10 or

so years.

 

Why?

 

Once the technology exists to produce a facsimile that is IDENTICAL

to the original I can see no reason to hold onto an original that is

marred w/ white-out and tape etc...

 

Again, this is only speculation. I'm guessing in order to see if any

one else has a different opinion, I don't know the answer.

 

BUT If I could have an exact duplicate of a piece of artwork (i'm

studying Kirby right now for example) why do I need to purchase

the "original"?

 

I guess having the 'original' piece of paper held by the artist/from

his/her drawing board holds some sort of nostalgia/sentimentality

but personally I just want to see a high quality image of the art so

I can study it and be inspired. In fact, printing techniques now/in

the future will be able to DUPLICATE the nuances of pencil/ink/white-

out: which is what this art really is: a combination of B/W on white.

 

I'm not even going to mention the fact that

 

1)some of this art may be stolen,

 

2)that the artists themselves MAY actually have a future legal claim

to ownership

 

3) or the fact that forgeries are easier and easier to produce.

 

I don't necessarily underestand the idea of stockpiling and

squirreling away "art" (unless one is obsessed w/ the "art"... or

cashing in later).

 

I really feel that to an extent the art belongs to us *all* (it

certaijly doesn't *legally* belong to the artist anymore) and when

the technology allows us the ability to archive and share the work

in high definition: the originals will not be "valuable".

 

I'm just speculating here because I would love to study more Kirby

originals BUT I can't/probably won't be able to afford them.

 

Plus I'll never see them because they are sitting somewhere or other

in various vaults/collections.

 

IOW... I offer this theory because I'd like to see more original art

And I think the over-infation, in terms of current "value", prevent

all of us from seeing what's out there.

 

Of course if you paid hard earned cash for a page, or just got lucky

and bought the pages before the prices skyrocketed, I feel you have

the right to hold onto them indefinitely... BUT I hope the fact that

these originals MAY be valueless creates a scenario where we MAY see

more of the iMPORTANT/HISTORICAL art start to surface: so that it

can be studied.

 

etc.

 

Rob Steibel

 

So what my thinking comes down to is what is collecting art really about? Is it for the art itself, or for the ego of saying you own the original? I realze this is different from person to person, but for me it is about the visual "stimuli" I get from looking at a great piece, and not about the artists themselves. So are originals really worth 100X+ more money if you can get a re-creation that's virtually identicle, or infact, clearer and in better shape?

[Illiterati-migration]

I like "funny" pages. I've said this a million times now, but I really like the Ambush Bug "one-pagers" where a joke is developed and executed all in one page. They're relatively cheap (though the prices are spiking lately), and you can't beat Giffen's art! And this whole "they'll deteriorate" argument is ludicrous... apparently this guy doesn't own any Silver age pages?

 

I don't know, I'm still too jarred by Greggy's flaming outburst in the other thread to be completely coherent here, but I'll say that I don't buy this stuff because of "ego". I buy original art because I like it. I like the glued-on stats and the touch-ups and the pencil lines and the white out. I don't dig on collecting actual books for the most part (though there are a few... Dark Mansion... Legion of Super-Heroes #300... Green Lantern #195... )-- primarily because I don't want to have 100 longboxes full of books that I will never, ever read through ever again. With the pages, I can buy the pieces that really stand out in my mind and keep them close at hand. Granted, I only have around 20 pieces at this point... but I'm constantly buying more!

 

This guy's email makes him sound like a total nutjob who's desperately trying to sell his own product.

 

Are these things worth tons of money? Hell no. But I also wouldn't pay tons of money for a comic book either. Rarity does not equate to value in the world of comic collecting for the most part, eh? Why should the fact that something is a one-of-a-kind dramatically affect the value? It's dog-eat-dog in the world of OCA collecting... it's all a matter of finding what you're looking for before someone else finds it and starts driving the price up. Such is the case with these Ambush Bug pages right now, it would seem.

