2004 Original Art Acquisitioins

[delekkerste]

Honestly, I don't think that the members of the comicart-l are any more or less juvenile than members of these forums. I've been reading the forums here for two years now, and there are certainly the same personalities. On the comic art list, it's slightly more obvious because the nature of the way the list is published to us makes it necessary for you to read every post. So, you can't ignore the ridiculous personalities like you can on these forums, where you see who the post is by or what the post is about before you click on it.

 

Hi Hari,

 

I don't disagree with you here - I think the people on the Boards here are unquestionably more juvenile than the ComicArt-L listers. Maybe it's because they're generally younger or have more graemlins at their disposal. In any case, however, I find that the egos on the ComicArt-L list are out of control. From my vantage point, chest-thumping, bragging rights and seeking attention/approval have come to overshadow the art form itself on the List. And, heaven forbid that one should step away from the Kool-Aid bowl and say something to upset the status quo - the "true believers" will be on your case faster than you can scream "Death to the Infidels!"

 

 

I'll say it: If you take the resale values and the prejudices out of it, I'd rather have a ASM Romita cover than a Matisse or a Renoir. I buy what I like, and frankly the only thing those things offer is "status" and resale value. How many people who buy fine art actually do it because they like it? I suspect most buy them as status symbols to show off, whether they really like them or not.

 

Sadly, I find that "ASM Romita covers" have become the poor man's (relatively speaking) Renoir. There's no doubt that many of today's fine art buyers have little real appreciation for what they're buying - as hedge fund manager and collector Scott Black said a few months ago, "There are a lot of people out there with newly minted money who wouldn't know a Monet Argenteuil painting from 1872 from a Vetheuil painting from 1879. They couldn't care less." However, there seems to be an unhealthy clamoring for status objects in the comic art world as well these days.

 

Resale value aside, I, for one, would not still take any comic art over Renoir's worst painting from when he abandonned Impressionism! Good fine art has so much more intrinsic beauty and value, IMO - I'm pretty sure even the best comic artists would be humble enough to agree with me on that. Whenever I go to a good museum, I can't help but wonder what anyone is thinking when they mention fine art and comic art in the same breath (excepting some works by the likes of Frazetta, Sanjulian, etc.)!

[heartened]

Also, just so people understand where I'm coming from, I'm mainly playing Devil's Advocate. I don't really care where prices go. My income is far greater (thankfully) than what I spend on this stuff, so it matters little to me if it all plunges (really, I mean that!). These hobbies have given me years of enjoyment and keep me sane, and for that I am willing to spend whatever I can.

 

On these boards, I sort of feel like I should give the "other side's" point of view. I don't mean to imply that comic art prices will skyrocket and that this is a great investment. For the most part, it isn't (long-term). But, I do believe that certain iconic pieces will find their way into mainstream culture and acceptance.

[rob_react]

What do you consider worldwide?? Isn't worldwide really the US and Europe in your definition?? Find me someone in Asia who cares one bit about those artists. And, as we all know, Asia is the majority of the world's population.

 

Well, a lot of the record prices paid for Western art were by Japanese investor/collectors in the late 80s. It wasn't until recently that those prices were again approached (and surpassed in a lot of cases.)

[delekkerste]

However, comic book art was meant to be reproduced. It was meant to be reproduced in color. It's "original" state to me is the colored version. The one that is published. I think original comic book art is less desirable to a lot of people at most price levels that they're at now because in essence, the original form is really the published version.

 

This is a great point - comic book art looks "unfinished" to me. When I look at a vibrant color painting in a museum, it evokes a whole range of feelings that I don't get from comic art, which evokes more nostalgia than anything else. Nostalgia and curiosity, as in, "oh, so that's how they put together a comic book". Not exactly art created for art's sake, which is why even color illustration art by the likes of Frazetta and Rockwell are not as highly valued as they otherwise would be if they were created as commissions or from the artist's sole, non-commercial inspiration.

 

Also, the subject matter - overinflated men and women in silly spandex outfits - is not exactly timeless and universal, no? I know the True Believers will try to argue that it's just an extension of the mythological and Biblical paintings of yore, but please put a Rubens and a Romita side by side and tell me that with a straight face!

[heartened]

What do you consider worldwide?? Isn't worldwide really the US and Europe in your definition?? Find me someone in Asia who cares one bit about those artists. And, as we all know, Asia is the majority of the world's population.

 

Well, a lot of the record prices paid for Western art were by Japanese investor/collectors in the late 80s. It wasn't until recently that those prices were again approached (and surpassed in a lot of cases.)

 

The Japanese speculate in a lot of art, whether they actually appreciate it or not. It's mostly about investment and resale. The Alex Ross market is a perfect example of a market that was pushed by the Japanese in the 90s. Certain Japanese investors paid ridiculous sums of money for Ross covers/poster art.

