Why comic OA is better than fine art 1 1

[comicwiz]

I shared this video on FB last week. There's elements of truth in it's message, and if you spend some time really digging deep on some of the talking points of the video, you'll quickly realize a great deal of the fine art market is fraudulant.

I agree that OA has a stronger link through context and history. It can also be appreciated on a number of levels. Admiration for the artist, the subject matter, the creative process involved with publishing a comic, or a fond memory, just to name a few.  I do however think it's naive to think OA can distance itself from the fine art market on the subject of price fixing/manipulation.

[kav]

1 hour ago, comicwiz said:

I shared this video on FB last week. There's elements of truth in it's message, and if you spend some time really digging deep on some of the talking points of the video, you'll quickly realize a great deal of the fine art market is fraudulant.

I agree that OA has a stronger link through context and history. It can also be appreciated on a number of levels. Admiration for the artist, the subject matter, the creative process involved with publishing a comic, or a fond memory, just to name a few.  I do however think it's naive to think OA can distance itself from the fine art market on the subject of price fixing/manipulation.

Well they cant take say a Humberto Ramos and make him a superstar like Frazetta-as would commonly happen in the fine art world.  There can be some small amount of fudging or attempted fudging but it boils down mostly to what people actually want and admire and no one can make me want or admire Ramos for instance.  There cannot be a case of some nobody who has never drawn comics suddenly becoming a superstar where in the world of fine art, some dolt who urinates on stuff while wearing a chicken outfit can become a superstar.

[vodou]

1 hour ago, comicwiz said:

I agree that OA has a stronger link through context and history. It can also be appreciated on a number of levels. Admiration for the artist, the subject matter, the creative process involved with publishing a comic, or a fond memory, just to name a few.  I do however think it's naive to think OA can distance itself from the fine art market on the subject of price fixing/manipulation.

Certainly the reasons I underlined above give confidence to those of modest means to spend immodest* amounts on objects they otherwise wouldn't understand or appreciate. None of you are transacting in this stuff because it's well drawn. You can get that at any flea market for $10 or less. And any talk of prices being arbitrary in fine art is just stating the obvious - about everything in the world that's for sale (and just about everything else that isn't too), as prices are generally set at the margin for everything based on supply:demand and how much you can upcharge the other guy without scaring him off!

If humans are involved (re: naivety referenced above), anything/everything nefarious is on the table. Doesn't matter if it's fine art, comic art, Barbies or Beanie Babys; the common element is the presence of humans. They always ruin everything

The video the OP posted is funny in that way that outsiders will always poke fun at things they don't understand and feel they never will (Kav...having a hard time breaking in?) As an insider...I can honestly say it's as true as it is false and that means it actually says little and serves point then. I often feel more at home trading in fine art than I do comic art, even though my background in comics and comic art is pretty much the same as everybody else hanging around here and I have the collection(s) in both categories to prove it. Things are actually simpler in fine art, you can just like something and do okay, as long as you can articulate why you like it and tap into that same emotion with a few others. (However retiring early on your millions in capital gains is just as difficult!) Here you have to be very careful that the next guy will love it too or you'll take a bath. The opportunity cost (addiction) game is very expensive in comic art. (This is the illusion of liquidity that so many enjoy around here. It is an illusion for non-A material that has sold in the most recent five or less years.)

*Don't think so? Try justifying the price you paid to a non-collecting friend or family member

[kav]

22 minutes ago, vodou said:

Certainly the reasons I underlined above give confidence to those of modest means to spend immodest* amounts on objects they otherwise wouldn't understand or appreciate. None of you are transacting in this stuff because it's well drawn. You can get that at any flea market for $10 or less. And any talk of prices being arbitrary in fine art is just stating the obvious - about everything in the world that's for sale (and just about everything else that isn't too), as prices are generally set at the margin for everything based on supply:demand and how much you can upcharge the other guy without scaring him off!

If humans are involved (re: naivety referenced above), anything/everything nefarious is on the table. Doesn't matter if it's fine art, comic art, Barbies or Beanie Babys; the common element is the presence of humans. They always ruin everything

The video the OP posted is funny in that way that outsiders will always poke fun at things they don't understand and feel they never will (Kav...having a hard time breaking in?) As an insider...I can honestly say it's as true as it is false and that means it actually says little and serves point then. I often feel more at home trading in fine art than I do comic art, even though my background in comics and comic art is pretty much the same as everybody else hanging around here and I have the collection(s) in both categories to prove it. Things are actually simpler in fine art, you can just like something and do okay, as long as you can articulate why you like it and tap into that same emotion with a few others. (However retiring early on your millions in capital gains is just as difficult!) Here you have to be very careful that the next guy will love it too or you'll take a bath. The opportunity cost (addiction) game is very expensive in comic art. (This is the illusion of liquidity that so many enjoy around here. It is an illusion for non-A material that has sold in the most recent five or less years.)