 

Good thing I've already got all the good ones.

[COI]

This guy's email makes him sound like a total nutjob who's desperately trying to sell his own product.

 

I don't think he sounds nuts at all. Granted, I don't think the actual paper deteriorating is as big of an issue as he makes it seem, but I agree with his sentiment about the glued on stats being a distraction from the work itself. But you mention that you like the glued on stats, so I guess it is "to each his own". But it seems that, since you mention the jokes on your pages, that it is definetly not entirely about the art itself for you. I think it's cool that you have your own kind of "niche" in collecting, and I sometimes wish my tastes were less mainstream.

 

And I definetly wasn't implying that owning originals is all about ego. Hell, I'd love to own the originals to my favorite covers and splashes. But if I can get a high quality, virtually identical hand drawn replica of a piece that's unavailable, and/or horrendously expensive(Neal Adams covers for example), then to hell with the originals. That's my thinking, because I don't want to sit around thinking of all the covers I will never own, when I can get a drawn replica that would look just as nice framed on my wall. What drew me to comics from the very beginning, when I was 6, was the art. I'm a very visually oriented person, and to this day it's art that primarily draws me into comics. If I want to read, I prefer books(fiction and non-fiction) and for pure entertainment I turn to movies. So a replica or "Re-creation" is just as effective visually, and at the end of the day I can live with the fact that it isn't an original. That's my thinking anyway, and I don't put that on anyone else. But I definetly think that there are a lot of people who think along those same lines, and I believe that this kind of thinking will ultimately affect the monetary value of originals. I don't think they will ever be "worthless" of course, and originals will always be the most coveted, but if it comes down to paying 15-30K for an "original", or $150-$300 for a high quality, hand drawn dupe, then I'll take the dupe.

[GotToHaveComics]

Totally agree. I'm willing to shell out $200 replica of Amazing Fantasy 15 Cover rather than paying $200,000 or more (only in my dreams, that the owner will sell it)By the way, does anybody know who own the AF15 Cover?

[COI]

It's very probable that it no longer exists.

[Bronty]

I was going to say the same thing... I don't think it does exist. Ditko used to use his original art to line his cutting board... no joke.

[supapimp]

kirby drew the cover to AF 15

[Kevin Boyd]

It is only natural that many collectors are turning to original art collecting.

 

Why? Because:

a) the artwork is unique, there can be only one original

b) it is a connection between the artist and the fan. .

c) the original art often contains touches and flourishes that get completely destroyed in the reproduction process.

 

A friend of mine owns this huge Kaluta painting that was eventually reprinted by Marvel as the cover to Conan Universe 2. They took the subtlety of this fantastic piece (that was originally a depiction of the Battle for Helm's Deep from the Two Towers and transformed it into a Conan battle scene) and added a god-awful yellow background and obscured about 40% of the image.

 

Most original art collectors are not as strict about condition as comic book collectors simply because of the rarity of the item. There can only be one page 13 from Justice League 87, so if there is a slight crease in the bottom right corner of the page you either have to live with it or not add it to your collection. Or there is a glue stain from a pasted on word balloon.

 

Whoever told you that most covers are stats is mistaken. Perhaps the logo and the text boxes are paste-on stats, but most covers that have been created over the last 15-20 years are created and sold without the paste-ups. (Acetate overlays or digital coloring and logo/text insertion have made paste-ups/stats completely unnecessary.

 

In all honesty, most comics are obtainable if you have time and money. Most original art is completely unattainable, and I think that makes original art much more of an interesting hobby than just collecting comics.

 

I have a large comic collection, but my passion is more for what's in and on the page than completing a set. I like being able to read through some of my favourite comics and say "I own that page" or "I sold that page to someone". It's definitely something that keeps my own interest in the hobby going.

 

Kev

[jens25e]

nevermind

[dadaist]

I realze this is different from person to person, but for me it is about the visual "stimuli" I get from looking at a great piece, and not about the artists themselves.

