2004 Original Art Acquisitioins

[FlComicFan]

WTF I thought this thread for was for new art forum members picked up over the past year. My quick 2 cents. I dont consider comic art in the same breath as fine artwork by the greats. However, since I seriously doubt I will have the financial ability to own a Dali or other fine art which appeals to me I am content to have artwork from comics that I loved as a kid. To satisfy my nostalgia and my collecting fervor I buy comic art. Its more fun and ultimately seems like a good as any collectible to put some money into and have a an excellent chance at getting a return somewhere down the line. Art is one of a kind so the challenge is far greater than collecting comics even if they happen to be the high grade CGC slabbed kind that have changed the market over the past 5 or so years. Will prices on comic art continue to climb? I'm fairly certain they will go up and much higher. There is a very limited supply and more and more big pocketed collectors seem to join in the scramble for key art. So far all the collectors I have met and spoken with at minimum read comics at some point. If the hobby gets pure speculators/investors from other fields(maybe they are here already) to join in prices could really pop . When I start to see the art I am looking for readily available then I would start to be concerned about the cash I have sunk into the art I own. End of rant

[DESTRO-migration]

**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? **

 

Its clear to me that you either have bad taste or no taste. And that's not your fault, I guess, but it should be noted, the market seems to think differently. And your analysis 'what's it saying to me' and 'it aint that special',...is not really a thought provoking comment,...without being crude,...who cares what its saying to YOU,....and just because you say it isnt special dont make it so !

 

Ultimately, if you cant even see value in a Frazetta,...you're clearly biased. And as the Chinese say 'the hardest thing to open is a closed mind'.

[delekkerste]

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.

 

Van Gogh's work was only appreciated posthumously. He sold only 1 painting in his lifetime, and that was to his brother Theo's gallery, I believe. Monet and Renoir struggled initially, but both became very respected artists and very wealthy men within their lifetimes (in much less time than Romita and Kirby have been around).

 

I think the "mainstream" ALREADY appreciates comic art for what it is. What it is not, as most on the Boards have readily conceded, is a new branch of fine art or the evolution from an existing branch. It is part of the world of pop culture collectibles, not of fine art. As one of the U.K. Board members quite rightly put it, if we're going to start including comic book art as fine art, we may as well start adding greeting card art (or advertising art or calendar art or news magazine cover art or baseball card art or whatever else) as well. It requires a whole other leap of faith to believe that art created for mass commercial consumerism purposes will be accepted as fine art. Sure, some artists can blur this line, though, again, artists like Rockwell used the tools, techniques and subject matter that have been employed traditionally by fine artists.

 

 

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 !!

 

You didn't really just say that, did you?

[JohnBull]

Its clear to me that you either have bad taste or no taste. And that's not your fault, I guess, but it should be noted, the market seems to think differently. And your analysis 'what's it saying to me' and 'it aint that special',...is not really a thought provoking comment,...without being crude,...who cares what its saying to YOU,....and just because you say it isnt special dont make it so !

 

Ultimately, if you cant even see value in a Frazetta,...you're clearly biased. And as the Chinese say 'the hardest thing to open is a closed mind'.

 

No, you're wrong. I've collected comics for getting on 35 years and they have consumed the lions share of my disposable (and not so disposable) income in that period, as well as an enormous portion of my spare time.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that, even to me, I just see them as entertainment and fun. I'd be hard put to pick anything from the straight 4 colour world that I would consider to be thought provoking to anyone over the age of about 18 and a well drawn comic is still only a comic at the end of the day.

 

Due to my history, I could cheerfully own some original comic art, but I'd be filling it under ephemera. As well as reading comics, I also tend to go to galleries frequently and this is where I find real art.

 

I'm about as unbiased as you can get and to me, "it ain't special". I'm afraid I'm not a critic, so that's about as good as you'll get from me, but I'm sure an internet search of art books would yield a more intellectual answer.

 

If I live to be 140, I'll still be able to see my Turner's in the Tate. I don't expect there to be too many Frazetta's.

[shrunkenhead]

 

 

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 !!

 

You didn't really just say that, did you?

