2004 Original Art Acquisitioins

[DESTRO-migration]

Norinn,

 

I get your point. And although I may agree that the small group of people who can afford to collect expensive art prefer the status symbol of "fine art" over "comic art", I do not agree that there is a stigma that comics are childish and unsophisticated. In fact, I believe the upward movement of this asset class will legitimize the original comic art market as an increasingly valuable expression of American pop culture. As such, original comic art as an ASSET will become acceptable.

 

destro

[delekkerste]

I do find it ironic that you deem art renderings of 'men in tights' as perceived as juvenille [projection?] (and thus collect primarily art renderings of women) but to my mind,..collecting nudie renderings of women seems juvenille.

 

First, I don't own any "nudie renderings of women" (er, not that there's anything wrong with that ). The subject matter of what I collect is largely women, true, but they're not particularly titillating. I'm not collecting anything that you might find in BassGMan's collection, for example (sorry, Sid). You won't find any Top Cow-like T&A artwork that Darth would approve of either. And, I might add that women have been a popular subject for artists to draw and sculpt for many centuries. More importantly, I have never said that, for example, my Greg Horn Elektra covers were high art. I think they're cool examples of comic/illustration art, no more and no less. I don't try to convince people that Greg is the second coming of Vermeer because obviously he's not.

 

However, I do think some of the painted illustration art I own (most of which I have never shown to anyone) is a lot closer to being fine art than 99.9% of comic art pieces. That shouldn't come as a surprise since artists I collect like Enric and Sanjulian left comics long ago and are now respected gallery artists in Europe. I think it's easier to make the case that artists like Jeffrey Jones and Frank Frazetta, who worked in comics but are known primarily for their paintings, can be considered "fine artists" before Kirby, Ditko, etc.

[Norrin_Radd]

Norinn,

 

I get your point. And although I may agree that the small group of people who can afford to collect expensive art prefer the status symbol of "fine art" over "comic art", I do not agree that there is a stigma that comics are childish and unsophisticated. In fact, I believe the upward movement of this asset class will legitimize the original comic art market as an increasingly valuable expression of American pop culture. As such, original comic art as an ASSET will become acceptable.

 

destro

 

Destro,

 

I think the only reason most people (non-collectors) have an interest in comics at all is because they've heard the amounts some go for. Everyone wants to make money and find a rewarding investment. But if that is the extent of their interest, comic art may still have a long ways to go before becoming "legitimate" in the eyes of art community.

[delekkerste]

There is a stigma that comics are childish and unsophisticated that may never go away no matter how beautiful the art itself may be.

 

But how "beautiful" is the art, really? Do you look at a Ditko panel page and marvel at how "beautiful" the art is? Do you tell yourself, "wow, no one could possibly draw Spider-Man as good as Ditko"? Or how about the cover to Daredevil #168, for example - can anyone tell me with a straight face that this is a "beautiful" cover and that its value is derived from the quality of the art and not because it's the cover to a key book that introduced a key character and began Miller's scripting chores on Daredevil and we all have such fond nostalgic memories of it?

 

Comic art is beautiful in the eyes of the beholder for whom it evokes memories and nostalgia (part of which is due to the quality of the art itself, to be sure). And that is not nothing. But it is far different from being inherently and intrinstically beautiful with universal appeal.

[Norrin_Radd]

There is a stigma that comics are childish and unsophisticated that may never go away no matter how beautiful the art itself may be.

 

But how "beautiful" is the art, really? Do you look at a Ditko panel page and marvel at how "beautiful" the art is? Do you tell yourself, "wow, no one could possibly draw Spider-Man as good as Ditko"? Or how about the cover to Daredevil #168, for example - can anyone tell me with a straight face that this is a "beautiful" cover and that its value is derived from the quality of the art and not because it's the cover to a key book that introduced a key character and began Miller's scripting chores on Daredevil and we all have such fond nostalgic memories of it?

