A second copy of CGC 9.0 Action Comics #1 on the census (7/22/14)

[CycleGirl]

I think what Gene is trying to say is that a movie might be art but the physical movie reel is not.

 

A comic story might be art but the physical comic book, not.

 

A piece of literature art but the bound book itself, not. etc.

 

A great song art but the handwritten manuscript upon which the lyrics were drafted, not.

 

Etc. etc. etc.

 

Yes, that's the distinction I was going for (not commercial vs. non-commercial); a better example than the above is that a great song might be art, but the rare record that it appears on is just a collectible.

 

The original art to Action #1 you might call commercial art or illustration, but you could call it art. The physical comic book itself, though, is just a collectible, with most of its value derived from its scarcity in grade with the imprimatur of a third party grading service (the book's historical importance is taken as a given to establish a base value, but most of the incremental value is based solely on condition). You wouldn't necessarily care that much about the slightest imperfections on the Mona Lisa or the Action #1 original art (if it existed, of course), because it's the original and one of a kind - i.e., it's art. Not so with the physical Action #1 the comic book, because it's not art, it's a collectible, and scarcity in grade is what drives most of the value (just look at the difference in price between a 2.0 and a 9.0 copy - both had the same cultural impact and yet one is worth multiples of the other).

 

I don't have much time this morning.

 

I do understand what you're saying and I while I agree there's a difference, I don't agree that a reproduction cannot be art. Let me see if I can summarize. Maybe we can agree on this part. I think there are three distinctions.

 

1) Art - the image, song, story, etc. This is the abstract concept that may live on even if the original is destroyed. For example, many books of the bible live on even though the original manuscripts no longer exist.

 

2) Original art - this is the original embodiment of the artist's original work. For example, the painting of the Mona Lisa or the Parthenon in Athens.

 

3) Reproduction - a reproduction of an artist's work done on at a known date, sometimes limited in number. Examples, the dead sea scrolls, Action #1.

 

I agree that there is a difference between all of these. And, I agree that there is a material difference between 2 and 3. However, I see no reason to say that #3 is not art. I agree that it is not original art.

 

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

That is awesome.

 

Had to google... some kind of strong man traveling show, looks like?

 

It was sold as a theatrical poster, but I'm assuming some sort of outdoor show in a scaled down vein of the Buffalo Bill variety. I can't find anything about the man, the poster, or the lithographer. The downside is the white border originally around the poster has been trimmed off... the upside... I'm guessing the poster is probably one-of-a-kind.

 

I couldn`t find any info on the net about the poster, but I found a story about a strongman named James W. Kennedy. I guess he was pretty big back then.

forty-years-with-the-worlds-strongest-men.

I think the old fashion way of looking in a real library might be the best way to research the poster, as the internet doesn`t seem to have much.

btw the mention of James W. Kennedy is somewhere in the middle of the strongmen article(long-read).

 

[delekkerste]

3) Reproduction - a reproduction of an artist's work done on at a known date, sometimes limited in number. Examples, the dead sea scrolls, Action #1.

 

I agree that there is a difference between all of these. And, I agree that there is a material difference between 2 and 3. However, I see no reason to say that #3 is not art. I agree that it is not original art.

 

 

Is New Mutants #98 art then? How about New Warriors #12, Transformers #47 or Secret Wars II #7? I think people are reaching to ascribe mythical (and mystical) artistic qualities to Action #1 to justify its current and potential future price when, at the end of the day, it's not art museums and art collectors buying these copies; it's comic book collectors buying them as the collectibles they are for reasons quite apart from artistic merit or aesthetic appreciation of the contents (which they can't even see in a slab).

[rob_react]

The word artist for fine arts was first use in 1767.

Da Vinci for example was known as a painter. A craftsmen held in no higher regard than carpenter or potter.

 

Whatever semantic distinction you might want to make about "artist" or "painter" or whatever, this is not true. Da Vinci was famous during his lifetime and by impact of his recognized genius was in sought after and feted by the by the most powerful people in the world (multiple popes, the Borgias at the height of their fame and power, the King of France, the Sfrozas, the de Medicis.) With the exception of the first few years of his life he has never not been famous.

 

There's a story that King Francoise I held Da Vinci in his arms when he died.

[delekkerste]

The word artist for fine arts was first use in 1767.

Da Vinci for example was known as a painter. A craftsmen held in no higher regard than carpenter or potter.

