Spiderman 62 cover - get your bets in

[Bronty]

Scott: Miller is a tough one to work into this discussion as it's sometimes not that detailed yet with a lot "going on".

 

But there is a point to be made. Just last week doc Joe said the most disappointed he's ever been with receiving a cover was that Piracy cover where it's all sky and sea (#5?). Just not much going on in the origins despite the Printed version being extremely effective. I think those are the sorts of situations Gene is referring to, or at least, the situations where I think itclearly holds true

[Eric Seffinga]

I'm speaking in broad generalities here, but it is often the case that more detail in a given work is a shortcut to hiding issues with composition, anatomy, etc. and so on.

 

Or to put it another way, sometimes a million and one notes is not a sign of a musician's virtuosity, so much as an exercise in practice and wanking for the sake of having anything worthwhile to say. It is not difficult to find artists who paint so photorealistically as to be almost indistinguishable from an actual photograph, and yet so few bring anything of interest to the table except a honed skill. Without bringing something more (and a good dose of creative fearlessness behind it) the work falls flat creatively.

 

It is not uncommon for an artist's work to simplify or streamline over the years, as they recognize what is important in an image and what is not. And it is also not uncommon for the layman to see that change and long for the more "detailed" years, and totally missing the growth in efficacy in the new work.

 

And in other experienced and knowing hands, the occasional simplification of a specific work is created in contrast against a large body of busy work. It is not because said artists was lazy that month, but done to punctuate a moment.

 

There is power in that when done with intention. Much the same as in music. When it is loud all the time, it can actually lack the power of a piece of music that uses loudness sparingly but effectively.

 

I think the concept of more-ink-the-better is laughable were it not a bit sad, but I'd be an insufficiently_thoughtful_person if I didn't recognize it as true where the layman and their monies are concerned. So it's a good thing I've never used those as guideposts on what interests me, and prefer to judge based on my own eye and heart instead.

 

My .02¢

[vodou]

I think the concept of more-ink-the-better is laughable were it not a bit sad, but I'd be an insufficiently_thoughtful_person if I didn't recognize it as true where the layman and their monies are concerned. So it's a good thing I've never used those as guideposts on what interests me, and prefer to judge based on my own eye and heart instead.

That's about the kindest, gentlest slap in the face I've seen in a long time. Appeal to LCD is what I'd have written. I'm no writer. I definitely lack that subtle touch

[Eric Seffinga]

Well as I see it, it's true, and I really didn't mean it in a snarky way at all. When I say it's sad, I don't mean it as "pathetic" but as in true sadness.

 

It's often depressing to me to see it happen. I've seen comments about guys like Darrow, Mignola, even Mazzucchelli... these guys know what they are doing.

But it's also true some artists also outgrow their audience, and the knock on effect is it can be a sort of career-death by attrition.

 

But I'm digressing away from the heart of the discussion...

[delekkerste]

I think the concept of more-ink-the-better is laughable were it not a bit sad, but I'd be an insufficiently_thoughtful_person if I didn't recognize it as true where the layman and their monies are concerned. So it's a good thing I've never used those as guideposts on what interests me, and prefer to judge based on my own eye and heart instead.

 

My .02¢

 

Exactly, Eric. I'm glad that you see that I am merely speaking of observable, empirical reality here. Like it or not, lack of detail and backgrounds is often penalized in the marketplace. In talking about things coming up for auction, I've heard many a collector comment on pieces having too much white space. You also hear many collectors speak about lush or rich inking. The overwhelming majority of people like to see not just a memorable image, but one that looks like it took both a lot of skill - and a lot time - to create. Lack of backgrounds and detail often suggests the opposite to many people.

 

So, don't get me wrong - I appreciate simplicity and elegance as much as any fan of good art (if you knew of some of the pieces in my collection that are not on CAF, this would become readily apparent). But, I'm realistic enough to know how different things are received in the marketplace.

 

 

 

Emperor Joseph II: My dear young man, don't take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?

[Eric Seffinga]

That's the only logical way to approach these discussions, isn't it? Sometimes it's good to take a step back and assess things objectively from the outside.

 

The art is what it is, but it may not always necessarily jive with the general consensus or opinion. And where art collides with commerce, general opinion is what matters in driving prices where they go.

 

The number of times I've heard a (would be) art collector turn their back on a piece because of the physical quality of the ink (looking directly at Mignola's washed out cloudy ink, for instance)...

 

because of the use of whiteout for a correction as opposed to as an effect...

 

because of a pasteup (even more egregious than whiteout)...

