2004 Original Art Acquisitioins

[delekkerste]

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've said that I'm no fan of Mapplethorpe nor most other contemporary artists. I don't dismiss Romita, etc. - they're good comic book artists. They could tell a good story on small sheets of paper broken up into funny little boxes. But that doesn't make them "great artists". Again, do we have such a collectively large inferiority complex about our hobby that we have to try and pump up Kirby, et. al. to Michelangelo-like status to justify the worthiness of and our participation in this pastime?

 

 

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.

 

I'm a comic book fan and am not embarrassed about it. I like to read stories featuring these "childish images". So you are way off-base here. I'm just intellectually honest enough to admit to myself that the writing is not Shakespeare and the art is not Rembrandt. It is what it is and most people even on these Boards know and accept that and still manage to have a good time with it. More to your point, these super-heroes don't have the broad-based appeal of a nice landscape or nude woman - no one said anything about them being pedestrian or pedantic.

 

 

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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

No, the stories and characters have shown that they have stood a limited test of time. Just because people went to see the Spidey movies in droves doesn't mean that Ditko and Romita have suddenly been elevated to the status of all-time great artists.

[plitch]

Strange enough, I wrote this last night and was going to post it today. So here it is.

 

Best,

Paul

 

Is judging art purely a subjective thing? Are there standards more professional artists use to judge artwork? No answer will ever be absolutely correct. It is a bit like comic book grading (I admit, not the best example, but bear with me) we have a set of standards, but each of us interprets them a bit different. That is where subjectivity undermines the objective standards. It is human nature to project yourself, intended or not, into the world around you.

 

“Fine” Art vs. Comic Book Art is an argument that has been going on for a long time. In college, I had a hard time with some of the more “traditional” professors who looked down upon sequential art as a low-brow medium that used the lowest common denominator (that being the “Superhero”) for nothing more then cheap and fleeting escapism. Crumb, Eisner & Spiegelman were met with passing recognition (“I know their work.”) and a lukewarm acknowledgement of their efforts (“Give a room full of chimpanzees some typewriters and eventually you will get a sentence.”—note, sentence, NOT Shakespeare, like the saying should go.)

 

A good correlation, and one I feel comfortable talking about, could be made to photography. For a very long time, Photography was not considered a “Fine” art. In the “Fine” art world, Photography was (and still is, in some cases) known as “Painting for painters who can’t paint.” This is mainly due to the ease of reproduction (and its immediacy) and the supposed lack of craftsmanship.

 

Now, after many gallery installations and museum shows, Photography has a bit more “clout” but, in my opinion, will never reach a revered status akin to painting or sculpture. Photographers from Ansel Adams to Cindy Sherman will never be on equal footing with Monet, Renoir, Matisse or Picasso or any of the other classic “Fine” artists that the art world put on a pedestal. The art world needs its “heroes” so to speak. There will always be a divide, unless there is a great upheaval or changing of the guard in the art world. It could come from a new medium, a new movement or a single artist.

 

Will comic book art be that upheaval and will Kirby join the rakes of “Fine” art heroes? I doubt it. There is too much stacked against it and him. Comic book art has a stigma of production line manufacturing. By that I mean, one person pencils, another inks and another colors. Note that the three comic I previously mentioned (Crumb, Eisner & Spiegelman) did everything themselves and they were almost recognized. Comic book art also suffers from the supposed lack of craftsmanship that held Photography back. Craftsmanship, ability and talent can be argued (and well) up and down on both sides, but the deadline for the creation of comic book art weakens the stance of Comic book artist as a “Craftsman”. He is limited by that which no “Fine” artist should ever be limited, time. Do I agree with that? Nope, but in the art world, that feeling is there.

 

I do feel time and attitudes are changing. Right now we are a subculture that is getting a crazy amount of exposure. Comic books are beginning to take their place as a true American art form (like jazz) and I think that the future is bright. Illustration is offered at most art schools, but classes in sequential (or even non-sequential) art are almost non-existent. They are merely taught as a section of a course. I know this sounds defeatist, but really I don’t think it is. Where else would you test a new course but as a section of an existing course?