*Don't think so? Try justifying the price you paid to a non-collecting friend or family member

You can slice an dice it any way you want and say those who are critical are just 'sour grapes' because they couldn't 'break in' or they just don't 'get it' (Emperor's New Clothes argument) but the fact remains that a picture of a crucifix is a jar of pee pee is not 'art'.  Period.

Edited August 25, 2017 by kav

[vodou]

54 minutes ago, kav said:

You can slice an dice it any way you want and say those who are critical are just 'sour grapes' because they couldn't 'break in' or they just don't 'get it' (Emperor's New Clothes argument) but the fact remains that a picture of a crucifix is a jar of pee pee is not 'art'.  Period.

I used to agree with you, without context, and then I took the time to investigate the context...in the artist's own words. Whether one finds those words compelling or not is an individual matter, just like many people think comics and cartoons are the playthings of children and give serious wonder to those that don't agree. Have you taken the time to review or even view the context for Serrano's Immersion? I could easily see Dave McKean doing this (in say the 90s for Sandman @ Vertigo) and a good portion of this board bowing in reverence when it came up at HA and somebody only paid $50k for it. LOL. That context, that would make no sense to anybody outside our club would be (duh) Gaiman, Sandman, McKean...triple crown, even if it was a real bottle of Dave's for sale, not just a photograph.

[kav]

6 minutes ago, vodou said:

I used to agree with you, without context, and then I took the time to investigate the context...in the artist's own words. Whether one finds those words compelling or not is an individual matter, just like many people think comics and cartoons are the playthings of children and give serious wonder to those that don't agree. Have you taken the time to review or even view the context for Serrano's Immersion? I could easily see Dave McKean doing this (in say the 90s for Sandman @ Vertigo) and a good portion of this board bowing in reverence when it came up at HA and somebody only paid $50k for it. LOL. That context, that would make no sense to anybody outside our club would be (duh) Gaiman, Sandman, McKean...triple crown, even if it was a real bottle of Dave's for sale, not just a photograph.

I was an art major before I got disgusted and switched to biology.  I am fully immersed in investigating and studying fine art and I also saw first hand how the local fine art scene worked.  There was a small in group that determined what was 'art'.  One lady all she painted was squares.  It was 'art'.  If context is all that is important, as you seem to suggest, then the actual 'art' is irrelevant-it can be a wad of tissue the artist blew his nose on but AH, the CONTEXT-he was crying as he blew his nose, watching the tragedy of some third world slaughter, you see...this makes it COMPELLING and MEANINGFUL....

Edited August 26, 2017 by kav

[vodou]

5 minutes ago, kav said:

I was an art major before I got disgusted and switched to biology.  I am fully immersed in investigating and studying fine art and I also saw first hand how the local fine art scene worked.  There was a small in group that determined what was 'art'.  One lady all she painted was squares.  It was 'art'.  If context is all that is important, as you seem to suggest, then the actual 'art' is irrelevant-it can be a wad of tissue the artist blew his nose on but AH, the CONTEXT-he was crying as he blew his nose, watching the tragedy of some third world slaughter, you see...this makes it COMPELLING and MEANINGFUL....

You seem to want to war over this, but I won't war back. What I'll offer instead is: why would you grant that 'small in group' the power to tell you what is and isn't art? One locale didn't work for you, does that mean all locales won't? Really. Remove that from the discussion and I think there's not much left. As to the rest, as Bronty has pointed out many times...the primary factor in the high value of Ditko's anything other than Spider-Man is...Ditko's Spider-Man Pull out that compelling and meaningful context (Stan Lee gave the job to Don Heck instead) and you have in Ditko is an interesting but side-lined Matt Fox of a different stripe, no? What you don't get are six figure ASM examples dragging even odd little 90s Magnus pages up into mid/high-three figures!

[kav]

2 minutes ago, vodou said:

You seem to want to war over this, but I won't war back. What I'll offer instead is: why would you grant that 'small in group' the power to tell you what is and isn't art? One locale didn't work for you, does that mean all locales won't? Really. Remove that from the discussion and I think there's not much left. As to the rest, as Bronty has pointed out many times...the primary factor in the high value of Ditko's anything other than Spider-Man is...Ditko's Spider-Man Pull out that compelling and meaningful context (Stan Lee gave the job to Don Heck instead) and you have in Ditko is an interesting but side-lined Matt Fox of a different stripe, no? What you don't get are six figure ASM examples dragging even odd little 90s Magnus pages up into mid/high-three figures!

Don Heck drew Spider Man?

As far as 'grant that 'small in group' the power to tell you what is and isn't art?'-well they are the ones that determine what is art, what goes in galleries, and what sells.  Not just here-everywhere.  

[comicwiz]

There's a bit of talking past each other on this subject, even amongt OA collectors. Guys who pine for a Ditko Spidey can't understand why anyone would pay half a million for an unused Zap 1 cover Crumb did, and the guys who pine for Crumb don't get why anyone would spend the money they do on a Ditko Spidey.

[SquareChaos]

6 minutes ago, kav said:

Don Heck drew Spider Man?

