Comments on CAF?

[eewwnuk]

Hello everyone. I'm a fairly frequent 'commenter', an occasional 'liker', and an off and on 'descriptor'.

 

Typically I 'comment' on stuff that I really like, 'like' the stuff that I like, and the pieces that I really love get the trifecta - comment, like and favorite.

 

For me, descriptions are great if they are either succinct, witty or informative. if it goes on for more than 3 paragraphs its too much work and I space out on them.

[JadeGiant]

Personally, I don't like to go to in-depth in my descriptions. Maybe a paragraph or two about where it came from and what it is.

 

The facts about a piece are interesting to me; the gallery owner's meticulously detailed recontextualization of that piece of art as part of his early twenties, followed by a detailed ranking of where it fits in his personal top 75 works of comic art...not so much. Also, people seem to forget that they're posting comic book art. We don't need a conceptual analysis of the piece's place in contemporary art historical discourse.

 

Most super-verbose CAF descriptions are cringe-worthy, IMO. I think I have 2 or 3 pieces in my gallery where I typed more than 100 words and I'm scared to re-read them at this point. Most of the time the description says more about the collector than the art.

 

As for comments...I think everyone wants their tastes validated by other CAF members to some extent. But the funny thing is, we all know what everybody's tastes are already anyway. It's just a big circle jerk. But a fun one!

 

[Weird Paper]

I've left fewer comments than I thought - just 799. It's always something that I either would love to have in my own collection, or I appreciate the story behind its acquisition.

This shouldn't bug me, but it does. There is one exceptional gallery on CAF whose owner has never bothered to leave 1 comment. I'm not so self-centered that I'm offended that the individual hasn't commented on anything of mine -- to each his own. But hundreds of pieces of art with probably thousands of comments, and you can't bother to participate yourself? I've stopped commenting on pieces in this gallery, though I have left plenty of comments there in the past. I still look at this person's amazing art and enjoy it, but if you don't make the slightest effort to be part of the interaction, then why should I bother?

 

My CAF

 

 

You've got an awesome gallery, I could probably spend hours commenting on a majority of the pieces shown.

 

 

 

Thank you. Your gallery is pretty amazing, too. That Wood DD page -- holy ! Epic!

[fmaz]

I don't comment nearly enough, but as I do appreciate when people comment on the stuff I post - if only because it's nice to see that they enjoy it, or have the same good memory of a particular page or artist growing up as I did - I'd like to start commenting more this year when I'm on the site.

[Terry Doyle]

Some collectors do great write ups. Eric DLS comes to mind. I enjoy when he posts new art. I would like to have a description 1/10 as nice as his when I post a piece.

 

 

 

DLS also gives great comments on pieces showing their history and provenance. Looking back at it, it's amazing how many pieces he used to own, almost owned, and passed on before making it to a collector's collection.

 

 

Love Eric's comments/descriptions on CAF. We have struck up several offline conversation as a result.

 

 

No doubt. Eric packs a ton of detailed information in his comments you'd normally never expect to see there.

 

Wasn't this the same guy who was being laughed at on this forum, some years ago, for his over-the-top commentary?

[Eric Seffinga]

I occasionally like reading when someone is obviously super in love with what they collect. Sometimes it IS cringe-worthy, and sometimes it is very insightful to knowing that collector. As Solar points out, it can be more revealing of who they are than anything about the page. But that said, it's also part of a sense of community. Like husky guys in Spidey costumes, or comic store discussions about which super hero would be the best and drinking another under the table.

 

But for my part, I've always been a less is more kind of guy.

I list the specs of the piece. Since a lot of what I collect is not on the standard DC or Marvel art board, I list sizes, I list surface/substrates, I list art methods where I know them. That's pretty much it.

 

Not because I don't love every single piece I post, but because I like to not color someone else's appreciation of a particular work. For the same reason I tend to frame things simply at home, I like the idea of presenting the pieces in my gallery as simply and clearly as I can. I don't want to interfere with anyone else's experience of seeing it.

 

So I'm a bit of a hypocrite. I occasionally like reading other people's commentary on how they acquired a piece, or of their history with it. Their loved, and lost, and regained stories. Etc. and so on. But I don't engage in it myself.