 

It took Photography about 80 years to be recognized as “Fine” art. I think comic book art is on the cusp of being recognized, but will ultimately be, like Photography, thought of as “less than” in the general art world. Photography and Film (I’m sure I’m leaving some out) have all come into their own as a “Fine” art and have their own Masters. Their markets are wealthier then the comic art market. There are frequent museum shows and numerous galleries that reach a wider base of collectors, with more money. Money will bring recognition. Exposure will bring money.

 

This is the path I see comic book art taking.

[FFB]

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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Although I don't agree with Gene about everything, his "comic art isn't fine art" argument has a lot of good points in it and none of them have anything to do with "but superheroes are for kids!"

 

The iconic nature of the characters themselves lends nothing to the discussion about whether an individual drawing, panel, page, or cover depicting that character is worthy of being placed in the same class as fine art. If that were all it took, then I could paint a Campell's Soup can and because of the "iconic" nature of the can, it would automatically be worthy of consideration as fine art just like Andy Warhol's painting was. It just doesn't work that way.

 

I think that Romita, Kirby, Adams, et al. are and/or were all extremely skilled in their fields. But like I said before, they were not trying to create "fine art." They were engaging in visual storytelling across a series of panels and were constrained by the media they were permitted to use, by panel size and placement, and by the boundaries of the 11X17 board that would be reduced to the printed page. No one is saying it isn't "art" or that it isn't any good. It's just that it isn't really realistic to place that kind of art on the same plane as a Picasso, when Picasso was striving for a different goal than Romita was, had fewer constraints than Romita did, and was able to use different media than Romita did.

[Foolkiller]

In fact, a lot of today's comic book fans ridicule Kirby and don't see why he was so great. They look at the Spider Man comics and wonder why Ditko doesn't draw more like McFarlane.

 

This is sad, but I've had plenty of discussions with younger fans like this, and they blankly stare at me and want to know if John Romita and JR JR are the same person.

 

There are a lot of fans who think Jim Lee and Michael Turner are the best thing going -- so we'll see if Romita, Ditko and Kirby will truly stand "the test of time"

[DESTRO-migration]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you Gene. Putting aside whether original comic art is fine art. I agree to disagree. There is no immediate conclusion as to whether original comic art should be considered as fine art.

 

Do you understand my three points???

 

Point 1) If "avante garde art" is considered PRICELESS ...why can't original comic art one day be considered PRICELESS???

 

Point 2- If "avante garde art" which many people considered as too avante garde and not worthy of being considered as art eventually did become accepted as mainstream art ...why can't original comic art be considered the same??

 

Point 3- Original comic art as an asset has not appreciated in value compared to "avante garde art". And yet, Spiderman, Batman, and Superman and other superheores are commercially more significant, iconographic and more appealing to the eye than "Maplethorpe art".

 

Conclusion: Watch prices on significant pieces of original comic art CONTINUE to go up in the coming years.

 

Why??? I ask...Why is it so unfathoable to believe original comic art cannot one day be valued comparitively to "maplethorpe art".

[delekkerste]

 

I would just like to say here that I think this has been the most interesting thread to come around in a long time and that I'm glad to see so many people expressing their thoughtful views in a (mostly) non-inflammatory manner.

 

Also, I'm glad that this thread has kept me sufficiently distracted, thus keeping me from getting bored and doing something foolish in the market today.

[Rob]

What about Looney Toons cartoons? And illustrations in children's books? I just don't see this kind of media comparable to Van Gogh or Rembrandt.

[DESTRO-migration]

You know something??? This debate "in itself" just further reinforces my argument that original comic art has relevancy and value. Keep debating!!!!! You just keep proving my point.... this stuff will find itself considered as part of the canon of SIGNIFICANT works. It is irrelevant WHERE it fits into the canon. The debate itself underscores the point.

[Foolkiller]

Destro:

 

Just because you argue about something doesn't automatically grant it the kind of relevant significance you believe it will obtain.

 

I'm not sure I get that logical leap you're making.

[Norrin_Radd]

Strange enough, I wrote this last night and was going to post it today. So here it is.

 

Best,

Paul

 

Is judging art purely a subjective thing? Are there standards more professional artists use to judge artwork? No answer will ever be absolutely correct. It is a bit like comic book grading (I admit, not the best example, but bear with me) we have a set of standards, but each of us interprets them a bit different. That is where subjectivity undermines the objective standards. It is human nature to project yourself, intended or not, into the world around you.