 

Yeesh. Not even Kirby would say something like that. Even the artists themselves know they're not in these categories, so are you so adamant about sticking them there?

[FlComicFan]

Frazetta is fine art I have no doubt that if he had chosen to do work in a format that is more acceptable to the fine art snobs he would have still stood out. With just a pencil and a piece of paper and a few minutes he could convey a lot My wife couldnt care less about comics nor sci-fi fandom yet she and her brother watched the Frazetta documentary on cable with me and were transfixed by his works.

[heartened]

WTF I thought this thread for was for new art forum members picked up over the past year.

 

Actually, this thread DID start out about showing the art that was picked up over the past year. You can still check them out at www.comicartfans.com. Click on Best of 2004 Published or Best of 2004 Unpublished. Have fun!

[DESTRO-migration]

Even the artists themselves know they're not in these categories, so are you so adamant about sticking them there?

---------------------------------------

 

Why are you so adamant about excluding them ? I swear,..you guys remind me of the mom's from the 1950's who told their kids that comics were a waste of time and worthless. How ironic !

[Aman619]

Would you pay $10K for an exquisitely drawn Christmas card and stick it on your wall?

 

well, yes! I would buy a Sundblum Coca Cola Santa painting! The classic Santa pose and look?... Sure! You have to loosen up and take the long view. Santa is a pretty recent fictitious and marketing creation. And, is, obviously, 100 time as well known and popular as Spidey worldwide. And, it was those early depictions of him in those ads that ARE or HAVE BECOME "Santa Claus" in every kid's imagination....

 

So would I pay a measly 10K for the prototype original artworks?? In a NY minute. But if you meant would I buy a Santa ad piece by Joe Schmo??? No Way.

 

But bringing this back to comics, this is a great example of what I and others have argued. The dors have opened up (and will continue to open) for new kinds of collectible popular artworks, like pulp covers, ads (Leyendecker anyone), poster illustrations (Bob Peake?) Pin-up art (Varga Elvgren?) and comics. In time, or so th eoptimistic argument goes. these will increase in value, acceptance and demand to be seen in the original form, and galleries and museums will "invest" in them for their public. Or todays BSD collectors with vast collections bought cheaply over time will donate them with stipulations that they be shown and how (a la the Barnes Collection)..

 

My point being that, we are living in a continuum and things change. Most everything we know, love and collect is relatively an infant compared to the Old Masters who keep coming up in this discussion. Its may be that some barriers will never be broken and popular art will ALWAYS be ghettoized as junk by those "who know". But Maybe THEY will be only a niche at some point too, like Opera buffs today. Hardly anyone says Opera sucks!, but who really goes regularly? A handful of people statistically. Also lets not forget that what makes Van Gogh's and others works so popular, valuable and icons of Fine Art has a LOT to do with the huge amount of commercialization of Starry Night etc, on posters, coffee nugs, keychains, you name it. Why WOULDN'T Joe Public want to visit MOMA just to see it in person???

 

"wow -- its so SMALL!" So 'popular' is not a bad way to go about widening acceptance to someday become "real".

[DNAgent]

 

hi...

 

i got back into comics 4 years ago after school/college/grad school...2 years after that i found out about original art from the comics. i was(am) so excited that this original art was available !!! (even if it was 'touted' as 'one of a kind'. but then i thought, um, uhh, it is one of a kind. it is not really 'touted' as anything, but it is what it is, unique and 'one of a kind'. why folks spend crazy money on comics always seemed more bizarre to me than on the artwork, simply because there are COPIES of all comics and one original piece of artwork, as well as the artwork having been created by a human being's touch.

 

but of course, spend your money on whatever you like! that is all that really matters. if one minds whiteout, notes etc., please stay away from the art (it allows people like Heartened and DNA to enjoy more of it!!!). but i'm sure we'd all agree that one should always give things a chance, and we don't really want to be the only ones to bask in the viewing/reading pleasure and intangibles of comic book artwork.

