August Heritage Auction

[bluechip]

 

To echo what Nelson and Dan have said, I am and have always been one of the leading proponents of the belief that most of the value in comic art is nostalgia/context-driven than quality of art driven (which is why I think it has been and will continue to be a hard sell to the uninitiated). Hence, the Spidey vs. Wolverine outcome (though, I suspect that the alleged Al Williamson inks - which some dispute, but it was advertised as such - helped out there as well). In any case, no, a one-off outlier like that doesn't make Mark Bright an A-list comic artist, any more than Herb Trimpe drawing Hulk #180 and #181 makes him an A-lister.

 

We just have a totally different view on what makes an A lister. By what you have said if Bright had worked on multiple keys book and had a history of the artwork from these key books selling for big bucks in the secondary we instantly have an A lister. I suppose this would also be the view of someone in the auction house with a detached view to the material. Ahh Bright = $ because I've seen it before again and again = A lister.

 

I just don't see it that way. To me an A lister is when the artist outshines the content. As you said most of this is driven by context/nostalgia and I'm saying the same thing. Only those rare circumstances where it does not do we have an A lister. The Wrightson material is awesome. He outshines the characters or series he is illustrating. A lister.

 

You should come up with a different term, then.

 

Because the term A Lister is not used by 99% of people the way you are saying that you use it.

 

There are plenty of great artists of all kinds who outshine the content. But when people say A Lister they mean the people whose work is the most sought after.

 

A person whose work outshines the content may get into the A List. You might even say they deserve to be on the A List before they are actually on it. And you might even be right, but that doesn't make them an A Lister until they are.

 

unlike the numbers of people who like an artist and the numbers that people will pay for their work, the art (and the talent of artists) is is subjective and there will be no parameters that all people can agree on. So if we redefined the A List as people who you (or anyone) believes should be the most sought after, regardless of whether they are, or not, then the term A List becomes meaningless.

 

 

[buyatari]

You should come up with a different term, then.

 

Because the term A Lister is not used by 99% of people the way you are saying that you use it.

 

There are plenty of great artists of all kinds who outshine the content. But when people say A Lister they mean the people whose work is the most sought after.

 

A person whose work outshines the content may get into the A List. You might even say they deserve to be on the A List before they are actually on it. And you might even be right, but that doesn't make them an A Lister until they are.

 

unlike the numbers of people who like an artist and the numbers that people will pay for their work, the art (and the talent of artists) is is subjective and there will be no parameters that all people can agree on. So if we redefined the A List as people who you (or anyone) believes should be the most sought after, regardless of whether they are, or not, then the term A List becomes meaningless.

 

 

That is not what I am saying at all. There is no artist that I feel should be an A lister but the market prices of his original artwork don't justify it. I'm saying some people might confuse what they think is an A lister with other A listers because that artist just so happened to illustrate a mega popular character for a long period of time.

 

This may not be true in fine art but with commercial art you have to ask yourself how much influence the artist really had on a selling price. How much is due to the artist and how much is due to the character. When a GI Joe box art for an 1980s toy sells for 5 figures it is because the person who bought it loves GI Joe.

 

[Peter G]

You should come up with a different term, then.

 

Because the term A Lister is not used by 99% of people the way you are saying that you use it.

 

There are plenty of great artists of all kinds who outshine the content. But when people say A Lister they mean the people whose work is the most sought after.

 

A person whose work outshines the content may get into the A List. You might even say they deserve to be on the A List before they are actually on it. And you might even be right, but that doesn't make them an A Lister until they are.

 

unlike the numbers of people who like an artist and the numbers that people will pay for their work, the art (and the talent of artists) is is subjective and there will be no parameters that all people can agree on. So if we redefined the A List as people who you (or anyone) believes should be the most sought after, regardless of whether they are, or not, then the term A List becomes meaningless.

 

 

That is not what I am saying at all. There is no artist that I feel should be an A lister but the market prices of his original artwork don't justify it. I'm saying some people might confuse what they think is an A lister with other A listers because that artist just so happened to illustrate a mega popular character for a long period of time.

 

This may not be true in fine art but with commercial art you have to ask yourself how much influence the artist really had on a selling price. How much is due to the artist and how much is due to the character. When a GI Joe box art for an 1980s toy sells for 5 figures it is because the person who bought it loves GI Joe.

 

Do people buy Warhol's because Andy was a great artist ? Or do they buy a Warhol because of of what the art represents ? The answer is that it is the actual piece(s) of art that make it to the A list. If an artist racks up enough pieces that consistently make it to the A list then the artist becomes recognized as an A list artist.