 

My whole interest in this thread though is how these things impact at a piece in the upper spheres, which are viewed as fiscal dings in the general OA market as a whole. Is it so personal as to be totally unpredictable? I'm guessing probably. Hard enough to handicap the pieces in the upper spheres as it is, it seems. Much less quantify out these anomalies in the execution of a work.

 

One of my biggest collecting regrets actually centers around a sort of snobbish mindset back in the 90s. I passed on a number of fantastic pages from Duncan Fegredo's Enigma. It's still a low rent book (and art) by most standards even today, when it comes to fiscal values.

 

But I really loved that story, and those drawings. I wanted art from it badly. When I saw the originals in a huge pile at Scott Eder's table, I excitedly went through them all. And to my great regret today, I passed on every single one. The pages were a total mess of pasteovers, whiteout, etc, and so on. Almost to the point of collage.

 

And there's the rub. My 40-something year old brain sees that work in hindsight not available to my 20-something year old brain. What a magnificently unique example of funny-book process. Some of those pages represented what comic book art is, to an extreme degree. They showed a true and pure process with a complete disregard for what came after. And in some ways the artist's current (at the time) working method. Something lost in today's computer world, with fixes easily accomplished away from the physical piece.

 

And most of those pages have disappeared from the landscape. Only a handful ever circulate, and at such low values as to not pry fresh examples loose. I keep my eye out and holding my breath that some day...

 

[Peter G]

That's the only logical way to approach these discussions, isn't it? Sometimes it's good to take a step back and assess things objectively from the outside.

 

The art is what it is, but it may not always necessarily jive with the general consensus or opinion. And where art collides with commerce, general opinion is what matters in driving prices where they go.

 

The number of times I've heard a (would be) art collector turn their back on a piece because of the physical quality of the ink (looking directly at Mignola's washed out cloudy ink, for instance)...

 

because of the use of whiteout for a correction as opposed to as an effect...

 

because of a pasteup (even more egregious than whiteout)...

 

My whole interest in this thread though is how these things impact at a piece in the upper spheres, which are viewed as fiscal dings in the general OA market as a whole. Is it so personal as to be totally unpredictable? I'm guessing probably. Hard enough to handicap the pieces in the upper spheres as it is, it seems. Much less quantify out these anomalies in the execution of a work.

 

One of my biggest collecting regrets actually centers around a sort of snobbish mindset back in the 90s. I passed on a number of fantastic pages from Duncan Fegredo's Enigma. It's still a low rent book (and art) by most standards even today, when it comes to fiscal values.

 

But I really loved that story, and those drawings. I wanted art from it badly. When I saw the originals in a huge pile at Scott Eder's table, I excitedly went through them all. And to my great regret today, I passed on every single one. The pages were a total mess of pasteovers, whiteout, etc, and so on. Almost to the point of collage.

 

And there's the rub. My 40-something year old brain sees that work in hindsight not available to my 20-something year old brain. What a magnificently unique example of funny-book process. Some of those pages represented what comic book art is, to an extreme degree. They showed a true and pure process with a complete disregard for what came after. And in some ways the artist's current (at the time) working method. Something lost in today's computer world, with fixes easily accomplished away from the physical piece.

 

And most of those pages have disappeared from the landscape. Only a handful ever circulate, and at such low values as to not pry fresh examples loose. I keep my eye out and holding my breath that some day...

 

Really nicely said. I especially like the reference to some OA being like a collage.

 

I was just thinking recently how Neil Gaiman's art is purposefully crafted as a collage and the fanboys eat it up and love his work but this ASM 62 cover, some here criticize the paste-up aspect because its not done on a single board.

 

As I have previously mentioned, I take the art as I find it. There will never be an Amazing Spiderman # 62 cover on 1 board. It doesn't exist. This piece is the art to the published Amazing Spiderman # 62 cover and I appreciate the art "AS IS".

[Bronty]

On the philosophical side I want to agree with absolutely very thing you've said Eric. But the practical side is that these pieces aren't just examples of the process anymore, they are also often used as display objects and accordingly a piece that displays nicely - why wouldn't I pay more for that?

 

The whole 'more ink the better' thing is silly, yeah. But fundamentally so is paying more for a page where superman is facing you than one where his back is turned.

