Dark Knight Returns #2 on Heritage

[Bronty]

Ronin is very cool for sure (thumbs u

[Bird]

Ronin, and the Elektra Lives GN. Oh baby. But I would also love some DKR and even some DKSA, just to be clear.

 

 

 

[jbud73]

Yes but pages from AF#15, Action #1 or MC #1, are the pinnacle of this industry and we couldn't even begin to peg their values as they are priceless. I just feel like the "importance of the work" card gets over used as an excuse/diversion for the sub par artwork. Also, if we apply the importance of work argument to other artists from that era like the pages of Simonson's Thor run for example, we should have similar values, no? Heck I think Miller's Daredevil run was his best work, art was exponentially better and the top piece at Heritage came in at around $100k. I just don't get the prices being thrown around for the DK2 stuff.

 

well I guess that's why they make chocolate and vanilla - because I think the DD body of artwork being miller's first significant run on a comic is not yet a fully mature work.

 

Perhaps not fully mature, but from an original art standpoint, generally more satisfying to own. The art for DK was mostly drawn and inked with the understanding that Lynn Varley would carry a lot of the load with the color work. As a result, the original pages are often open and spartan looking. As stand alone pages, they often lack visual punch. Daredevil pages, with the use of black and white contrast and slick yet expressive inks by Janson just look better in person IMHO. Having said that, DK is Miller's single most important work and deserves all the accolades and valuation it gets. And yes, this cover to DK #2 absolutely rocks.

 

For the record, I also like the art from Ronin better than DK. A LOT better. It's not even close for me, but I still think DK is a more important work.

 

Scott

 

+1 on Ronin for for just the level of sophistication and detail that Miller brought. I think he may be excused on the cover art to DKR (as Scott points out it is loose) as he was creating a seminal redefinition of arguably the most iconic character in comics history.

 

Personally I like his collaboration with Joe on the Wolverine mini best, I know people think that the inking is overstated and Millerness of the pieces gets lost, but I just love that art.

 

I think of it in these terms. If I had 500K and had to use it to purchase a piece of OA, would the DKR #2 be it? Nope. That said, if it sells for 500K I totally understand it.

 

[J.Sid]

I favor DK originals.

 

Maybe it's because they're on bigger board, but they're amazingly composed and have a presence that Ronin or DD originals can't touch.

 

[tth2]

For the record, I also like the art from Ronin better than DK. A LOT better. It's not even close for me, but I still think DK is a more important work.

Totally agree.

 

Actually, my favorite Miller work, from a pure art perspective, is Sin City. Maybe it was because he was drawing in B&W for an B&W medium, maybe it was because I was impressed that he was able to change his style so radically, but either way, I've always really loved the art in that series.

[batman_fan]

John Buscema could draw as well as anyone and told a story very well, visually yet the content of his work is largely forgettable

 

I got to disagree. Depending on the character in the art, John's stuff gets very strong prices.

 

Full disclosure, I am a huge John Buscema fan (thumbs u

[Bronty]

Me too

[tth2]

It's like throwing chum in the water!

[Bronty]

heh? I was just agreeing with you on the quality of the sin city art. Its very cool stuff. I'd pay more for DKR but might enjoy a nice SC page just as much at a lower price.

 

If that makes me a shark sniffing for stray offal then so be it

[tth2]

Sorry, thought you were agreeing with Batfan's disagreement with my opinion of John Buscema.

[Thawk]

SS,

I kind of understand your point, but DKR is considered one of the seminal comic works of all time.

 

DKR got people who don't read comics... to read comics.

 

I don't think we need to go over the importance of DKR, but Daredevil and Thor pale in comparison.

 

There are very few comics that can stand next to DKR in importance, it changed comics. And that's why the art is so expensive, it's not hyperbole to say it's a part of comic history.

 

Just add in the fact that it was only 4 issues and very limited pages exist, and that just blows the #'s up even higher.

 

That makes sense in terms of collectability, but I think that draws out the root of the discussion: if DKR wasn't such a good & significant story, this particular art wouldn't sell for a lot as it otherwise isn't really great. From that standpoint, it seems like owning the original "-script" or concepts should be worth the value this will undoubtedly go for, but the squiggly squatting Batman isn't incredible artwork (I think 95% of people would be disappointed if some mid-level artist gave us a sketch that looked like that in style & form).