 

Comic art is beautiful and the eyes of the beholder for whom it evokes memories and nostalgia (part of which is due to the quality of the art itself, to be sure). And that is not nothing. But it is far different from being inherently and intrinstically beautiful with universal appeal.

 

Apparantly, Gene has gone into full mode.

 

Can't you come up with some examples of beauty in comic art?

[Foolkiller]

Oh there are definitely some beautiful examples.

 

The Bolland Killing Joke and cover to trade of Greatest Joker Stories Ever Told.

 

I think a lot of the Perez Avengers and even the recent stuff from the Perez JLA/Avengers stuff is just awesome.

 

There's a lot of stuff that I think is really beautiful and of high quality. I would just put it at different tiers. Comic art is just in another category. In its own category, there are many, many wonderful things to look at.

[delekkerste]

Can't you come up with some examples of beauty in comic art?

 

I think a lot of comic art is "beautiful" if we're considering comic art as a medium unto itself. Romita Sr.'s ASM work, Byrne's X-Men work, Wrightson's Swamp Thing work, a lot of Bolland's work, Adams' Batman work, just about any work those Spanish artists did for Warren in the 1970s, etc.

 

As for beauty that elevates itself beyond the medium, I don't know...maybe some of Steranko's S.H.I.E.L.D. work, Frazetta's limited comic work, some of BWS' Conan work, maybe a little bit of Adams and Wrightson, some of Pepe Gonzalez's Warren work as far as regular B&W pen and ink work goes. I think a lot of painted work by the likes of Frazetta, Boris, Sanjulian, Enric, Jones, Kelly, etc. could be considered as something more than just comic art.

[shrunkenhead]

My point is simply that the range of what constitutes aesthetic value is clearly wider than some on this board seem to indicate.

 

As I've read FFB say in the past, the irony is so thick here you could cut it with a knife.

 

I do find it ironic that you deem art renderings of 'men in tights' as perceived as juvenille [projection?] (and thus collect primarily art renderings of women) but to my mind,..collecting nudie renderings of women seems juvenille.

 

Hmm...ok. So I supose the greeks were in a state of arrested development, right? And just about everyone who was worth a damn during the renaissance too, yes? Seems to me you've revealed a lot more about your own psychology than anyone else's here.

 

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm coming on super-strong, here. It's just that I take umbrage (that's right, baby, umbrage! ) at being categorized as one of the "sheep" because I don't rate comic-art as high as fine art. As one of these "intellectual snobs" who's getting a bad rap of late, I've spent most of my life devoted to working with complicated questions about aesthetics. You wouldn't take someone's opinion on comicart terribly seriously if they didn't know anything about it, right? So why should I or anyone else be expected to do the same? If you're going to argue against something, I think you need to know a little more about it than the "headline news" (i.e. Maplethrope, pee christ, etc.). Ever read Stones of Venice? Van Gogh's collected letters to his brother? Plato's Phaedrus? (this one might help you work out those nudie questions of yours) How about "Ode to a Grecian Urn," for that matter? If you can back up your argument with substance, and not "current affair"-style headlines, I'd be more willing to listen.

 

The fact that you're trying to sell this argument on a comic forum and it's not working should tell you something. We're hardly the "general public," here. Most people in the world view us as mad for being willing to spend a few hundred, let alone thousands, of $$ for a lone funnybook. And we're still skeptical of this notion of elevating comic art to a higher status than it's achieved. So what does that really tell you?

[shrunkenhead]

 

 

BTW, when did people start having to apologize for being intellectual)?

 

 

I believe this began the day Regan was inaugurated. , but only a little

[Illiterati-migration]

My point is simply that the range of what constitutes aesthetic value is clearly wider than some on this board seem to indicate.

 

As I've read FFB say in the past, the irony is so thick here you could cut it with a knife.

 

I do find it ironic that you deem art renderings of 'men in tights' as perceived as juvenille [projection?] (and thus collect primarily art renderings of women) but to my mind,..collecting nudie renderings of women seems juvenille.