[rob_react]

Just as an aesthetic note, with many artists, I prefer the original art over the printed page.

[rob_react]

What do you consider worldwide?? Isn't worldwide really the US and Europe in your definition?? Find me someone in Asia who cares one bit about those artists. And, as we all know, Asia is the majority of the world's population.

 

Well, a lot of the record prices paid for Western art were by Japanese investor/collectors in the late 80s. It wasn't until recently that those prices were again approached (and surpassed in a lot of cases.)

 

The Japanese speculate in a lot of art, whether they actually appreciate it or not. It's mostly about investment and resale. The Alex Ross market is a perfect example of a market that was pushed by the Japanese in the 90s. Certain Japanese investors paid ridiculous sums of money for Ross covers/poster art.

 

That didn't spring out of a vacuum, it's also part of the popular culture over there. With the opening of Japan in the 19th century came an interest in Western Art. Look around for examples of Japanese Art Nouveau for an interesting example of relatively early cross-pollination. Also look at Akira Kurosawa's lifelong fascination with Van Gogh (who himself was influenced by Japanese woodblock print master Ando Hiroshige.)

 

It's continued to this day. I know a bunch of current Western artists that are much bigger in Japan than they are in the West. And then there are people like Takashi Murakami who rule both sides of the Pacific...

[DESTRO-migration]

 

Glen,

 

I am a true believer. That out of the way,. I dont understand how you can draw the conclusion "prices are way out of line with reality" -- especially considering the fact, that you are not even in the market. What is reality anyways? I always thought reality was point of sale transactions ? However, I do agree that there are many 'trade deals' in the hobby, but these trade deals do not negate the fact that if someone 'lowered their buy price and accepted only cash' the piece would sell FAST. Its only because sellers are looking for THE MOST that trade deals even take place.

 

Additionally, I never stated "predicting markets is futile" - what I stated was simply that before anyone gives creedence to market analysis which predicts movement, in any direction, one should consider the analytic skill of the person before assessing whether their conclusion is valid or invalid.

 

That said,...I personally believe that if Warhol, Lichtenstein,...and those nameless artists in the Guggenheim that place red dots on canvas can be considered 'High Art',...then surely,..one can esteem a 1966 Amazing Spiderman Cover equally as worthy of artistic merit (60's America was one of the most dynamic times in American history and the Post-Modern Era is continually re-assessed).

 

Click on the image itself,..blow it up,..look at the line and ink work,...its gorgeous.

 

http://www.heritagecomics.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=803&Lot_No=5882&src=pr

 

Ultimately, I am a believer,..and yes,... I do recognize that growth is not unlimited but I honestly dont see the market as 'at the top' yet for Grade A material (not by a long stretch). Perhaps Original Comic Art will remain 'a collectible',....if that is the crux of your argument,..I dont believe either of us is qualified to predict the future,.... only time will tell !!!! BEST !!!

[shrunkenhead]

 

 

those nameless artists in the Guggenheim that place red dots on canvas

 

[Foolkiller]

Philly is good man... no complaints.

 

I hear your point about how you are defining worldwide, but I think if you ask people in South America about Dali, and even in parts of Asia, that while Joe Blow on the street may have heard of Spider Man (I think mostly because of the movie now...) anyone who is an art collector recognizes the quality of art in all parts of the world, even if they don't specifically collect it. I don't think people feel that way about ASMs. But strictly correlating hearing of someone vs. appreciating something are two different things. If you put a piece of ASM original art in front of someone in Asia and a Dali in front of someone (who isn't a child) how many people do you think are picking the Romita pen and ink of the Green Goblin pulling Spidey along by a rope?

 

I'll tell you what else... I feel that comic art is easily duplicated. I'm pretty confident with practice and the right materials, I have sufficient skill to reproduce ANY piece of comic art at near the same quality of the original. It's PEN AND INK lines, it's NOT that hard to do. Sure, it takes some talent, and those artists are very good at what they do, but I just can't see comic book art (based on both subject matter and quality) to ever reach the same potential as the broader fine art.

 

As for Destro's point on modern art... well, let's just say while I don't agree 100%, sometimes I think the people paying the prices for modern art are often just being taken to the cleaners. In that context, maybe original comic art isn't so bad. Hell, it looks a helluva lot better.

 

 

 

 

The problem is that while fine art has gained a universal acceptance (although every artist has not) and been granted an established place in WORLDWIDE culture, the same cannot be said of comic book art. It is primarily dominated in interest by the United States, and slightly in Europe.

 

Hi Brian,

 

How are things in my old neighborhood?

