Worst OA in Existence 0

[Rick2you2]

And then, we have a little puppy like this one on eBay, which is likely to become collectible (with real value) precisely because it is so offensive. If you are wondering, Floor Covering Weekly is still being published, although I doubt they will be reprinting the ad.

 

[Guest Race]

All Infantino art from Flash 296-350, when all of the characters looked like they were wax figures melting in the sun. As a kid I couldn't stand it, and as an adult I still can't stand it.

[RBerman]

A hate thread? Dunno... Hard to think of something that won't turn out to be someone's favorite.  Even Hugga Bunch.

[Rick2you2]

28 minutes ago, RBerman said:

A hate thread? Dunno... Hard to think of something that won't turn out to be someone's favorite.  Even Hugga Bunch.

I like that cover, but that's not where I was going.

This is not intended as a "hate" thread at all. More like, "least likely to hold value". Think of it as the flip side of the other thread involving "most valuable" as "greatest".

Example: Gene Colan's Daredevil. Collectible, absolutely. Good, yes. But why would a future generation buy it if they have no nostalgia for the artist? Candidate for slippage? Yup.

Similarly, we seen quite a few comments about a certain barbarian's main artist, and the the prices on some of that work can definitely be higher. Is that likely to be rejected by future collectors who don't give a fig about sword-welders in loin cloth?

Kids comic art doesn't typically carry a high price, so it isn't likely to suffer much. On the other hand, what about toy-based art for toys out of circulation (except to collectors)?

What's likely to take the biggest plunge, or least likely to keep up with a pricier market? 

 

[Rick2you2]

1 hour ago, Race said:

All Infantino art from Flash 296-350, when all of the characters looked like they were wax figures melting in the sun. As a kid I couldn't stand it, and as an adult I still can't stand it.

Thank you. 

[Rick2you2]

1 hour ago, Rick2you2 said:

And then, we have a little puppy like this one on eBay, which is likely to become collectible (with real value) precisely because it is so offensive. If you are wondering, Floor Covering Weekly is still being published, although I doubt they will be reprinting the ad.

 

For more on the subject, There is a museum dedicated this cr*p. https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/antiblack/

From the website:

Racism As Commodity

All of the objects in the Jim Crow Museum have market values. In 2011, there were more than 50,000 collectors of "Black Americana," a category that includes racist artifacts. Generally, the more racist an object is, the higher the price it commands.

I wonder if they take donations?

Edited July 17, 2021 by Rick2you2

[Will_K]

I heard a long time ago that Whoopi Goldberg was one of the biggest collectors of such items.

[Timely]

59 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

I like that cover, but that's not where I was going.

This is not intended as a "hate" thread at all. More like, "least likely to hold value". Think of it as the flip side of the other thread involving "most valuable" as "greatest".

Example: Gene Colan's Daredevil. Collectible, absolutely. Good, yes. But why would a future generation buy it if they have no nostalgia for the artist? Candidate for slippage? Yup.

Similarly, we seen quite a few comments about a certain barbarian's main artist, and the the prices on some of that work can definitely be higher. Is that likely to be rejected by future collectors who don't give a fig about sword-welders in loin cloth?

Kids comic art doesn't typically carry a high price, so it isn't likely to suffer much. On the other hand, what about toy-based art for toys out of circulation (except to collectors)?

What's likely to take the biggest plunge, or least likely to keep up with a pricier market? 

 

I’m going to disagree with your Daredevil example.

Any solid character will have those collectors who will buy pieces they are not nostalgically linked to. Some Golden Age Superman art isn’t all that great artistically but still sells well, and no one remembers buying that stuff as a kid!

 

So 25 years from now Colan Daredevil will be bought and sold at a decent rate just as 40’s art Superman is today.

What will go down to dumpster levels in 25 years are insignificant characters that are barely a blip even today. 

Edited July 17, 2021 by Timely

[grapeape]

Remember her and Ted Danson?

please

please

please

 

DON’T post that picture here 😱 

[grapeape]

The worst art in existence is all the art I desire but can’t find, buy or barter for.

signed

everyone on the board

🍇 🦍 

 

[bluechip]

6 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Okay, so the title is a little exaggerated. But after seeing the thread on the "Greatest OA in Existence", and how it involves what may be the most valuable works out there, I started to wonder what art would be least likely to appreciate, or even depreciate over the years. By artist, topic or subject matter, whatever comes to mind.

