New Action #1 CGC 8.0 and New Detective Comics #27 CGC 8.5 in the Census 4 4

[buttock]

On 10/8/2021 at 1:25 PM, batman_fan said:

This is true of all modern art.  It is about creating a perspective that there is something special about the artwork.  There is an artist that has a “unique” technic with how he produces artwork.  In addition he uses a special trowel because his work is produced by painting hundreds of layers of paint and then scraping them with this special trowel he has been using for almost two decades.  The art gallery implies he may stop producing art when the trowel can no longer be used and that means his work will skyrocket.

The technique he uses is used by many other artist.  Some scrap, some sand, some grind, some sandblast.  It is all marketing spin.  With Rothko, getting the brand “can’t be restored becuase his technique is so special and unique” is pure brilliance.

It's like how the old Germans would hand down the beer stirring stick from generation to generation.  It's really the trowel that is what is worth so much.  Probably at least $1BN.

[rob_react]

I'm right here guys. If you want to call me an insufficiently_thoughtful_person because I'm fooled by modern art, please do so directly!

[batman_fan]

On 10/8/2021 at 1:44 PM, rob_react said:

I'm right here guys. If you want to call me an insufficiently_thoughtful_person because I'm fooled by modern art, please do so directly!

I wouldn’t say that about you but a lot of the value is based on the story, not the artwork or the supposed quality.  I love a lot of Jackson Pollack’s stuff.  Partly because I like the scale of some of it, partly because I find the creation of it interesting, partly because I like the story behind the artist, and partly because it sounds like he was a raging alcoholic.

Edited October 8, 2021 by batman_fan

[rob_react]

On 10/7/2021 at 8:48 PM, rob_react said:

How rough of a ride did MC 1 have in the oughts?

Pay copy

1. $40,000.00 at Private Sale in 1993
2. $350,000.00 at Private Sale in 2003
3. $201,250.00 at Heritage on 2006/01/19
4. $204,999.99 at Heritage on 2007/08/03
5. $227,050.00 at Heritage on 2010/02/25

Larson (8.0)

 

1. $41,400.00 at Sotheby's in 1997
2. $48,000.00 at Unknown in 1998
3. $101,575.00 at Heritage on 2006/11/17
4. $89,625.00 at Heritage on 2007/11/15
5. $89,625.00 at Heritage on 2009/11/19

I forgot the other 9.0 (which was only a 9.0 briefly)

1. $126,500.00 at Heritage on 2003/03/06 (8.5)
2. $161,000.00 at Heritage on 2005/10/14 (9.0)
3. $1,260,000.00 at Heritage on 2019/11/21 (9.4)

[Aman619]

On 10/7/2021 at 2:44 PM, rob_react said:

Well, that's the other part. Until Rothko had the idea to paint like this, the idea to paint like this didn't exist. That's what people are paying money for. It's the conceptual breakthrough and Rothko's place in one of the most important parts of art history. The value isn't in the complexity of the technique. I was just pointing out that the techniques involved are complex because Rothko was the subject earlier in the thread and I know a bit about his practice. 

There are plenty of artists who sell for millions of dollars (tens of millions) who don't have a process nearly as complicated as Rothko's. This is even more true as we get closer to the present day where the concept is much more important than craft or aesthetics in the minds of many in the art world. I go to international art fairs (most often Art Basel Miami Beach and the satellite shows) so I see the full breadth of this stuff. You can walk around a show like that and play "trash or treasure" trying to guess if a work is a pile of trash, or a sculpture 

 

Great stuff Rob!  Medicine went drown smoothly..  Hey, now defend Lichtenstein!  Lol

[rob_react]

On 10/8/2021 at 3:59 PM, batman_fan said:

I would say that about you but a lot of the value is based on the story, not the artwork or the supposed quality.  I love a lot of Jackson Pollack’s stuff.  Partly because I like the scale of some of it, partly because I find the creation of it interesting, partly because I like the story behind the artist, and partly because it sounds like he was a raging alcoholic.

