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

[BlowUpTheMoon]

Current Bid: $190,000

[COI]

Current Bid: $190,000

 

$810,000 to go.

[MediumLover]

[bb8]

Current Bid: $190,000

Not counting buyer's premium? What is that, monopoly money?

[RockMyAmadeus]

Current Bid: $190,000

Not counting buyer's premium? What is that, monopoly money?

 

What's $37,000 among friends....?

[rob_react]

Current Bid: $190,000

Not counting buyer's premium? What is that, monopoly money?

 

Heritage even does the math for people.

[Comicopolis]

Current Bid: $190,000

 

$810,000 to go.

 

In coins or stamps?

[Unca Ben]

If I had a dollar for every word in this thread, the artwork would be mine

[mackenzie999]

72.8 million - Really?

 

 

Someone said you need to see Pollocks at scale...viewing the original is always a vastly superior experience to mag or web reproductions...and if this was ever true of anyone, it is true of Rothko. His work is not accessible at first glance, they reveal themselves over time and evoke emotional states and a very significant factor is being enveloped by them at scale. these are very large paintings, meant to take up your entire field of vision.

[rob_react]

72.8 million - Really?

 

 

Someone said you need to see Pollocks at scale...viewing the original is always a vastly superior experience to mag or web reproductions...and if this was ever true of anyone, it is true of Rothko. His work is not accessible at first glance, they reveal themselves over time and evoke emotional states and a very significant factor is being enveloped by them at scale. these are very large paintings, meant to take up your entire field of vision.

 

I don't particularly like Rothko, but this is true. The difference between them in tiny reproductions and at scale/in person is like night and day.

[Chip Cataldo]

Coins are for dinks.

!!!

 

I will now specifically check all your posts each day. Honestly, you make me laugh more than the comedy shows I watch.

 

Peace,

 

Chip

[Buzzetta]

Damn coiners encroaching on my comics general argument watching time...

 

 

Get off my lawn

Edited April 29, 2014 by Buzzetta

[techtre2003]

72.8 million - Really?

 

 

Someone said you need to see Pollocks at scale...viewing the original is always a vastly superior experience to mag or web reproductions...and if this was ever true of anyone, it is true of Rothko. His work is not accessible at first glance, they reveal themselves over time and evoke emotional states and a very significant factor is being enveloped by them at scale. these are very large paintings, meant to take up your entire field of vision.

 

That's fine, you guys have your own opinions on this stuff, obviously there are many people who are impressed by it. I still question how many people actually think these types of paintings are great masterpieces because that's how they truly feel or if they are great masterpieces because someone else said so. It's in a museum so it must be important right?

 

In other words, if you didn't know who this artist was and you saw a full size reproduction of it at a local market, would you stop and marvel at it or would you pass right by it? I'm not saying it's impossible that someone likes this painting; I believe ucleben when he says he likes it. I think that second Pollock piece that was posted looks pretty cool myself. But when people start saying they feel great emotion and tear up over 4 lines of color painted on a canvas (I don't care how big it is) that's when I start having a hard time believing the sincerity of it all.

 

If you would have told me this painting sold for $1,000 I would have said that person got ripped off; but I've spent that much money on things other people never would so I could understand it a little better. When I see the 72.8 mil price tag, that's when I start making comments about it

 

 

[Chip Cataldo]

But when people start saying they feel great emotion and tear up over 4 lines of color painted on a canvas (I don't care how big it is) that's when I start having a hard time believing the sincerity of it all.

In a seriousness, this is how I feel about it as well. When someone says something like that I immediately think they need mental help. I'm mentally unstable myself, so I know what I'm talking about.

 

Peace,

 

Chip

[rob_react]

72.8 million - Really?

 

 

Someone said you need to see Pollocks at scale...viewing the original is always a vastly superior experience to mag or web reproductions...and if this was ever true of anyone, it is true of Rothko. His work is not accessible at first glance, they reveal themselves over time and evoke emotional states and a very significant factor is being enveloped by them at scale. these are very large paintings, meant to take up your entire field of vision.