For example, I can't see much of a future for old comic art from books involving old TV shows. Does anyone really want that page from Camp Runamuck, or old Car 54 art? Does poor old Sal join the ranks of the forgotten? Should Joe Jusko deserve a slot in the halls of infamy? And no, Phantom Stranger art does not make the list, but some of the Trinity of Sin art is real garbage. Otherwise, have fun. The more defamatory, the better.

One last thing, skip the commissions and the like on eBay or elsewhere. Too easy.

 

There are too many examples of bad art, and who wants to spend time looking at bad art?    Maybe if you focused in on bad art that still somehow sold for a lot of money, it would be more interesting... at least to me.  But of course that way lies madness, and by madness I mean the potential anger of people who paid a lot for it (or have lots of it to sell) and don't appreciate it being called "bad"
  

[grapeape]

12 minutes ago, bluechip said:

You are absolutely right. But I think there is a a way to critically discuss “bad” art even if it offends others.

I go crazy on the “bashing” of Colan and others. When it’s done with honest critical observations (“Jack Abel inking on John Buscema Silver Surfer ruins his alien look.it corrupts Buscema’s layouts. Lines are to thick...”) we can agree or disagree.

He sucks because I said so. Yeah that’s not going to go over well. One of these is bad and one is fantastic. Or not, Dino you are my hero 👍 

[Rick2you2]

23 minutes ago, bluechip said:

There are too many examples of bad art, and who wants to spend time looking at bad art?    Maybe if you focused in on bad art that still somehow sold for a lot of money, it would be more interesting... at least to me.  But of course that way lies madness, and by madness I mean the potential anger of people who paid a lot for it (or have lots of it to sell) and don't appreciate it being called "bad"
  

You're missing the point of what I wrote: 

24 minutes ago, bluechip said:

But after seeing the thread on the "Greatest OA in Existence", and how it involves what may be the most valuable works out there, I started to wonder what art would be least likely to appreciate, or even depreciate over the years.

The words "good" and "bad" are too subject to evaluate without a standard. The standard is highlighted above.

[Rick2you2]

1 hour ago, Timely said:

I’m going to disagree with your Daredevil example.

Any solid character will have those collectors who will buy pieces they are not nostalgically linked to. Some Golden Age Superman art isn’t all that great artistically but still sells well, and no one remembers buying that stuff as a kid!

 

So 25 years from now Colan Daredevil will be bought and sold at a decent rate just as 40’s art Superman is today.

What will go down to dumpster levels in 25 years are insignificant characters that are barely a blip even today. 

That's fine, but you do get the point I am trying to make. What candidates might qualify? 

[Rick2you2]

58 minutes ago, grapeape said:

The worst art in existence is all the art I desire but can’t find, buy or barter for.

signed

everyone on the board

🍇 🦍 

 

Why is everyone ducking the question? People had no problem expressing their views on the "greatest" art. So, just flip it around (but, don't count obvious things like eBay rubbish)

[Rick2you2]

34 minutes ago, bluechip said:

There are too many examples of bad art, and who wants to spend time looking at bad art?    Maybe if you focused in on bad art that still somehow sold for a lot of money, it would be more interesting... at least to me.  But of course that way lies madness, and by madness I mean the potential anger of people who paid a lot for it (or have lots of it to sell) and don't appreciate it being called "bad"
  

Bad in this context means low future value, mostly due to lack of nostalgia for the piece. Good aesthetics can still be "bad" art when used in this context. The winners of the contest are the biggest projected losers in the future.

[grapeape]

Ok I wish we could talk ebay because our pal Blastaar might have something to say

Alex Ross........

He’s prolific. When he hit the scene everyone agreed (at least it seems that way) that he was an awesome talent. His paintings sold for four figures and his drawings were $500-$2000.

Now for quite awhile with Sal as rep his art at minimum seems to leave the factory at $20K minimum.

If you bought early like Marvels etc you have done really well. So going with Rick2you2 let’s just throw it out there.

IS ALEX ROSS BAD ART? 😱 

If you buy a $20K plus painting is that going up for a nice return later on? Or did you buy in to a Kincade type marketing genius? Are you stuck without high demand resale? Is Alex Ross a blue chip destined for the basement?