 

It just is what it is and if a piece is too sparse it won't display as well. For my personal taste it would have to be quite sparse before Id care. Spidey 62 lack of backgrounds wouldn't bother me at all but the paste ups would

[jaybuck43]

For me, the paste up/background argument is a layperson debate. I live with my girlfriend. Every time the Fedex man shows up she rolls her eyes and asks me how many diamond rings I just spent (the allegation being that I am away her engagement ring fund, which yea I am but don't tell her that ) When I display/hang these pieces, she has questions (who did this, what is it from, why did you spend so much money on it etc.) It's a lot easier to justifier to her a piece that 1) "looks nice" (meaning it doesn't have foxing/white out/and pieced together paste ups) and 2) that looks objectively like it has more work done to it (the 'more ink the better' argument)

 

I showed her the 62 cover and told her that people are expecting 6 figures for the cover. Her immediate response was "WHY??? It's all cut up!" When I explained "well it's the only one, and that was the method back then" she replied "Who cares, it still LOOKS cheap, I'd rather have an interior page for 1/10th the price, and get more bang for my buck, that probably looks better" (I've trained her well )

 

I think the two items combined really detract for the layman (the lack of background makes it look like there isn't anything "there" and the paste ups just make it look hodge podged together and cheap) And when it detracts for the layman, it makes it harder for a collector to pull the trigger because they have to "defend" the price. I never want to have to defend what I paid. If I put a Van Gogh on the wall and someone says "O that's beautiful, I have to ask what did you pay for that?" and I respond "$80 million but it's a Van Gogh" the person is more then likely going to say "O that makes sense" and thats the end of it. If I hang a Pollock on the wall and say I paid $80 million I will inevitably get the "FOR THAT??? My kid could do the same thing in the back yard" and then it becomes "Well you have to understand what it represents" and go into a 20 minute discussion on the absences of action etc.

[Peter G]

For me, the paste up/background argument is a layperson debate. I live with my girlfriend. Every time the Fedex man shows up she rolls her eyes and asks me how many diamond rings I just spent (the allegation being that I am away her engagement ring fund, which yea I am but don't tell her that ) When I display/hang these pieces, she has questions (who did this, what is it from, why did you spend so much money on it etc.) It's a lot easier to justifier to her a piece that 1) "looks nice" (meaning it doesn't have foxing/white out/and pieced together paste ups) and 2) that looks objectively like it has more work done to it (the 'more ink the better' argument)

 

I showed her the 62 cover and told her that people are expecting 6 figures for the cover. Her immediate response was "WHY??? It's all cut up!" When I explained "well it's the only one, and that was the method back then" she replied "Who cares, it still LOOKS cheap, I'd rather have an interior page for 1/10th the price, and get more bang for my buck, that probably looks better" (I've trained her well )

 

I think the two items combined really detract for the layman (the lack of background makes it look like there isn't anything "there" and the paste ups just make it look hodge podged together and cheap) And when it detracts for the layman, it makes it harder for a collector to pull the trigger because they have to "defend" the price. I never want to have to defend what I paid. If I put a Van Gogh on the wall and someone says "O that's beautiful, I have to ask what did you pay for that?" and I respond "$80 million but it's a Van Gogh" the person is more then likely going to say "O that makes sense" and thats the end of it. If I hang a Pollock on the wall and say I paid $80 million I will inevitably get the "FOR THAT??? My kid could do the same thing in the back yard" and then it becomes "Well you have to understand what it represents" and go into a 20 minute discussion on the absences of action etc.

 

Hmmmm. The layperson argument. That's a new one to me.

 

Do museum curators care about laypeople ? I always thought if the experts curate an exhibit and amongst the experts if there is consensus

that a work is important and significant work, then the layperson's opinion would be less important and need to become better educated on the art and artist.

 

On the other hand, because there are nicer comparable pieces available, a piece of art can maybe be considered a better bargain. Not sure I agree that panel pages beat covers but an interesting opinion regardless.

[vodou]

I think the two items combined really detract for the layman (the lack of background makes it look like there isn't anything "there" and the paste ups just make it look hodge podged together and cheap) And when it detracts for the layman, it makes it harder for a collector to pull the trigger because they have to "defend" the price. I never want to have to defend what I paid. If I put a Van Gogh on the wall and someone says "O that's beautiful, I have to ask what did you pay for that?" and I respond "$80 million but it's a Van Gogh" the person is more then likely going to say "O that makes sense" and thats the end of it. If I hang a Pollock on the wall and say I paid $80 million I will inevitably get the "FOR THAT??? My kid could do the same thing in the back yard" and then it becomes "Well you have to understand what it represents" and go into a 20 minute discussion on the absences of action etc.

If you think Pollock is hard to defend (I disagree btw) try Robert Rauschenberg

 

But the rub is...why are you letting on to the rubes what you've paid? I say eff them and all their questions. Your retort would be "less than you paid for McDonald's all of last year" or "what's your take home salary?" (that one will shut them up right quick).

