Giant-Size X-Men #1 Original Art burned? 1 1

[theflashunc]

I'm obviously at a far different end of the market, but I think that my personal stewpot of bits that go into what we buy and don't buy is in in line with where Gene's head is at.

 

Not that aesthetics and the execution of the art don't play a role, but I'm more drawn to pages that either tell an interesting compelling story in their own right, or stuff that I have some nostalgic connection to. Isn't that storytelling component -- either purely through visuals or a combination of words and images -- part of what makes sequential comic art unique? I love splashes and covers as much as the next guy, but the allure of a really well-done panel page is pretty strong for me.

 

When I try to break it down though, I struggle with what I appreciate in nostalgia vs. aesthetics. Does the execution of the art influence the impact that comic issue or particular page had on me the first time I read it? Or do I like the art simply because of a nostalgia factor from the comic as a whole and that first time reading it? It becomes a bit of a chicken and egg question once I start to break it down that granularly.

 

I guess the short version is the heart wants what the heart wants...

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

Even a cursory examination of the original art market shows that non-aesthetic considerations (nostalgia, character, "historical significance" to comic collectors, etc.) are a major driver of market demand and value. Which makes sense. Comic book original art buyers are interested in comic books, not fine art, which is why they commission their favorite artists to paint comic cover recreations or sketches of guys and gals in tights, instead of commissioning those artists to paint a mountain or sketch a café scene.

 

And as a collector of original comic-book artwork, I like to have an aesthetic appreciation of the comic-art I collect.

 

This is a by-product of comic-books, so 'fine art' was not something I was factoring into the equation when I mentioned aesthetics (following on from Scott's post).

 

Me, personally, I started collecting comic-book artwork as a direct result of my appreciation for the (then) EC books being reprinted by Russ Cochran during the 1980s. No continuing characters (all anthology stuff), no first appearances, etc, and no nostalgic hold for me. I was attracted to the high standard of storytelling and illustration.

 

Guys and gals in tights is not exactly my thing, so please don't assume everyone here collects the same stuff. I like 1960s superhero art, from a nostalgic point of view, but my tastes in comic-book art are far wider.

 

I didn't start collecting comic-book art as an investment choice. I bought the art to derive pleasure from it.

 

 

 

 

[otherworldsj33]

Aesthetics would be number 1 on my list, most of the time. The art has to be at the least what I would deem aesthetically acceptable, for me to want to purchase it for my collection. While the importance of the Wolverine page is obvious, whatever it ends up selling for, I wouldn't (if I could) have been a bidder. I could think of probably dozens of other pieces, if available, I would rather spend the same amount of money on. The only way I would buy that page is if I had so much money, it would be as a financial investment. Buy it, tuck it away, probably rarely look at it, or even give it much thought. No fun in that.

[bocaratondefense]

There is nothing wrong with that. If you are not a fan of Marvel superheroes, or Wolverine in particular, I can understand why you have little appreciation for the first appearance of Wolverine.

 

Personally, I rank nostalgia and historical context above aesthetics. Almost every piece in my collection is from a comicbook in which I have fond memories of reading and collecting.

[Terry Doyle]

There is nothing wrong with that. If you are not a fan of Marvel superheroes, or Wolverine in particular, I can understand why you have little appreciation for the first appearance of Wolverine.

 

Personally, I rank nostalgia and historical context above aesthetics. Almost every piece in my collection is from a comicbook in which I have fond memories of reading and collecting.

 

Yes, it's all about personal choice and what works for you as an individual collector. No rights or wrongs, here, just an exchange of differing opinions.

[tth2]

I put aesthetics first (the art critic angle), nostalgia second and historical significance last. I wonder if I am in the minority in this hobby?

Yes, absolutely.

[J.Sid]

There are a number of modern artists who can draw circles around the guys whose work was featured in the Heritage auction today.

 

They started training earlier, they've had better training (more/better art books, youtube tutorials, etc…) they've borrowed all the best tricks from the masters they've been able to learn from the masters' mistakes, and finally they aren't trying to crank out 3 books a month to feed their families.

 

That being said, I'm not spending money on their work. Even though, to observers with no history of reading comics, it might be considered 'Better'

 

 

 

 

[suspense39]

I look at aesthetics first then I go learn a bit about the piece, the artist, it's historic background etc. Then price background, and then I decide what's it's worth to me.....the nostalgia part would just be coincidental.

[drdroom]

There are a number of modern artists who can draw circles around the guys whose work was featured in the Heritage auction today.

 

They started training earlier, they've had better training (more/better art books, youtube tutorials, etc…) they've borrowed all the best tricks from the masters they've been able to learn from the masters' mistakes, and finally they aren't trying to crank out 3 books a month to feed their families.

