wow, an original Frazetta oil painting on ebay

[FatComicMafia]

Hey......I own a signed Litho of that pic Not worth nearly as much as an original oil.....but still a very sweet print. There are only 395 of these and I'm proud to be the owner of 1 of them.

 

 

As for Frazetta, Barks and/or any original oil paintings......they are waaaaayyyy out of my price range. But at the last San Diego Comic Con I saw a Frazetta signed litho I really liked and gave them my best offer of $600 cash..........

 

after talking it over and making some phone calls......

 

they declined.

 

I want to get my shirts with my name embroidered on the chest!!! Where can I have that done ?

 

 

[kimik]

well said, the intent is the issue. A depiction of Cavemen kidnapping a woman is just that. It doesn't speak of the human condition, it is a well painted illustration.

 

I think Borat would disagree here. That is a direct commentary on the human practice of bride-napping.

[lizards2]

Hey......I own a signed Litho of that pic Not worth nearly as much as an original oil.....but still a very sweet print. There are only 395 of these and I'm proud to be the owner of 1 of them.

 

 

As for Frazetta, Barks and/or any original oil paintings......they are waaaaayyyy out of my price range. But at the last San Diego Comic Con I saw a Frazetta signed litho I really liked and gave them my best offer of $600 cash..........

 

after talking it over and making some phone calls......

 

they declined.

 

I want to get my shirts with my name embroidered on the chest!!! Where can I have that done ?

 

 

Mikes-r-us

 

You need to have the right name, though.

[kimik]

Don't forget that Warhol had quite a career in illustration an advertising before shifting over to 'pop art' and other things. The comparison with Frazetta is not so far out of the question. Who knows, they may have very well crossed paths at some point in the late 40's or in the 50's, as Frank did advertising work as well during that time period.

 

For me, the thing that Warhol really stands out for is blurring the lines of what is art and what is advertsing/illustration. Yes, he had some groundbreaking ideas in color and printmaking and he really made some people look at things differently with his art/ideas (which is fantastic).

 

Is Frank's subject matter a narrow spectrum? Yes. But that shouldn't discount him as a talent. You can't look down your nose at Frazetta as 'an illustrator.' He's every inch the artist of Warhol or Rembrandt or Van Gogh or Monet. He just happened to be in this genre instead of mass-producing prints of Marilyn Monroe or painting wealthy families or chairs or flower gardens. Put Frazetta in any time period with the so-called masters and give him the same 'artistic' parameters that they had & I think he would be considered every inch the master they were.

 

 

Hey, if Warhol just stayed in illustration, we wouldn't know him, He wasn't that good.

 

Don't forget Ivan Karp who help make him.

 

Illusrtation, one of the greats of the 19th cent Monnet started off a mediocre illiustrator, but compare his steamboat illustration to him late impressionistic period and you can't.

hey promoters, gallery/ mafia, can make or break one's career. just like the comic mafia can set false prices on a comic book

 

But for a comic artist, Kirby has more originality. He also ( at the least Co-created) historic characters/ stories in the Marvel Universe. In Kirby's late 60's -70's work, he pretty much dips into the fine art with his use of black white abstraction is original and second to none, just really look at his mess, even devil dinosaurs is where it's at!!! ( I mean what is U2 without Brian Eno ??)

 

I'd take a great Kirby or unique Kurtzman over a Frazetta painting, any day.

 

I mean according to some of you, Barron Storey ( my one time mentor) who was a big influence for Bill Sienkiewicz, and Dave McKean, Neil Gaiman, etc would be the founder of contemporary comic art/ graphic novels.Which he should get credit for, but you don't buy his product like a Frazetta or a Ditko.

 

Also, how about Ditko's Rom , Indiana Jones work?

 

I think it's funny that you mention two comic's artists that I really don't like as paragons of illustrative virtue... Kirby and Ditko are most of the reason that I don't collect Silver Age.

 

I guess we'll have to chalk this one up to irreconcilable differences...

 

Oh, and I really like Sienkiewicz, but don't have much use for McKean after Arkham Asylum...

 

Good points, Cimm.

 

Fatcomicmafia - I argue with a collector friend all the time that Kirby and Ditko artwork was not great. Did they help to creat memorable characters - definitely. Were they great artists/illustrators - not really. Kirby being original - no way. Look at the other GA greats and compare it to his style even at the height of his FF run. Kirby was the same old same old. If you had said that some of the other EC house artists (e.g. Wally Wood) were more original then I can see your point.

