2004 Original Art Acquisitioins

[shrunkenhead]

FD,

 

I could draw a picture and shout at the top of my lungs that it's the best ever, but that doesn't mean it's better than Renoir's "Au Moulin de la Galette". That's just asinine. If I never see this "what I collect..." argument trotted out again, I'll be fine with that.

 

 

I couldn't agree more here.

 

 

I've got some newly minted money, but you know what? I have no idea what a Monet Argetneuil 1872 painting is, nor do I know what an 1879 Vetheuil painting is. Stop name dropping.

 

I don't pretend to be an art expert, but I also have some idea about these names. I don't think this was name-dropping either, just a good old fashioned example.

 

 

some guy in a homeless shelter having his art delivered there doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence.

 

 

Good lord, I hadn't heard that one...how sad...is that for real??

[delekkerste]

Good lord, I hadn't heard that one...how sad...is that for real??

 

From the Dec. 2004 Playboy article on comic art by Glen David Gold:

 

"A couple of years ago, the downside of this hobby started bothering me. The bright sparks I felt when acquiring artwork didn't help. I kept thinking about the emptiness I saw in some of my peers' eyes, about how one guy had a dealer meet him at his current residence, a homeless shelter..."

 

As I am wont to say, "I couldn't make this up if I tried."

[drbanner]

From the Dec. 2004 Playboy article on comic art...

 

So it really is all about the articles!

 

[Murph]

Hey Gene, perhaps you could create an original comic art hedge fund?

Hell, I know there's a texas hold 'em hedge fund out there.

 

Brian

[heartened]

FD,

 

I could draw a picture and shout at the top of my lungs that it's the best ever, but that doesn't mean it's better than Renoir's "Au Moulin de la Galette". That's just asinine. If I never see this "what I collect..." argument trotted out again, I'll be fine with that.

 

 

I couldn't agree more here.

 

 

I've got some newly minted money, but you know what? I have no idea what a Monet Argetneuil 1872 painting is, nor do I know what an 1879 Vetheuil painting is. Stop name dropping.

 

I don't pretend to be an art expert, but I also have some idea about these names. I don't think this was name-dropping either, just a good old fashioned example.

 

 

some guy in a homeless shelter having his art delivered there doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence.

 

 

Good lord, I hadn't heard that one...how sad...is that for real??

 

Glen painted a very bleak and pathetic picture of our hobby, even though I don't think he intended to do so. Many of us on the list were quite disappointed in it.

[heartened]

The world may be relative, but there are some different degrees of relativity. I could draw a picture and shout at the top of my lungs that it's the best ever, but that doesn't mean it's better than Renoir's "Au Moulin de la Galette".

 

Why not? Are you saying that artists of today can never hope to be remembered or as highly regarded as the masters of the past? That's narrow-minded, my friend, and assumes that our best days are behind us. That's the kind of thinking that would have made Columbus turn back and go home.

 

Please remember that art is 100% subjective. You cannot prove that a piece of art has ANY inherent value. Collectibles by their nature typically have NO or little inherent value, so how can you say one is "better" than the other? Again, I think many people wouldn't care to even SEE a Renoir. Why should they? Just because some "authority" or textbook says it's a great painting doesn't mean it is.

[DESTRO-migration]

Hari,

 

I actually enjoed Glenn's artice immensely. Yes, there are alotta people in the hobby whose priorities are 'way out of whack' but ultimately I think the exposure was benficial and alerted some out there of 'our' existence. Comic books are generally recognized world-wide as a collectible,...the original comic art market is UNTAPPED. Not only is there alotta undiscovered great material,..there are also alotta people who don't even know that the Original Art Work to collectible comics even exists. I see it as inevitable that PR will flow to our little hobby,...and then,..ALL BETS ARE OFF !!!!!

[Foolkiller]

I don't know if that's true or not. I think there's a reason why fine art is held in high esteem when it becomes popular, not just because some guy in a textbook says so. Of course there will always be varying degrees and opinions on the artwork and not everyone will like the same things, but there are some objective standards that can be placed on judging the quality of artwork. Those do not affect the "like" or "dislike" of a piece. I would venture to say that, in terms of mass appeal, there are people who would favor the Renoir than the Romita.

