• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Art market
0

Started by suspense39,

68 posts in this topic

Mike Jackson

Mike Jackson

Posted
Posted

I would agree to a point. I think an exception to that rule would be the All New, All Different X-Men. I believe John Byrne's art probably outpaces Cockrum's marketwise.

 

I believe the key to investing in this arena is to always buy quality pages or covers.

 

If you see something you have to have then most likely there is someone else out there that feels the same way. You should be able to sell it quickly and make a profit.

 

If you see something that you would like to have but it isn't a "must have," then it will probably be harder to sell later for much of a profit.

 

I think a lot of new artists have already overpriced themselves. You would probably need to wait 10 or 15 to get any sort of return on investment.

 

There is a lot of art out there. More pages are being produced every day. If you are not buying the best of the best, then you probably should just stick to the stock market for investing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike Jackson

Mike Jackson

Posted
Posted (edited)

I have so little interest in work by artists like Bacon, Warhol or Pollack. The super rich want the name as sort of a status symbol to show off.

 

If their party friends aren't familiar with the artist then they aren't interested in buying it.

Edited by Mike Jackson
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted

glass houses. Name familiarity is a big driver of value in comic art too.

 

I suspect its not as different as we'd like to think. Lots of comic collectors are happy to spend 20k on a kirby but would never spend $200 on someone they haven't heard of that doesn't have a track record of big sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suspense39

suspense39

Posted
  • Author
Posted
glass houses. Name familiarity is a big driver of value in comic art too.

 

I suspect its not as different as we'd like to think. Lots of comic collectors are happy to spend 20k on a kirby but would never spend $200 on someone they haven't heard of that doesn't have a track record of big sales.

 

I'm on the same page, and I'm guilty of it to a degree as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted

With all due respect I don't think its possible for anyone to completely compartmentalize the art itself from the artist, and I'm not sure you or I or anyone would want to. Kirby's worst work still deserves to be worth a little something due to the brilliance of the rest of the oeuvre.

 

You can certainly argue that some artists are under appreciated, and hey feel free to share what names you would put forward.

 

But to say that you pay zero attention whatsoever to the name - I don't believe it. Even if you honestly believe what you say to be true, I don't think its possible to truly and completely, 100% sever the art itself from the artist and/or subject matter.

 

I can't look at a Frank Miller drawing of wolverine the way I would look at any random artist drawing any random character because I have a mental association / baggage with that artist / character combo. We all have similar such pieces of mental baggage that go with the names and or subject matters involved.

 

Whatever your favorite artist as a kid growing up reading comics was, chances are you'd pay more for that artist/subject matter simply due to your familiarity with it. To some extent its natural and its no different than some rich manhattanite buying a Bacon because they know and appreciate his work through the coffee table book aunt sue gave him when he was a teenager with an interest in art.

 

I'm sure there are rich socialites that know nothing about art and spend a fortune on a picture, but I suspect they are the exception and again, glass houses. I've met more than one comic collector with expensive books that knew shockingly little about the genre but believed the books to be a good investment.

 

To put it yet another way, context (artist, subject matter, date, place in history) is everything in both fine art and illustration.

 

If Mike Hoffman can paint a passable approximation of Frazetta's style 50 years after the fact, should they be worth the same? Of course not. One blazed a trail and one is with all due respect, IMO, a pale imitation 5 decades removed.

 

Similarly, I look at Bacon's popes and the impressive thing to me is the dates beside the title. The context. Because nobody was painting like that in the 1940s.

 

So to say you ignore context......... or at least a significant component of context (the artist's name) says to me that you're either missing the point, unaware of how you collect, or a real exception in your collecting habits.

 

Just my .02 and not to pick on you, but I used to think much like you and I've come around to realizing that, IMO, the two scenarios really aren't much different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike Jackson

Mike Jackson

Posted
Posted

With all due respect I don't think its possible for anyone to completely compartmentalize the art itself from the artist, and I'm not sure you or I or anyone would want to. Kirby's worst work still deserves to be worth a little something due to the brilliance of the rest of the oeuvre.

 

You can certainly argue that some artists are under appreciated, and hey feel free to share what names you would put forward.

 

But to say that you pay zero attention whatsoever to the name - I don't believe it. Even if you honestly believe what you say to be true, I don't think its possible to truly and completely, 100% sever the art itself from the artist and/or subject matter.

 

Well, the "name" will certainly drives prices up if I am interested in the artist.

 

Let's take Frank Miller, for example. I like his art but I wouldn't even think of paying the prices that his work commands. If I had that money it would all go to Krazy Kat Sunday pages, Little Nemos, Hal Foster Tarzan or Prince Valiant pieces.

 

If art prices were irrelevant I would trade that $142 mil Francis Bacon triptych for a Little Nemo straight up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted
With all due respect I don't think its possible for anyone to completely compartmentalize the art itself from the artist, and I'm not sure you or I or anyone would want to. Kirby's worst work still deserves to be worth a little something due to the brilliance of the rest of the oeuvre.