 

People aren't buying the art because they love the picture without context - they're buying it cause it's an original of one of the more epic Batman stories. And, some would even argue the style fits the story, making it "good" art. But I still agree with many that it's sort of an ugly drawing.

[Bronty]

If I got that drawing from a no name artist in 2013, I think it was interesting but it wouldn't wow me (its been done). But that same drawing in 1986 is pretty mind blowing. IMO you can't judge a piece of art, comic or otherwise, without having the date (and by extension history) firmly in mind. A cubist painting in 1908 is a paradigm shift. A cubist painting of equal technical execution, painted in 2013, is pretty well derivative junque at this point.

 

Its for that reason that I've finally come to accept warhol/lichty as having merit. I don't like their stuff to look at it, not a bit. But to do what they were doing at the date they were doing it is & the resultant impact what makes the work interesting/collectible even if IMO warhols aren't anything to look at.

[delekkerste]

Its for that reason that I've finally come to accept warhol/lichty as having merit. I don't like their stuff to look at it, not a bit. But to do what they were doing at the date they were doing it is & the resultant impact what makes the work interesting/collectible even if IMO warhols aren't anything to look at.

 

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

 

A few months ago, I very nearly shipped you a copy of the Lichtenstein book that accompanied the recent retrospective. I know Caira is a lost cause but I have hope for you yet.

[buyatari]

I think this book had the biggest impact of those comic collectors who were of that right age to be old enough to have recognized the change and impact this book was taking comics yet young or open minded enough to accept these changes.

 

There was nothing like it when this book was released. It my eyes this book (not #2 per se but the series) ushered in the dark age of comics which was to follow. This later spilled out into popular culture in the 90's where everything from movies to music was black.

 

This cover had a huge impact on those buying this book at release based in part on your feelings of this direction comics took because of this book. Love it or hate it, few comic fans can see this image and think blehh or not instantly know what it is.

 

Personally I love it.

 

 

[Koa]

John Buscema could draw as well as anyone and told a story very well, visually yet the content of his work is largely forgettable

 

I got to disagree. Depending on the character in the art, John's stuff gets very strong prices.

 

Full disclosure, I am a huge John Buscema fan (thumbs u

 

 

John buscema is one of my favorite artists, especially when he inked his own work later on. His penciled/inked Conan covers are some of the most aesthetically pleasing black and white art I've ever seen. still, he was never able to make a story stand out as iconic even though his talent was as top level as anyone.

 

The content of his work is mostly forgettable. Frank Miller's is not.

 

 

[Silver Surfer]

Some of John Buscema's best work was the Avengers run he did starting with issue #255. The now classic Masters of Evil arc and the show down with Olympus were two highlights for me. It didn't hurt that Stern was writing these stories and Palmer on the inks.

[batman_fan]

Some of John Buscema's best work was the Avengers run he did starting with issue #255. The now classic Masters of Evil arc and the show down with Olympus were two highlights for me. It didn't hurt that Stern was writing these stories and Palmer on the inks.

 

now right there is some good Buscema loving (thumbs u

 

 

[drdroom]

Hmm. YMMV. I much prefer Sal or Dan Adkins on Buscema. Or JB himself, natch.

[Bronty]

my first significant exposure to john buscema was that ridiculous "patch" storyline from Wolverine regular series 1up. My first miller book was wolvie LS #2 that a friend gave me for free (and to an 11 year old getting something worth FIVE DOLLARS as a gift was a big deal).... so buscema never had a fair chance with me as compared to miller.

[tth2]

so buscema never had a fair chance with me as compared to miller.

No one in their right minds would ever compare Buscema with Miller.

 

Buscema was an adequate draftsman who drew in a plain vanilla middle of the road functional style. He was good at doing what he did, which was dependably churning out comics in volume, but there was nothing distinctive or innovative about him.

 

Miller was a genius of the comic world. His art was innovative, distinctive, interesting and anything but middle of the road. He could change styles like a chameleon. Plus he was a great writer.

 

It`s like collecting art by an artist who produces the paintings that grace the walls of a Holiday Inn (perfectly adequate) versus collecting art by a Monet, Picasso or Van Gogh (genius, innovative).

 

Having said all that, I don`t love the cover of DKR 2 either.