 

WRT Frazetta, time will tell, but my gut feeling is that he will be considered one of the greats sooner or later. If painting three lines (Blue-red-blue) on a canvas is considered fine artwork (and yes, I have seen it at the Canadian National Art Museum and it still puzzles me why anyone would pay millions for it), then why is Frazetta's work considered any different?

 

 

 

 

[Bronty]

you're high kirby was amazing. he could draw anything. look at hulk busting out of the wall here for example. the average guy can't draw with that kind of power and impart that kind of motion to save his life. If Don Heck tried that you'd get much lesser results. Hell if Boris Vallejo tried that you'd get much lesser results - boris would paint you a pretty picture of hulk busting the wall but it would be a staged pose and completely lifeless. Kirby and Frazetta and Ditko for that matter could draw with their mind's eye and didn't have to depend on reference material... anyone who has that gift can't just be written off as a hack.

 

http://www.comicscardsandmore.com/comics2/hulk5.JPG

[tth2]

I argue with a collector friend all the time that Kirby and Ditko artwork was not great. Did they help to creat memorable characters - definitely. Were they great artists/illustrators - not really. Kirby being original - no way. Look at the other GA greats and compare it to his style even at the height of his FF run. Kirby was the same old same old. If you had said that some of the other EC house artists (e.g. Wally Wood) were more original then I can see your point.

Boy, I don't agree with you at all about Kirby. I'm not sure how you define "great". If you mean being able to draw in a "realistic" manner, then no, he wasn't great compared to guys like Mac Raboy or Lou Fine. But I would say that drawing realistically hasn't been the measure of artistic greatness since the advent of photography. If, however, you define "great" as creating some of the most memorable scenes in comic history, defining definitively how action scenes are drawn in the industry, being hugely influential and being copied by almost everybody else in your genre, then Kirby is without a doubt one of the true greats of the comic industry.

 

Finally, I think Kirby's style was definitely original. Maybe not quite as out there as Eisner or LB Cole, but definitely original within the more mainstream niche that Kirby occupied. Can you indicate any GA artists that Kirby was clearly mimicking? I can't. Even the early GA Kirby was unique. On the other hand, I can think of dozens of artists who were clearly influenced by Kirby and who started out their careers mimicking him.

[tth2]

you're high kirby was amazing. he could draw anything. look at hulk busting out of the wall here for example. the average guy can't draw with that kind of power and impart that kind of motion to save his life. If Don Heck tried that you'd get much lesser results. Hell if Boris Vallejo tried that you'd get much lesser results - boris would paint you a pretty picture of hulk busting the wall but it would be a staged pose and completely lifeless. Kirby and Frazetta and Ditko for that matter could draw with their mind's eye and didn't have to depend on reference material... anyone who has that gift can't just be written off as a hack.

 

http://www.comicscardsandmore.com/comics2/hulk5.JPG

(thumbs u

 

IMHO, one of the reasons why SA DC never grabbed the fans in the way that Marvel did was that the DC house style was so understated. The DC house style was technically proficient, but with the exception of Joe Kubert and Gil Kane, none of their guys (Murphy Anderson, Carmine Infantino, Curt Swan, Wayne Boring, etc.) conveyed the sheer dynamic power that Kirby did. Think about all the great Thor, Thing and Hulk pages, and then think of any similar Superman, Superboy or Supergirl pages. You can't, because they're all pretty milquetoast.

 

Maybe Kirby doesn't stand out so much to us today because we all grew up seeing him, but when you compare his work in the 60s with what others were doing, it really stands out.

 

[Bronty]

Definitely.

 

As a sidenote, I`d argue some of lou fine`s work looked less realistic than kirby`s! The apparently 17 foot tall german on the cover of National 7 comes to mind! (as incredible a cover as that is)

 

http://blog.oregonlive.com/steveduin/2008/07/large_national7.jpg

[Bronty]

you're high kirby was amazing. he could draw anything. look at hulk busting out of the wall here for example. the average guy can't draw with that kind of power and impart that kind of motion to save his life. If Don Heck tried that you'd get much lesser results. Hell if Boris Vallejo tried that you'd get much lesser results - boris would paint you a pretty picture of hulk busting the wall but it would be a staged pose and completely lifeless. Kirby and Frazetta and Ditko for that matter could draw with their mind's eye and didn't have to depend on reference material... anyone who has that gift can't just be written off as a hack.

