Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million 2 2

[tth2]

wouldn't that be "baaaa, baaa, baa" in this case?

Well, at the end of the day, the value of anything can only go up if others want to buy it. So you could make the same comment about collectors of any collectible, including comic OA.

[Bronty]

I think you're taking my post outside it's context(?) which was just a play on amans comment that sometimes the market acts like sheep. Which is true. Wasn't specifically commenting on Lichtenstein or in fact any particular market. 'In this case' referred back to amans comment not to fine art collectors in general. Btw some borises aren't bad

Edited October 26, 2011 by Bronty

[delekkerste]

wouldn't that be "baaaa, baaa, baa" in this case?

Well, at the end of the day, the value of anything can only go up if others want to buy it. So you could make the same comment about collectors of any collectible, including comic OA.

 

Oh yeah, for sure - it's amazing how certain memes develop and spread like wildfire via groupthink in the comic OA world. There's also a profound unwillingness to analyze and be critical about the art in any way. Not saying that fine art collectors aren't subject to much of the same (though at least there are art critics and scholars who can somewhat offset the cheerleading from the dealers), but it's definitely a pot/kettle situation if anyone thinks the same doesn't happen in comic OA.

[Bronty]

The unwillingness to criticize is probably worse in comic oa because heaven forbid you call a comic artist you consider a turd a turd...... you WILL have owners of that artists work on these boards and now you've offended them. The art world at large being a bigger market.... I'm sure this issue still exists but it would probably be less prevalent

 

I know I've stopped myself from expressing certain opinions in the past because it seems a little gauche to say 'hey that piece you just bought for 20k really blows. Smarten up.'

 

It's not worth it. So I find myself only saying something when I have something nice to say. Which is good for community but not so much for critique and analysis

Edited October 26, 2011 by Bronty

[tth2]

The unwillingness to criticize is probably worse in comic oa because heaven forbid you call a comic artist you consider a turd a turd...... you WILL have owners of that artists work on these boards and now you've offended them. The art world at large being a bigger market.... I'm sure this issue still exists but it would probably be less prevalent

 

I know I've stopped myself from expressing certain opinions in the past because it seems a little gauche to say 'hey that piece you just bought for 20k really blows. Smarten up.'

 

It's not worth it. So I find myself only saying something when I have something nice to say. Which is good for community but not so much for critique and analysis

That`s not completely true. There may be some reluctance to criticize a piece to its owner`s face or in the owner`s thread, which is a good thing. I`m not sure many people criticize a piece of fine art to the owner`s face either.

 

On the other hand, although McFarlane`s pieces are highly sought after as evidenced by their high prices, there is no shortage of folks who come on here to criticize him. And don`t talk about Liefeld!

 

I think a lot of other collectors might also defend their acquisitions by saying it`s driven by nostalgia more than just pure art appreciation.

[Bronty]

That's missing the point This community is small enough that any public critique of any specific piece has a pretty good probability of either directly or effectively being to the owner's face. Maybe one cares about that and maybe one doesn't; for my part I'd rather keep it to myself than create any ill will with the owner who is invariably very nice.

 

Contrast that with a piece of modern art owned by a public institution. No specific owner; no one to upset. It only follows that people would feel more free in discussing it

 

 

But that's all so negative. The wonderful flip side of being in a small hobby is that you can praise wonderful pieces directly to the owner's face too.

 

[Aman619]

another aspect of this discussion occurred to me this morning. It probably wont change any minds, but I think its interesting to note that being mad at Lichy for his comics inspired paintings selling for 35 million bucks, is akin to expecting Marvel and the creators to get a piece of a comic book that now sells for 100K.

 

Lichtys stake in those paintings ended the moment they placed a red SOLD sticker on them. He never received another dime from creating them. The BIG money that caused this Lynch Lichty thread should be aimed at the 1% who are buying and selling and profiting off the artworks.

 

A side note perhaps, since Lichty still made out pretty good getting 20 or 50K for them back in the 60s (that was big money!) but....

 

anybody know what they sold for the first time out of the studio? The first wave probably were bought for peanuts compared to their eventual values.

[comix4fun]

another aspect of this discussion occurred to me this morning. It probably wont change any minds, but I think its interesting to note that being mad at Lichy for his comics inspired paintings selling for 35 million bucks, is akin to expecting Marvel and the creators to get a piece of a comic book that now sells for 100K.

 

Lichtys stake in those paintings ended the moment they placed a red SOLD sticker on them. He never received another dime from creating them. The BIG money that caused this Lynch Lichty thread should be aimed at the 1% who are buying and selling and profiting off the artworks.

 

A side note perhaps, since Lichty still made out pretty good getting 20 or 50K for them back in the 60s (that was big money!) but....

 

anybody know what they sold for the first time out of the studio? The first wave probably were bought for peanuts compared to their eventual values.

 

 

That's assuming the current asking prices are the reason for the ire.

 

The analogy is slightly flawed because the comic that now sells for $100k was an already compensated piece of work for the creator in your scenario, whereas none of these creators were compensated when the images were lifted to make these paintings.

 

The "big money" shined a light for more people to see what happened in relation to the original artists, but isn't necessarily the reason for the ire. The appropriation of the original image, whether a dime or a dollar is the origin of the anger...the prices thrown about are means for broader interest in the underlying topic.

 

Artists are just as angry at the Granitos of the world where it's $50 in prints being sold using their images.

[comix4fun]

anybody know what they sold for the first time out of the studio? The first wave probably were bought for peanuts compared to their eventual values.