 

That's fine, you guys have your own opinions on this stuff, obviously there are many people who are impressed by it. I still question how many people actually think these types of paintings are great masterpieces because that's how they truly feel or if they are great masterpieces because someone else said so. It's in a museum so it must be important right?

 

In other words, if you didn't know who this artist was and you saw a full size reproduction of it at a local market, would you stop and marvel at it or would you pass right by it? I'm not saying it's impossible that someone likes this painting; I believe ucleben when he says he likes it. I think that second Pollock piece that was posted looks pretty cool myself. But when people start saying they feel great emotion and tear up over 4 lines of color painted on a canvas (I don't care how big it is) that's when I start having a hard time believing the sincerity of it all.

 

 

I've seen people I know get very emotional over Rothko. They certainly weren't showing off their sincerity for my benefit. I don't get the same response, personally, but people like his work at a deep, emotional level. It's a common response to his work in particular. People don't share the same sort of emotional response to someone like, say, Joseph Albers (who really does just do blocks of colors and is also "important because it's in a museum")

 

And again, reproduction versus real painting is a big difference. Even at scale. There are subtleties in the way that canvas and paint play with light in a room that even high quality reproductions can't reproduce exactly.

[techtre2003]

Fair enough, I don't understand 90% of what must go through people's minds in general so I guess I shouldn't expect to understand it when it comes to art

 

And I can agree with what you say on the real vs. reproduction when you really start to look at the work. I meant it as a more of a "would this catch your eye" type of thing.

[bababooey]

I've seen people I know get very emotional over Rothko.

 

 

[the blob]

Apparently how they are set up in the Rothko chapel is an emotional experience. I have never been and agree, I am not a huge fan and don't know why these sell for such huge loot other than the fact that he didn't crank out many of them and died relatively young. With that said, I wouldn't mind a rothko in my living room, they are pleasing to look at.

 

Sure, marketing is important, and so is being the "first" to do something.

 

Pollock on the other hand I get as they really are something up close. And yes, could someone else do a pretty good Pollock now that they have his as an example? Sure, but he was the first, at least to do them on that scale with that sort of impact. Actually, my father was doing drip painting in college in 47-48 after he came back from WW II (when i don't think pollock was yet known, but maybe i'm wrong, my father was unaware of pollock, he was just fooling around with paint, better than getting dive bombed by a kamikazee or doing pacific beach landings like he had been doing 2-3 years earlier), even had a college exhibit, but he admitted nothing he was doing was anything near as good as what Pollock was doing then and a bit later.

 

Plus, again, the fact that he did not produce too many of these and died relatively young also helps with the $.

[the blob]

I hope somewhere in this thread someone mused on how Herb Trimpe sure could use a cut of this....

 

These is a discussion (I think it might be a proposed bill in Congress or perhaps just the NY state senate, I forget) re: following the French model and imposing a small levy on art auction sales so that a % goes back to the artist (assuming it is not the artist doing the auctioning). While I feel uncomfortable with the whole notion, particularly if the artist made some nice coin on the original sale, in a situation like this it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

 

I don't know if the piece is already signed, but it would be a nice gesture if the new owner offered Trimpe a fat payout to finish it off with his sig as Trimpe is apparently a really nice guy, got tossed out with the trash by Marvel in his 50s and had to struggle for a while (maybe he still is struggling, though at least now he can collect social security and be on medicare)

 

 

[the blob]

 

I agree on your knowledge regrading prices and current power players. But I have to disagree pretty strongly with this statement.

 

I see no reason why a very wealthy individual with even only a passing interest wouldn't spend 500k on something they thought was cool. Especially when as you have shown OA is so difficult to price and the uninitiated (myself included) can easily way overvalue pieces after perusing past auction results.

 

 

Agree 10000%.

 

Rich people spend money on stuff all the time because they think its cool. Stallone shelled out $250K+ for a Frazetta, was he a big Frazetta fan growing up?

 

Maybe an advisor tells him it may also double as a good investment. This is just one type of art said rich person can stick up on the wall of their expensive home. If they never read the comics, they can think of it as the first appearance of a character made more famous by Hugh Jackman in the movies. It is iconic enough that most people under 45-50 will have some inkling of what it is (not that it's the first app, but who the character is)