 

The art and the artist making it to the A list become indistinguishable at a certain point

 

The market is the final arbiter of the above

 

Any technical claims of scholarship as to what makes an artist A list will quickly devolve into subjevtivity

 

 

 

 

 

[bluechip]

You should come up with a different term, then.

 

Because the term A Lister is not used by 99% of people the way you are saying that you use it.

 

There are plenty of great artists of all kinds who outshine the content. But when people say A Lister they mean the people whose work is the most sought after.

 

A person whose work outshines the content may get into the A List. You might even say they deserve to be on the A List before they are actually on it. And you might even be right, but that doesn't make them an A Lister until they are.

 

unlike the numbers of people who like an artist and the numbers that people will pay for their work, the art (and the talent of artists) is is subjective and there will be no parameters that all people can agree on. So if we redefined the A List as people who you (or anyone) believes should be the most sought after, regardless of whether they are, or not, then the term A List becomes meaningless.

 

 

That is not what I am saying at all. There is no artist that I feel should be an A lister but the market prices of his original artwork don't justify it. I'm saying some people might confuse what they think is an A lister with other A listers because that artist just so happened to illustrate a mega popular character for a long period of time.

 

This may not be true in fine art but with commercial art you have to ask yourself how much influence the artist really had on a selling price. How much is due to the artist and how much is due to the character. When a GI Joe box art for an 1980s toy sells for 5 figures it is because the person who bought it loves GI Joe.

 

You're still having problems with the popular usage of the term A list.

 

It is a term typically applied to commercial endeavors.

 

It's about who is most popular, most sought after, most valuable, whatever the reason.

 

We have A list actors whom you could say got in the list because they played a popular character. But that doesn't mean they are not on the A list.

 

You can say that an artist might not have made the A list if he/she had not worked on some memorable character during a memorable run, and I might agree or disagree, but at least in that case you haven't said the words don't mean what everybody thinks they mean.

 

But when you say an artist isn't actually even on the A list, despite their fame and their price, etc. just because you think they don't deserve to be as popular as they are, then you're effectively arguing for a whole new definition of the term.

[Funnyslover]

 

 

It must be possible to come up with a top 10 of a-listers on which we all agree.

 

I'll start the ball rolling with :

 

(1) Kirby

(2) Ditko

(3) Kane

(4) Colan

(5) Heck

(6) Infantino

(7) Liefeld

(8) Wood

(9) Barks

(10) Sekowsky

 

G'nite

 

Ps with an honorable 27th being Romita (perm any one from three)

[wormboy]

The Frazetta 'At the Earth's Core' painting is phenomenal.

[Funnyslover]

Apologies I was thinking kuberts (at 27th)

G'nite

[Funnyslover]

Agreed albeit a little weak structurally.

G'nite

[wormboy]

Agreed albeit a little weak structurally.

G'nite

 

What bothers you about the structure? Too much space upper right quadrant?

[comix4fun]

Agreed albeit a little weak structurally.

Is this the "oven" painting - or was that Tarzan ?

G'nite

 

 

 

 

If it's night time in the South West there may be an eclipse of some kind you should be out enjoying.

[comix4fun]

Agreed albeit a little weak structurally.

Is this the "oven" painting - or was that Tarzan ?

G'nite

 

 

 

 

If it's night time in the South West there may be an eclipse of some kind you should be out enjoying.

 

It's 01h39 here in Bordeaux.

G'nite

 

 

Nice location edit!

[Funnyslover]

Agreed albeit a little weak structurally.

G'nite

 

What bothers you about the structure? Too much space upper right quadrant?

 

Yes I think it's unbalanced - one's eyes are drawn too much to the left - a minor issue perhaps in an excellent example.

 

G'nite

[buyatari]

Do people buy Warhol's because Andy was a great artist ? Or do they buy a Warhol because of of what the art represents ? The answer is that it is the actual piece(s) of art that make it to the A list. If an artist racks up enough pieces that consistently make it to the A list then the artist becomes recognized as an A list artist.

 

The art and the artist making it to the A list become indistinguishable at a certain point

 

The market is the final arbiter of the above

 

Any technical claims of scholarship as to what makes an artist A list will quickly devolve into subjevtivity

 

Warhol is a bad example because the person who planned it out and the person who executed the design are the same person. So no mater where you see genius in his work he gets the credit. When the art from the story by Alan Moore sells well you have to ask who is the A lister here. Is it the artist or the writer or both?

[Bronty]

I don't know how some of the guys throw around these "the A list is what it is" posts and then say it's not circular reasoning.