He was a terrible human being! Fascinating story, incredible breakthrough and just a horrible person. 

And yes, I said exactly the same thing earlier about the way that art is valued now. This is especially true of contemporary art (art being created now) but is also true of artists like Rothko. This isn't a secret. This is exactly the conversation that takes place in contemporary art circles. It's not a negative to say that a lot of value is based on the story. It's like pointing out that comic book collectors are obsessed with condition or that water is wet.  There are artists that transcend the conceptual trap and make art of real beauty, but they still have a conceptual framework that underpins what they're doing. 

[rob_react]

On 10/8/2021 at 4:06 PM, Aman619 said:

Great stuff Rob!  Medicine went drown smoothly..  Hey, now defend Lichtenstein!  Lol

lol. That's one bridge too far!

[batman_fan]

On 10/8/2021 at 2:06 PM, rob_react said:

He was a terrible human being! Fascinating story, incredible breakthrough and just a horrible person. 

And yes, I said exactly the same thing earlier about the way that art is valued now. This is especially true of contemporary art (art being created now) but is also true of artists like Rothko. This isn't a secret. This is exactly the conversation that takes place in contemporary art circles. It's not a negative to say that a lot of value is based on the story. It's like pointing out that comic book collectors are obsessed with condition or that water is wet.  There are artists that transcend the conceptual trap and make art of real beauty, but they still have a conceptual framework that underpins what they're doing. 

The Ed Harris Pollock movie tried to play him as a somewhat sympathetic character but how big of a DB came through with pieces they showed.

[rob_react]

 

On 10/8/2021 at 4:11 PM, batman_fan said:

The Ed Harris Pollock movie tried to play him as a somewhat sympathetic character but how big of a DB came through with pieces they showed.

Yeah, my wife just read Ninth Street Women, so the anecdotes about him are fresh in my mind. 

[Mr bla bla]

On 10/8/2021 at 9:25 PM, batman_fan said:

This is true of all modern art.  It is about creating a perspective that there is something special about the artwork.  There is an artist that has a “unique” technic with how he produces artwork.  In addition he uses a special trowel because his work is produced by painting hundreds of layers of paint and then scraping them with this special trowel he has been using for almost two decades.  The art gallery implies he may stop producing art when the trowel can no longer be used and that means his work will skyrocket.

The technique he uses is used by many other artist.  Some scrap, some sand, some grind, some sandblast.  It is all marketing spin.  With Rothko, getting the brand “can’t be restored becuase his technique is so special and unique” is pure brilliance.

I would rather have a Kirby splash page, than this piece of garbage. 

People actually paying for this must not be in their right mind.

[rob_react]

On 10/8/2021 at 5:01 PM, Mr bla bla said:

I would rather have a Kirby splash page, than this piece of garbage. 

People actually paying for this must not be in their right mind.

The big time contemporary art collectors i know and have met (and through my connection as a donor I get to interact with people who put their names on buildings and loan their works to museums) are some of the most intelligent and successful people I've ever met. Many of them are actually the people comic collectors (including some here on the boards) fantasize about swooping in with their millions and billions to randomly dip into the hobby to buy the latest big ticket comic.

It's a different thing than comics, that's all.

Saying people are crazy because they collect something you don't like is a bummer. Paying 2x the price for a 9.2 vs a 9.0 or paying 10x the price because a book was in Edgar Church's house would look crazy to some people, too.

We have the framework in which comics works. It's valid, because it's what we do. To say someone else's framework is invalid misses the point.

It's not up to you.

The art market understands what it is and how it works. The overall framework works (really well!) for the art market.  People can do what they want with their money.

The art market is also much larger and much (hundreds of years) more mature than comics so it's like a blind man describing an elephant. You can look at the high end market for contemporary art, post war and modern art, old masters, impressionists, etc and they'll all have different approaches to the business of art. 