[heartened]

Hari,

 

I actually enjoed Glenn's artice immensely. Yes, there are alotta people in the hobby whose priorities are 'way out of whack' but ultimately I think the exposure was benficial and alerted some out there of 'our' existence. Comic books are generally recognized world-wide as a collectible,...the original comic art market is UNTAPPED. Not only is there alotta undiscovered great material,..there are also alotta people who don't even know that the Original Art Work to collectible comics even exists. I see it as inevitable that PR will flow to our little hobby,...and then,..ALL BETS ARE OFF !!!!!

 

I agree it gave the hobby exposure. I just think it could have been done a little better. Perhaps he should have picked less colorful people to focus on, but then it wouldn't make for a good read.

[DESTRO-migration]

Beethoven is clearly of a 'higher order aesthetic' than the Beatles. That said,....Comparing Renoir with Romita is perhaps problematic, however, higher order aesthetics are not relevant. Markets do not always develop along 'technically correct' lines. The GENRE,...IS THE KEY HERE,.....PEOPLE LOVE THE GENRE !!!!!!! Why do you think you all collect comic books ?

[heartened]

I don't know if that's true or not. I think there's a reason why fine art is held in high esteem when it becomes popular, not just because some guy in a textbook says so. Of course there will always be varying degrees and opinions on the artwork and not everyone will like the same things, but there are some objective standards that can be placed on judging the quality of artwork. Those do not affect the "like" or "dislike" of a piece. I would venture to say that, in terms of mass appeal, there are people who would favor the Renoir than the Romita.

 

I guess we disagree. I don't think there are ANY objective measures to judge the quality of artwork.

[Foolkiller]

There's no mistaking that. I love comics and I always will. I don't know if I love it for $50k on a Romita piece though.

[delekkerste]

Why not? Are you saying that artists of today can never hope to be remembered or as highly regarded as the masters of the past?

 

No, but the comic art form is an inherently inferior medium. It's not art created for art's sake, it's art created to sell magazines to adolescents. The B&W original art lacks the depth that the finished colored pages have (with certain exceptions, of course, like those Warren artists who used wash, zip-a-tone, etc. very liberally). The art is on cheap paper, using cheap materials, featuring subject matter intended to appeal to hormone-addled male teens, with broken up panels and words and drawn sound effects all over the place. Again, don't get me wrong, it's great for what it is, but it's not high art and I doubt it will ever be considered so by more than a small minority.

 

 

Please remember that art is 100% subjective. You cannot prove that a piece of art has ANY inherent value.

 

There is a whole branch of philosophy devoted to aesthetics, a large portion of which would disagree with you. You can argue until you're blue in the face that Roseanne Barr is just as good looking as Charlize Theron or that the ASM #50 cover is better than Rembrandt's "Nightwatch", but I'm still going to say you're flat-out wrong. Even those arguing these relativist positions still seem to find the time to point out the gross anatomical flaws in Rob Liefeld's work - doesn't that impact the judgment/quality of his work one way or another?

 

To say all art is 100% subjective is a specious argument. Go look at the brushwork on Rembrandt's paintings up close and tell me that it's not better than his contemporaries or indeed not among the greatest art ever greated. Shouldn't skill, vision, etc. be considered?

 

 

Again, I think many people wouldn't care to even SEE a Renoir. Why should they? Just because some "authority" or textbook says it's a great painting doesn't mean it is.

 

I don't need a textbook to tell me Renoir's paintings are beautiful - I know it when I see them! I didn't major in philosophical aethstetics, so I can't eloquently explain to you in terms of Golden Ratios and all why, but anyone with two eyes should be able to appreciate his work. Devil's advocate or not, I can scarcely believe what I'm hearing...

[DESTRO-migration]

Foolkiller,

 

If you had the opportunity to buy the Pay Copy of Marvel # 1 for 50K would you buy it ? Of course,...why ? Because you know there is a Greater Fool. How do you know this ? The markets have developed such that you have confidence that if you bought the Pay Copy for 50K,...you could probably sell it for more. Original Comic art is no different than comics,.....the stakes are just higher.