 

Whatever semantic distinction you might want to make about "artist" or "painter" or whatever, this is not true. Da Vinci was famous during his lifetime and by impact of his recognized genius was in sought after and feted by the by the most powerful people in the world (multiple popes, the Borgias at the height of their fame and power, the King of France, the Sfrozas, the de Medicis.) With the exception of the first few years of his life he has never not been famous.

 

There's a story that King Francoise I held Da Vinci in his arms when he died.

 

Exactly - the notion that pre-1767 artists like Da Vinci were held in the same regard as carpenters is absurd given the abundant history we know about many artists. Just look at the lives of Peter Paul Rubens or Anthony van Dyck, just to name two - does it sound like these guys were leading the lives of and held in the the same regard as typical craftsmen??

[kav]

Soory. I got that viewpoint from reading Da Vinci's notebooks and how he spoke about his work and income.

[Bookery]

That is awesome.

 

Had to google... some kind of strong man traveling show, looks like?

 

It was sold as a theatrical poster, but I'm assuming some sort of outdoor show in a scaled down vein of the Buffalo Bill variety. I can't find anything about the man, the poster, or the lithographer. The downside is the white border originally around the poster has been trimmed off... the upside... I'm guessing the poster is probably one-of-a-kind.

 

I couldn`t find any info on the net about the poster, but I found a story about a strongman named James W. Kennedy. I guess he was pretty big back then.

forty-years-with-the-worlds-strongest-men.

I think the old fashion way of looking in a real library might be the best way to research the poster, as the internet doesn`t seem to have much.

btw the mention of James W. Kennedy is somewhere in the middle of the strongmen article(long-read).

 

Thanks CC! That's a lot more info than I had!

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

That is awesome.

 

Had to google... some kind of strong man traveling show, looks like?

 

It was sold as a theatrical poster, but I'm assuming some sort of outdoor show in a scaled down vein of the Buffalo Bill variety. I can't find anything about the man, the poster, or the lithographer. The downside is the white border originally around the poster has been trimmed off... the upside... I'm guessing the poster is probably one-of-a-kind.

 

I couldn`t find any info on the net about the poster, but I found a story about a strongman named James W. Kennedy. I guess he was pretty big back then.

forty-years-with-the-worlds-strongest-men.

I think the old fashion way of looking in a real library might be the best way to research the poster, as the internet doesn`t seem to have much.

btw the mention of James W. Kennedy is somewhere in the middle of the strongmen article(long-read).

 

Thanks CC! That's a lot more info than I had!

No problem. I love stuff like those old vintage posters.

 

[loadstone]

3) Reproduction - a reproduction of an artist's work done on at a known date, sometimes limited in number. Examples, the dead sea scrolls, Action #1.

 

I agree that there is a difference between all of these. And, I agree that there is a material difference between 2 and 3. However, I see no reason to say that #3 is not art. I agree that it is not original art.

 

 

Is New Mutants #98 art then? How about New Warriors #12, Transformers #47 or Secret Wars II #7? I think people are reaching to ascribe mythical (and mystical) artistic qualities to Action #1 to justify its current and potential future price when, at the end of the day, it's not art museums and art collectors buying these copies; it's comic book collectors buying them as the collectibles they are for reasons quite apart from artistic merit or aesthetic appreciation of the contents (which they can't even see in a slab).

 

Throwing my 2 cents in. I agree that #3 is questionable as art and is it's own genre of reproduction art at best but with comics it may be different. The only caveat I can think of is in the absence of original art. Does the original art for AC #1 still exist? (do any of the pages for the original comic panels still exist?). If not, then that really only leaves the first prints of AC#1 comics left as the only true genuine representation of that art.

 

On the other side, imagine a day, if you can, where all the known great masterpieces have succumbed to decay and none of the great works of our past exist in their once original form despite advanced preservation techniques. The only proof of their existence and remaining form is in reproduction prints or digital/film photographs of the original paintings. I still don't think you could call the prints or the photos of the original art actual art unless something additional artistic was done to the way they were taken, but in the future when this occurs, a "certified" original print will have to be declared to stand in the place of the original as it's genuine representation of that lost art.

 

 

[CycleGirl]

3) Reproduction - a reproduction of an artist's work done on at a known date, sometimes limited in number. Examples, the dead sea scrolls, Action #1.

 

I agree that there is a difference between all of these. And, I agree that there is a material difference between 2 and 3. However, I see no reason to say that #3 is not art. I agree that it is not original art.

 

 

Is New Mutants #98 art then? How about New Warriors #12, Transformers #47 or Secret Wars II #7? I think people are reaching to ascribe mythical (and mystical) artistic qualities to Action #1 to justify its current and potential future price when, at the end of the day, it's not art museums and art collectors buying these copies; it's comic book collectors buying them as the collectibles they are for reasons quite apart from artistic merit or aesthetic appreciation of the contents (which they can't even see in a slab).