As far as 'grant that 'small in group' the power to tell you what is and isn't art?'-well they are the ones that determine what is art, what goes in galleries, and what sells.  Not just here-everywhere.  

You have also flatly stated certain things were not art. I think every individual intrinsically attempts to define what is and is not art for themselves. Some people hold more informed opinions than others - for instance, I doubt my opinion would be as well rounded or technical as yours is considering your arts background.

The fact that cliques form around such opinions isn't surprising to me, I know they form in OA as well, and some people are more influential than others.

[kav]

23 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

You have also flatly stated certain things were not art. I think every individual intrinsically attempts to define what is and is not art for themselves. Some people hold more informed opinions than others - for instance, I doubt my opinion would be as well rounded or technical as yours is considering your arts background.

The fact that cliques form around such opinions isn't surprising to me, I know they form in OA as well, and some people are more influential than others.

Once the word 'art' changed its meaning it all fell apart.  Because it's undefinable, but if certain people are allowed to put the stamp of approval on something, and call it 'art', that means big money, the term is useful to pull off fraud.  DaVinci was not an 'artist'.  He was a painter, no different than any other craftsman.  potter's arts, horseman's arts, painter's arts-the world originally meant just crafts or skills of some sort.  Once 'art' became some ineffable undefinable thing then those in charge in the art world, got to be the determiners of 'what is art'.  And pee christ became 'art'.  It is not.  No matter how you slice it.  Yes I flatly state some things are not art.  But I don't even like the word.  You do have a point though that context matters-a Ditko ASM page is worth far more than some mr A page, and it's the same artist with the same skill.  

[Brian Peck]

10 hours ago, chrisco37 said:

Lichtenstein's most famous works are based on comic book panels, so where does he fall on the fine art ladder? 

Thief

Edited August 26, 2017 by Brian Peck

[kav]

[kav]

We've had this discussion in a few threads and I never get tired of talking about it.  When I was younger I wanted to be a comic artist now that I'm older I'm glad I never did.  By the time I got good enough to not be embarrassed by my work I only had 3 years of drawing in me.  I hate drawing comic pages now it fills me with revulsion.  I like doing one offs and portraits but sequential-no way.

[buyatari]

If Marvel were to commission fine artists to illustrate every cover of a given month any way they see fit would those pieces be accepted into the world of fine art or shunned by the comic collectors of the world? 

[comicwiz]

1 hour ago, buyatari said:

If Marvel were to commission fine artists to illustrate every cover of a given month any way they see fit would those pieces be accepted into the world of fine art or shunned by the comic collectors of the world? 

Interesting question.  I personally think it's a reasonable idea. At the surface, I'd think it wouldn't be well-received because of the tendency for the industry to back "manufactured" collectible gimmicks, and this could likely be construed as one, no matter how well intentioned and/or backed with support. The motivations would also likely be questioned, since Marvel could very well turn to and abundance of talent within the comic publishing industry to pull off such a project - what would a living artist of influence and reputation bring to the table? Ultimately, the biggest criticism is that a consignment project of this nature would always fall outside of the artists recognizable repetoire.

[comicwiz]

12 hours ago, Brian Peck said:

Thief

The use of the word "appropriation" for what Lichtenstein did is not only insulting, but one of the worst euphemisms ever.

Edited August 26, 2017 by comicwiz

[vodou]

1 hour ago, buyatari said:

If Marvel were to commission fine artists to illustrate every cover of a given month any way they see fit would those pieces be accepted into the world of fine art or shunned by the comic collectors of the world? 

Talking about the originals here, not the comics and how they would sell: I think the hobby generally wouldn't be able to afford them (though some aspirational collectors would be very interested, until the 'ask' queries came back!) and the fine art world would ghetto-ize them. Or they'd be marketed -separately from normal representation- through whoever is filling Robert Bane's shoes at the time.

[suspense39]

 Most of the time many here are saying that this is mainly a nostalgic hobby, then every once in a while there's a thread, like this, that wonders why Frazzetta isn't in a museum hanging next to "Michelangelo". 

 They are different genres, with different contexts and rules and to varying degrees I personally enjoy them both (like Voudo) for different reasons. There's a lot of BS in both and that usually comes from someone's passion and belief that "this is the greatest thing since sliced bread" more than any malicious conspiracy. I think for this reason it's important to do your own research and understand the history of your interest, or point of conflict ( here it seems to be the "art world") and get an educated understanding of its function and history in order to weed through the BS and have some fun with it all.

[SquareChaos]

6 hours ago, buyatari said:

If Marvel were to commission fine artists to illustrate every cover of a given month any way they see fit would those pieces be accepted into the world of fine art or shunned by the comic collectors of the world? 

This is a very interesting question. My immediate gut response is unsatisfying though - Marvel would never do this, as... why would they? There is little to no overlap between the two art worlds, and the fandom is even more divided. Most fans do not even follow news online, so my guess is the comics would show up on the shelf one Wednesday and cause a great deal of confusion and possibly derision. This doesn't even enter in to the fact that I have to imagine any of the artists approached would be too afraid to take the risk involved with doing such work.