 

If you just said you got it cuz you dig it and answer the "how much?" question with $10...conversation over. It's when you get to even $250 for a lesser modern panel page with no word balloons (and maybe no pencils either if inked blueline)...that's where the rubes check out completely. $10 = cool (but still stupid garbage), $250+ = stupid garbage (and even stupider son/bf/friend/neighbor)!

[Eric Seffinga]

Hahaha. Troof!

[delekkerste]

For me, the paste up/background argument is a layperson debate. I live with my girlfriend. Every time the Fedex man shows up she rolls her eyes and asks me how many diamond rings I just spent (the allegation being that I am away her engagement ring fund, which yea I am but don't tell her that ) When I display/hang these pieces, she has questions (who did this, what is it from, why did you spend so much money on it etc.) It's a lot easier to justifier to her a piece that 1) "looks nice" (meaning it doesn't have foxing/white out/and pieced together paste ups) and 2) that looks objectively like it has more work done to it (the 'more ink the better' argument)

 

I showed her the 62 cover and told her that people are expecting 6 figures for the cover. Her immediate response was "WHY??? It's all cut up!" When I explained "well it's the only one, and that was the method back then" she replied "Who cares, it still LOOKS cheap, I'd rather have an interior page for 1/10th the price, and get more bang for my buck, that probably looks better" (I've trained her well )

 

I think the two items combined really detract for the layman (the lack of background makes it look like there isn't anything "there" and the paste ups just make it look hodge podged together and cheap) And when it detracts for the layman, it makes it harder for a collector to pull the trigger because they have to "defend" the price. I never want to have to defend what I paid. If I put a Van Gogh on the wall and someone says "O that's beautiful, I have to ask what did you pay for that?" and I respond "$80 million but it's a Van Gogh" the person is more then likely going to say "O that makes sense" and thats the end of it. If I hang a Pollock on the wall and say I paid $80 million I will inevitably get the "FOR THAT??? My kid could do the same thing in the back yard" and then it becomes "Well you have to understand what it represents" and go into a 20 minute discussion on the absences of action etc.

 

Well put. And, when I say that more ink = more valuable, obviously I'm being somewhat intentionally inflammatory to those like Michael and Scott in order to provide a lightning rod for debate. What I really mean is exactly what you said - the market values work higher that looks like it had more time and effort put into it, so that the amount of ink spilled often correlates to how well a piece is received. Not always, but, like I said, it's true more often than it isn't.

[Bronty]

That's the only logical way to approach these discussions, isn't it? Sometimes it's good to take a step back and assess things objectively from the outside.

 

The art is what it is, but it may not always necessarily jive with the general consensus or opinion. And where art collides with commerce, general opinion is what matters in driving prices where they go.

 

The number of times I've heard a (would be) art collector turn their back on a piece because of the physical quality of the ink (looking directly at Mignola's washed out cloudy ink, for instance)...

 

because of the use of whiteout for a correction as opposed to as an effect...

 

because of a pasteup (even more egregious than whiteout)...

 

My whole interest in this thread though is how these things impact at a piece in the upper spheres, which are viewed as fiscal dings in the general OA market as a whole. Is it so personal as to be totally unpredictable? I'm guessing probably. Hard enough to handicap the pieces in the upper spheres as it is, it seems. Much less quantify out these anomalies in the execution of a work.

 

One of my biggest collecting regrets actually centers around a sort of snobbish mindset back in the 90s. I passed on a number of fantastic pages from Duncan Fegredo's Enigma. It's still a low rent book (and art) by most standards even today, when it comes to fiscal values.

 

But I really loved that story, and those drawings. I wanted art from it badly. When I saw the originals in a huge pile at Scott Eder's table, I excitedly went through them all. And to my great regret today, I passed on every single one. The pages were a total mess of pasteovers, whiteout, etc, and so on. Almost to the point of collage.

 

And there's the rub. My 40-something year old brain sees that work in hindsight not available to my 20-something year old brain. What a magnificently unique example of funny-book process. Some of those pages represented what comic book art is, to an extreme degree. They showed a true and pure process with a complete disregard for what came after. And in some ways the artist's current (at the time) working method. Something lost in today's computer world, with fixes easily accomplished away from the physical piece.

 

And most of those pages have disappeared from the landscape. Only a handful ever circulate, and at such low values as to not pry fresh examples loose. I keep my eye out and holding my breath that some day...

 

Really nicely said. I especially like the reference to some OA being like a collage.

 

I was just thinking recently how Neil Gaiman's art is purposefully crafted as a collage and the fanboys eat it up and love his work but this ASM 62 cover, some here criticize the paste-up aspect because its not done on a single board.