 

Yes, all of the above are art by the definition as I understand it.

 

I think that this is the definition that applies : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced

 

For something to fall under the definition of art, I do not believe that it needs to be unique or even particularly good.

 

When I refer to a comic book as a work of art, I'm not referring strictly to the illustrative images within, BTW. I'm referring to the integrated illustrated story that makes a comic book what it is. In the same way that Jane Eyre is a work of art. That is, a work derived from "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination"

 

Someone used the word craftsman or painter earlier. I think it's useful to consider whether the creators of comic books are artists or simply craftsman. When I have a carpet installed in my house or have the walls painted, it is done by a craftsman. There is little or no creativity involved in these assignments.

 

In the creation of a comic book, there are original stories and artwork, and dialog to be created each time. This is clearly in the realm of art. The result may be good or bad, but it's still art.

 

 

[VintageComics]

The initial caution as I understand it is that they didn't actually have an iron-clad idea of what was driving sales on Action Comics. #1 sold 130,000 out of a 202,000 print run. #2 sold 136,000 out of a 211,000 print run. Solid, but not a blow-the-doors-off overnight success.

 

Harry Donenfeld gave an interview in 1941 which lays out some facts that can largely be corroborated by the events of the time and by testimony in DC v Bruns. Around the time of #3 and #4 seems to have been a turning point, internally. There is a contest in Action #4 which asks readers to list what their favorite characters of Action were -- that is what they used to confirm that Superman was driving sales (this according to court testimony and Donenfeld's interview). They got those results and were able to put them in effect in time for the Action #7 cover.

 

Still, even after that, they were pretty cautious moving forward, obviously.

 

 

Thanks, markseifert, for the great insights! This is really the only point I've been making... the actual history of comics publishing is quite fascinating in itself... it would be a shame if it were lost due to oversimplification and mythification. To answer Roy, I never said Superman didn't have a huge impact (that would be absurd)... and though his popularity grew very fast, it wasn't overnight. And he didn't appear in a vacuum... the character expanded on plenty of prior precedents.

 

 

I apologize if I misunderstood.

[VintageComics]

And I will amend my one comment...

 

Though Action #1 wouldn't necessarily stand out amongst the pulp covers of the day, it wouldn't have been racked with them either. However, seeing that previously posted mock-up of a June 1938 comic rack, I have to admit it does seem striking when compared to the other mostly strip-adapted art of the day. So I stand corrected.

 

That's where my disconnect with your comments came. I wouldn't have connected the comic at all to pulps.

 

I felt the pulp market was aimed at a slightly higher age bracket than comics, initially.

 

I have no idea when this photo came out (pre or post 1938)... somebody more adept at identifying vintage autos might be able to date it...

 

 

 

Those cars look to be well pre 1939.

[CycleGirl]

Here's what the comics newsstand looked like for the June 1938 issues.

 

Note: this is a photoshop put together by another boardie whose name I have forgotten.

 

The AC #1 and the Popeye would have been most eye-catching for me if I was a kid then.

 

That would have been 20c well spent....

 

This newsstand image is so much fun to look at!

 

I still do think that the AC #1 stands out from the other comics as something new and different. However, I feel like through the posts in this thread, I've come to a better understanding of the time it took for Superman to become a success.

 

I wonder if the Walking Dead would be a good modern comparison. Of course, it has become one of the most wildly popular comics / graphic novel / tv series of the last couple of decades. However, I would venture that the first few issue sales were quite low compared to what would happen later after word of mouth spread.

[CycleGirl]

 

 

 

.....well put, R........ there was a little bit of talk about the Fine Art angle in the GA Forum.... and I find the comparisons and different viewpoints to be fascinating.... GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

..... it's in the Action 1 Predictions thread....

 

V

CycleGirl

I don't know you...but I nominate your post as an XLNT post. I am not the arbiter of taste for the world but I am an arbiter of XLNT posts!

 

 

Thank you. I haven't posted very much in a long while so I'm probably unknown to a lot of people.

 

Can I take some credit in bringing you back?

 

You take credit for everything else. Why not?

 

Actually, Roy did send me an email out of the blue and got me to scan some of my books... Kind of got me thinking about comics again.

[Neopacket]

So between here and groups on Facebook, I've seen quite a few posts of people saying they think the book belongs in a museum or wish it had been purchased by one...

 

 

I've been drinking so i got to thinking, what if the group were to Crowd Fund the purchase of something like this and then donate it?

