Great New York Times story on art flipping

[Bronty]

yeah I've seen that Manzoni work many times before. 22k pounds is actually cheap I thought they went for 60-90k range.

 

The scary part is the cans are 50 years old and some of them are starting to leak.

 

I kind of like those cans of poop though I mean... I'm an artist, I'm sitting there thinking... how can I pour my entire being into my art. Well, how about I "express" what I had for breakfast

 

Its kinda brilliant and its one that you don't need much context to appreciate. Sure its a can of but you can't say anyone else put more of themselves into a piece of art

 

 

[Garf]

I love reading these drawn out conversations. I must be a glutton for punishment at heart

 

I'd like to believe that the majority of people into comic art appreciate one or several areas of fine art as well. Post war modernism (especially Bacon) is something I personally enjoy looking at. To compare the two is a mighty task because comic art in general has a fairly rigid format and doesn't really ever break the mould, if anything that's usually down to the writing and not the art.

 

DKR, Killing Joke, Miracle Man, V for Vendetta, Watchmen? There's certainly some beautiful examples of comic art in those pages but out of all of them was the art pushing the boundaries (or further exploring them)? It's easy to see David Lloyd certainly did... but then none of the art was breaking them, it's still all confined to panels and bubbles. It wasn't very long ago that I still wondered why comic art from the pioneers of the format should always fetch the highest prices, but then if the format never changes then it kinda makes sense. There won't ever be any new pioneers.

 

I find that comic art doesn't really serve the same purpose as fine art and for me some of the the parallels are pretty distant... and modern art can actually have new pioneers. I'm not saying that people can't produce very art focused and experimental comics, they just don't. It would stick out like a sore thumb.

[Bronty]

we HAVE gone round and round a lot over the years but its helped me gain understanding I think.

 

Still waiting for adam strange to trade me his prize comics for a messy bed in the name of art

[Terry Doyle]

So . . . what would you rather own . . .

 

A 9.0 copy of ASM # 1 or a can of sh*t?

[Bronty]

Depends on which I could sell for more and that's the honest truth since I'd want to keep neither

[Garf]

So . . . what would you rather own . . .

 

A 9.0 copy of ASM # 1 or a can of sh*t?

 

[adamstrange]

yeah I've seen that Manzoni work many times before. 22k pounds is actually cheap I thought they went for 60-90k range.

 

The scary part is the cans are 50 years old and some of them are starting to leak.

 

I kind of like those cans of poop though I mean... I'm an artist, I'm sitting there thinking... how can I pour my entire being into my art. Well, how about I "express" what I had for breakfast

 

Its kinda brilliant and its one that you don't need much context to appreciate. Sure its a can of but you can't say anyone else put more of themselves into a piece of art

 

Several cans have exploded.

[Bronty]

yeah I've seen that Manzoni work many times before. 22k pounds is actually cheap I thought they went for 60-90k range.

 

The scary part is the cans are 50 years old and some of them are starting to leak.

 

I kind of like those cans of poop though I mean... I'm an artist, I'm sitting there thinking... how can I pour my entire being into my art. Well, how about I "express" what I had for breakfast

 

Its kinda brilliant and its one that you don't need much context to appreciate. Sure its a can of but you can't say anyone else put more of themselves into a piece of art

 

Several can have exploded.

 

[Terry Doyle]

Some more on the Piero Manzoni cans of poop . . .

 

"In May 1961 Manzoni created 90 small cans, sealed with the text Artist's Sh*t (Merda d'Artista). Each 30-gram can was priced by weight based on the current value of gold (around $1.12 a gram in 1960). The contents of the cans remain a much-disputed enigma, since opening them would destroy the value of the artwork. Various theories about the contents have been proposed, including speculation that it is plaster. In the following years, the cans have spread to various art collections all over the world and netted large prices, far outstripping inflation. The most recent can to be sold, #83, sold in October 2008 for £97,250. It was described as:

 

"It is a joke, a parody of the art market, and a critique of consumerism and the waste it generates."

 

—Stephen Bury

 

I see that opening said cans (as per the emboldened text) would have the same kind of detrimental effect as opening a slabbed comic-book . . .

[Bronty]

yeah I've seen that Manzoni work many times before. 22k pounds is actually cheap I thought they went for 60-90k range.

 

The scary part is the cans are 50 years old and some of them are starting to leak.

 

I kind of like those cans of poop though I mean... I'm an artist, I'm sitting there thinking... how can I pour my entire being into my art. Well, how about I "express" what I had for breakfast

 

Its kinda brilliant and its one that you don't need much context to appreciate. Sure its a can of but you can't say anyone else put more of themselves into a piece of art

 

Several cans have exploded.

 

Seems like it would be prudent to drill a tiny pinprick hole to release the gas and then reseal the hole. That's what I would do, I'd hate to have my can damaged and then have to "dump" it on the market

[Terry Doyle]

yeah I've seen that Manzoni work many times before. 22k pounds is actually cheap I thought they went for 60-90k range.

 

The scary part is the cans are 50 years old and some of them are starting to leak.

 

I kind of like those cans of poop though I mean... I'm an artist, I'm sitting there thinking... how can I pour my entire being into my art. Well, how about I "express" what I had for breakfast

 

Its kinda brilliant and its one that you don't need much context to appreciate. Sure its a can of but you can't say anyone else put more of themselves into a piece of art

 

Several cans have exploded.