 

That being said, I'm not spending money on their work. Even though, to observers with no history of reading comics, it might be considered 'Better'

 

 

 

 

I'm trying to figure out which modern artists WEREN'T featured in the Heritage auction so as to guess who you might be talking about...?

[mxs7]

I would tend to agree with you and I'm guessing there are quite a few others who would as well. While I like Herb Trimpe as much as the next guy I suppose, if this was a depiction of the first appearance of Wart Hog Man, it would not be getting this kind of attention or commanding such a potential windfall. OA showing historic moments in comics is less appealing to me than the best pure art married to the perfect story. I would be a buyer for this page from a purely historic standpoint for maybe a few grand, but for six figures, there are thousands of pieces I would rather have. Different strokes I guess, and I certainly will not be surprised if this one goes a little nuts.

 

When it comes to comic art, I'm a comic fan first and an art critic a distant second. Even if it isn't the prettiest piece, even if it isn't a bigger artist than Herb Trimpe, it just doesn't matter to me, as it's so memorable and historic. I can't think of many other interior pages that I'd rather have than this one.

 

I had drinks with another collector this evening and we played the "Would you rather?" game, comparing the Hulk #180 cover to the Kirby TOS #94 cover (let's call it a $175K+ cover), the ASM #121 cover (sold last year for $286.8K) and the McSpidey #1 cover (sold for $358.5K in 2012). As much as I love the gorgeous Kirby cover, I'd rather have the more important Hulk #180 page. ASM #121 cover vs. the Hulk #180 page would be a very tough choice - I could go either way on this one depending on the day. And I'd probably take the McSpidey #1 cover over the Hulk #180 page. So, I guess that would probably peg the value at around $250-$300K based on my chosen set of trophy OA comps. But, who knows...as you said, I wouldn't be surprised if this one went a bit mental.

 

This is very interesting to me. I think my priorities are the reverse of yours Gene. I put aesthetics first (the art critic angle), nostalgia second and historical significance last. I wonder if I am in the minority in this hobby? It would explain why my collection is filled with "pretty pictures". Maybe it's the artist in me? I've passed on many "important" pieces because the drawing or inking is flawed in my view, and I can't justify expensive prices if something looks a bit "wonky". It's honestly never occurred to me to put history into such a place of prominence. I have to think about this some more.

 

Scott

 

I am one of the few who is in Scott's camp. Aesthetics (within the category of comic/fantasy/SF art) have always been far and away my primary consideration when buying original art. In fact, I used to put nostalgia dead last, although the older I get the more it creeps up on me at times.

 

Buying for aesthetics has definitely been to the detriment of the value of my collection (the trades I could tell you about), but it has also been to the benefit of my enjoyment of my collection.

 

Mike

[lb jefferies]

I can confirm that no one has better stories than Mike

[bluechip]

When I hear guys talk about how the aesthetics trump everything else and a wonderfully rendered or evocative piece should be worth more than a first appearance, I wonder why it is that when I show collectors/dealers a piece that wows them with aesthetics, they quickly tell me that the value is in the metrics (doesn't matter how good the image is if it's not "twice-up," and doesn't matter if the cover is unique and incredible if other covers from the same series only get X dollars when people buy them. Doesn't matter if the artist hit the image out of the park if the artist is not known for doing so on a regular basis. Doesn't even matter if the art was clearly aided and abetted by a well-known master if the master's name isn't on the credits.

 

Of course, when most guys say those things they are usually making calculations based on the conventional wisdom which can't be ignored when you're spending money you might need to get back if your kid is hit by a car and you need to sell. But it's just interesting to think about that in light of conversations like the one in this thread.

 

All art gains value mostly by virtue of the way it hits people. And the reasons that it hits people can be numerous. One very legitimate reason that a piece of art can hit people is that they see it and think -- wow, that's the original art to the first comic book appearance of a superhero known in almost every household in the world.

 

Edited February 22, 2014 by bluechip

[stinkininkin]

I would tend to agree with you and I'm guessing there are quite a few others who would as well. While I like Herb Trimpe as much as the next guy I suppose, if this was a depiction of the first appearance of Wart Hog Man, it would not be getting this kind of attention or commanding such a potential windfall. OA showing historic moments in comics is less appealing to me than the best pure art married to the perfect story. I would be a buyer for this page from a purely historic standpoint for maybe a few grand, but for six figures, there are thousands of pieces I would rather have. Different strokes I guess, and I certainly will not be surprised if this one goes a little nuts.