 

And the growing prevalence of the overly descriptive puffery prior to pump and dump, means I often skim before I commit to reading from certain individuals.

 

 

[vodou]

I occasionally like reading other people's commentary on how they acquired a piece, or of their history with it. Their loved, and lost, and regained stories. Etc. and so on. But I don't engage in it myself.

This is what I like to read. Most of us are not very good writers, nor scholarly as to art history as context, probably few of us are even clever. (Me = all of the above!) But a good story is a good story, even if poorly told. The few that can do anything more than that really stand out (thanks for the recent YouTube with Felix...Glen!)

 

What I like to write, well anybody that checked out my Captain America cover in last year's Best Of...ugh. But I wrote exactly what I wanted to. Otherwise I try to keep a lid on it and let the art 'speak' for itself.

[JadeGiant]

Some collectors do great write ups. Eric DLS comes to mind. I enjoy when he posts new art. I would like to have a description 1/10 as nice as his when I post a piece.

 

 

 

DLS also gives great comments on pieces showing their history and provenance. Looking back at it, it's amazing how many pieces he used to own, almost owned, and passed on before making it to a collector's collection.

 

 

Love Eric's comments/descriptions on CAF. We have struck up several offline conversation as a result.

 

 

No doubt. Eric packs a ton of detailed information in his comments you'd normally never expect to see there.

 

Wasn't this the same guy who was being laughed at on this forum, some years ago, for his over-the-top commentary?

 

Must have been before my time. Eric’s descriptions can be long winded I have always found them enjoyable.

[JadeGiant]

I occasionally like reading when someone is obviously super in love with what they collect. Sometimes it IS cringe-worthy, and sometimes it is very insightful to knowing that collector. As Solar points out, it can be more revealing of who they are than anything about the page. But that said, it's also part of a sense of community. Like husky guys in Spidey costumes, or comic store discussions about which super hero would be the best and drinking another under the table.

 

But for my part, I've always been a less is more kind of guy.

I list the specs of the piece. Since a lot of what I collect is not on the standard DC or Marvel art board, I list sizes, I list surface/substrates, I list art methods where I know them. That's pretty much it.

 

Not because I don't love every single piece I post, but because I like to not color someone else's appreciation of a particular work. For the same reason I tend to frame things simply at home, I like the idea of presenting the pieces in my gallery as simply and clearly as I can. I don't want to interfere with anyone else's experience of seeing it.

 

So I'm a bit of a hypocrite. I occasionally like reading other people's commentary on how they acquired a piece, or of their history with it. Their loved, and lost, and regained stories. Etc. and so on. But I don't engage in it myself.

 

And the growing prevalence of the overly descriptive puffery prior to pump and dump, means I often skim before I commit to reading from certain individuals.

 

 

By pump and dump, do you mean make the piece sound better than it is for a future sale? If so, I have read a few like that and I find it off-putting and I usually lose interest in reading any more from CAFers that post in that manner.

[Eric Seffinga]

By pump and dump, do you mean make the piece sound better than it is for a future sale?

 

Exactly so.

[Mephisto]

I love that Joe Jusko commented a piece Red Raven put up marked as commission Joe Jusko with Joe commenting he never touched it and please remove as a commission. I don't think 98% of the stuff he posts is actual art or even stuff that was used in the original printing process, yet there are always comments on them. It's just bizarre.

[r100comics]

 

A lot of his stuff is very obviously fake so I am surprised at the comments also.

 

 

[Doc McCoy]

I love that Joe Jusko commented a piece Red Raven put up marked as commission Joe Jusko with Joe commenting he never touched it and please remove as a commission. I don't think 98% of the stuff he posts is actual art or even stuff that was used in the original printing process, yet there are always comments on them. It's just bizarre.

 

I saw that, too. Glad something was said.

[Claudio]

I emailed him on the Preacher cover and referred him to the boards since it was sold by leadpinkink (fraudster). He didn't seem to care. His English seemed a little broken so maybe he just doesn't understand? Who knows?

[Mephisto]

I was going to post this here yesterday after seeing this on Facebook as it seemed appropriate to to the above conversation regarding the stuff Red Raven posts. This is a thread in General regarding people taking other artists work and adding colors and so forth and passing it off as some kind of "art".

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9333990&gonew=1#UNREAD