 

http://www.comicscardsandmore.com/comics2/hulk5.JPG

(thumbs u

 

IMHO, one of the reasons why SA DC never grabbed the fans in the way that Marvel did was that the DC house style was so understated. The DC house style was technically proficient, but with the exception of Joe Kubert and Gil Kane, none of their guys (Murphy Anderson, Carmine Infantino, Curt Swan, Wayne Boring, etc.) conveyed the sheer dynamic power that Kirby did. Think about all the great Thor, Thing and Hulk pages, and then think of any similar Superman, Superboy or Supergirl pages. You can't, because they're all pretty milquetoast.

 

Maybe Kirby doesn't stand out so much to us today because we all grew up seeing him, but when you compare his work in the 60s with what others were doing, it really stands out.

 

Great points. Its not a coincidence that probably the two best acclaimed SA DC artists (Kubert and Kane) were the two that conveyed action the best. After all, a comic book story without action is just talking heads. So Kirby, while sure he couldn`t draw photorealistic pictures, was absolutely the best at the most important skill in the medium

[FatComicMafia]

Frazetta is one of the comic greats. O.K.

 

Kirby, especially in his prime, is one of the most originals out there. Kirby is positively Kirby. You can try to imitate him like early Steranko and Barry Smith once did( even with their deluxe twist), but in the end, Kirby is in a league of his own.

 

Kirby's use of composition, cropping/dynamics, and mainly his use of black white shapes to abstract. His faces evoke the human condition,pain,fear,suffering, excitement and joy. Not to mention great movement, and tension. Ka-pow!!! Kirby's best can surpass that of Velasquez?

 

Kirby is King.

 

[kimik]

you're high kirby was amazing. he could draw anything. look at hulk busting out of the wall here for example. the average guy can't draw with that kind of power and impart that kind of motion to save his life. If Don Heck tried that you'd get much lesser results. Hell if Boris Vallejo tried that you'd get much lesser results - boris would paint you a pretty picture of hulk busting the wall but it would be a staged pose and completely lifeless. Kirby and Frazetta and Ditko for that matter could draw with their mind's eye and didn't have to depend on reference material... anyone who has that gift can't just be written off as a hack.

 

http://www.comicscardsandmore.com/comics2/hulk5.JPG

(thumbs u

 

IMHO, one of the reasons why SA DC never grabbed the fans in the way that Marvel did was that the DC house style was so understated. The DC house style was technically proficient, but with the exception of Joe Kubert and Gil Kane, none of their guys (Murphy Anderson, Carmine Infantino, Curt Swan, Wayne Boring, etc.) conveyed the sheer dynamic power that Kirby did. Think about all the great Thor, Thing and Hulk pages, and then think of any similar Superman, Superboy or Supergirl pages. You can't, because they're all pretty milquetoast.

 

Maybe Kirby doesn't stand out so much to us today because we all grew up seeing him, but when you compare his work in the 60s with what others were doing, it really stands out.

 

I think your last line is the reason I do not like Kirby's artwork. I started reading comics in 1986 or 1987 (first book was X-Men #211so whatever year that was). As a result, I do not have any attachment to his work so it does not do anything for me. To me, the Ditko and Kirby (as well as most GA and SA artwork) seemed simplistic and not realistic enough. But, this is most likely due to an age/generational difference more than anything else.

 

Personally, I will take Adams, Frazetta, Wrigthson or Wood in their prime over Kirby any day. Jim Lee is my favorite modern artist, and that is because I was a big X-Men fan as a kid (McFarlane's Spidey was neat but not quite as nice as Lee's work IMHO).

 

BTW, I agree with you on the quality of SA DC artwork. Up until Adams and Wrightson, it really sucked except for Kane and Kubert.

[tth2]

I think your last line is the reason I do not like Kirby's artwork. I started reading comics in 1986 or 1987 (first book was X-Men #211so whatever year that was). As a result, I do not have any attachment to his work so it does not do anything for me. To me, the Ditko and Kirby (as well as most GA and SA artwork) seemed simplistic and not realistic enough. But, this is most likely due to an age/generational difference more than anything else.

 

Personally, I will take Adams, Frazetta, Wrigthson or Wood in their prime over Kirby any day. Jim Lee is my favorite modern artist, and that is because I was a big X-Men fan as a kid (McFarlane's Spidey was neat but not quite as nice as Lee's work IMHO).

That`s okay. In the mid-1970s, I once recall hearing a girl saying that she preferred Wings to "the lead singer`s old band".

 

BTW, I agree with you on the quality of SA DC artwork. Up until Adams and Wrightson, it really sucked except for Kane and Kubert.

Uh, that`s not what I said at all. I love Murphy Anderson, and like Curt Swan too. Infantino not so much, but that`s just a stylistic thing. I wasn`t saying they sucked, just that their less dynamic style didn`t grab readers in the same way that Kirby did. Even Kirby at early SA DC was toned down.