 

now. comparing comic art to fine art. i myself have trouble.

i first learned about art in high school, like many, but i did extra reading as it struck a chord in me (poetry too). i spent 2 summers, one b4 college and one during college, working in hospitals in manhattan. many days after work you could find me at the MOMA or Met or even the Gugg, taking in the paintings, sculpture, furniture, musical instruments, utensils- whatever, from the different cultures on our planet. as i matured, i began to see meaning, symbolism and other intangibles in art (most people can't/don't, they can only tell you: i like that. or: i don't like that).

 

huh. i get feelings, thoughts, questions etc. concerning the art, and wonder about what was going on in the artists mind, whether something in the picture was consciously painted/placed in it or if it subconsciously 'appeared' and much much more (i hope i always continue to mature/grow/learn about art). i have so much to say i can't type it here...but, the gist is that these artists, 'fine' artists, painted/sculpted their pieces from within/introspect (and myriad other things as well as commissions) and many, or 'good' ones left their soul in their art. the art reflects life at that time (theirs or their own view others' lives) or maybe how they felt at that moment, or how a haystack felt to them early in the morning, or what was wrong with their life or the world etc. etc. etc. too much to type...i'll stop...

 

now. art of comics. these artists were given a job: story telling. they obviously could not make a painting of their choice making fun of the christian church(unbeknownst to the church!) for example. they had to do what their boss told them. of course many put their souls into the work, but they were rarely conveying a message or feeling (creating something from introspect)etc. so it seems to me that the only comparison i would make can be skill/technical abilities as the reason for creating the art is worlds apart. but how can we even compare that when there are 'good' and 'bad' from both the 'fine' artists and comic artists? some 'fine' artists are technically terrible, but are greats b/c of their message or ability to express something. and we know about the comic artists...good and bad...talented or not so much...

 

so i find it difficult to compare art which makes one think to art that is for entertainment/storytelling. both can be pleasing to the eyes/senses, both can make their points, both have merit, both may do their 'job'. as for pricing, i have no problem seeing prices in the millions for a nice Picasso, or the prices realized for comic art. you pay whatever you want to pay.

 

so roughly 2 years ago i 'found out' about original comic art, and i must admit, i cannot get enough of it. i spend my money on anything pleasing to me, but mostly DC 'horror'. i could never really get into super heroes...i found that after i purchased and read pretty much all the comics i wanted, it was onto the art from the comics i read as a kid!!!

 

i wonder how many other people will move on to art and stop the non-sensical grading quibbles

regarding comics. i suspect that many, once they discover it or have the funds, will 'get into' comic book artwork. i still love comics and will read them until i die, i just won't spend real money on any pristine copy (well, you never know, haha). i do indeed think it is funny what people do/say/pay concerning high grade comics...

 

as for acceptance, the non-comic person seems much more interested in the art rather than comics in my experience. like Hari(somewhat), none of my friends/acquaintances cares about comics, no matter what i do/say. however, when they see the art, they are interested and only want to see more...i feel this is a decent reflection of society and would say that comic art would always rise in interest, especially if comic books would.

 

sorry i was so vague in my descriptions above...

 

''Would you pay $10K for an exquisitely drawn Christmas card and stick it on your wall? ''

um, why would it matter where the art came from? i'd put any artwork i found pleasing on my wall...

 

sorry i am so vague...

[heartened]

hi...

 

i got back into comics 4 years ago after school/college/grad school...2 years after that i found out about original art from the comics. i was(am) so excited that this original art was available !!! (even if it was 'touted' as 'one of a kind'. but then i thought, um, uhh, it is one of a kind. it is not really 'touted' as anything, but it is what it is, unique and 'one of a kind'. why folks spend crazy money on comics always seemed more bizarre to me than on the artwork, simply because there are COPIES of all comics and one original piece of artwork, as well as the artwork having been created by a human being's touch.

 

but of course, spend your money on whatever you like! that is all that really matters. if one minds whiteout, notes etc., please stay away from the art (it allows people like Heartened and DNA to enjoy more of it!!!). but i'm sure we'd all agree that one should always give things a chance, and we don't really want to be the only ones to bask in the viewing/reading pleasure and intangibles of comic book artwork.