Is that what you mean Rick2you2?

 

Edited July 17, 2021 by grapeape

[aokartman]

7 minutes ago, grapeape said:

Ok I wish we could talk ebay because our pal Blastaar might have something to say

Alex Ross........

He’s prolific. When he hit the scene everyone agreed (at least it seems that way) that he was an awesome talent. His paintings sold for four figures and his drawings were $500-$2000.

Now for quite awhile with Sal as rep his art at minimum seems to leave the factory at $20K minimum.

If you bought early like Marvels etc you have done really well. So going with Rick2you2 let’s just throw it out there.

IS ALEX ROSS BAD ART? 😱 

If you buy a $20K plus painting is that going up for a nice return later on? Or did you buy in to a Kincade type marketing genius? Are you stuck without high demand resale? Is Alex Ross a blue chip destined for the basement?

Is that what you mean Rick2you2?

 

Agree, that is the type of acquisition that is ripe for disappointment from an investment perspective.  However, I suspect there are collectors in a similar vein that don't care, and are perfectly happy about their collection regardless of the return on investment.  I put myself in that category; I don't have any regrets about past art purchases.  It is entertaining to watch movement over the years, and I certainly re-examine my collection in a new light from time to time, but I don't dwell on it.  Maybe it's just my personality.  David

[bluechip]

59 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Bad in this context means low future value, mostly due to lack of nostalgia for the piece. Good aesthetics can still be "bad" art when used in this context. The winners of the contest are the biggest projected losers in the future.

Ok, I getcha.   I many not be the best at identifying these items because I am generally surprised at what people are willing to pay for things that don't appeal to me and I am less often surprised at how little something goes for.  The more recent stuff concerns me because even when I like the end result the OA that remains is less appealing because of the process that leaves it with less shading, no word balloons or other text and even without pencils.  So while the published cover itself may stand alone as a piece with or without nostalgia, the OA  feels more than similar pieces which had more onus on them to be aesthetically appealing even in the not-yet-final form.   

[Will_K]

10 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Bad in this context means low future value, mostly due to lack of nostalgia for the piece. Good aesthetics can still be "bad" art when used in this context. The winners of the contest are the biggest projected losers in the future.

When you kicked off the topic, one of the things you mentioned is art from comics based on TV shows have very low odds of appreciation now and in the future.  So those may not count as the worst since they were never valued highly.

Maybe "worst" (low future value) can be who may have the greatest fall in appreciation in the future?  I think that's hard to say.  But let's say it's Jack Kirby.  He isn't call "The King" for no reason.  Now, I'm mainly a DC guy.  But I'm not all that familiar with Kirby's DC work.  So I don't really have any nostalgia for Kirby (note, a few days ago, I ordered the Fourth World Omnibus).  But even though I don't know the stories, I respect Jack Kirby because of his sheer output, contributions to how to draw comics (storytelling), character designs and longevity.  Also, re: the "Stan vs Jack" question, I generally believe 2 person teams are usually divided by "brains" and "talent".  I consider Kirby to be the talent.  In another topic, someone posted this:  https://zak-site.com/Great-American-Novel/ff_Lee-Kirby.html   Maybe it's "confirmation bias" but I think it's a great write-up.

So Kirby's art is generally valued about as high as one can get.  Can Kirby art fall in value ?  Maybe, if demand falls.  What could lower demand?  Well, maybe tastes change and Kirby's style no longer holds as much interest, it's just viewed as a curiosity.  Maybe the over-the-top melodramatic Marvel dialog (thanks, Stan) is considered so cringe in the 21st Century that those comics are rejected.  Maybe MCU movies are so dominant that even the source material is ignored.  Interest in the movies doesn't drive comics buying.  People who go to those movies know Stan Lee.  How many know about Jack Kirby?  And as has been widely discussed previously in other topics...  generational changes re: the general decline in collecting and lack of interest.

So maybe (just maybe) Kirby art can fall in value in... 20 years ?  Where does that leave every other artist (even the ones influenced by Kirby)?  It doesn't mean other artists will go down to zero.  It just means maybe Kirby art fell the most.  So the general rule can be: the bigger they are, the harder they fall.  How's that, @Rick2you2 ??