 

Hmm...ok. So I supose the greeks were in a state of arrested development, right? And just about everyone who was worth a damn during the renaissance too, yes? Seems to me you've revealed a lot more about your own psychology than anyone else's here.

 

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm coming on super-strong, here. It's just that I take umbrage (that's right, baby, umbrage! ) at being categorized as one of the "sheep" because I don't rate comic-art as high as fine art. As one of these "intellectual snobs" who's getting a bad rap of late, I've spent most of my life devoted to working with complicated questions about aesthetics. You wouldn't take someone's opinion on comicart terribly seriously if they didn't know anything about it, right? So why should I or anyone else be expected to do the same? If you're going to argue against something, I think you need to know a little more about it than the "headline news" (i.e. Maplethrope, pee christ, etc.). Ever read Stones of Venice? Van Gogh's collected letters to his brother? Plato's Phaedrus? (this one might help you work out those nudie questions of yours) How about "Ode to a Grecian Urn," for that matter? If you can back up your argument with substance, and not "current affair"-style headlines, I'd be more willing to listen.

 

The fact that you're trying to sell this argument on a comic forum and it's not working should tell you something. We're hardly the "general public," here. Most people in the world view as mad for being willing to spend a few hundred, let alone thousands, of $$ for a lone funnybook. And we're still skeptical of this notion of elevating comic art to a higher status than it's achieved. So what does that really tell you?

 

 

Comic art, in general, is only "good" art when put in context with OTHER comic art. The skill level of comic artists is low-- and I will be kind and refrain from commenting on the undefinable, yet unmistakable, "talent".

[Illiterati-migration]

Can't you come up with some examples of beauty in comic art?

 

I think a lot of comic art is "beautiful" if we're considering comic art as a medium unto itself. Romita Sr.'s ASM work, Byrne's X-Men work, Wrightson's Swamp Thing work, a lot of Bolland's work, Adams' Batman work, just about any work those Spanish artists did for Warren in the 1970s, etc.

 

As for beauty that elevates itself beyond the medium, I don't know...maybe some of Steranko's S.H.I.E.L.D. work, Frazetta's limited comic work, some of BWS' Conan work, maybe a little bit of Adams and Wrightson, some of Pepe Gonzalez's Warren work as far as regular B&W pen and ink work goes. I think a lot of painted work by the likes of Frazetta, Boris, Sanjulian, Enric, Jones, Kelly, etc. could be considered as something more than just comic art.

 

Oops. Sorry, Balki... it appears that I should have read ALL the posts before posting.

 

But you said it better. Frazetta definitely comes to mind, as does BWS and Wrightson... they are simply in a different class than the rest of these fools.

[FFB]

My point is simply that the range of what constitutes aesthetic value is clearly wider than some on this board seem to indicate.

 

As I've read FFB say in the past, the irony is so thick here you could cut it with a knife.

 

I do find it ironic that you deem art renderings of 'men in tights' as perceived as juvenille [projection?] (and thus collect primarily art renderings of women) but to my mind,..collecting nudie renderings of women seems juvenille.

 

Hmm...ok. So I supose the greeks were in a state of arrested development, right? And just about everyone who was worth a damn during the renaissance too, yes? Seems to me you've revealed a lot more about your own psychology than anyone else's here.

 

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm coming on super-strong, here. It's just that I take umbrage (that's right, baby, umbrage! ) at being categorized as one of the "sheep" because I don't rate comic-art as high as fine art. As one of these "intellectual snobs" who's getting a bad rap of late, I've spent most of my life devoted to working with complicated questions about aesthetics. You wouldn't take someone's opinion on comicart terribly seriously if they didn't know anything about it, right? So why should I or anyone else be expected to do the same? If you're going to argue against something, I think you need to know a little more about it than the "headline news" (i.e. Maplethrope, pee christ, etc.). Ever read Stones of Venice? Van Gogh's collected letters to his brother? Plato's Phaedrus? (this one might help you work out those nudie questions of yours) How about "Ode to a Grecian Urn," for that matter? If you can back up your argument with substance, and not "current affair"-style headlines, I'd be more willing to listen.