 

“Fine” Art vs. Comic Book Art is an argument that has been going on for a long time. In college, I had a hard time with some of the more “traditional” professors who looked down upon sequential art as a low-brow medium that used the lowest common denominator (that being the “Superhero”) for nothing more then cheap and fleeting escapism. Crumb, Eisner & Spiegelman were met with passing recognition (“I know their work.”) and a lukewarm acknowledgement of their efforts (“Give a room full of chimpanzees some typewriters and eventually you will get a sentence.”—note, sentence, NOT Shakespeare, like the saying should go.)

 

A good correlation, and one I feel comfortable talking about, could be made to photography. For a very long time, Photography was not considered a “Fine” art. In the “Fine” art world, Photography was (and still is, in some cases) known as “Painting for painters who can’t paint.” This is mainly due to the ease of reproduction (and its immediacy) and the supposed lack of craftsmanship.

 

Now, after many gallery installations and museum shows, Photography has a bit more “clout” but, in my opinion, will never reach a revered status akin to painting or sculpture. Photographers from Ansel Adams to Cindy Sherman will never be on equal footing with Monet, Renoir, Matisse or Picasso or any of the other classic “Fine” artists that the art world put on a pedestal. The art world needs its “heroes” so to speak. There will always be a divide, unless there is a great upheaval or changing of the guard in the art world. It could come from a new medium, a new movement or a single artist.

 

Will comic book art be that upheaval and will Kirby join the rakes of “Fine” art heroes? I doubt it. There is too much stacked against it and him. Comic book art has a stigma of production line manufacturing. By that I mean, one person pencils, another inks and another colors. Note that the three comic I previously mentioned (Crumb, Eisner & Spiegelman) did everything themselves and they were almost recognized. Comic book art also suffers from the supposed lack of craftsmanship that held Photography back. Craftsmanship, ability and talent can be argued (and well) up and down on both sides, but the deadline for the creation of comic book art weakens the stance of Comic book artist as a “Craftsman”. He is limited by that which no “Fine” artist should ever be limited, time. Do I agree with that? Nope, but in the art world, that feeling is there.

 

I do feel time and attitudes are changing. Right now we are a subculture that is getting a crazy amount of exposure. Comic books are beginning to take their place as a true American art form (like jazz) and I think that the future is bright. Illustration is offered at most art schools, but classes in sequential (or even non-sequential) art are almost non-existent. They are merely taught as a section of a course. I know this sounds defeatist, but really I don’t think it is. Where else would you test a new course but as a section of an existing course?

 

It took Photography about 80 years to be recognized as “Fine” art. I think comic book art is on the cusp of being recognized, but will ultimately be, like Photography, thought of as “less than” in the general art world. Photography and Film (I’m sure I’m leaving some out) have all come into their own as a “Fine” art and have their own Masters. Their markets are wealthier then the comic art market. There are frequent museum shows and numerous galleries that reach a wider base of collectors, with more money. Money will bring recognition. Exposure will bring money.

 

This is the path I see comic book art taking.

 

Well spoken. And probably quite accurate.

[Aman619]

Dont rely so much on Maplethorpe. He is more of a performance artist than the painters we are discussing. He has attracted attention to the ideas he expresses in his work not to his techniques or materials. His future is as a novelty act and a good photographer who splashed onto the scene causing a shockwave of resentment.

[delekkerste]

Point 1) If "avante garde art" is considered PRICELESS ...why can't original comic art one day be considered PRICELESS???

 

First, it's not considered priceless. Though, yes, much contemporary art is priced a lot higher than comic book art. Second, you need to convince people that comic art is fine art before prices can leave the "collectibles" stratosphere and get into the "art" stratosphere. More on that below.

 

 

Point 2- If "avante garde art" which many people considered as too avante garde and not worthy of being considered as art eventually did become accepted as mainstream art ...why can't original comic art be considered the same??

 

For all of the reasons I, FFB, Foolkiller, Drummy, MajorKhaos, Plitch, Shrunkenhead, etc. have detailed earlier. You know, Impressionism was initially terribly received and it took a number of years before it became popular and accepted. But, it was art created for art's sake and represented an evolution of sorts. Comic art is simply a different branch of art altogether and because of all of its many limitations, I don't think it will ever be considered fine art.

 

 

Point 3- Original comic art as an asset has not appreciated in value compared to "avante garde art". And yet, Spiderman, Batman, and Superman and other superheores are commercially more significant, iconographic and more appealing to the eye than "Maplethorpe art".