 

now. comparing comic art to fine art. i myself have trouble.

i first learned about art in high school, like many, but i did extra reading as it struck a chord in me (poetry too). i spent 2 summers, one b4 college and one during college, working in hospitals in manhattan. many days after work you could find me at the MOMA or Met or even the Gugg, taking in the paintings, sculpture, furniture, musical instruments, utensils- whatever, from the different cultures on our planet. as i matured, i began to see meaning, symbolism and other intangibles in art (most people can't/don't, they can only tell you: i like that. or: i don't like that).

 

huh. i get feelings, thoughts, questions etc. concerning the art, and wonder about what was going on in the artists mind, whether something in the picture was consciously painted/placed in it or if it subconsciously 'appeared' and much much more (i hope i always continue to mature/grow/learn about art). i have so much to say i can't type it here...but, the gist is that these artists, 'fine' artists, painted/sculpted their pieces from within/introspect (and myriad other things as well as commissions) and many, or 'good' ones left their soul in their art. the art reflects life at that time (theirs or their own view others' lives) or maybe how they felt at that moment, or how a haystack felt to them early in the morning, or what was wrong with their life or the world etc. etc. etc. too much to type...i'll stop...

 

now. art of comics. these artists were given a job: story telling. they obviously could not make a painting of their choice making fun of the christian church(unbeknownst to the church!) for example. they had to do what their boss told them. of course many put their souls into the work, but they were rarely conveying a message or feeling (creating something from introspect)etc. so it seems to me that the only comparison i would make can be skill/technical abilities as the reason for creating the art is worlds apart. but how can we even compare that when there are 'good' and 'bad' from both the 'fine' artists and comic artists? some 'fine' artists are technically terrible, but are greats b/c of their message or ability to express something. and we know about the comic artists...good and bad...talented or not so much...

 

so i find it difficult to compare art which makes one think to art that is for entertainment/storytelling. both can be pleasing to the eyes/senses, both can make their points, both have merit, both may do their 'job'. as for pricing, i have no problem seeing prices in the millions for a nice Picasso, or the prices realized for comic art. you pay whatever you want to pay.

 

so roughly 2 years ago i 'found out' about original comic art, and i must admit, i cannot get enough of it. i spend my money on anything pleasing to me, but mostly DC 'horror'. i could never really get into super heroes...i found that after i purchased and read pretty much all the comics i wanted, it was onto the art from the comics i read as a kid!!!

 

i wonder how many other people will move on to art and stop the non-sensical grading quibbles

regarding comics. i suspect that many, once they discover it or have the funds, will 'get into' comic book artwork. i still love comics and will read them until i die, i just won't spend real money on any pristine copy (well, you never know, haha). i do indeed think it is funny what people do/say/pay concerning high grade comics...

 

as for acceptance, the non-comic person seems much more interested in the art rather than comics in my experience. like Hari(somewhat), none of my friends/acquaintances cares about comics, no matter what i do/say. however, when they see the art, they are interested and only want to see more...i feel this is a decent reflection of society and would say that comic art would always rise in interest, especially if comic books would.

 

sorry i was so vague in my descriptions above...

 

''Would you pay $10K for an exquisitely drawn Christmas card and stick it on your wall? ''

um, why would it matter where the art came from? i'd put any artwork i found pleasing on my wall...

 

sorry i am so vague...

 

I enjoyed hearing your thoughts. Welcome to the boards.

 

Best,

[shrunkenhead]

 

i wonder how many other people will move on to art and stop the non-sensical grading quibbles regarding comics. i do indeed think it is funny what people do/say/pay concerning high grade comics..

 

Hmm...ok, I'll be the first to take this. But first, welcome to the boards!

 

Moving right along. You say you appreciate comic artwork because it is unique. A one-of-a-kind piece. I can appreciate that, which is why I appreciate high grade golden age comics. Isn't it also unique to find a pristine book from the 1940s? What if you own the best existing copy of a given book, and it's a vf/nm, and the next best known copy is a vg. Is this just a grading quibble?

 

i feel this is a decent reflection of society and would say that comic art would always rise in interest, especially if comic books would.