 

The fact that you're trying to sell this argument on a comic forum and it's not working should tell you something. We're hardly the "general public," here. Most people in the world view as mad for being willing to spend a few hundred, let alone thousands, of $$ for a lone funnybook. And we're still skeptical of this notion of elevating comic art to a higher status than it's achieved. So what does that really tell you?

 

 

Comic art, in general, is only "good" art when put in context with OTHER comic art. The skill level of comic artists is low-- and I will be kind and refrain from commenting on the undefinable, yet unmistakable, "talent".

 

I don't think that the great comic artists had/have low skill levels. I just think that their skills are more focused on storytelling, layout, and panel composition than on creating individual pieces of artistic beauty. There are also plenty of other areas where their talents coincide more with fine artists, such as the use of positive and negative values to create a specific mood in a given piece.

 

While I agree that comic artists cannot be placed on the same plane as a Picasso or Renoir, I don't think it's due to a lack of talent in the areas in which they need to have talent in order to get their jobs done. I agree with Gene and others who say that you can't "elevate" comic art to the levels occupied by the masters of fine art, but I am pretty sure that's not what the artists were going for in the first place. Comic artists are trying to tell a story within a finite number of pages and are usually limited by the story given to them by the writer. They are also far more limited in the media they can use to create their art (pretty much just india ink, although many comic artists have used zip tones and other things at times -- but they don't have the same unfettered use of media that fine artists do).

 

One of the reasons that Bill Watterson (of Calvin & Hobbes fame) eventually got fed up with cartooning and quit the business was that he felt too constrained by the limits of the Sunday and daily comic strip format. Fine artists don't have those limitations, and because they don't, they are able to achieve "more" with their art. Having a comic artist compete with fine artists is like putting leg irons on a sprinter and entering him into the long jump at the Olympics. The objectives of a comic artist are different and the constraints are different than those of the fine artists.

[Aman619]

Mike,

I know you posted directly to Hari and don't want to get into a debate, but I think the idea of art being purely subjective is wrong. Although a huge amount of people believe it to be so, I think there are definitely standards that we adhere to when judging the quality of art.

 

I certainly grasp what people are saying about "subjective" quality in art, but I don't think Ditko, Romita or Kirby are in the same league as Monet or Rockwell. Rockwell was held in very high esteem during his lifetime, so I disagree with that assessment. Maybe not quite to the same degree now, but certainly high regard. I think Romita and Steranko would be horrified to think that they should be compared to these artistic giants.

 

Dont lump Rockwell in with the Old Masters justyet! He was only an Illustrator, with more in common with th ecomic book artists than Van Gogh or Rembrandt. He paistakingly and beautifully copied photos that he set up himself as reference in his studio. The finished paintings are revered as icons of Americana, but, to my knowledge, no serious academician of ART will deign to even look at his stuff. If and when he is accepted into the All Time Annals of the Worlds Best Artists, he will blaze a trail for other POPULAR low-brows like Ditko and Kirby.

[Foolkiller]

aman:

 

I think you're pretty much correct. But, you will see him accepted more and more in the popularized context, and museums will proudly display his work.

 

But, you're making a good point about Rockwell. I would not list him with the old Masters quite yet, but he is usually named when great American artists are cited, even by several art critics.

[Aman619]

But, there can be no doubt that my junior high notebook doodlings are not in the league of Monet or Renoir. Art is subjective, but not 100% subjective.

 

Gene, try on this 'subversive" scenario for size: Suppose one day you decide to quit your day job to do nothing else BUT your doodles all day long, perfecting them, coming to breakthroughs, massing your strengths and devising truths about how YOUR doodles are, while crude perhaps, simply extrordinary and beautifully original. What if after a few years, you have actually developed a recognizable and undeniably NEW style? And galleries are interested and push your work... and lo and behold - - it SELLS!! Now you are an "Artist" Now its just a queation of pushing the brand as high as it can go.

