2004 Original Art Acquisitioins

[THE_BEYONDER]

Don't you believe in change ? There is a different kind of money out there nowadays....it's called STUPID MONEY . Don't picture the snobbish elite , picture Rodney Dangerfield in Caddy Shack.

 

Or was that EASY MONEY

 

I believe!!!! Bring on the stupid money!!! Give me some of that nouveau riche moolah!

 

[delekkerste]

However, comic art DOES have a wider appeal than comic books (by the very nature of art), and, as such, CAN break out into mainstream.

 

Hari, I, too, find collecting comic art more interesting than collecting comic books, but there is just no way that you can objectively say it has "wider appeal" than collecting the comics themselves. Comic art wouldn't even exist without the books themselves, and the oft-touted "one-of-a-kind" nature and high prices makes this hobby much less appealing and much less accessible to great numbers of people.

 

Furthermore, most people don't even know that there is such a thing as comic book original art collecting...fewer still know that original comic art is (disappointingly for many) black and white and lacking the visual impact of the published image. You may object to this characterization, being able to appreciate the linework, draftsmanship, etc. of the original image, but can you really say that the public feels the same way?

 

None of this speaks to the great potential of comic art to reach the unwashed & untapped masses - it simply means that fewer people know or even care to know about it. Comic books, being what people grew up with, have a far greater nostalgic appeal than comic art. Who goes straight into collecting comic art without first becoming a comic book reader or collector? There are hundreds of thousands of comic book readers & collectors in the U.S. alone...the number of original comic art collectors will always be a tiny fraction of this number if nothing else due to limited supply and higher entry costs (though I could come up with far more reasons than that).

 

 

The fact that more and more respected museums are exhibiting comic art (especially in Europe) is a testament to this.

 

Having been to more than a hundred cities in Europe over the past 8 years and having visited many/most of the more worthwhile fine art museums in those cities, I would definitely not go so far as to make that claim. Particularly if you exclude exhibits like Carl Barks' work (there was an exhibit traveling around Europe last year...it was at a small museum in Amsterdam in the fall), as his oeuvre includes oil paintings and isn't what we traditionally would classify as comic art in the American panel page sense of the term.

[DESTRO-migration]

[DESTRO-migration]

[DESTRO-migration]

!

[delekkerste]

OK, no fair pulling out the Frazetta.

[Aman619]

what does incrementally higher prices next year or the year after that mean to this discussion??

[delekkerste]

By the way, as an comic art fan with delusions of grandeur, and being enough of a G.I. Joe fan to choose "DESTRO" as your moniker, perhaps you would care to offer me an unhealthy amount of stupid money for my G.I. Joe #21 complete story original artwork?

[Aman619]

say it aint so, Gene!!

[heartened]

Hari, I, too, find collecting comic art more interesting than collecting comic books, but there is just no way that you can objectively say it has "wider appeal" than collecting the comics themselves.

 

Of course I can say it. My implication was NOT that there are more people who appreciate comic art than there are who appreciate the books. I freely submit that there are probably 50 comic book fans to every comic art fan. My point, however, was that if you put a comic book and its cover side by side for all to see, more "random people" will find "beauty" in the piece of art than will find "beauty" in the book. After all, the art was touched and toiled over by a human being with inspiration, initiative, talent, and creativity.... and it's all there in B&W for all to see and admire. Isn't this what we admire "real artists" for? The original art (and you need to first agree that this IS art before you can understand my point) therefore has more appeal than the shrunken down photocopy, be it colored or not.

[g-man]

looking at the heritage site, some nice artwork up there including some great kirby and colan pieces....the DD #44 cover is killer as well as the FF panel pages and the cover to 71.

[delekkerste]

Of course I can say it. My implication was NOT that there are more people who appreciate comic art than there are who appreciate the books. I freely submit that there are probably 50 comic book fans to every comic art fan. My point, however, was that if you put a comic book and its cover side by side for all to see, more "random people" will find "beauty" in the piece of art than will find "beauty" in the book. After all, the art was touched and toiled over by a human being with inspiration, initiative, talent, and creativity.... and it's all there in B&W for all to see and admire. Isn't this what we admire "real artists" for? The original art (and you need to first agree that this IS art before you can understand my point) therefore has more appeal than the shrunken down photocopy, be it colored or not.

