Jan Heritage Auction putting up some nice artwork 4 4

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 1/8/2022 at 10:42 AM, Rick2you2 said:

You could say the same about Peanuts’ strips. Schultz reduced clutter to get to the essence of what he wanted to say/show. Rothko’s art gets to an almost intuitive gut—if you are willing to welcome it in. One is just more fun than the other.
 

With that said, I still can’t understand the prices, but it’s out of my league anyway. Like Banksy and his self-destructive stunt piece.

I've seen things on people's refrigerators which were created by children but were nonetheless compelling to look at.  Many that I've seen had an equal "gut" quotient to me as any Rothko and some had far more.  

Peanuts strips with badly written scripts would not be collected now, because the strip would never have been as successful.  A strip not only has art but tells a short story that is all self-contained within the piece.  

FWIW, I like Banksy's work just fine.  And I applaud how he made some fool pay for work that self-destructed, especially since the buyer most ironically honored their insanely high bid and considered it even more valuable for the way it mocked the very same modern art bandwagon mania that caused them to bid so high in the first place.  

 

 

[glendgold]

On 1/8/2022 at 10:42 AM, Rick2you2 said:

You could say the same about Peanuts’ strips. Schultz reduced clutter to get to the essence of what he wanted to say/show. Rothko’s art gets to an almost intuitive gut—if you are willing to welcome it in. One is just more fun than the other.
 

With that said, I still can’t understand the prices, but it’s out of my league anyway. Like Banksy and his self-destructive stunt piece.

Agree.  Also, it doesn't look like a kid drew it. Rothko would probably be flattered if he could get exactly back to how kids draw. I did a deep dive last night on Rothko + technique because I knew nothing about his work. And the first thing that came up is that the journal Nature has a whole scientific paper on how innovative his secret (yes, secret) painting techniques were: https://www.nature.com/articles/456447a .  Should that make it important or interesting in your eyes if you already think he's garbage? Of course not. But I find the suggestions that if people are into the art they've been manipulated to be condescending - which, again, given this forum, is hiliarious. Rothko wanted an emotional response from people and he hated it, apparently, when critics tried to explain it or intellectualize it.  I'm 57 years old and I've been in the arts my whole career. The smartest, most passionate person i've met with the most intensely honed aesthetic sense in every medium i know - I'd trust her for recommendations in books, music, movies, whatever - freaking LOVES Rothko. She used to sit in the chapel in Houston for an hour at a time just taking them in.  Me, they bounce off me.  But I recognize like the music of Charles Ives, the novels of Murakami or the films of Haneke, there is some kind of emotional connection in there for certain people that just leaves me confused.  That doesn't mean those people are wrong, and to suggest the work is some random, tossed off nonsense that fooled everyone is a misuse of dismissiveness.  Save that for dismissing the comic art I post. 

Edited January 8, 2022 by glendgold

[KingOfRulers]

On 1/8/2022 at 2:20 AM, tth2 said:

The only people who rate technical skill so highly are non-artists.  The reality is that since the middle of the 19th century, we've been able to use cameras to capture images that are much more accurate than what any human hand can reproduce.  At least back then it took skill and training to operate a camera and develop the pictures, and the cost of doing so meant that the photographer had to get it.  Today we can pull out our smart phone and capture a perfect image in 1 second and take as many different pics as we need to get it right. 

Artists who've gone through art school or whatever training realize better than anyone that technical skill is as rare as dirt.  I can go to "artist alleys" in any number of countries in Asia and find hordes of starving artists who can produce technically excellent pieces for peanuts (in fact, none of their pieces will ever approach the cost of a "Peanuts" strip).

What's prized these days are creativity, novelty and uniqueness.  

You're wrong. I didn't say that technical skill is a sufficient condition. Only that it is a necessary condition.

Also, what does a camera and the ability to photograph have to do with anything? Technical skill doesn't equate to photorealism. Non-sequitur.

[jjonahjameson11]

Would be great if we can stick to the original topic of this thread…the Jan HA auction 

[glendgold]

On 1/8/2022 at 1:05 PM, jjonahjameson11 said:

Would be great if we can stick to the original topic of this thread…the Jan HA auction 

This auction has a page from one of those classic so-bad-it's-good storylines, the one where Luke Cage travels to Latveria because Doom stiffed him for $400. Always felt it was Steve Englehart making a point to Marvel management.