 

Isnt much of ART the intention, motivation and TRUTH inherent in it... plus its CONNECTION (strong or weak) to the viewer (public) that determines REAL art from what you dismiss tday as your "doodles" You probably never will go down this path, but there are many examples of non-traditional" artworks that fill MOMA and other top echelon museums that teh establishment has taken under their wing, no?? SUbway graffitist Keith Haring anybody?

[the blob]

"no serious academician of ART will deign to even look at his stuff"

 

that's because they're snobs. i've always wondered why some 4th rate abstract expressionist hack who started doing abstracts 30 years after they were novel could sell their work for so much. snobbery, marketing. that's all.

 

how were the renaissance masters who focused mainly on biblical/historical scenes not, in essence, "illustrators"?

 

(I'm not coming up with this on my own, although i've thought the same thing, there's an interesting discussion on this in the frazetta dcoumentary that's been running on PBS)

 

Rosenquist, who has had his fair shair of museum retrospectives and things of that nature, sure looks like he paints from photographs, even if he's arranging his highly realistic paintings in abstract ways.

[delekkerste]

Post deleted by delekkerste

[delekkerste]

I don't think that the great comic artists had/have low skill levels. I just think that their skills are more focused on storytelling, layout, and panel composition than on creating individual pieces of artistic beauty.

 

Very true. We're talking about people who have excelled within the constraints of their medium. It's neither here nor there that the medium itself isn't on par with oil painting or sculpture. Though, I will say that I do not believe that most of the great comic book artists would be capable of producing great paintings or even great drawings - it just takes different skills and talents to do so.

 

 

They are also far more limited in the media they can use to create their art (pretty much just india ink, although many comic artists have used zip tones and other things at times -- but they don't have the same unfettered use of media that fine artists do).

 

This is a very important point. Most B&W original comic art was meant to be reproduced in color. Without the color, it looks unfinished. Some comic fans may appreciate seeing the art in its unfettered original state, though why would any fine art aficionado or layman feel the same way? When you look at the Mona Lisa, that's how the artist intended the piece to look like. Why should anyone look at the original art to ASM #40 which has no color or depth to compensate for the lack of color and view it as high art?

 

Go look at some of the original artwork for the Warren mags done in the 1970s - this was B&W art meant to be reproduced in B&W, so there is shading, detail, wash tone, zip-a-tone, etc. - it looks much more like "real art". Looking at standard Marvel or DC art without any color added just looks hollow by comparison.

[DESTRO-migration]

YET STILL,

 

Gene (or all other detractors of original art as worthy of the consideration of fine art)

 

How do you square Mapelthorpe (or lotsa other so called Brilliant avante-garde artists) as relevant and an example of 'high art' - and yet dismiss artists like Romita, Kirby, and Steranko ?

 

I tend to think Gene (and his ilk) dismiss original comic art merely because it involves SUPER-HEROES,...and Gene and his ilk are ashamed, embarrased, dismissive of to their minds,...childish images.

 

Ultimately,...Gene,..(and his ilk),..fail to recognize,...that the ICONIC nature of these creations (which they IRONICALLY dismiss as 'pedantic' and 'pedestrian' [my words]) is the BASIS for much of the RELEVANCE and VALUE of the art. Romita,Kirby, Frazetta and Ditko,...were brilliant,..in very many ways,..technically,..but that is not the issue,..in and of it-self,...Superman and Bat-Man will soon be over 100 years old,....Spider-man is over 50,....

 

 

The art has already shown that IT DOES stand the test of time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Foolkiller]

Spider Man's not fifty yet is he? I thought he just turned 40...

 

Frazetta is on another level from the Ditkos and Kirbys.

 

I think only time will tell in terms of highly the original art is regarded. I just don't see it. But the same players are going round and round in circles, and the bottom line is, none of us are really changing anyone's mind.