 

Exactly.

 

I dabbled in cover recreations purely as a way to cling to my freehand drawing skills. A commission every so often assured that I wouldn't completely abandon freehand art form for a more widely practiced digital art form. I have gotten to the level now where I can produce digital art quicker, and more efficiently than a freehand drawing.

 

But I still love the satisfaction gained from recreating a one-of-a-kind piece.

 

And I don't particularly think the guy in the email is a nutjob. Perhaps he does make an argument that can trace back to a bit of a soft-sell for his product, but one of the main reasons why I won't buy original art is due in large part to a skepticism towards duplicates. The technology is there, and I'm sure it wouldn't take much to lay out a dupe on a plotter if an original is on hand.

 

I stick to lead and graphite for that reason. The other thing I gain from doing cover recreations is an appreciation for the artist. If you notice in my about me page under the commissioned art header, there is a Mr Natural splash page (Mr Natural meets Devil Girl). Undoubtedly one of the hottest splash pages in the Crumb original art offering. When that piece first went up on Heritage about a year or two ago, and sold for 50K, I had three people contact me wanting me to produce a recreation within that same month. The truth is, I would need about three times the normal amount of time to produce that piece, than say Romita's ASM 100 which rates about a 10 in terms of technical challenge. I produced one Mr Natural Splash page, and the guy loved it so much, he paid me double than my ask price! But having had the experience of creating the piece, I gained a new appreciation for Crumb art, and although the yields for his original art are beyond what I would ever pay for one of his pieces, I can see why people go nuts for his work, and his attention to detail.

 

BTW: I own 5 Crumb pieces, and not one of them has liquid paper on it.

 

COI, are those cover recreations you got done inked? If so, would you be open to the idea of sharing them on the boards?

[COI]

Good points Joseph. If I had the artistic ability, I would probably be making them as well.

 

are those cover recreations you got done inked? If so, would you be open to the idea of sharing them on the boards?

 

As is usually the case, I'm sure the scans I have won't do them justice, and I don't have the pieces in hand yet, but here are the pics:

 

 

 

[dadaist]

As is usually the case, I'm sure the scans I have won't do them justice, and I don't have the pieces in hand yet, but here are the pics:

 

Yeah, those are stunning! Excellent choices AK!!

 

Thanks to this thread, you've motivated me to do the 608 Variant Cover for myself....

[minutekev@50]

I like to collect original comic art covers for my son to color. Sure, he got outside the lines on that Neal Adams' Batman cover I brought, but I figured what the heck. He's learning.

[COI]

As is usually the case, I'm sure the scans I have won't do them justice, and I don't have the pieces in hand yet, but here are the pics:

 

Yeah, those are stunning! Excellent choices AK!!

 

Thanks to this thread, you've motivated me to do the 608 Variant Cover for myself....

 

Let me know how it turns out.

[dadaist]

I like to collect original comic art covers for my son to color. Sure, he got outside the lines on that Neal Adams' Batman cover I brought, but I figured what the heck. He's learning.

 

[Mushroom]

Thought provoking post Andrew....I have a handful of original covers, here are my plusses and minuses:

 

Original comic art are very similar in look and feel to lithographs...the black and white nature of the majority of the works limit their appeal to the art market. Having said that...the real appeal for most of us is that they are actually production art for published comics but with so many out there I don't believe that common covers will be able to sustain the price levels they are at now. As always....keys will be much sought after and will continue to gain in value.

 

Due to the size of the artwork it is very hard to build a large collection that can be truly enjoyed on a day to day basis.

 

The lack of quality of materials means that GA and SA work will deteriorate over time at a faster rate than mainstream art. Preserving minor covers may become cost prohibitive.

 

Stick on's? I noticed in the current heritage auction that some original inks are being sold with replacement stick on's. Are they part of the otiginal artwork? If yes...then replacing them is lowering the worth of the piece. If no....then get rid of them and display the piece as it was originally drawn.