[Comicsarefun]

Frazetta has repeatedly turned down offers of over $1 million each for some of his Conan works.

 

I would take the cover to Conan the Adventurer over the CGC 8.5 blue Action 1 any day!!!

[FatComicMafia]

Frazetta has repeatedly turned down offers of over $1 million each for some of his Conan works.

 

I would take the cover to Conan the Adventurer over the CGC 8.5 blue Action 1 any day!!!

 

 

 

[Bronty]

I think your last line is the reason I do not like Kirby's artwork. I started reading comics in 1986 or 1987 (first book was X-Men #211so whatever year that was). As a result, I do not have any attachment to his work so it does not do anything for me. To me, the Ditko and Kirby (as well as most GA and SA artwork) seemed simplistic and not realistic enough. But, this is most likely due to an age/generational difference more than anything else.

 

Personally, I will take Adams, Frazetta, Wrigthson or Wood in their prime over Kirby any day. Jim Lee is my favorite modern artist, and that is because I was a big X-Men fan as a kid (McFarlane's Spidey was neat but not quite as nice as Lee's work IMHO).

That`s okay. In the mid-1970s, I once recall hearing a girl saying that she preferred Wings to "the lead singer`s old band".

 

BTW, I agree with you on the quality of SA DC artwork. Up until Adams and Wrightson, it really sucked except for Kane and Kubert.

Uh, that`s not what I said at all. I love Murphy Anderson, and like Curt Swan too. Infantino not so much, but that`s just a stylistic thing. I wasn`t saying they sucked, just that their less dynamic style didn`t grab readers in the same way that Kirby did. Even Kirby at early SA DC was toned down.

 

The DC house style has such wondefully clean lines, doesn't it? I like it a lot too but it is "milquetoast" as you said.

[prestidigitation-migration]

Frazetta has repeatedly turned down offers of over $1 million each for some of his Conan works.

 

I would take the cover to Conan the Adventurer over the CGC 8.5 blue Action 1 any day!!!

 

+1!

 

And IIRC, he also turned down $1 million for Egyptian Queen, too.

[kimik]

BTW, I agree with you on the quality of SA DC artwork. Up until Adams and Wrightson, it really sucked except for Kane and Kubert.

Uh, that`s not what I said at all. I love Murphy Anderson, and like Curt Swan too. Infantino not so much, but that`s just a stylistic thing. I wasn`t saying they sucked, just that their less dynamic style didn`t grab readers in the same way that Kirby did. Even Kirby at early SA DC was toned down.

 

Sorry. That is my opinion and I thought you were thinking along the same lines.

[gcstomp]

Frazetta has repeatedly turned down offers of over $1 million each for some of his Conan works.

 

I would take the cover to Conan the Adventurer over the CGC 8.5 blue Action 1 any day!!!

 

 

I am sure it makes me a caveman, but I am firmly in this camp as well. We know the top Frazetta pieces cannot be bought for even a mill. Action 1 just would not be the end all relative to letting me take a couple of pieces off the wall of the Frazetta museum.

[TheShadowKnows]

I think if there is ever a fantasy artist whose paintings go for $10 million+ at Sotheby's auctions, it's gonna be Frazetta

 

It's not that crazy really.

 

People are paying $10 million+ for the best Warhol paintings now and they are not even that old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Warhol was way over-rated and continues to be, generally by pretentious elitists. Frazetta has a unique talent and is able to capture something special in most examples of his work. This is a great one - I remember seeing this for sale about a year ago, if I remember correctly. If I had the dough, I would have been all over it.

 

The truth of it is, what Warhol did still has repercussions on the art world. The very fact that this Frazetta piece is being viewed as "fine" art may owe a debt to Warhol. No matter how much you care about comics, you can not compare fine art & Illustration. Yes, he is the top of the game in Illustration, but even the tops in Illustration just tickles the belly of fine art.

 

BTW - A frazetta black & white has cracked $100k, so the prediction of $20-$30k is way off.

Isnt abound 90% of Frazettas work still held by the family?I think I read an article about him being unwilling to include the original in any of his work.

[jimjum12]

I'd have to throw in with this camp also.There is no comic book I'd rather have than one of SEVERAL Frazetta pieces.The pen and ink "octopus" cover to Famous Funnies 215 (?) would do nicely, or the "Frost Giant's Daughter" GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

P.S. I'd never seen the piece being auctioned on eBAY.....it's awesome.