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

[Aman619]

On 10/12/2021 at 7:10 PM, szav said:

 

Well if you’re gonna insist, I’ll oblige … but my opinion of most comic art isn’t that far off from a lot of modern/pop art in terms of it being overvalued and without much technical merit.

How many different poses of and renditions of the same 50 or so super heroes and villains does one need?  I see very little comic art that, with its solar value removed, I’d care to hang up on a wall.

I do like a lot of comic art, but in viewing the market and pieces that sell for astronomical amounts in general, I’m more often left scratching my head than thinking ‘dang I wish I could own that’.

To each there own anyway, I won’t begrudge anyone their purchases or what they like when it comes to their preferred collectibles with zero intrinsic value … till we pass the $5,000,000.00 or so mark.  At that point I don’t think it’s about the art as much as it may be conspicuous spending, or some sort of tax or wealth transfer game.

sure... but the "collect what you want" also applies to billionaires, doesn't it?  we all live in our economic zones, we covet what we can just maybe afford to realistically hope to achieve/buy.  So too a billionaire, spending 100M on a piece of art, is also buying into a collecting arena same as we do at our much lower price points. We spend within our limits, so do they. Theirs are far higher of course, but still pin money to them. So many here loudly exclaim not to care if they pay too much etc, because they are happy to own xxx.  Hey, same for billionaires. they can lose money too, but won't go hungry either.  And they enjoy their trophies too!

In both our worlds the prices are divorced from merit, artistry, or intrinsic value. But collecting impels us both in the same way.  To knock someone who pays 100M for a painting that you dont get is no different than looking down on someone who collects comics you dont like.  

[lou_fine]

On 10/12/2021 at 12:10 PM, Bronty said:

On 10/12/2021 at 12:07 PM, szav said:

This just makes the performance good not the art.  

People don't pay for "good."  They pay for noteworthy.   See Liefeld, Exhibit A..

Is this one here by Liefeld your Exhibit A:    

 

Looks pretty abstract to me or is this what it looks like when a man gets pregnant.  

Edited October 13, 2021 by lou_fine

[lou_fine]

On 10/13/2021 at 1:01 AM, szav said:

I've always thought of this one as more of a PSA about acromegaly and HGH abuse.  Is Liefeld a bodybuilder?

Would you be referring to bodybuilders in their Devious Maids days:  

[adamstrange]

On 10/12/2021 at 2:48 PM, Bronty said:

 

If you're going to post obviously erotic content, at least place it in a spoiler tag. 

[Bronty]

On 10/12/2021 at 7:10 PM, szav said:

 

without much technical merit.

 

On a serious note, the other trouble with "technical merit" is you can't measure it in any meaningful way.   

Is Kirby's art complete junk because of exaggerated perspectives and unrealistic touches throughout, or is it completely awesome because of those same qualities?   

We all kind of know 'technical merit' when we see it, its our collective shorthand for art that looks like it was put together with care and skill and that results in something pleasing to the eye.   But its an entirely vague set of metrics, its COMPLETELY subjective, and the assessments can vary wildly from person to person.

To put it another way, no one can disagree that a hulk 181 page (or 180 page if you want to be 'that guy') is a page from the first appearance of wolverine.   That's an objective fact, there's no ground for dispute.     Whether a particular page is a zenith of the art form?    Total subjective opinion that requires reinforcement by a page of word salad.    

The objective attributes of artwork should factor in more heavily than the subjective ones, because there's no disagreement on them.   

Edited October 13, 2021 by Bronty

[Aman619]

yeah, but do we?  not to nitpick, but -- knowing what you mean --  youre only saying "I know good art when I see it" because we all judge "good" for ourselves.  (or we wouldn't be discussing this)  : )

With abstract art in particular, the issue is one should (must?) take the artists body of work into consideration when judging a piece.  But many are still not convinced theres any merit yto the "intent", and only look at the brushstrokes, or shapes or lack of same.   anyway, I agree lots of "art" dense meet MY "good art" test, but the big time art of the 20th century has outlasted its critics.  And even though the values are a shell game of the .01% investment portfolios (which plays a hand in it (just like comics and other collectibles) they are real and the product of the market for them.  

Im not defending billionaires, just trying to get in their head to say they aren't different from us except on a massive scale of assets. They play by (take advantage of) the rules big time, but worked hard, or created things now worth ungodly amounts (thru the efforts of 1000s of lesser paid employees) ... but wake up each day as a billionaire. And live accordingly. Same as us, only, again, on an exponentially higher plane of possibilities. I think there should be a limit to ones net worth! keep money from pooling at the top. But we could never set up such a system (how much would be too much?)  and if it was, new loopholes would appear and be taken advantage of. 

[Aman619]

my aunt and uncle start buying prints in the 70s when they were coming on strong. They had a friend advising them.  They did well with a Hockney and a few others did fairly well, but not much in gains with all the rest.  Then years later to add salt into the wound, they learned that their friend/advisor was buying originals!  She has done VERY well.

Our worlds are too similar, right?  Its like your dealer friend who sells you into VGF Marvels while buying HG copies for himself.

Edited October 13, 2021 by Aman619

[Bronty]

On 10/13/2021 at 12:10 PM, szav said:

I agree, a judgment on the precise level of skill or expertise that something was drawn with is completely subjective, there will be great disagreement on what separates the top 1 % from the top 5%...however it's pretty easy for most people to make a ballpark assessment of whether something is bad, average, good, or excellent, or whether it took a better than average level of skill to construct or whether it appears to have taken no effort or skill at all.

Take the cover to AF15.  Get the perspective wrong, or the relative tilts on the buildings out of alignment with each other, or aspects of Spiderman's anatomy out of proportion and it doesn't look nearly as impressive.  Take your picture of a red and black square, rotate the red one 10 degrees clockwise, shorten the edges on the black one half an inch and...has it's meaning or fundamental appearance changed in any appreciable way?  Nope.