 

For example, if we had 8000 people sign up and give $500 to the cause of buying this book, we would have gotten together about $4 Million. Granted that would be on the more extreme end of buying. One could Crown fund other, more realistic purchases.

 

 

OR... if someone started a Comic museum. Donated and Crown funded books/items make up the collection. There could be perks for people who participate in the funding of a Grail. Like a special Backers Weekend where you get some time up close with the books...

 

I'd give up $500 to be part of moving AC #1 into a museum, especially if i got the perk of seeing it in person, maybe a picture with it...

 

... then again, maybe i'm drinking too much again

[VintageComics]

So between here and groups on Facebook, I've seen quite a few posts of people saying they think the book belongs in a museum or wish it had been purchased by one...

 

 

I've been drinking so i got to thinking, what if the group were to Crowd Fund the purchase of something like this and then donate it?

 

For example, if we had 8000 people sign up and give $500 to the cause of buying this book, we would have gotten together about $4 Million. Granted that would be on the more extreme end of buying. One could Crown fund other, more realistic purchases.

 

 

OR... if someone started a Comic museum. Donated and Crown funded books/items make up the collection. There could be perks for people who participate in the funding of a Grail. Like a special Backers Weekend where you get some time up close with the books...

 

I'd give up $500 to be part of moving AC #1 into a museum, especially if i got the perk of seeing it in person, maybe a picture with it...

 

... then again, maybe i'm drinking too much again

It's tough enough to get 2 people to agree on something, nevermind 8000 people. Nightmare.

 

 

[chrisco37]

So between here and groups on Facebook, I've seen quite a few posts of people saying they think the book belongs in a museum or wish it had been purchased by one...

 

 

I've been drinking so i got to thinking, what if the group were to Crowd Fund the purchase of something like this and then donate it?

 

For example, if we had 8000 people sign up and give $500 to the cause of buying this book, we would have gotten together about $4 Million. Granted that would be on the more extreme end of buying. One could Crown fund other, more realistic purchases.

 

 

OR... if someone started a Comic museum. Donated and Crown funded books/items make up the collection. There could be perks for people who participate in the funding of a Grail. Like a special Backers Weekend where you get some time up close with the books...

 

I'd give up $500 to be part of moving AC #1 into a museum, especially if i got the perk of seeing it in person, maybe a picture with it...

 

... then again, maybe i'm drinking too much again

It's tough enough to get 2 people to agree on something, nevermind 8000 people. Nightmare.

 

 

Yep. "8000 Boardies & a Comic Book".

 

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

So between here and groups on Facebook, I've seen quite a few posts of people saying they think the book belongs in a museum or wish it had been purchased by one...

 

 

I've been drinking so i got to thinking, what if the group were to Crowd Fund the purchase of something like this and then donate it?

 

For example, if we had 8000 people sign up and give $500 to the cause of buying this book, we would have gotten together about $4 Million. Granted that would be on the more extreme end of buying. One could Crown fund other, more realistic purchases.

 

 

OR... if someone started a Comic museum. Donated and Crown funded books/items make up the collection. There could be perks for people who participate in the funding of a Grail. Like a special Backers Weekend where you get some time up close with the books...

 

I'd give up $500 to be part of moving AC #1 into a museum, especially if i got the perk of seeing it in person, maybe a picture with it...

 

... then again, maybe i'm drinking too much again

You have some good points, but most people are probably going to want to donate their $500 to different causes. I don`t think you would get many people wanting to Crowdfund to buy AC#1. You have a great idea that should maybe be used to Crowdfund maybe a different project.

 

[rob_react]

FWIW, a museum interested in having an Action #1 would be far better served getting a high grade restored copy. No one in the general public cares about the technical grade unless it's attached to the value and that's not really the way museums operate- pimping things because they're valuable.

[Bookery]

FWIW, a museum interested in having an Action #1 would be far better served getting a high grade restored copy. No one in the general public cares about the technical grade unless it's attached to the value and that's not really the way museums operate- pimping things because they're valuable.

 

Exactly. If I had millions, I'd open a comics museum (arranged quite differently from Geppi's), but even if I had unlimited funds, there would be no reason for me to want the "best" Action #1... a nice presentable copy would do, because I'd display it in its historical context... the grade would not be relevant. Now something like the "pay copy" of Marvel #1 would be different... the copy itself has historical significance, beyond its grade. And all grades are just opinions anyway... we've already seen lots of disagreements on these very boards about whether the other 9.0 is better than this one, whether this has had too much manipulation, etc. None of these are concerns of a museum.