 

You can certainly argue that some artists are under appreciated, and hey feel free to share what names you would put forward.

 

But to say that you pay zero attention whatsoever to the name - I don't believe it. Even if you honestly believe what you say to be true, I don't think its possible to truly and completely, 100% sever the art itself from the artist and/or subject matter.

 

Well, the "name" will certainly drives prices up if I am interested in the artist.

 

Let's take Frank Miller, for example. I like his art but I wouldn't even think of paying the prices that his work commands. If I had that money it would all go to Krazy Kat Sunday pages, Little Nemos, Hal Foster Tarzan or Prince Valiant pieces.

 

If art prices were irrelevant I would trade that $142 mil Francis Bacon triptych for a Little Nemo straight up.

 

I don't care much for that triptych either. But what I'm taking from your post is not that you ignore names, just that you see better value in different names than the fine art crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike Jackson

Mike Jackson

Posted
Posted
I don't care much for that triptych either. But what I'm taking from your post is not that you ignore names, just that you see better value in different names than the fine art crowd.

 

Well, I guess the short answer is I find it pretentious.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted
I don't care much for that triptych either. But what I'm taking from your post is not that you ignore names, just that you see better value in different names than the fine art crowd.

 

Well, I guess the short answer is I find it pretentious.

 

 

I get that.

 

FWIW I have to assume that a good part of the price on that triptych is the subject matter. I.e. a Bacon painting of Freud is sort of like a Ditko drawing of Kirby or a Kirby drawing of Ditko, if such things were to exist.

 

Even if such drawings were not esoecially well realized pieces of art, they would command a high price because you have one comic art god drawing the other. So too with this picture of Freud by Bacon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike Jackson

Mike Jackson

Posted
Posted
I don't care much for that triptych either. But what I'm taking from your post is not that you ignore names, just that you see better value in different names than the fine art crowd.

 

Well, I guess the short answer is I find it pretentious.

 

 

I get that.

 

FWIW I have to assume that a good part of the price on that triptych is the subject matter. I.e. a Bacon painting of Freud is sort of like a Ditko drawing of Kirby or a Kirby drawing of Ditko, if such things were to exist.

 

Even if such drawings were not esoecially well realized pieces of art, they would command a high price because you have one comic art god drawing the other. So too with this picture of Freud by Bacon.

 

142 million is a lot of pretentiousness. If it was Norman Rockwell, N.C. Wyeth, or Maxfield Parrish, then I might be more understanding.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted

Well, and there it is. I was going to say that your real issue is the price paid. Its stupid, but I'm not sure its any more stupid than a $2m Action 1. That's a lot of pretentiousness and ego for a story you can read for $1.

 

Anyways, I hope you don't mind me challenging your thought here. Just fun and helps us all understand our motivations in collecting IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike Jackson

Mike Jackson

Posted
Posted
Well, and there it is. I was going to say that your real issue is the price paid. Its stupid, but I'm not sure its any more stupid than a $2m Action 1. That's a lot of pretentiousness and ego for a story you can read for $1.

 

Anyways, I hope you don't mind me challenging your thought here. Just fun and helps us all understand our motivations in collecting IMO.

 

Oh, it is definitely the price paid for it.

 

As they say: I don't know art but I know what I like.

 

And I don't mind being challenged. One of my great faults is I am very opinionated, though, and I can't help myself but to express them. I probably should just hold my tongue more often than I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/A-market-boom-but-only-for-some-/32074

 

I wonder how this compares to comic art collecting.....many of the high prices are character and order of appearance driven, the artist being secondary in those cases.

 

I think this is comparable not only to comic art collecting but also to comic collecting and antiques collecting.

 

Post internet, the grail pieces have been revalued (and to some extent are still being revalued) upwards while the lower end struggles.

 

In the same way that the internet has made it easier to find that exact comic or piece of comic art you are looking for I imagine its also made it easier to find that exact piece of fine art you are looking for. And thus the in-demand rarities shoot through the roof while the average pieces lag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted
Well, and there it is. I was going to say that your real issue is the price paid. Its stupid, but I'm not sure its any more stupid than a $2m Action 1. That's a lot of pretentiousness and ego for a story you can read for $1.

 

Anyways, I hope you don't mind me challenging your thought here. Just fun and helps us all understand our motivations in collecting IMO.

 

Oh, it is definitely the price paid for it.

 

As they say: I don't know art but I know what I like.

 

And I don't mind being challenged. One of my great faults is I am very opinionated, though, and I can't help myself but to express them. I probably should just hold my tongue more often than I do.

 

(thumbs u

 

And one of my great faults is I like to engage in debate on the internet :insane:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted
glass houses. Name familiarity is a big driver of value in comic art too.

 

I am sure it is for some but not for me. I have no interest in paying for a name.

 

 

:golfclap:

 

I'm pretty sure you'd buy a picture of a potted plant if it was published in a preacher story.... :baiting: Just sayin'

 

And I'm the same way with things I like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0
Go to topic listing