 

 

I meant to answer this by itself. According to the foundation and art historians the first group of paintings were shown to Andy Warhol, the paintings were then to be displayed in the Leo Castelli Gallery. The entire run of paintings (6-8 of them I believe) were purchased by very influential art collectors before the show even opened.

 

Within 2 weeks Newsweek was reviewing the work, reproducing "Girl with Ball", and the pieces would begin national exhibitions.

 

No prices listed, but some heavy weights got behind it from the beginning. What's the term Gene used? Kingmakers?

 

Given how fast he gained acclaim, and how quickly the pieces were traveling the country I don't think anything past those first couple of paintings went inexpensively and I doubt those did either.

[Aman619]

found this image. look at the scale of these things.. I think they are really cool.

[comix4fun]

Was that one of his paintings or one of his permanent murals?

[Aman619]

haha beats me! I thought it was an early gallery show maybe.

[*paull*]

 

Lichtys stake in those paintings ended the moment they placed a red SOLD sticker on them. He never received another dime from creating them. The BIG money that caused this Lynch Lichty thread should be aimed at the 1% who are buying and selling and profiting off the artworks.

 

That's not entirely true. I'm sure his estate is paid when the works are used in publications and I'd be shocked if countless prints haven't been made of those stolen images.

 

And perhaps that's the ultimate irony.... the original comic artists probably didn't make a dime on reprints of their work from DC or Marvel, however Lichty make millions off of reprinting the work stolen from it.

Edited October 26, 2011 by *paull*

[pinupcartoonguy]

Out of curiosity, are people more offended by the fact the Lichtenstien profited from the use of the work or the fact that the original artist didn't profit?

[*paull*]

I'm a big fan of contemporary art and comic art, but in his case, I'm offended that he profited through outright theft.

 

 

[comix4fun]

Out of curiosity, are people more offended by the fact the Lichtenstien profited from the use of the work or the fact that the original artist didn't profit?

 

 

Neither.

 

Credit, attribution, and honest disclosure. That's what's set me off from the beginning. Rob Granito gets my ire up too, and that's a few hundred dollars total.

 

Those original artists' names belong right there, next to Roy's on every single piece. The dollar amount is inconsequential to the overarching ethical issue.

[Claudio]

The unwillingness to criticize is probably worse in comic oa because heaven forbid you call a comic artist you consider a turd a turd...... you WILL have owners of that artists work on these boards and now you've offended them. The art world at large being a bigger market.... I'm sure this issue still exists but it would probably be less prevalent

 

I know I've stopped myself from expressing certain opinions in the past because it seems a little gauche to say 'hey that piece you just bought for 20k really blows. Smarten up.'

 

It's not worth it. So I find myself only saying something when I have something nice to say. Which is good for community but not so much for critique and analysis

 

Speaking of comic art, it is hard to find anything that is truly great or groundbreaking or revolutionary. Most of it served it purpose. It wasn't for expression, or artistic ability, or to blaze a path for future artists. It was to tell a story and to make a buck. It was production art that was done on a timeline.

 

It really isn't about the art itself in most instances. It is about the nostalgia. That view might seem like a cop-out but it is the truth. I think that is why people have a hard time slamming other people's pieces. I have some art that just looks horrible but it makes me smile every time I see it. Do I want others to slam it. No. Out of respect, we don't slam others' pieces.

[jick]

Check this out:

 

http://www.artbrokerage.com/artist/Steve-Kaufman/Superman-Burst-31517

 

It is Steve Kaufman who is an assistant to Andy Warhol. This is not even art but a 1/1 print. It is lifted from a Garcia-Lopez image of the 90's Superman with the mullet.

 

And it is selling for $6,300.

 

That is just overboard. Here's more:

 

http://www.artbrokerage.com/_main/search_advanced.php?q2=1&q=superman

 

Those prices are just of prints and they are ridiculous.

[comix4fun]

Check this out:

 

http://www.artbrokerage.com/artist/Steve-Kaufman/Superman-Burst-31517

 

It is Steve Kaufman who is an assistant to Andy Warhol. This is not even art but a 1/1 print. It is lifted from a Garcia-Lopez image of the 90's Superman with the mullet.

 

And it is selling for $6,300.

 

That is just overboard. Here's more:

 

http://www.artbrokerage.com/_main/search_advanced.php?q2=1&q=superman

 

Those prices are just of prints and they are ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

Didn't even take the time to lightbox and redraw the image, it's a line for line copy with splashes of color...

 

This would seem to be the sloppy end of that slippery slope.

[innocuous]

Out of curiosity, are people more offended by the fact the Lichtenstien profited from the use of the work or the fact that the original artist didn't profit?

 

 

Neither.

 

Credit, attribution, and honest disclosure.

In principle, I agree. However, would there have been such a market for his work if he provided credit on each piece? I think not.

 

 

Speaking of comic art, it is hard to find anything that is truly great or groundbreaking or revolutionary. Most of it served it purpose. It wasn't for expression, or artistic ability, or to blaze a path for future artists. It was to tell a story and to make a buck. It was production art that was done on a timeline.

 

It really isn't about the art itself in most instances. It is about the nostalgia. That view might seem like a cop-out but it is the truth. I think that is why people have a hard time slamming other people's pieces. I have some art that just looks horrible but it makes me smile every time I see it. Do I want others to slam it. No. Out of respect, we don't slam others' pieces.

What about commissions? There is no nostalgia attached, other than the fondness you may have for the character. Chances are, you really like the style of a particular artist, hence the art itself.