 

What do you consider worldwide?? Isn't worldwide really the US and Europe in your definition?? Find me someone in Asia who cares one bit about those artists. And, as we all know, Asia is the majority of the world's population.

 

So, I would say that comic books could appeal to everyone in the Western world. Moreover, with the globalization in culture, I'd daresay more people have heard of Spider-man in India than have heard of Dali. Would you really argue this?

 

Something to consider......

[delekkerste]

That out of the way,. I dont understand how you can draw the conclusion "prices are way out of line with reality" -- especially considering the fact, that you are not even in the market.

 

Hi Destro (by the way, as a Joe fan, I love the name!),

 

Oh, I still follow things pretty closely and talk with lots of friends, dealers and other participants in the community, so I'm well aware of what's going on even if I'm not actively buying. As for my comment on prices, I base this on my analysis of the aforementioned income, demographic and macroeconomic trends. I just don't see where all the money is going to come from to push this stuff 10-fold over the next 10-20 years like you seem to be suggesting. Quite the contrary, with income levels stagnating, debt levels soaring, Baby Boomers starting to retire in less than 5 years and one asset class after another rolling over, it's not going to take much of a shock to the system to bring the house of cards down.

 

 

Click on the image itself,..blow it up,..look at the line and ink work,...its gorgeous.

 

I think it's gorgeous for what it is. But it will never be appreciated like Warhol or Lichentenstein. It's small, uncolored and doesn't even look like art to a lot of people (logos? price tag? Comics Code label? Is that primarily art or advertising??) As I said, it's a by-product of the comic book making process with collectible value based primarily on nostalgia. The linework and everything else is a distinctly secondary consideration.

 

 

I dont believe either of us is qualified to predict the future,.... only time will tell !!!!

 

Considering that my job is to see the future before others and profit from it, I do feel somewhat qualified. Obviously, it's an imperfect art, but I do know that trees do not grow to the sky and that prices cannot compound at these real (inflation-adjusted) rates of return indefinitely, particularly when they are outstripping income growth and portfolio asset appreciation by a wide margin. I have to believe that prices are being fueled largely with debt and money from appreciated artwork and housing. This, too, is an unstable dynamic and is likely to self-destruct than continue on long enough to realize the price trends that you are envisioning.

 

As you said, though, only time will tell. I appreciate your opinions and look forward to hearing more from you.

 

Gene

[delekkerste]

By the way, for anyone who's interested, I'd love to organize a trip to the MoMA or the Met with the posters here so we can debate the merits of fine art vs. comic art in the proper context. Maybe next weekend we can spend 1/2 the day at the Big Apple Con and 1/2 the day at a museum? Or Saturday at the Con and Sunday at a museum? I'd seriously be up for it if anyone is interested.

 

Gene

[shrunkenhead]

 

Considering that my job is to see the future before others and profit from it, I do feel somewhat qualified.

 

 

Hmmm....I'm guessing actuary? Either that or he's really Dr. Strange.

[Foolkiller]

He's not an actuary, although a good friend of mine who's a comic collector is one.

[krazykat-migration]

>>Considering that my job is to see the future before others and profit from it, I do feel somewhat qualified.<<

 

Do you really believe that makes you qualified? That has got to be the dumbest statement I ever heard. (No offense!!!) That statement fits every person in America who has a desire to be rich. And does that make them qualified.??

 

>> Obviously, it's an imperfect art, but I do know that trees do not grow to the sky and that prices cannot compound at these real (inflation-adjusted) rates of return indefinitely, particularly when they are outstripping income growth and portfolio asset appreciation by a wide margin. I have to believe that prices are being fueled largely with debt and money from appreciated artwork and housing. This, too, is an unstable dynamic and is likely to self-destruct than continue on long enough to realize the price trends that you are envisioning. <<

 

Actually, 'hard assets' are rapidly appreciating. Gold, commodities and art are all just beginning a bull run while stocks, bonds and other common Wall Street paper is becoming less attractive.

[Foolkiller]

If you don't understand what goes into Gene's job, and believe it is as base what "every person in America is doing" trying to get rich, you win the new title for dumbest person to post on the boards. no offense.

 

>>Considering that my job is to see the future before others and profit from it, I do feel somewhat qualified.<<

 

Do you really believe that makes you qualified? That has got to be the dumbest statement I ever heard. (No offense!!!) That statement fits every person in America who has a desire to be rich. And does that make them qualified.??