[Bronty]

If I may. Romita ASM pages are A list art. But he is not an A list artist.

[Kevin76]

If I may. Romita ASM pages are A list art. But he is not an A list artist.

 

This post just screams " I have no clue what I'm looking at" There is more to an an artist than a fancy art style

[Bird]

If I may. Romita ASM pages are A list art. But he is not an A list artist.

 

This post just screams " I have no clue what I'm looking at" There is more to an an artist than a fancy art style

 

I think the post screams "comics are a medium where words and pictures are combined and sometimes the words influence evaluations about the art".

[Peter G]

Do people buy Warhol's because Andy was a great artist ? Or do they buy a Warhol because of of what the art represents ? The answer is that it is the actual piece(s) of art that make it to the A list. If an artist racks up enough pieces that consistently make it to the A list then the artist becomes recognized as an A list artist.

 

The art and the artist making it to the A list become indistinguishable at a certain point

 

The market is the final arbiter of the above

 

Any technical claims of scholarship as to what makes an artist A list will quickly devolve into subjevtivity

 

Warhol is a bad example because the person who planned it out and the person who executed the design are the same person. So no mater where you see genius in his work he gets the credit. When the art from the story by Alan Moore sells well you have to ask who is the A lister here. Is it the artist or the writer or both?

 

I do not profess to be a Warhol expert but I believe that the above is not an accurate statement. Specifically, Warhol's factory had many contributors that participated in creation of a piece or pieces of art. Yet, Warhol gets the credit as an "A-lister" (whatever that means) because the market has dictated that "the" artworks are "A- list" pieces, and then later credited them to an individual - Andy Warhol.

 

To further extend the analogy Warhol's "Campbell Soup cans" realize high prices but people don't say that Warhol is popular just merely because he is associated with those famous/popular Campbell soup cans. Same goes for his work with "Elvis Presley" or "Marilyn Monroe". Rather, the artworks became recognized first and then eventually Warhol became recognized.

 

Similarly, Spiderman/Hulk/Thor became famous/popular first and then Ditko/Romita/Kirby/etc became recognized for their talents afterwards.

 

Whether it is the art or the artist that is being recognized as "popular" or "famous" or as on some sort of "A-list"; become indistinguishable at a certain point. I would argue irrelevant too because it is impossible to precisely determine why something becomes recognized for what it is. This truism is especially the case with popular art. And comic book art is pop or popular art.

 

 

 

[Bronty]

If I may. Romita ASM pages are A list art. But he is not an A list artist.

 

This post just screams " I have no clue what I'm looking at" There is more to an an artist than a fancy art style

 

Awww. Did I upset you Shuley? Did I make fun of one of the four artists you're familiar with?

[Unca Ben]

I figure A list is pretty rarefied air. Kirby & Ditko were Stan's A-listers for early silver age Marvel.

When faced with the decision on who to replace his A-lister in Steve Ditko on one of his top two books, Stan chose John Romita.

Does that make Romita an A-lister? Mebbe not, but pretty darn close.

 

Romita himself said he wasn't as fast as guys like Kirby or Ditko; that he would erase and re-draw stuff he wasn't happy with.

Yet I don't remember any books Romita was on being delayed so he was dependable, which was important in those days.

 

I don't remember any pages Romita drew where I had to go back and figure out what was going on, or see if I had read panels out of order - everything flowed nicely and my eye was effortlessly led across the page, one hallmark of a master of sequential art.

( I remember a page or two by Neal Adams on his X-men run where he was playing around with panel layouts that were a little confusing to follow first time through. I had to go back and re-read them. And Adams is certainly an A-lister).

No confusion, characters and actions always clearly delineated, the pages could be understood at a glance - no clutter. And there's hardly a cleaner line than Romita's.

 

When he drew a cover it definitely exemplified the story inside, which was the purpose of silver & bronze age covers. Not just a pretty pin-up that could be slapped on any issue. Many covers became classic.

 

I could instantly recognize Romita's style, whether penciling, inking, or both.

 

John Romita created or co-created some memorable characters - Masked Marauder, the Gladiator, the Rhino, Kingpin, Silvermane (certainly not the width & breadth of a Kirby or Ditko, but not that shabby, either).

Oh yeah, and a guy named Wolverine.

 

So:

Conscientious & Dependable - check.

Master of sequential storytelling - check.

Clarity of art without hiding defects behind needless noodling - check.

Recognizable, pleasing style - check.

Classic covers & stories - check.

A hand in creating memorable characters - check.

 

-like I said, mebbe not the rarefied air of the A-list, but darn close in my opinion ( and Stan Lee's, back in the day).