[tth2]

On 1/9/2022 at 3:09 AM, KingOfRulers said:

Also, what does a camera and the ability to photograph have to do with anything? Technical skill doesn't equate to photorealism. Non-sequitur.

Because when most people criticize abstract art, when they say it doesn't show any "technical skill", what they mean is "it doesn't look realistic" because they equate artistic technical skill with drawing something realistically.  Therefore, they assume that non-realistic art is easy to do ("looks like it was drawn by a child", "no different than a drop cloth after some painters painted a house").

In fact, there is a direct correlation between the advent of photography and the advent of non-realistic art, starting with JMW Turner and the Impressionists and the various forms of painting that evolved from there, as painters realized there was less and less point in rendering their subjects as realistically as possible.  

[tth2]

On 1/9/2022 at 5:05 AM, jjonahjameson11 said:

Would be great if we can stick to the original topic of this thread…the Jan HA auction 

The problem is that everyone is so cagey that there ends up being relatively little discussion in the auction threads in the lead-up to the auction. 

The main posting activity seems to take place during the previews when everyone comments on what's going in, and then during/after the auction when everyone comments on the prices.  In between, there's not that much said.  

[batman_fan]

On 1/8/2022 at 11:42 AM, Rick2you2 said:

You could say the same about Peanuts’ strips. Schultz reduced clutter to get to the essence of what he wanted to say/show. Rothko’s art gets to an almost intuitive gut—if you are willing to welcome it in. One is just more fun than the other.
 

With that said, I still can’t understand the prices, but it’s out of my league anyway. Like Banksy and his self-destructive stunt piece.

I think I need someone to drive me to the hospital, I don't feel too well

[John E.]

Per usual, a lot of stuff I’m tracking is deceptively low. But what’s hard for me to believe is that the Alex Ross Batman 677 cover has been sitting at 3300 despite making the cover of one of the catalogs. 

[batman_fan]

On 1/8/2022 at 4:46 PM, tth2 said:

Because when most people criticize abstract art, when they say it doesn't show any "technical skill", what they mean is "it doesn't look realistic" because they equate artistic technical skill with drawing something realistically.  Therefore, they assume that non-realistic art is easy to do ("looks like it was drawn by a child", "no different than a drop cloth after some painters painted a house").

In fact, there is a direct correlation between the advent of photography and the advent of non-realistic art, starting with JMW Turner and the Impressionists and the various forms of painting that evolved from there, as painters realized there was less and less point in rendering their subjects as realistically as possible.  

I will openly admit, if I could afford a Pollock, I would buy one, I love his work.

Edited January 9, 2022 by batman_fan

[KingOfRulers]

On 1/8/2022 at 6:46 PM, tth2 said:

Because when most people criticize abstract art, when they say it doesn't show any "technical skill", what they mean is "it doesn't look realistic" because they equate artistic technical skill with drawing something realistically.  Therefore, they assume that non-realistic art is easy to do ("looks like it was drawn by a child", "no different than a drop cloth after some painters painted a house").

In fact, there is a direct correlation between the advent of photography and the advent of non-realistic art, starting with JMW Turner and the Impressionists and the various forms of painting that evolved from there, as painters realized there was less and less point in rendering their subjects as realistically as possible.  

Again, non-sequitur. I again reference my previous post.

You've whipped up an argument out of thin air, arguing against nobody. As previously mentioned, I never stated, nor do I believe that technical skill equates to photorealism. They are unrelated.

Impressionist Paul Signac is one of my all-time favorite artists. His artwork is certainly not photorealistic, but he was an immensely technically skilled artist with his pointillism technique and his mastery of color.

The "modern art" wing of major museums is usually where I go to sit down and relax after a full day of walking because those wings of a museum are normally pretty close to empty. Occasionally, there will be a guided tour with the tour guide attempting to explain why a black dot in the center of a blank canvas is art. Outside of that, it's a great place to relax because it's peaceful as the masses are in other wings looking at high quality art, not snake oil.

[tth2]

On 1/9/2022 at 10:51 AM, John E. said:

Per usual, a lot of stuff I’m tracking is deceptively low. But what’s hard for me to believe is that the Alex Ross Batman 677 cover has been sitting at 3300 despite making the cover of one of the catalogs. 