 

>> Obviously, it's an imperfect art, but I do know that trees do not grow to the sky and that prices cannot compound at these real (inflation-adjusted) rates of return indefinitely, particularly when they are outstripping income growth and portfolio asset appreciation by a wide margin. I have to believe that prices are being fueled largely with debt and money from appreciated artwork and housing. This, too, is an unstable dynamic and is likely to self-destruct than continue on long enough to realize the price trends that you are envisioning. <<

 

Actually, 'hard assets' are rapidly appreciating. Gold, commodities and art are all just beginning a bull run while stocks, bonds and other common Wall Street paper is becoming less attractive.

[FlyingDonut]

Sadly, I find that "ASM Romita covers" have become the poor man's (relatively speaking) Renoir. There's no doubt that many of today's fine art buyers have little real appreciation for what they're buying - as hedge fund manager and collector Scott Black said a few months ago, "There are a lot of people out there with newly minted money who wouldn't know a Monet Argenteuil painting from 1872 from a Vetheuil painting from 1879. They couldn't care less." However, there seems to be an unhealthy clamoring for status objects in the comic art world as well these days.

 

Of course, it comes down to "what I collect is better than you, and what you collect is [#@$%!!!]."

 

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.

 

Resale value aside, I, for one, would not still take any comic art over Renoir's worst painting from when he abandonned Impressionism! Good fine art has so much more intrinsic beauty and value, IMO - I'm pretty sure even the best comic artists would be humble enough to agree with me on that. Whenever I go to a good museum, I can't help but wonder what anyone is thinking when they mention fine art and comic art in the same breath (excepting some works by the likes of Frazetta, Sanjulian, etc.)!

 

Your argument is exactly the same argument that was made about Picasso. Or Dali. Or Liechtenstein. Or Warhol. Or Rauchenberg. Or any of the other 20th century artists. Buy what you like. Don't worry about the resale value. If you like something and want to hang it up in your house, go right ahead. I have Disney movie posters hanging next to Wyeths in my house. If the price appreciates, I'm happy. If it doesn't I don't care, because I'm getting enjoyment out of the piece.

[Foolkiller]

FD:

 

I agree with the buy what you like standpoint of course... i think most of us do.

 

I know a similar argument as Gene's was used with regard to Warhol, but as to the others... I'm not sure the debate was exactly analogous to the comic art v. fine art argument. Perhaps the sentiment was the same, but I would not say it was "exactly" the same argument. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs...

 

Incidentally, I wouldn't say I know a great deal about fine art, but I have a vague reference as to the two artists cited in that quote. I think there are many people who both would know the reference and others who love fine art who would not. I don't think it was name dropping at all.

[DESTRO-migration]

Hey Gene,

 

I really think we will have to agree to disagree. Much of what we are debating is HIGHLY SPECULATIVE and cannot be analyzed using 'income, demographic and macroeconomic trends'. Moreover, and I dont mean this offensively, the metrics for trying to predict the future as a trader in a hedge-fund (candle-stick charts or any other method) are inapplicable in determining whether one would be successful at predicting the future as to art trends and the correlation of price. Again, ART IS HIGHLY SPECULATIVE. Ultimately, I am a believer,..I said this before,...if the Cover Art to Fantastic Four #1 existed (have no way of knowing if it does or doesnt),..I'd bet that it would go for some SERIOUS SERIOUS $$$$$$$$.

 

Maybe its art,..maybe its a collectible,...maybe its ridiculous,...but Id bet it could fetch over 500K,...EASILY !!!! Yes,...thats speculation,....but thats what we are dealing with here.

[delekkerste]

Of course, it comes down to "what I collect is better than you, and what you collect is [#@$%!!!]."

 

FD,

 

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". That's just asinine. If I never see this "what I collect..." argument trotted out again, I'll be fine with that.

 

 

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 just pulled a quote from a leading art magazine. I didn't say I was friends with the guy quoted or that I know as much about art as the curator at the Met. I think we all know guys here on the Boards who actually do name-drop and/or flaunt their knowledge of the less mainstream aspects of the hobby at every turn. Save your indignation for them. Please.

 

 

Your argument is exactly the same argument that was made about Picasso. Or Dali. Or Liechtenstein. Or Warhol. Or Rauchenberg. Or any of the other 20th century artists.

 

No it isn't - next time I see you at the Baltimore Con or wherever, I'd be happy to have this argument with you then. And how is trotting out this list of artists any less "name-dropping" than what I said?

 

 

Buy what you like. Don't worry about the resale value. If you like something and want to hang it up in your house, go right ahead. I have Disney movie posters hanging next to Wyeths in my house. If the price appreciates, I'm happy. If it doesn't I don't care, because I'm getting enjoyment out of the piece.

 

I totally agree with the "buy what you like" part. But it makes no sense if you don't add the disclaimer "at a price you can afford". Reading that Playboy article on original art and hearing about Mankuta living with his parents and some guy in a homeless shelter having his art delivered there doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence.

 

Gene