 

[Mr bla bla]

On 10/9/2021 at 12:00 AM, rob_react said:

The big time contemporary art collectors i know and have met (and through my connection as a donor I get to interact with people who put their names on buildings and loan their works to museums) are some of the most intelligent and successful people I've ever met. Many of them are actually the people comic collectors (including some here on the boards) fantasize about swooping in with their millions and billions to randomly dip into the hobby to buy the latest big ticket comic.

It's a different thing than comics, that's all.

Saying people are crazy because they collect something you don't like is a bummer. Paying 2x the price for a 9.2 vs a 9.0 or paying 10x the price because a book was in Edgar Church's house would look crazy to some people, too.

We have the framework in which comics works. It's valid, because it's what we do. To say someone else's framework is invalid misses the point.

It's not up to you.

The art market understands what it is and how it works. The overall framework works (really well!) for the art market.  People can do what they want with their money.

The art market is also much larger and much (hundreds of years) more mature than comics so it's like a blind man describing an elephant. You can look at the high end market for contemporary art, post war and modern art, old masters, impressionists, etc and they'll all have different approaches to the business of art. 

 

Sorry i pissed you off. That was not my intention.

But I still think that the above showcased pieces of socalled “modern art” are without any merit what so ever. 

Sure there is an established market for these ehh ‘works’. But i find no artistic substance in it at all. But you are right:

to each his own ...

isnt that the bon mot we use in these instances.

are you involved in the modern art world? I took you for a DD collector?

[rob_react]

"okay, so let me get this straight" says the biotech millionaire, "you have a comic that's graded 8.5 out of 10, you wet it, put it in a press, and then it will grade higher. The same object will then sell for 2x or 4x the previous price simply because the number on the plastic tomb? And you can tell the difference? No thanks! I'll stick to art"

[batman_fan]

On 10/8/2021 at 4:00 PM, rob_react said:

The big time contemporary art collectors i know and have met (and through my connection as a donor I get to interact with people who put their names on buildings and loan their works to museums) are some of the most intelligent and successful people I've ever met. Many of them are actually the people comic collectors (including some here on the boards) fantasize about swooping in with their millions and billions to randomly dip into the hobby to buy the latest big ticket comic.

It's a different thing than comics, that's all.

Saying people are crazy because they collect something you don't like is a bummer. Paying 2x the price for a 9.2 vs a 9.0 or paying 10x the price because a book was in Edgar Church's house would look crazy to some people, too.

We have the framework in which comics works. It's valid, because it's what we do. To say someone else's framework is invalid misses the point.

It's not up to you.

The art market understands what it is and how it works. The overall framework works (really well!) for the art market.  People can do what they want with their money.

The art market is also much larger and much (hundreds of years) more mature than comics so it's like a blind man describing an elephant. You can look at the high end market for contemporary art, post war and modern art, old masters, impressionists, etc and they'll all have different approaches to the business of art. 

 

Given a single piece of artwork can sell for more that the total HA has auctioned for comics and comic artwork in 5 years, it is easy to see the difference in value.  Also, us comic folks no longer fantasize about hedge fund managers and Jerry Seifield starting to collect comics, we have moved on to crypto-currency millionaires. 

[rob_react]

On 10/8/2021 at 6:13 PM, Mr bla bla said:

Sorry i pissed you off. That was not my intention.

But I still think that the above showcased pieces of socalled “modern art” are without any merit what so ever. 

Sure there is an established market for these ehh ‘works’. But i find no artistic substance in it at all. But you are right:

to each his own ...

isnt that the bon mot we use in these instances.

are you involved in the modern art world? I took you for a DD collector?

I'm both. I have more money in art than i have in comics, at this point. I'm also involved with a local contemporary art museum and am a painter myself. 