 

As I have previously mentioned, I take the art as I find it. There will never be an Amazing Spiderman # 62 cover on 1 board. It doesn't exist. This piece is the art to the published Amazing Spiderman # 62 cover and I appreciate the art "AS IS".

 

Ok so then I can spill my coffee on it, rub my junk on it, give my five year old a pair of scissors and tell her to cut it up, give her a roll of tape and ask her to put it back together, but the piece into ashes, and collect those ashes into an urn, and you'll still pay the same either way huh?

[delekkerste]

Ok so then I can spill my coffee on it, rub my junk on it, give my five year old a pair of scissors and tell her to cut it up, give her a roll of tape and ask her to put it back together, but the piece into ashes, and collect those ashes into an urn, and you'll still pay the same either way huh?

 

 

[Peter G]

That's the only logical way to approach these discussions, isn't it? Sometimes it's good to take a step back and assess things objectively from the outside.

 

The art is what it is, but it may not always necessarily jive with the general consensus or opinion. And where art collides with commerce, general opinion is what matters in driving prices where they go.

 

The number of times I've heard a (would be) art collector turn their back on a piece because of the physical quality of the ink (looking directly at Mignola's washed out cloudy ink, for instance)...

 

because of the use of whiteout for a correction as opposed to as an effect...

 

because of a pasteup (even more egregious than whiteout)...

 

My whole interest in this thread though is how these things impact at a piece in the upper spheres, which are viewed as fiscal dings in the general OA market as a whole. Is it so personal as to be totally unpredictable? I'm guessing probably. Hard enough to handicap the pieces in the upper spheres as it is, it seems. Much less quantify out these anomalies in the execution of a work.

 

One of my biggest collecting regrets actually centers around a sort of snobbish mindset back in the 90s. I passed on a number of fantastic pages from Duncan Fegredo's Enigma. It's still a low rent book (and art) by most standards even today, when it comes to fiscal values.

 

But I really loved that story, and those drawings. I wanted art from it badly. When I saw the originals in a huge pile at Scott Eder's table, I excitedly went through them all. And to my great regret today, I passed on every single one. The pages were a total mess of pasteovers, whiteout, etc, and so on. Almost to the point of collage.

 

And there's the rub. My 40-something year old brain sees that work in hindsight not available to my 20-something year old brain. What a magnificently unique example of funny-book process. Some of those pages represented what comic book art is, to an extreme degree. They showed a true and pure process with a complete disregard for what came after. And in some ways the artist's current (at the time) working method. Something lost in today's computer world, with fixes easily accomplished away from the physical piece.

 

And most of those pages have disappeared from the landscape. Only a handful ever circulate, and at such low values as to not pry fresh examples loose. I keep my eye out and holding my breath that some day...

 

Really nicely said. I especially like the reference to some OA being like a collage.

 

I was just thinking recently how Neil Gaiman's art is purposefully crafted as a collage and the fanboys eat it up and love his work but this ASM 62 cover, some here criticize the paste-up aspect because its not done on a single board.

 

As I have previously mentioned, I take the art as I find it. There will never be an Amazing Spiderman # 62 cover on 1 board. It doesn't exist. This piece is the art to the published Amazing Spiderman # 62 cover and I appreciate the art "AS IS".

 

Ok so then I can spill my coffee on it, rub my junk on it, give my five year old a pair of scissors and tell her to cut it up, give her a roll of tape and ask her to put it back together, but the piece into ashes, and collect those ashes into an urn, and you'll still pay the same either way huh?

 

I don't buy art that has bronty junk rubbed on it. Disgusting image.

[Eric Seffinga]

Oh, like that wasn't what you did to Vampi the moment that nasty old frame came off??

 

[delekkerste]

And, while we're at it, if we always just take the art as it is, does that mean it's irrational to discount for vellum, marker, stains, foxing, fading, mold, tears, holes punched, pieces missing, borders trimmed/removed, colored-in pieces, characters inked by amateurs with ballpoint pen, etc.?

[delekkerste]

Oh, like that wasn't what you did to Vampi the moment that nasty old frame came off??

 

 

I would never do that to an Enric Vampi painting.

 

That's what Adam Hughes commissions are for.

[Bronty]

Ok so then I can spill my coffee on it, rub my junk on it, give my five year old a pair of scissors and tell her to cut it up, give her a roll of tape and ask her to put it back together, but the piece into ashes, and collect those ashes into an urn, and you'll still pay the same either way huh?

 

 

You'll never know unless I tell you