Green Lantern sells for $600k

[jaybuck43]

If Christies (or Sotheby's) had handled the sale I think it would have reached a much higher price. Anyone disagree?

[Boba]

Frankly I can't believe this stuff even passes as fine art. It looks like decent amateur but certainly not an accomplished artist. Maybe his nudes are great, but this smells like pure opportunism.

[Ken Aldred]

It was quite a while before I actually had a look at this thread. I'd assumed it was for the original cover artwork of Green Lantern 76, not a glorified, lightbox copy from Murphy Anderson's cover to JLA 4.

[Bronty]

so Green Lantern beats the Batman.

 

Interesting.

 

Go figures!

 

Which comic character it is would be irrelevant I think.

 

If I remember right the GL is a full size canvas and the batman just a little thing.

 

That's probably the price difference right there.

[paperheart]

It was quite a while before I actually had a look at this thread. I'd assumed it was for the original artwork for Green Lantern 76, not a glorified, lightbox copy from Murphy Anderson's cover to JLA 4.

 

nearly 7 years

[Ken Aldred]

It was quite a while before I actually had a look at this thread. I'd assumed it was for the original artwork for Green Lantern 76, not a glorified, lightbox copy from Murphy Anderson's cover to JLA 4.

 

at least 5 1/2 years

 

Yup. Missed it first time round. Interesting, though.

[Mercury8989-migration]

so Green Lantern beats the Batman.

 

Interesting.

 

Go figures!

 

Which comic character it is would be irrelevant I think.

 

If I remember right the GL is a full size canvas and the batman just a little thing.

 

That's probably the price difference right there.

 

Ahhhh the size is the issue you say? Maybe that's it. Will have to research.

 

Disagree about the comic character being irrelevant [maybe I missed a nuance of your thinking?].

 

Since when is subject matter irrelevant? There is a reason Detective #29 sells for more than Green Lantern # 1.

[Bronty]

so Green Lantern beats the Batman.

 

Interesting.

 

Go figures!

 

Which comic character it is would be irrelevant I think.

 

If I remember right the GL is a full size canvas and the batman just a little thing.

 

That's probably the price difference right there.

 

Ahhhh the size is the issue you say? Maybe that's it. Will have to research.

 

Disagree about the comic character being irrelevant [maybe I missed a nuance of your thinking?].

 

Since when is subject matter irrelevant? There is a reason Detective #29 sells for more than Green Lantern # 1.

 

 

To a fine art collector, a Mel Ramos comic character painting is detective 29. A Mel Ramos painting of a potted plant is Green Lantern #193.

 

Get what I mean? His work in 60s pop culture painting is what collectors want.

 

Vodou expressed it well in another thread with respect to Warhols. Marilyns are the warhol collectors Action 1. A warhol of a random manhattan socialite is I dunno, action #100.

 

Point is, subject matter is very important, but the fine art collector will apply that though process much differently than the comic oa collector. He could give a sh!t if its batman or superman or GL. He lumps all such work together. He's not comparing "batman" to "GL" he's compared "60s comic character paintings" by Ramos to... nudes by Ramos, or whatever.

 

Or at least that's my perception.

[Bronty]

I googled and the GL is large, the size you want. If I recall it's also earlier.

 

 

 

Mel Ramos (b. 1935)

The Green Lantern

signed, titled and dated '"THE GREEN LANTERN" 1962 MEL RAMOS' (on the reverse)

oil on canvas

49 x 43 in. (124.4 x 109.2 cm.)

Painted in 1962.

[Mercury8989-migration]

so Green Lantern beats the Batman.

 

Interesting.

 

Go figures!

 

Which comic character it is would be irrelevant I think.

 

If I remember right the GL is a full size canvas and the batman just a little thing.

 

That's probably the price difference right there.

 

Ahhhh the size is the issue you say? Maybe that's it. Will have to research.

 

Disagree about the comic character being irrelevant [maybe I missed a nuance of your thinking?].

 

Since when is subject matter irrelevant? There is a reason Detective #29 sells for more than Green Lantern # 1.

 

 

To a fine art collector, a Mel Ramos comic character painting is detective 29. A Mel Ramos painting of a potted plant is Green Lantern #193.

 

Get what I mean? His work in 60s pop culture painting is what collectors want.

 

Vodou expressed it well in another thread with respect to Warhols. Marilyns are the warhol collectors Action 1. A warhol of a random manhattan socialite is I dunno, action #100.

 

Point is, subject matter is very important, but the fine art collector will apply that though process much differently than the comic oa collector. He could give a sh!t if its batman or superman or GL. He lumps all such work together. He's not comparing "batman" to "GL" he's compared "60s comic character paintings" by Ramos to... nudes by Ramos, or whatever.

 

Or at least that's my perception.

 

I understand your point much better now. Thanks for clarifying. That said, I do think there is wide cross-over appeal. I wonder how many bidders on the item (if any) are comic art or comic book collectors? Seems that would be a key variable making character important in market price if even only one strong bidder was mainly from the comic/comic art collectors market. Think someone even posted in this thread that he found the Batman piece so there is clearly high cross over interest.

[Mercury8989-migration]

I googled and the GL is large, the size you want. If I recall it's also earlier.

