Popular Post AnkurJ Posted April 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 23, 2019 Worth reading! https://medium.com/@joshualeto/is-investing-in-comic-book-original-art-a-good-idea-e064274fa17b?fbclid=IwAR3zXBX5_2xP8Qz5cs0KAgJZ7gVLk4dTsPy5nRkMjvvuqDiMwivWpAPCtNQ Panelfan1, Kohei, dirtymartini1 and 5 others 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter L Posted April 23, 2019 Share Posted April 23, 2019 Thanks for sharing this. This was terrific. It gave me a lot to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panelfan1 Posted April 23, 2019 Share Posted April 23, 2019 Thanks for posting. Fun read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post ESeffinga Posted April 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted April 23, 2019 (edited) Well that's an old article... Since we're talking about it now, I do take real issue with the idea that popularity of a type of work = "good taste", which is a sentiment expressed. I don't disagree that if one is looking at art as commodity, and trying to plan on what to invest in, that having what everyone else wants is the way to go. Supply/demand. That's pretty obvious. But Joshua Leto names off some artists in the article as examples of "good taste", which would be to many artists (i.e. tastemakers) decidedly bad examples of it. And perhaps even the best examples of the lack of it. Art, like most of life is frequently a popularity contest. And with creative work, it is often the easiest to digest or that with the greatest exposure that equates to that popularity. Not necessarily "good taste". Fanny packs were popular for a time. As were mullets. Very popular. People gladly put their money there. Personal taste? Sure. A sign of the times or a fad that people may be nostalgic for? Sure. But good taste? Gene has mentioned here before that the big bucks seem largely nostalgia driven, and the related popularity wave stems from a time when exposure to the wolrd of comics was more limited, and the audience was more focused into specific interests. Primarily the big 2 companies, specific titles, artists, etc. The same old books and heroes, etc. So of course there is more interest in that material. But true "good taste" comes from an awareness and knowledge of the material, not just it's existence, but also understanding of a particular piece, and understanding of art history, art creation, etc. This is all quantifiable stuff. People have a knee jerk tendency to say that art is subjective. Appreciation of a piece will be, but again, that appreciation often has every bit as much to do with education on the topic, as it does the physical marks on the page (something the article does touch on.) But the sad truth is that most of us have a limited understanding of what is truly good art, important art, and worthy of the moniker of "good taste". These can be explained, and appreciation can be taught. I certainly will admit to my own massive limitations in what I know about the Comic OA medium. But "good taste" is not what truly drives comic art sales into the stratosphere. I know well enough to realize that populism and money are not the indicators of a collector's "good taste", as the article suggests. Just a quibble over semantics, really. Edited April 23, 2019 by ESeffinga timguerrero, The Voord, lb jefferies and 3 others 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NelsonAI Posted April 23, 2019 Share Posted April 23, 2019 Business in front, party in the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timguerrero Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 I think investing in OA is a good idea because I'll never regret the art I am purchasing after several years of learning to purchase what I like and not just any page that comes along. aardvark88 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voord Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 I got as far as the paragraph which reads: "Today I have better taste. In fact, I have better taste than most of you. This is not because I’m smarter or worked harder, this is because I had the luxury of reading and buying and selling comics and art without using exclusively my money. If you are reasonably intelligent and have decent self-awareness (most of you), you can develop taste. If you have nearly unlimited access to comic books and great access to original art (almost none of you), you can develop taste better and faster. " . . . and couldn't stomach any more of the author's elitist attitude. KPR Comics, zhamlau, 1950's war comics and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronty Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 Ehh, he's kind of a knob but all that's really saying is that you need to read a buncha comics to get a sense of what comics matter to the community Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BookofStrange Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 I see "elitist" style as more of a slap to the head of the reader/investor. "I am successful so please listen". We can argue success but he does share a lot of hard truths about what will be worth money down the road, and how to have /develop reasonable investor expectations. No one is an expert printing money, some are lucky, some are patient, some have opportunities or information that the rest of us don't. I felt it was suitably cautionary that it takes knowledge (which can translate to "taste") to make investments in this "instrument". I do like his point that if you love what you buy (good advice) you will have trouble selling what you love when the time is right (if money is the reason you bought in the first place) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aahz Posted April 25, 2019 Share Posted April 25, 2019 I would be curious how many collectors have gotten into this with an investment mentality. Many of the collectors of the 80's and 90's got their fill with comic book speculation, so probably shy away from that mentality when collecting art. Is the art I own ever going to be as much as a Picasso or "investment" art ... not a chance. However, I am not going to put as much thought into it as this article suggests I should to get my ROI. To quote the remake of The Thomas Crown Affair, "I just like my haystacks Bobby." The Voord 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voord Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 10 hours ago, Heidjer Staecker said: I would be curious how many collectors have gotten into this with an investment mentality. Many of the collectors of the 80's and 90's got their fill with comic book speculation, so probably shy away from that mentality when collecting art. Is the art I own ever going to be as much as a Picasso or "investment" art ... not a chance. However, I am not going to put as much thought into it as this article suggests I should to get my ROI. To quote the remake of The Thomas Crown Affair, "I just like my haystacks Bobby." I started collecting artwork in 1982, which was pre-investment-mentality days . . . at a time before the internet was invented. All I can say is that I've done spectacularly well on re-sale over the years, which had more to do with luck than shrewd collecting on my behalf. The market changed over the years and I can appreciate more nowadays, with prices having gone the way they have, why the investment angle figures more heavily for collectors shelling out big bucks for their art fix in today's world. Kohei and delekkerste 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...