 

When it comes to comic art, I'm a comic fan first and an art critic a distant second. Even if it isn't the prettiest piece, even if it isn't a bigger artist than Herb Trimpe, it just doesn't matter to me, as it's so memorable and historic. I can't think of many other interior pages that I'd rather have than this one.

 

I had drinks with another collector this evening and we played the "Would you rather?" game, comparing the Hulk #180 cover to the Kirby TOS #94 cover (let's call it a $175K+ cover), the ASM #121 cover (sold last year for $286.8K) and the McSpidey #1 cover (sold for $358.5K in 2012). As much as I love the gorgeous Kirby cover, I'd rather have the more important Hulk #180 page. ASM #121 cover vs. the Hulk #180 page would be a very tough choice - I could go either way on this one depending on the day. And I'd probably take the McSpidey #1 cover over the Hulk #180 page. So, I guess that would probably peg the value at around $250-$300K based on my chosen set of trophy OA comps. But, who knows...as you said, I wouldn't be surprised if this one went a bit mental.

 

This is very interesting to me. I think my priorities are the reverse of yours Gene. I put aesthetics first (the art critic angle), nostalgia second and historical significance last. I wonder if I am in the minority in this hobby? It would explain why my collection is filled with "pretty pictures". Maybe it's the artist in me? I've passed on many "important" pieces because the drawing or inking is flawed in my view, and I can't justify expensive prices if something looks a bit "wonky". It's honestly never occurred to me to put history into such a place of prominence. I have to think about this some more.

 

Scott

 

I am one of the few who is in Scott's camp. Aesthetics (within the category of comic/fantasy/SF art) have always been far and away my primary consideration when buying original art. In fact, I used to put nostalgia dead last, although the older I get the more it creeps up on me at times.

 

Buying for aesthetics has definitely been to the detriment of the value of my collection (the trades I could tell you about), but it has also been to the benefit of my enjoyment of my collection.

 

Mike

 

While I still stand by my order of preference (1-aesthetics, 2-nostalgia, and 3-historical significance and you could add a last category--rarity), I should be clear that I DO take historical significance into account, just not the primary consideration. Insane prices aside, it's probably why I don't acquire very many pieces a year, because I would like to have ALL those box's checked off, and often hold off on purchases to wait for such a piece to become available. As you can imagine, that often leaves me waiting for a long time to get a new art "fix". But I can't recall ever buying a piece for historical reasons or nostalgic reasons if I wasn't happy with the art, but I've bought numerous pieces for aesthetics alone, although I admit those are usually (relatively) cheaper purchases.

 

Scott

[AKA Rick]

One very legitimate reason that a piece of art can hit people is that they see it and think -- wow, that's the original art to the first comic book appearance of a superhero known in almost every household in the world.

 

You do touch upon one motivation which resides with a small sector of the hobby, which some collectors may call "Status" - - the bragging rights to say, "there's only one that exists and I own it!" and in their eyes they become the envy of their peers eyes and it makes them feel a certain way call it an ego boost or what have you.

 

Of course the majority of collectors just buy for themselves (after all, who can afford just to buy to be a braggart), but you'll see a few of these people even on sites like CAF who used to try to boost views of their gallery with a "look at me!" agenda more so than a "hey, I just wanna share" intention of camaraderie.

 

Then there's what/who I think are referred to as the "black hole collectors" who buy and stash away without ever wanting to draw attention to themselves, their purchases and collection. That's in part, circling back to part of the original posting's subject, why some art might have a "where is it now?" status, where the owners simply don't want to be known and some pieces do exist, but are privately held.

 

[Terry Doyle]

So, if we have have a thread of 'favourite Kirby inkers', someone like Vinnie Colletta would rank low on the preference scale.

 

As such, collectors are bringing aesthetics into the equation . . .

[delekkerste]

There are a number of modern artists who can draw circles around the guys whose work was featured in the Heritage auction today.

 

Funny you should mention this fact. I was reading the ASM "Brand New Day" TPB the other day and said to myself, "You know, [penciller] Steve McNiven is really quite good, and I'm really enjoying his cinematic storytelling ability". There's no question in my mind that, side by side, you'd have to say his artwork is technically more advanced and aesthetically nicer than many Spidey artists of yore.

 

And yet, I would have zero desire to buy any of the original art. While I thought the Dan Slott story was surprisingly good, and a huge improvement over the J. Michael Straczynski stories that preceded him, I felt that (1) what I'm reading now does not impact me in the same way or to the same extent that comics did in my formative years, (2) while the stories are nice and entertaining, they don't really "matter" anymore - they're just nice Spidey stories read by a small niche group of readers, they're not the seminal stories that were widely read back in the day, (3) decompressed storytelling, digital lettering, generic covers and other hallmarks of modern storytelling make each piece of modern OA less impactful and distinctive.

