• 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.

1st Wolverine art @ $140K with 22 days to go!!
0

Started by drdonaldblake,

519 posts in this topic

passion4comics

passion4comics

Posted
Posted

 

painting_zpsad3e9f60.jpg

 

 

I figure it's easier to diminish and make fun of something I don't understand, than to educate myself in an attempt to understand it.

 

I was in the MOMA and there is a large painting of nothing. Just an off white color. There is NOTHING on it! This piece is worth millions. I didn't even look at who painted it, but there were these "educated" people looking at it for an extended time. I don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
delekkerste

delekkerste

Posted
Posted

I was at MoMA about 10-11 years ago with a friend of mine visiting from France. She was utterly mesmerized by one of the Rothkos on display; I thought she was going to break down and cry, like it was a transcendental religious experience. I didn't really "get it" either at the time, but having taken several art history courses since then and seeing dozens more Rothkos in person, I understand it a lot more now.

 

You can't just look at a piece of art from the '40s or '50s and say, "my kid could do that". If it wasn't for those who broke away from the centuries-established orthodoxy, your kid wouldn't even think to do it. Again, I'm not saying that paying $72 million for anything makes a lot of sense to me, but I do fully appreciate the best of Modern and Contemporary artwork. Would people have preferred art to remain stuck in the 19th century with realistic representations of figures? Would you like people to be painting things like "Still Life with iPhone and MacBook Air" these days and calling it the cutting edge of art? (shrug)zzz

Link to comment
Share on other sites
delekkerste

delekkerste

Posted
Posted
If my 14-year old daughter told me that the greatest musical act ever is One Direction (which she in fact has), I might spend a few minutes trying to explain to her why she`s wrong, but she won`t be listening to me anyways and even if she is, she doesn`t have enough context to understand my argument at the moment, and in a few years she`ll realize how wrong she was anyways. So why waste the next 3 hours debating something like that?

 

Hey now, that's just your opinion that One-D isn't the greatest musical act in history; it cannot be proven as fact. (tsk) Or, at least that's what someone here might have you believe!

 

Anyway, point taken - I really shouldn't have gotten caught up in this back-and-forth, as numerous people have PM'ed to tell me. And, normally, I wouldn't have. Usually, when I read a bunch of hot air and puffery in Comics General, I just let it slide and don't get involved. But, when someone tried to authoritatively expound on two ludicrous positions concerning subjects that I am intimately familiar with in short succession, I'm afraid I couldn't help myself this time. This individual proceeded to employ the

, the Chewbacca Defense, and all sorts of outlandish puffery, obfuscation and misrepresentation to try and defend these positions despite the crushing weight of evidence and informed opinion against him and I just could not stop myself from calling him out on it. :sorry:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aman619

Aman619

Posted
Posted

The Rothkos and Pollacks and Trimpe piece all sell for huge sums for the same basic reason... One has to "understand" them in order to appreciate them, because at first glance they ALL suckkk!

 

One is paint drips.

The other is big areas of color.

And the last one is a girlish Halloween costumed killer romping thru the woods with razors for hands. And simply, if not badly drawn even within the narrow confines of its genre.

 

Yeah. I said it! Bam. Deal wit it bub!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aman619

Aman619

Posted
Posted

Hey TTH. I always like reading your takedowns of Delli cause I know that you guys are joined at the hip and are like Jack Benny and Fred Allen, agreeing more than you disagree. But as much as you cheered his victims in this thread, comparing their opinions to young children was a certainly not the defense that were hoping for!

 

; )

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain Canuck

Captain Canuck

Posted
Posted

Nah, $1.81 mill, goes back to the earlier discussion in regards to the first full appearance in 181 and the first true appearance in 180 and value/significance. In terms of overall books I agree, but this is the first time in a panel he has appeared, nothing in 181 can take that away from this page or argue with it. No original page in 181 can say this is the first true appearance of Wolverine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
techtre2003

techtre2003

Posted
Posted

 

painting_zpsad3e9f60.jpg

 

 

I figure it's easier to diminish and make fun of something I don't understand, than to educate myself in an attempt to understand it.

 

And this is where I really take issue with the whole subject. The "you don't understand it", "you don't get art", "people with money can appreciate it" - my personal favorite.

 

If this is the kind of thing you enjoy, fine, I can accept that. I'll still snicker at you for claiming it's some great masterpiece but if that's what you want to drop millions of dollars on, it's your money. I'm a grown man collecting comicbooks, I know many people will laugh at me for that. I understand it does seem silly and that's fine with me.

 

I just hate the smugness of it all. Guess what, it's not that I don't get it, it's that I think it's . No, a 6 year old could not reproduce this painting. That would take real talent to recreate any painting stroke for stroke. However, a 6 year old could most certainly create something very similar. I get it, there is thought and emotion behind these paintings. You know what, that doesn't make them good.

 

And believe it or not I'm not some unwashed heathen who can't enjoy art. I love seeing and hearing what talented people can produce with their hands. But some of this contemporary "art" is just laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted

Come on. A six year would never be able to paint that, storms for stroke or otherwise. Those colors are all soft muted tones and the six year old would never be able to achieve that look.

 

I've not seen one in person which they say is a huge part of the experience but forgetting that for a moment they don't have to be any good to achieve that price. Look at our own hobby. Lots of bad books and bad art get significant price tags simply due to their place in history. Really we are better situated than most to understand it because our fundamental behaviour as collectors isnt that different. But, we don't collect it and the price tag is huge so we pick it apart. Paying 50m for a Rothko and 50k or 100k for a Kirby ARE NOT THAT DIFFERENT. On the surface both look like they could be created by children. There's probably more to each than immediately meets the eye. And the price tag of either price is inextricably intertwined with the artist's place in the history of his medium.

 

Simply put if one can understand comic pages going for six figures based on "history" its not any great mental exercise to understand 7 or 8 figures for fine art based on "history".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
techtre2003

techtre2003

Posted
Posted
Come on. A six year would never be able to paint that, storms for stroke or otherwise. Those colors are all soft muted tones and the six year old would never be able to achieve that look.

 

I've not seen one in person which they say is a huge part of the experience but forgetting that for a moment they don't have to be any good to achieve that price. Look at our own hobby. Lots of bad books and bad art get significant price tags simply due to their place in history. Really we are better situated than most to understand it because our fundamental behaviour as collectors isnt that different. But, we don't collect it and the price tag is huge so we pick it apart. Paying 50m for a Rothko and 50k or 100k for a Kirby ARE NOT THAT DIFFERENT. On the surface both look like they could be created by children. There's probably more to each than immediately meets the eye. And the price tag of either price is inextricably intertwined with the artist's place in the history of his medium.

 

Simply put if one can understand comic pages going for six figures based on "history" its not any great mental exercise to understand 7 or 8 figures for fine art based on "history".

 

Ok, 6 years old is probably a little young. Change that to any adult and I'd still stand behind that statement.

 

I LOVE comics. But I'd still say it's crazy to pay 50k or 100k for a Kirby! I have a hard time paying over a few hundred dollars on a single book. I'm working on a ASM run myself and I always struggle with the fact that to complete the run I'll have to drop a few thousand on a #1. The only way I can even justify that is knowing it's an investment that I'll be able to resell if I ever need to.

 

Plus, for a lot of people, comics are a big part of their youth. Nostalgia plays a HUGE roll in the money we spend on these books. I don't think many people are dropping $$$ on these paintings because it reminds them of their childhood :)

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