It was surprising to me that it got the cover, unless it's a much more significant book than I realized.

[John E.]

On 1/9/2022 at 8:02 AM, tth2 said:

It was surprising to me that it got the cover, unless it's a much more significant book than I realized.

I would have opted for the cover of GI Joe 21. Otherwise, I’m guessing it’s because it’s part of “R.I.P.”, the classic Grant Morrison storyline. To me those covers, done in the late 2000s, were the last of the good covers by Ross. I do not dig his Marvel Now covers from the 2010s. And, y’know, it’s Batman. I believe the highest paid Alex Ross art was the Batman cover to “War on Crime” for about 100k last year (it also broke the record for the most expensive head shot). Maybe HA is thinking lightning will strike twice (Batman Art by Ross is highly sought after after all)? But it should be sitting in the low 5-figures by now. And lastly, Alex Ross artwork is meant for covers and it’s pretty nice to see a blown up version on the catalog vs the smaller standard cover. 

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 1/8/2022 at 3:46 PM, tth2 said:

Because when most people criticize abstract art, when they say it doesn't show any "technical skill", what they mean is "it doesn't look realistic" because they equate artistic technical skill with drawing something realistically.  Therefore, they assume that non-realistic art is easy to do ("looks like it was drawn by a child", "no different than a drop cloth after some painters painted a house").

In fact, there is a direct correlation between the advent of photography and the advent of non-realistic art, starting with JMW Turner and the Impressionists and the various forms of painting that evolved from there, as painters realized there was less and less point in rendering their subjects as realistically as possible.  

I cannot say there aren't some people who feel that, but I know I do not and neither do the people whose opinions I value.  A lot of abstract art is done with great skill. 

To say that "most people" are thinking that way when they criticize art is to embrace (or at least give comfort to) the very same pretentious philistine-with-money b.s. that causes people like me to roll my eyes at the scam unfolding in plain sight and, yes, occasionally, to say it looks like a child painted it.  Because, sometimes... it just plain and simply does, and sometimes has absolutely nothing else going for it.  And sometimes even the artists themselves admit privately, or even publicly, that they're mocking the admirers.     

 

Sometimes, people are down on it not because they "don't get it" but because they do.

 

 

[delekkerste]

On 1/9/2022 at 9:02 AM, tth2 said:

It was surprising to me that it got the cover, unless it's a much more significant book than I realized.

Probably means the consignor is an important client of Heritage.

Or maybe runs Heritage.    

[bisquitodoom]

On 1/12/2022 at 11:56 AM, delekkerste said:

Probably means the consignor is an important client of Heritage.

I can say with 100% certainty that the consignor is no one important.    At least as far as Heritage or the market is concerned. 

I don't think it's more cover-worthy than the GI Joe cover.  But it is a really nice cover from a significant run, and an image a major character that's really striking by a well-known artist.  So it wasn't a bad choice, necessarily. 

 

[Xatari]

I can’t wait to watch the auction tomorrow. Good luck to those of you bidding this round! There are some fantastic pieces!

[J.Sid]

On 1/12/2022 at 1:24 PM, bisquitodoom said:

I can say with 100% certainty that the consignor is no one important.    At least as far as Heritage or the market is concerned. 

I don't think it's more cover-worthy than the GI Joe cover.  But it is a really nice cover from a significant run, and an image a major character that's really striking by a well-known artist.  So it wasn't a bad choice, necessarily. 

 

I always thought it was a little weird when they put painted pieces on the covers of their OA catalogues. I think a big part of the allure of originals is the way they distinguish themselves from the actual comics by, you know, being uncolored except for the yellow coffee stains.

When they use a painted cover it just screams "OA" a little less loudly.

 

 

[zhamlau]

On 1/6/2022 at 8:46 PM, batman_fan said:

Just imagine what could have been had they pulled in Sal Bucema to do Secret Wars 

This is mockery and as such ARTSOC approves of this patriotic act, citizen. Much social credit coming your way. Remember: “Always suppressed, never Impressed!”

[batman_fan]

On 1/13/2022 at 1:04 AM, zhamlau said:

This is mockery and as such ARTSOC approves of this patriotic act, citizen. Much social credit coming your way. Remember: “Always suppressed, never Impressed!”

Thank you comrade.