 

Spoken like a true comic art convert!! What is a "shrunken down photocopy" that was "touched and toiled over" to you is a book that represents priceless childhood memories to others. Plus, people actually *read* comics, they don't just stare at the covers (except for BassGMan). Reading the books and getting involved with the stories and characters has much more appeal to the masses than staring at some colorless, whited-out, pasted-on, yellowing, scribbled-on page that represents 1/22th of a complete story.

 

Hari, some people on the Boards believe me to be out of touch with the common man, but you are on another plane of existence entirely!!

[delekkerste]

say it aint so, Gene!!

 

[DESTRO-migration]

<< Reading the books and getting involved with the stories and characters has much more appeal to the masses than staring at some colorless, whited-out, pasted-on, yellowing, scribbled-on page that represents 1/22th of a complete story.>>

 

Yup,..those plastic containers that the books come in nowadays really make for a much more visually and tactically dynamic experience !!!

 

Side note,..since comic art sux,..Ill buy that Joe book from ya for STUPID $$ DIVIDED BY 2

 

 

MINUS $500,...DEAL ?

[heartened]

Hi Gene,

 

I collected the books for years too, so I understand entirely. Few on these boards are as obsessed as I was "back in the day." Oh, and people do just stare at the covers these days. Haven't you heard of CGC?

[FFB]

Hi Gene,

 

I collected the books for years too, so I understand entirely. Few on these boards are as obsessed as I was "back in the day." Oh, and people do just stare at the covers these days. Haven't you heard of CGC?

 

It's the label they're staring at, not the covers.

[heartened]

Sadly, that's true. It was inevitable, I suppose.

[FFB]

Sadly, that's true. It was inevitable, I suppose.

 

It's better that way. They don't notice the slab damage on the comic book.

[JohnBull]

 

When I think of Frazetta I tend to think of dinosaurs and women with impossibly large breasts and somehow I can't see these ever garnering too much mainstream approval.

 

This piece doesn't tread that path, but ultimately, it really isn't that special. Go and look in a gallery at the real pictures (not the "avant garde") and look at the level of draughtsmanship involved. Look at pencil roughs created for later pictures.

 

A well drawn SF+F picture it may be, but what's it saying to me?

 

What do comic artists have that other professional graphic illustrators (ad designers, greetings card manufacturers, packaging designers) don't? Would you pay $10K for an exquisitely drawn Christmas card and stick it on your wall?

[comicartfan]

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.

 

I like their work, don't get me wrong, and it is some of the best the comics industry has to offer. But there's more than technical ability that goes into a great piece of art. I think comic art suffers primarily because of the subject matter.

 

I wouldn't call comic art hack work (not the best of it certainly), but it's also pen and ink illustration, and some of it looks beautiful, but I wouldn't call them great pieces of art.

 

To me, the subjective v. objective debate about art is a great one. I think it's an incredibly stimulating argument. While I don't agree with what you are saying Mike, I certainly know exactly where you're coming from.

 

Hiya Brian,

I had originally sent this as a private email to Hari. He said i should voice my two cents on the subject, so i just cut and pasted it.

 

I appreciate you seeing my point, even though you don't agree. that's okay. But, where you say that "it's not great pieces of art " and where Steranko and Romita and company would be offended to be compared to the greats.....have you ever met Steranko ? - or Adams ? - well, I have met Steranko and the man as pleasant and grateful as he is to the fans...the man has an ego the size of Michigan ! - And the same would be true for Neal Adams from what i have heard. how can someone charge 1500 for a piece of art that probably took them 30 mins to sketch out and say that they are humble ?!

 

Second, it was stated that Monet and Renoir, Van Gogh and the usual suspects didn't enjoy instant monetary rewards on their art. That was exactly what i was saying....it was only over time that "mainstream" appreciated the art. I think that this is happening (on a smaller. slower scale) to comic art. While i agree that the subject matter is a strike against it, how many of us would rather have a splash of Kirby's FF vs. Dr. Doom than a painting of a vase with flowers in that impressionism style.....let's see a show of !!

 

Fifty years from now, it will be hard to say where comic art will stand. It's only now starting to gain popularity and i think that when comics contiune to decline in sales, art will still be traded and sold....especially the higher end stuff. - Batman , Superman, Spiderman and on a smaller scale, the Hulk, X Men and FF have been intergated into pop culture and have stood the test of time (so far) - and that is really the true test......remember, art is always worth more when the artist is no longer living. -