 

I have stated before that my preference is for coloured art and I feel that the coloured product is more reflective of the finished comic art (size, feel, image etc). I can display these pieces on walls in folios and can enjoy them every day. These pieces also tend to be coloured on higher quality paper and therefore have a greater chance of survival if looked after well. Price is also a factor as you will only have to pay a small percentage of the original inked work for even key books.

 

I love owning original inked work but I have no desire to have more than a few pieces. I don't think the market can sustain current mainstream prices.

[COI]

...the black and white nature of the majority of the works limit their appeal to the art market.

 

You're probably right, but I personally have always preferred the pre-color stage of comic art. I like being able to really see the ink/pencil lines and details.

[delekkerste]

I agree that much of the original art market is very overvalued, but I think the reasons the ComicArt-L poster cites are pretty lame:

 

Once the technology exists to produce a facsimile that is IDENTICAL

to the original I can see no reason to hold onto an original that is

marred w/ white-out and tape etc...

 

The technology exists to produce a perfect or near-perfect facsimile of everything from Dolly the cloned sheep to the old $20 bill to most fine paintings. Does that make the originals worthless? This argument is beyond ridiculous. You can commission an artist in Italy to reproduce the Mona Lisa for about $1,500. For a low 5-figure amount, you could probably commission a near-perfect fake...it doesn't make the original any less priceless. It's *not* just about the visual appeal of a piece...it's about the historical provenance and owning something that is the original, hand-made product of a gifted artist. If I photocopy a Frazetta pencilled sketch, it will cost me about 10 cents and look nearly identical. It doesn't make the original worth any less. The advancement of technologies that enable better reproductions will do absolutely nothing to impact values, IMO.

 

 

So are originals really worth 100X+ more money if you can get a re-creation that's virtually identicle, or infact, clearer and in better shape?

 

In general, yes. It's not about visual appeal OR ego - it's about the intrinsic value of owning a hand-drafted piece of original work by a great talent.

 

 

And I definetly wasn't implying that owning originals is all about ego.

 

Well, actually, after just defending the goal of collecting originals versus reproductions/recreations, let me just say that overinflated egos are the biggest drawback I have found with the hobby, even moreso than overinflated prices.

 

 

But I definetly think that there are a lot of people who think along those same lines, and I believe that this kind of thinking will ultimately affect the monetary value of originals.

 

I disagree. Those Batman reproductions you got were of pretty high quality, but most recreations are not that good. Even so, is the availability of those cheap recreations really going to have much of an impact on the price of the originals? I doubt it. Many original art collectors won't even buy a recreation by the same artist, let alone a no-name artist. Most don't even consider color guides to be original art. I think the recreations that you speak of would not appeal to someone seriously in the market for an original.

 

Having said all that, I think there are plenty of *other* reasons why original art is grossly overvalued, not the least of which is that many prices have escalated 1000s, even tens of thousands of percent over the last 10-15 years. Meanwhile, incomes are stagnating, debt levels are at frighteningly high and the hobby is exposed to all the demographic & cultural shifts I have spoken about with regard to the comic/CGC market. It's no surprise to me that more quality pieces than ever are hitting the market. I expect to see lower prices across-the-board three to five years from now.

 

Gene

[COI]

In general, yes. It's not about visual appeal OR ego - it's about the intrinsic value of owning a hand-drafted piece of original work by a great talent.