We all know good art when we see it, and most of us know bad art when we see it.

 

I think most people's appreciation starts and ends with whether or not its a 'pretty picture.'   That's not the same as good art or bad art, skillful or not, etc.

Its almost a binary assessment:   good, or bad.   At best its the three or four shades of good and bad that you identified:   good/bad/average/excellent etc.    

There's fuzziness and disagreement all the way up and down that good/bad/average/excellent curve, and that's the point.... you can't get a roomful of people anywhere in the world to agree precisely what should go into even the four buckets you identified.   

And that's why, IMO, the market values the objective metrics:

- character present?

- in costume?

- facing front?

- etc. etc. etc.

Your great pretty picture may be someone else's poor drawing, but there's no denying whether spiderman is or isn't on the cover.    Its self-evident.

 

So, taking that idea to Kazimir Malevich and his red and black squares.    Who cares if we do or don't tilt or shorten those black squares?    That's a nearly empty canvas from circa 1910 and it took cajones the size of the room I'm sitting in to paint that in 1910.      To effectively foresee the conversation we are having now, just because some people started using cameras.     Back then, photos weren't what they are today.   It would have been easy to dismiss them as small, and black and white, and without personality or warmth, or whatever excuse the artist trying to protect his ego could come up with.     Its a much braver outlook to say... this thing we've been doing FOR ALL OF RECORDED TIME is now a dead end, and where I can take this in a new direction?

It almost doesn't matter what he put on the canvas.   The fact that he asked those questions at that time is noteworthy and the market has responded to it because the other 99.999% were painting cows in fields, and the like.

To summarize the above, you can't judge an idea via a picture.

 

Edited October 13, 2021 by Bronty

[Aman619]

Do most art experts or the public at large look at these pieces in reverence, 

Again to me, there are similarities.  They chase whats hot.. and some gamble on what WILL be hot based on "insider info" from their advisors, dealers or friends.  Another aspect fueling their high prices is that high end Art collectors can treat their collections same as real estate.  They can sell a piece to buy a new one, and pay no capital gains (like a house) so long as they place the proceeds in escrow, and buy the new piece with those funds within 6 months.  So many of them aren't putting any new cash into their hobby so long as they have unrealized gains to work with.  We can do that too, but we have to pay the capital gains on the first sale. 

 

[Bronty]

On 10/13/2021 at 3:34 PM, szav said:

It took squares not balls to paint this.  Ba-dump.

[Aman619]

Bronty I never heard of Malevich, but I defend his right to paint !  I just looked at more of his pieces.  You are picking almost deliberately confrontational paintings!  these are much more to my liking as artworks.  I mean, they are "good".

 

[Bronty]

On 10/13/2021 at 3:41 PM, Aman619 said:

Bronty I never heard of Malevich, but I defend his right to paint !  I just looked at more of his pieces.  You are picking almost deliberately confrontational paintings!  these are much more to my liking as artworks.  I mean, they are "good".

 

 

 

nice examples

Here's one more, $85m at auction:

[Bronty]

On 10/13/2021 at 3:30 PM, Aman619 said:

Do most art experts or the public at large look at these pieces in reverence, 

Again to me, there are similarities.  They chase whats hot.. and some gamble on what WILL be hot based on "insider info" from their advisors, dealers or friends.  Another aspect fueling their high prices is that high end Art collectors can treat their collections same as real estate.  They can sell a piece to buy a new one, and pay no capital gains (like a house) so long as they place the proceeds in escrow, and buy the new piece with those funds within 6 months.  So many of them aren't putting any new cash into their hobby so long as they have unrealized gains to work with.  We can do that too, but we have to pay the capital gains on the first sale. 

 

I couldn't agree more.

The behaviors are largely the same.   The scale is the scale, and its monumental in this case, but the guy paying $85m for a Malevich has a lot of the same thoughts running through his head as the guy paying $85k for an AF15.

Edited October 13, 2021 by Bronty

[Aman619]

exactly.

 

[Bronty]

On 10/13/2021 at 3:48 PM, szav said:

__Insert joke about your children creating by this dumping a box tangrams on the floor here__

Or insert joke about stunted man-children collecting long-underwear heroes.     And paying more or less depending on which set of underwear is on the cover 

The behaviors are similar.    If we laugh at people collecting fine art, we are laughing at ourselves too. 

 

[Aman619]

but the key difference is that the kid (rather his mom) just scoops them all up into the box again and forgets all about the serendipitous entropy lesson that created the image/pile.  The artists recognizes that fallen objects often land in a pleasing configuration, and embarks on a lifetime of creating similar groupings in paint on canvas.

[Aman619]

On 10/13/2021 at 3:48 PM, szav said:

__Insert joke about your children creating by this dumping a box tangrams on the floor here__

 

On 10/13/2021 at 3:45 PM, Bronty said:

nice examples

Here's one more, $85m at auction:

not my favorite.  objects dont seem to be working well together in any organized or irregularly organized manner.  Kind of like a kids tangrams on the floor... hey wait a minute!!!

[Bronty]

On 10/13/2021 at 3:53 PM, Aman619 said:

 

not my favorite.  objects dont seem to be working well together in any organized or irregularly organized manner.  Kind of like a kids tangrams on the floor... hey wait a minute!!!

WTF are tangrams?

 

[Aman619]

I dont know either!  ask szaz, I just copies his joke!  : )

[Bronty]

On 10/13/2021 at 3:57 PM, Aman619 said:

I dont know either!  ask szaz, I just copies his joke!  : )

Pretty sure the joke was also from 1910, because if that's a kid's toy that looks like something that became lame and boring once there was a radio in the house.