 

As Glen Gold said in his PlayBoy article,..."if comic books are like cocaine, art work is like crack".

[delekkerste]

If you believe that this...

 

 

 

...is better than this...

 

 

 

...PLEASE STEP AWAY FROM THE KOOL-AID FILLED PUNCH BOWL NOW.

[Foolkiller]

Destro:

 

That's not a comment on quality though... that's like saying can you find somebody out there who's going to over pay. In the Pay Copy example... sure I'd buy it for $50k, only if I KNEW at the time I was buying it, that there's somebody out there who will pay more. People paying record prices for original comic art and comics don't know that... You could flip the Pay Copy tomorrow and make a huge sum of money... I'm not so sure about some of these other aquisitions though.

[DESTRO-migration]

YES YES...

 

 

But is this Guggenheim piece

 

http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/movement_work_lg_Abstract_Expressionism_129_5.html

 

better than this

 

http://www.heritagecomics.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=806&Lot_No=6995&src=pr

 

I THINK NOT !!!!

 

I KNOW NOT !!!!

[heartened]

Why not? Are you saying that artists of today can never hope to be remembered or as highly regarded as the masters of the past?

 

No, but the comic art form is an inherently inferior medium. It's not art created for art's sake, it's art created to sell magazines to adolescents. The B&W original art lacks the depth that the finished colored pages have (with certain exceptions, of course, like those Warren artists who used wash, zip-a-tone, etc. very liberally). The art is on cheap paper, using cheap materials, featuring subject matter intended to appeal to hormone-addled male teens, with broken up panels and words and drawn sound effects all over the place. Again, don't get me wrong, it's great for what it is, but it's not high art and I doubt it will ever be considered so by more than a small minority.

 

 

Please remember that art is 100% subjective. You cannot prove that a piece of art has ANY inherent value.

 

There is a whole branch of philosophy devoted to aesthetics, a large portion of which would disagree with you. You can argue until you're blue in the face that Roseanne Barr is just as good looking as Charlize Theron or that the ASM #50 cover is better than Rembrandt's "Nightwatch", but I'm still going to say you're flat-out wrong. Even those arguing these relativist positions still seem to find the time to point out the gross anatomical flaws in Rob Liefeld's work - doesn't that impact the quality of his work one way or another?

 

To say all art is 100% subjective is a specious argument. Go look at the brushwork on Rembrandt's paintings up close and tell me that it's not better than his contemporaries or indeed not among the greatest art ever greated. Shouldn't skill, vision, etc. be considered?

 

 

Again, I think many people wouldn't care to even SEE a Renoir. Why should they? Just because some "authority" or textbook says it's a great painting doesn't mean it is.

 

I don't need a textbook to tell me Renoir's paintings are beautiful - I know it when I see them! I didn't major in philosophical aethstetics, so I can't eloquently explain to you in terms of Golden Ratios and all why, but anyone with two eyes should be able to appreciate his work. Devil's advocate or not, I can scarcely believe what I'm hearing...

 

Hi Gene,

 

I'm not trying to convince you. There is no right answer to this debate, which is of course my point. Whether or not there is a whole science as to what is quality in art and what isn't, in the end it boils down to whether you like item A or item B. And, you're not going to be able to predict with certainty or even close to certainty what someone will choose. My point has nothing to with comic art, but with art in general. Or music. Or sports. Or fashion. Or anything else that's 100% subjective.

[Foolkiller]

I prefer the Pollock... and I don't even like his stuff. GA art is a pretty bad example in my mind of the "best" comic book art has to offer. It's some of the lowest quality stuff in my mind on the whole. There are some exceptions.

[deathlok]

I prefer the Pollock... and I don't even like his stuff. GA art is a pretty bad example in my mind of the "best" comic book art has to offer. It's some of the lowest quality stuff in my mind on the whole. There are some exceptions.

 

I agree. I am not a big fan of Pollock's work, but I would prefer one of his pieces over any comic "artwork."