 

I'm sure there are other factors, but all of which goes back to the fact that it was the historic stories of old that impacted me in my impressionable youthful years and, without that, they're just pretty pictures. I mean, look at the work of a Lee Bermejo or Simone Bianchi and compare their work of the artists of yesterday - you'd have to say that they were more technically advanced, polished, etc., but they're working on drawing stories of long-established characters where, in all likelihood, the best and most memorable stories have already been told. Which is why the art from an interesting newer series like Fables or The Walking Dead might pique my interest, but I really don't care about buying any post-2000 art from ASM, X-Men, Daredevil, etc. no matter how nicely its drawn. Aesthetics only matter to me within the context of something I'm interested in for nostalgic or historical/collectible reasons.

[Bronty]

Id add to that by saying more polished isnt necessarily better. Kirby was anything but polished and he was drawing a ridiculous number of pages every day, but that breakneck speed is part of what made him great. Part of the force of his drawings comes from their speed. If he draws at 1/4 speed like someone today might, those drawings don't come out looking the same way. Now, Kirby's art wouldn't fly today, by and large, as it is just a different time. But I don't consider more polish to necessarily be better art. It certainly can be, but the opposite can be true as well

[Bronty]

I agree with your points though. Originality left the station 20 years ago on the established characters. If I was going to buy modern art it would be well regarded contemporary indies as opposed to dec or marvel. Stories being told for the first time not the 45th time.

[Brian Peck]

There are a number of modern artists who can draw circles around the guys whose work was featured in the Heritage auction today.

 

Funny you should mention this fact. I was reading the ASM "Brand New Day" TPB the other day and said to myself, "You know, [penciller] Steve McNiven is really quite good, and I'm really enjoying his cinematic storytelling ability". There's no question in my mind that, side by side, you'd have to say his artwork is technically more advanced and aesthetically nicer than many Spidey artists of yore.

 

And yet, I would have zero desire to buy any of the original art. While I thought the Dan Slott story was surprisingly good, and a huge improvement over the J. Michael Straczynski stories that preceded him, I felt that (1) what I'm reading now does not impact me in the same way or to the same extent that comics did in my formative years, (2) while the stories are nice and entertaining, they don't really "matter" anymore - they're just nice Spidey stories read by a small niche group of readers, they're not the seminal stories that were widely read back in the day, (3) decompressed storytelling, digital lettering, generic covers and other hallmarks of modern storytelling make each piece of modern OA less impactful and distinctive.

 

I'm sure there are other factors, but all of which goes back to the fact that it was the historic stories of old that impacted me in my impressionable youthful years and, without that, they're just pretty pictures. I mean, look at the work of a Lee Bermejo or Simone Bianchi and compare their work of the artists of yesterday - you'd have to say that they were more technically advanced, polished, etc., but they're working on drawing stories of long-established characters where, in all likelihood, the best and most memorable stories have already been told. Which is why the art from an interesting newer series like Fables or The Walking Dead might pique my interest, but I really don't care about buying any post-2000 art from ASM, X-Men, Daredevil, etc. no matter how nicely its drawn. Aesthetics only matter to me within the context of something I'm interested in for nostalgic or historical/collectible reasons.

 

I would also add that Steve McNiven's original art does not include lettering since its done digitally these days. With panel pages from stories I love the dialog being part of the art and the story is a BIG part for me. Not so much with splashes and covers but when you get to sequential art I love have the dialogue. Words and pictures mean a lot to me.

[delekkerste]

Id add to that by saying more polished isnt necessarily better. Kirby was anything but polished and he was drawing a ridiculous number of pages every day, but that breakneck speed is part of what made him great. Part of the force of his drawings comes from their speed. If he draws at 1/4 speed like someone today might, those drawings don't come out looking the same way. Now, Kirby's art wouldn't fly today, by and large, as it is just a different time. But I don't consider more polish to necessarily be better art. It certainly can be, but the opposite can be true as well

 

That is definitely true. No doubt the new Jaguar F type is more powerful and technically advanced than the classic E type, but the latter is unquestionably the more aesthetically pleasing car.

 

That said, I think we do give a lot of bonus points to the creators of yore like Kirby for their groundbreaking originality and their large body of work. But, again, doesn't that really speak to their place in history as much as the actual aesthetics of the art? I would argue that it does. I didn't grow up with Kirby, but I grew up with the fruits of his legacy, and I collect his art because of his important place in the canon and the impact he had on everything that followed (where nostalgia kicks in for me) as much as I do for the quality of the art itself.