 

Fair enough. But you're admitting that appreciation, respect, and value of comic art is largely contingent on a correlating apprecation, respect, and sense of value in comic books. So again, why is seeking out pristine copies of prized comic books "funny?" Would you pay the same price for a piece of comic art regardless of whether or not the page was white, yellow, or brown with age?

[heartened]

Would you pay the same price for a piece of comic art regardless of whether or not the page was white, yellow, or brown with age?

 

Personally, I alter the value of the piece based on its condition, factoring in paper deterioration, etc. However, many comic art collectors are much more lenient and will accept certain condition problems with their art, because it is one-of-a-kind. You either want it or you don't. You can't find another. For this reason, we (as a whole) are less condition-conscious. And, we look more favorably upon restoration as preservation, similar to how restoration is viewed in the art world at large.

[Aman619]

now. art of comics. these artists were given a job: story telling. they obviously could not make a painting of their choice making fun of the christian church(unbeknownst to the church!) for example. they had to do what their boss told them. of course many put their souls into the work, but they were rarely conveying a message or feeling (creating something from introspect)etc. so it seems to me that the only comparison i would make can be skill/technical abilities as the reason for creating the art is worlds apart. but how can we even compare that when there are 'good' and 'bad' from both the 'fine' artists and comic artists? some 'fine' artists are technically terrible, but are greats b/c of their message or ability to express something. and we know about the comic artists...good and bad...talented or not so much...

 

so i find it difficult to compare art which makes one think to art that is for entertainment/storytelling. both can be pleasing to the eyes/senses, both can make their points, both have merit, both may do their 'job'. as for pricing, i have no problem seeing prices in the millions for a nice Picasso, or the prices realized for comic art. you pay whatever you want to pay.

 

 

great stuff. Welcome to the boards!!

 

I quoted the above from your post. I understand the distinction you are making between commervial "work-for-hire" art.. and self-motivated Fine Art created fronm the artists psyche or to convey emotion etc. But you are no doubt aware that the "artist as free spirit expressing his inner self " or "exposing great truths" is a rather recent phenomenon, right? because the Old Masters right up through the 1800s were all "commercial" artists performing commissioned art for the church and wealthy patrons. Most early Great Art is portraiture of the "rich and famous", and religious themed pieces. In a general sense, it was photography that freed painters to paint from their hearts and led to Impressionism and Expresionism wherein they dove deep into themselves and created works that aroused emotions, as realism was no longer their responsibility given the superior results with a camera.

 

I would also argue that many artists today are also "commercial artists" except that they work solely on 'spec" until they are discovered.

[comicartfan]

You didn't really just say that, did you?

 

[heartened]

Hey Gene,

 

It was nice hanging out today at the show. Sorry about the black eye.

 

 

 

 

Just kidding, guys! There was no fighting. The two of us are both so scrawny that it would have been humorous at best. But, I couldn't help get a jab in when I had the chance. RedHook, Delekkerste and I were hanging out a bit, and after RedHook mentioned he was a graphic illustrator, I just HAD to say "You know, Gene here thinks you guys suck. He prefers chubby, pale women from the 1700s instead."

 

Well, I guess you had to be there It was funny.... really, it was.... really.....

[shrunkenhead]

Mmmmmm.....chubby pale women.....

[the blob]

wasn't toulouse-lautrec a guy who paid the rent doing posters for commercial purposes? and i'm still not so sure why lichtenstein commenting on comic art is "fine art" but not the comic art.

 

"art for art's sake" -- frazetta has done plenty of that, hasn't he?

 

is a kirby superior to a rembrandt? no, not in any sense. from a purely technical perspective, mr. rembrandt was a better artist. and he was there first, which, in the art world puts you ahead in the respect category. (and much of kirby's later stuff is really terrible)

 

frazetta on the other hand... (if you're unhappy with frank's chubby behinds, then let's compare him to rubens)

 

mr. rembrandt would probably be able to do a pretty darn nice graphic novel... granted, it might have taken him a couple of years

 

(is George Pratt a fine artist in your opinion?)