 

No sympathy for the buyers?

[Bronty]

Only for whomever had to clean it up!

[vodou]

Time capsules are always interesting. Reminds me of On Kawara's. Paying a lot to own, storage, other "risks"...to each their own.

 

Question: How much would you pay for a Jack Kirby turd canned up the day he started work on Captain America #1? And what if it was photo-documented and the can sign by Kirby and Simon too? And maybe even the guy running the delicatessen on the corner? Hmm? (Or inset any grailish artist on their grailish day of your liking.)

 

One of Jack's pencils (not necessarily vintage either) sold for IIRC $500 at a Sotheby's sale years and years ago. His drawing table is stashed away too in collector hands, yes? Not quite the same as fecal matter which isn't especially related to the creations he's known for, but..ya know??

[suspense39]

I love reading these drawn out conversations. I must be a glutton for punishment at heart

 

I'd like to believe that the majority of people into comic art appreciate one or several areas of fine art as well. Post war modernism (especially Bacon) is something I personally enjoy looking at. To compare the two is a mighty task because comic art in general has a fairly rigid format and doesn't really ever break the mould, if anything that's usually down to the writing and not the art.

 

DKR, Killing Joke, Miracle Man, V for Vendetta, Watchmen? There's certainly some beautiful examples of comic art in those pages but out of all of them was the art pushing the boundaries (or further exploring them)? It's easy to see David Lloyd certainly did... but then none of the art was breaking them, it's still all confined to panels and bubbles. It wasn't very long ago that I still wondered why comic art from the pioneers of the format should always fetch the highest prices, but then if the format never changes then it kinda makes sense. There won't ever be any new pioneers.

 

I find that comic art doesn't really serve the same purpose as fine art and for me some of the the parallels are pretty distant... and modern art can actually have new pioneers. I'm not saying that people can't produce very art focused and experimental comics, they just don't. It would stick out like a sore thumb.

 

I agree there are very few pioneers who play with the visual form....there are a few but not that are signed to mainstream comics, like marvel, dc etc. Most are self published, peopleC.F. It's a very traditional medium and that's hard to push against, like you said, they stand out like a sore thumb. This has become a recent interest of mine to seek out those who are attempting to break the visual forms.....and I haven't come up with much.

[Bronty]

I know this much. I'd pay a lot for the panties Scarlett Johansson wore... well.... pretty much any time, actually

[theflashunc]

I'm a sucker for Pollock myself.

 

Seeing his stuff is person is always a powerful experience.

 

 

[suspense39]

http://www.fantagraphics.com/browse-shop/abstract-comics-the-anthology.html?vmcchk=1

 

Well Garf, you got me thinking about this again and found this book, which I will now have to order!

[vodou]

It's a very traditional medium and that's hard to push against, like you said, they stand out like a sore thumb. This has become a recent interest of mine to seek out those who are attempting to break the visual forms.....and I haven't come up with much.

 

Well careful now. It's a job first, art second. Otherwise the editor kicks it back and/or fires you for somebody else to take over. Exit the editor and it's not Marvel, DC, Dark Horse or IDW. Those are real businesses with accountants and bank credit line reviews. So then it's creator-owned and operated and sure can get arty. But too arty and it's not effectively telling a story anymore. Maybe even completely unreadable. And a failure of style over substance. Am I too far off-base here?

 

What has never been delineated, imo, is the "rules" of good storytelling in comic art. Supposedly everybody knows it when they see it, editors, Stan Lee, fans, art school kids, everybody, They all talk about it all the time. And somehow it's like the world's biggest secret too. Because nobody can ever describe it to me in a way that I can really understand. I mean panel storytelling 101, but more than the Scott McCloud books (which I do "get").

 

You want truly innovative comic art, forget about the flash of McFarlane and Lee and whomever, that's all style over substance (what the fans like that is, not to say they don't storytell really well too...as I've admitted, I'd be the last to be able to tell one way or the other!) Think instead of pushing the boundaries of style INSIDE solid storytelling, or finding a completely new way to tell comic-ish stories (sequentially...but...NOT??), breaking the "rules" of panel storytelling. Yeah? Yeah!

 

I can only add that I do know when the artist's storytelling sucks. Because I can't finish the book, my mind wanders, I get bored trying to figure it out or toss it in frustration. That happened a lot in the early 90s and eventually I stopped buying new comics. Excepting 100 Bullets and a few others that still worked and (coincidentally, or not?) were headline fan favorites. But that's all so negative. I'd rather focus on the positive and know what really good storytelling looks like and be able to break it down, just like a big time artist does when doing portfolio reviews at a con. Not the words, but the seeing through his eyes, the brain piece.

[suspense39]

Linear storytelling Is definitely a traditional way to approach comics, but why does it have to be that way? Obviously it does with the big publishers because their main objective is to make money. Sure they want to put out a good product, but as we've all seen sometimes the best stuff just doesn't catch on with the larger audience.

 

One artist I think is breaking some ground with both narrative and visual is al columbia with his pim and francie story, I find it quite refreshing and ground breaking. It's not linear in any fashion but still keeps your attention throughout the book......it's great!

[suspense39]

I'm a sucker for Pollock myself.

 

Seeing his stuff is person is always a powerful experience.

 

 

They are great, it's really about seeing the mural size ones in person to get them. Anyone who's only seen them in a book hasn't seen them.....they have a visual rhythm that's sublime.