 

For starters, "commercial" will always be looked down upon versus commissioned pieces or works of pure inspiration. Batman may be an icon, but he appears in several monthly comic books costing $2.25-$2.95 each. The original art might as well be an advertisement for this cheap product - why should people value this like real art as opposed to a collectible? Second, superheroes do not have the universal appeal nor gravitas that more traditional subjects have. Third, for the many reasons I have described, neither I nor most lay people find the "eye appeal" of comic book art (the patched-together byproduct of a commercial magazine publication) to be very high relative to fine art.

 

 

Why??? I ask...Why is it so unfathoable to believe original comic art cannot one day be valued comparitively to "maplethorpe art".

 

I think I've covered this. I think the more likely scenario is that prices on cr**py contemporary art is going to come down and the gap will shrink. Heck, I think most art prices are pretty crazy right now - no way do I believe that Picasso that sold last year represents $104 million of value. That's just insane, IMO.

[Norrin_Radd]

Also, I'm glad that this thread has kept me sufficiently distracted, thus keeping me from getting bored and doing something foolish in the market today.

 

Yeah, what is up with the market. On the NASDAQ, we corrected down below the 50-day moving average early in the month, and now it's crashed futher to the 100-day moving average.

 

I figured we were in a consolidation phase and would rally in the Spring, but the market is looking pretty weak. Isn't the market supposed to go up in January.

[Aman619]

isnt the January argument that IF its up in January, that the whole year will be up 90% of the time?

[delekkerste]

isnt the January argument that IF its up in January, that the whole year will be up 90% of the time?

 

Some people say as the first 5 days of January goes, so goes the month (and so goes the year). Also, there's the "January effect" of people buying back all the stocks that were dumped at the end of the previous year due to tax selling (this hasn't been reliable for quite some time). In any case, it's been really fugly the past couple of days. But at least I don't own eBay today.

 

And now let's get back to the comic art, shall we?

[Aman619]

I thought you had me on ignore.. What do you think of my doodles scenario? I know Im a cynic on the modern art industry, but I think it could work...

[delekkerste]

I thought you had me on ignore.. What do you think of my doodles scenario? I know Im a cynic on the modern art industry, but I think it could work...

 

I think you have a valid point but I think it is one thing to turn graffiti artists like Basquiat or Haring (or "Gene the Doodler" in your example) into fine art phenoms and quite another to sell comic book art and artists as such (again, for all the reasons that have been stated before). Is it inconceivable? No. But neither is it at all probable given the obstacles, IMO.

[shrunkenhead]

Since Destro is so determined to compare comic art to Maplethorpe, ok, here's a comparative analysis:

 

1)Both comic art and Maplethorpe art have been part of the "art world" for less than 100 years. In other words, not very long.

 

2) Both comic art and Maplethrope art have experienced tremendous spikes in prices, leaving many "traditional" art collectors and critics scratching their heads, wondering how long it will last.

 

3) The future---both critical and financial--of comic art and Maplethorpe art is highly uncertain. We don't know yet whether these are fads are mainstays. Don't believe me? Do a little research into what people were paying for tulips four centuries ago.

 

A joke I heard a little while ago: The real question isn't whether or not Maplethorpe's "Bullwhip up the anus" photo is art or obscenity. The REAL question is, "how far up the guy's was that bullwhip!?!"

[Aman619]

I thought you had me on ignore.. What do you think of my doodles scenario? I know Im a cynic on the modern art industry, but I think it could work...

 

I think you have a valid point but I think it is one thing to turn graffiti artists like Basquiat or Haring (or "Gene the Doodler" in your example) into fine art phenoms and quite another to sell comic book art and artists as such (again, for all the reasons that have been stated before). Is it inconceivable? No. But neither is it at all probable given the obstacles, IMO.

 

yeah, comics carry a lot more baggage in the form or predetermined negative opinion than the "hot, fresh voice of a new generation of 'absent-minded or subconscious phone artists" THAT I could sell!!!

[Aman619]

A joke I heard a little while ago: The real question isn't whether or not Maplethorpe's "Bullwhip up the anus" photo is art or obscenity. The REAL question is, "how far up the guy's was that bullwhip!?!"

 

 

sheeesh... remember not to bother to invite me to any of YOUR parties!!!