 

 

 

Mel Ramos (b. 1935)

The Green Lantern

signed, titled and dated '"THE GREEN LANTERN" 1962 MEL RAMOS' (on the reverse)

oil on canvas

49 x 43 in. (124.4 x 109.2 cm.)

Painted in 1962.

 

That IS big. This makes sense. I guess the outlier is the GL piece. 600k is significant money.

[chrisco37]

colors are nice. hand holding whip is gimpy. chest looks like purple naked breasts instead of breasts under clothing.

 

as an illustration, its really nothing special. As fine art, I couldn't tell you.

 

I...can't...believe...you...just...said...that!

 

 

[jaybuck43]

I googled and the GL is large, the size you want. If I recall it's also earlier.

 

 

 

Mel Ramos (b. 1935)

The Green Lantern

signed, titled and dated '"THE GREEN LANTERN" 1962 MEL RAMOS' (on the reverse)

oil on canvas

49 x 43 in. (124.4 x 109.2 cm.)

Painted in 1962.

 

That IS big. This makes sense. I guess the outlier is the GL piece. 600k is significant money.

 

You do know that it last sold on May of this year for 725k right?

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/paintings/mel-ramos-the-green-lantern-5892612-details.aspx

[Bronty]

Forget we are talking about Ramos and comics for a second.

 

You're a fine art guy. You collect 60s pop art. You like the Campbell's soup painting. Would you give a spoon if it was a different brand of soup?

 

Pop art was about using subjects from commerce and advertising right?

 

A soup can, a comic strip, whatever was laying around. The brand of soup or specific comic character is not the point

[COI]

Forget we are talking about Ramos and comics for a second.

 

You're a fine art guy. You collect 60s pop art. You like the Campbell's soup painting. Would you give a spoon if it was a different brand of soup?

 

Pop art was about using subjects from commerce and advertising right?

 

A soup can, a comic strip, whatever was laying around. The brand of soup or specific comic character is not the point

 

How about a can of soup with Batman on it vs a can of soup with GL on it?

 

How about Navajo Tacos?

[Mercury8989-migration]

 

No, I did not know that. Interesting.

 

 

I googled and the GL is large, the size you want. If I recall it's also earlier.

 

 

 

Mel Ramos (b. 1935)

The Green Lantern

signed, titled and dated '"THE GREEN LANTERN" 1962 MEL RAMOS' (on the reverse)

oil on canvas

49 x 43 in. (124.4 x 109.2 cm.)

Painted in 1962.

 

That IS big. This makes sense. I guess the outlier is the GL piece. 600k is significant money.

 

You do know that it last sold on May of this year for 725k right?

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/paintings/mel-ramos-the-green-lantern-5892612-details.aspx

[Mercury8989-migration]

Forget we are talking about Ramos and comics for a second.

 

You're a fine art guy. You collect 60s pop art. You like the Campbell's soup painting. Would you give a spoon if it was a different brand of soup?

 

Pop art was about using subjects from commerce and advertising right?

 

A soup can, a comic strip, whatever was laying around. The brand of soup or specific comic character is not the point

 

Totally disagree. Iconography is central to analyzing art.

 

To your point, with Warhol the brand was totally important. If you do not see that, you miss Warhol completely.

 

He used Campbells for a reason not ACME Soup.

[Bronty]

Look I don't know what the biggest soups in the 1960s were and if you do then bravo. Point I was trying to make is that any big national brand served the same purpose. If they were cola paintings it wouldn't really matter if it was coke or Pepsi. When Lichtenstein used fighter pilot images it didn't matter if it was from Our Army at War or Star Spangled War Stories. Do you think a fine art collector would give a damn if it was Lichty appropriated from Kubert or Lichty appropriated from Heath? Of course he wouldn't

 

Why are we even having this discussion anyways? It's clear the GL is worth more than the batman, comic fanboys be danged. It's just fact.

[Bronty]

Forget we are talking about Ramos and comics for a second.

 

You're a fine art guy. You collect 60s pop art. You like the Campbell's soup painting. Would you give a spoon if it was a different brand of soup?

 

Pop art was about using subjects from commerce and advertising right?

 

A soup can, a comic strip, whatever was laying around. The brand of soup or specific comic character is not the point

 

How about Navajo Tacos?

 

Id buy that for a dollar!

[Mercury8989-migration]

Look I don't know what the biggest soups in the 1960s were and if you do then bravo. Point I was trying to make is that any big national brand served the same purpose. If they were cola paintings it wouldn't really matter if it was coke or Pepsi. When Lichtenstein used fighter pilot images it didn't matter if it was from Our Army at War or Star Spangled War Stories. Do you think a fine art collector would give a damn if it was Lichty appropriated from Kubert or Lichty appropriated from Heath? Of course he wouldn't

 

Why are we even having this discussion anyways? It's clear the GL is worth more than the batman, comic fanboys be danged. It's just fact.

 

Haha. It was YOU who said the GL is worth more than the batman piece largely based on the size of the painting. I agree with you. .

 

That issue aside, the icon itself matters very much. Sure it doesnt when you are talking Coke vs, Pepsi (Batman vs Superman) but it most certainly matters if you are talking Coke vs Fanta (Batman vs Green Lantern). Honestly dont wanna belabor the point as I think its obvious and Ill just leave as this not all icons are equal in how they resonate in perception. Batman is a much much much more important icon than Green Lantern. He just is. And this higher [or lower] iconic value is an important element of the art.