I'm also not pissed! I just know both worlds and want to educate to the best of my ability. You can hate this work all you want, that's fine with me. I just like to fill in some of the gaps where i can.

[rob_react]

On 10/8/2021 at 6:16 PM, batman_fan said:

Given a single piece of artwork can sell for more that the total HA has auctioned for comics and comic artwork in 5 years, it is easy to see the difference in value.  Also, us comic folks no longer fantasize about hedge fund managers and Jerry Seifield starting to collect comics, we have moved on to crypto-currency millionaires. 

Lol. That's not even a fantasy!

[Bronty]

 

On 10/8/2021 at 5:01 PM, Mr bla bla said:

I would rather have a Kirby splash page, than this piece of garbage. 

People actually paying for this must not be in their right mind.

Well c'mon.   This is a hobby where a 90s piece of Liefeld can be six figures.  

A Herb Trimpe cover can be 7 figures if it has a short Canadian on it.    

Is it so hard to step outside our bubble and see how ridiculous those examples must look outside of our own hobby?

Forget about whether you love or hate or even care about Rothko.    He's got a place in art history, same as Trimpe has a place in comic history.

Both artists can be brilliant or terrible, it almost doesn't matter.      The money will flow to pieces that are important in the narrative of the respective hobby regardless of how they look, what the skill involved was, etc etc.

Was Schulz a brilliant draftsman?   I wouldn't say that, even though I like his drawings.    But he's awfully important to the narrative of the comic strip hobby, so the value of his pieces dwarf most or all other comic strip artists.

etc. etc.   We could list examples until we are blue in the face.    

Long story short, the value of a given piece art isn't even really about the art a lot of the time.   Its about where that art fits into the grand scheme of things.

Edited October 8, 2021 by Bronty

[batman_fan]

On 10/8/2021 at 4:29 PM, Bronty said:

 

Well c'mon.   This is a hobby where a 90s piece of Liefeld can be six figures.  

A Herb Trimpe cover can be 7 figures if it has a short Canadian on it.    

Is it so hard to step outside our bubble and see how ridiculous those examples must look outside of our own hobby?

Forget about whether you love or hate or even care about Rothko.    He's got a place in art history, same as Trimpe has a place in comic history.

Both artists can be brilliant or terrible, it almost doesn't matter.      The money will flow to pieces that are important in the narrative of the respective hobby regardless of how they look, what the skill involved was, etc etc.

Was Schulz a brilliant draftsman?   Not really, even though I like his drawings.    But he's awfully important to the narrative of the comic strip hobby, so the value of his pieces dwarf most or all other comic strip artists.

etc. etc.   We could list examples until we are blue in the face.    

I think I am hyperventilating 

 

[Bronty]

On 10/8/2021 at 6:34 PM, batman_fan said:

I think I am hyperventilating 

 

you caught me mid edit  

[Aman619]

On 10/8/2021 at 6:00 PM, rob_react said:

The big time contemporary art collectors i know and have met (and through my connection as a donor I get to interact with people who put their names on buildings and loan their works to museums) are some of the most intelligent and successful people I've ever met. Many of them are actually the people comic collectors (including some here on the boards) fantasize about swooping in with their millions and billions to randomly dip into the hobby to buy the latest big ticket comic.

It's a different thing than comics, that's all.

Saying people are crazy because they collect something you don't like is a bummer. Paying 2x the price for a 9.2 vs a 9.0 or paying 10x the price because a book was in Edgar Church's house would look crazy to some people, too.

We have the framework in which comics works. It's valid, because it's what we do. To say someone else's framework is invalid misses the point.

It's not up to you.

The art market understands what it is and how it works. The overall framework works (really well!) for the art market.  People can do what they want with their money.

The art market is also much larger and much (hundreds of years) more mature than comics so it's like a blind man describing an elephant. You can look at the high end market for contemporary art, post war and modern art, old masters, impressionists, etc and they'll all have different approaches to the business of art. 

 

Well said!