 

Well, isn't a recreation by the same creator a hand drafted piece of work? And isn't a sketch? The fact is, collecting strictly originals that have been published is just another elitist form within a hobby, much like collecting top graded comics. I'm not saying that to be negative, nor am I suggesting those are "bad", but let's call it what it is. There are many "great talents", but much like legitimate art, the BSD's will always snub them because they don't have the name recognition. Also, it might not be about visual appeal for some, but it is for others. Weren't you the one who said that your primary focus in art collecting is visual, and that you'd rather have a striking sketch or drawing, then some boring page? Personally, I love the work of Romita, Buscema, Neal Adams, Michael Turner, Jim Lee, etc...... but it is solely about their art, not them as men. A virtually identicle piece will do the same for me visually, as the original would. And If I found an "unknown" who's art I thought was incredible, I would pay well for it too. For me, I try to make it about the art as much as possible.

 

I think the recreations that you speak of would not appeal to someone seriously in the market for an original.

 

Not necessarily true. I never said I wouldn't buy an original. But I'm realistic and realize that even if I decided to solely go after originals, there will only be so many I would get, even if money wasn't an issue. If the right opportunity(opportunity meaning right place/time/price, etc...) came along for me to get an original of a cover that I had a recreation of, I would take it. I think of these replica's as almost a "filler".

 

I guess my point is that Original art collecting is a really crazy hobby, much more so than high grade collecting. I guess for me, the only way I can look at original art is through supplementing with recreations between originals. Otherwise, I'll have to do what I've been doing up until now, which is ignoring the hobby completely. It's just too frustrating for me otherwise.

 

[delekkerste]

Well, isn't a recreation by the same creator a hand drafted piece of work? And isn't a sketch?

 

Yes, but for the former, a recreation is precisely that - a recreation. It's not the physical manifestation of when the artist first transformed a thought into art (and it might not even be by the same artist!) And for the latter, a sketch is just that - a quickly-drawn piece of art without necessarily capturing the attention to detail and exacting standards a piece done for publication or for a large commission fee might entail. Not saying that these are bad...I own both sketches and recreations, but from a market perspective, the originals justifably should sell for much more.

 

 

Weren't you the one who said that your primary focus in art collecting is visual, and that you'd rather have a striking sketch or drawing, then some boring page?

 

Where I think the ego issue comes more into play is commissioned work versus published pieces. Sure, there's some added value from buying a known piece in terms of people recognizing it as being both known and authentic as well as people having been exposed to it and perhaps feeling nostalgic about it, but oftentimes from a strictly artistic perspective commissions are superior, even far superior to published pieces. And yet, commissions of all kinds invariably sell for excessively wide discounts to their published peers in the marketplace. Personally, I would much rather have a stunning commission than a ho-hum published piece. In the vast majority of cases, I would rather have a nice commission than a panel page by the same artist.

 

 

A virtually identicle piece will do the same for me visually, as the original would. And If I found an "unknown" who's art I thought was incredible, I would pay well for it too. For me, I try to make it about the art as much as possible.

 

I agree, except for me the art is more than just how it looks on the surface...otherwise, I would collect giclees, lithographs, Xerox copies of nice pages, etc. Visually, aren't those practically identical to the originals? I think you will agree that something is lacking there. Similarly, my friend commissioned an Italian artist to recreate Renoir's "Au moulin de la galette" for $1,500...it's nicer than a print, because you can see the texture from the brushstrokes, etc., but owning a copy by a no-name guy in Rome is not even close to the same as owning the original that hangs in the Musee d'Orsay in Paris. They may look alike, but one was created from an original vision by a genius and the other was done by a guy who likes to fleece American tourists with too much money.

 

 

Otherwise, I'll have to do what I've been doing up until now, which is ignoring the hobby completely. It's just too frustrating for me otherwise.

 

I think you just have to approach original art collecting differently than comic collecting. You can't fill "runs"...the best you're likely to do is obtain one or two complete stories. You can't buy everything - there's just too much, it's too expensive and there's only one of each out there. You just have to pick and choose your spots and buy stuff you like when it becomes available and when you can afford it. There are tons of artists whose work I enjoy, but I'm content to specialize in a few. You just have to resign yourself to the fact that you will never get most of the pieces you really want - and there's nothing wrong with that, it's just the nature of the beast.

 

Gene