 

keith haring is a "finer" artist than frazetta? basquaiat? (sp)

 

true, pure "comic art" is going to appeal to a smaller group of people than the broader "fine art" world, a lot of people never read this stuff, but if attractive advertising posters from the 1800s and early 1900s are considered "art", and it sure seems like many are, i don't know why comic art shouldn't be

 

fact is, to the broader (U.S.) population out there (yes, the uneducated masses), rockwell is superior to picasso

 

and while i love some picasso pieces, he produced a lot of generic [#@$%!!!] too. all things being equal, i'd prefer a frazetta masterpiece painting to a generic picasso that he cranked out in a few hours (i don't know what a generic, 18 X 24 picasso goes for nowadays -- they're common as heck and i've seen more than a few on people's walls over the years -- frazetta's top stuff may be in the $250K range or more)

 

And in all seriousness, the "comic art is not art" argument really is the same thing that was said by traditionalists when looking at cubism, etc.

 

In terms of the market... perhaps the sky isn't the limit, but when you look at the amount of good material from the top names that's out there (how many silver age marvel covers are there?) and look at the number of paintings picasso cranked out in his lifetime and what they go for.... $50K does not seem like a vast amount for a JRR ASM cover...how many of them exist? as many as there are paintings that picasso cranked out in July 1994? perhaps not. But when you compare some of the good stuff that is out there at (still) reasonable prices to dreck being pushed by soho galleries or a "limited edition (of 300)" lithograph of some not-so-dreck... I don't know, paying a couple of hundred bucks for a nice buscema conan page does not seem outrageous and some of the stuff that's out there for under $100 seems reasonable too.

 

I fancy myself an artist, have degrees and such, do mainly surreal/abstract work (and some more realistic landscapes and what not when in the mood), haven't has a "show" in a while (too busy in my real job) and yes, part of the reason why i collect comic art is that I can afford it, I just have a tough time saying one type of art shouldn't be mentioned in the same paragraph as another type of art or whatever. Fact is, millions of people know who Jack Kirby is and not nearly as many will know the name of some artist whose work fetches similar prices ... the Renoir vs. Kirby comparison isn't fair. Kirby stuff doesn't go for millions. Heck, I picked up a Kirby page recently for $200, unknowns slapping up paintings in their garage and selling on ebay sometimes get that much.

[the blob]

"picasso cranked out in July 1994" -- should be 1949

[shrunkenhead]

 

and while i love some picasso pieces, he produced a lot of generic [#@$%!!!] too. all things being equal, i'd prefer a frazetta masterpiece painting to a generic picasso that he cranked out in a few hours

 

Well, if I've ever got a frazetta, and you ever have some ey picasso laying around, I know who to call for a trade!

 

And in all seriousness, the "comic art is not art" argument really is the same thing that was said by traditionalists when looking at cubism, etc.

 

Yes and no. The cubists were still operating within the same world, the same paradigm as the traditionalists. They were breaking rules, but they had learned the rules first in order to break them, if you know what I mean. I think comic art is generally created within a very different context.

 

In terms of the market... perhaps the sky isn't the limit, but when you look at the amount of good material from the top names that's out there (how many silver age marvel covers are there?) and look at the number of paintings picasso cranked out in his lifetime and what they go for.... $50K does not seem like a vast amount for a JRR ASM cover...how many of them exist? as many as there are paintings that picasso cranked out in July 1994? perhaps not. But when you compare some of the good stuff that is out there at (still) reasonable prices to dreck being pushed by soho galleries or a "limited edition (of 300)" lithograph of some not-so-dreck... I don't know, paying a couple of hundred bucks for a nice buscema conan page does not seem outrageous and some of the stuff that's out there for under $100 seems reasonable too.

 

Maybe you have something here. My stake in this whole argument has more to do with potential canonicity of comic art than the dollar values currently being realized. I feel that they're two separate arguments, but I'm getting from some of the comic art collectors that they believe these two factors have a common bond (i.e prices are high because comic art's place in the canon is certain....that's the part of the argument that I disagree with).

 

 

 

Heck, I picked up a Kirby page recently for $200, unknowns slapping up paintings in their garage and selling on ebay sometimes get that much.

 

Really? Neat, what page didja get?