Jan Heritage Auction putting up some nice artwork 4 4

[KingOfRulers]

On 1/7/2022 at 4:37 AM, bernoulli said:

It is interesting how comic book people are insecure enough that "comic book art is real art" is still a sore topic but are quick to s**t on fine art that they don't like or understand. Rothko is great. You don't like his work? Fine. But there is nothing strange about his art yielding U$88 million in action. At least it was not created for children. 

The true art to this so-called "Rothko fine art" is the art of the deal. The ability to convince two or more people that a Sherwin Williams testing substrate is "art" is itself an artistic talent. An $88M canvas awash with color that could easily be confused for the sheet over there in the corner that's used by painting contractors to determine if a particular shade of red is too intense for the duplex job. Only masters of salesmanship would be able to convince a group of wealthy individuals that it's not only "art", but that they should pay tens of millions of dollars for it. THAT is an artistic talent that most people don't have, and one that I truly admire.

[glendgold]

On 1/7/2022 at 5:23 AM, KingOfRulers said:

The true art to this so-called "Rothko fine art" is the art of the deal. The ability to convince two or more people that a Sherwin Williams testing substrate is "art" is itself an artistic talent. An $88M canvas awash with color that could easily be confused for the sheet over there in the corner that's used by painting contractors to determine if a particular shade of red is too intense for the duplex job. Only masters of salesmanship would be able to convince a group of wealthy individuals that it's not only "art", but that they should pay tens of millions of dollars for it. THAT is an artistic talent that most people don't have, and one that I truly admire.

Y'know, a comic art forum might not be the wisest place for the "art I don't like is bad" take.  I invite you to take in the possibility that people who have responded emotionally to Rothko, for whatever reason, are doing so because they are genuinely moved, not because they've been conned. I didn't get Rothko at all, but then I saw a roomful of his paintings, in person, displayed in the lighting he favored, and it's not like I fell in love, but I understood why other people were having an intense, maybe spiritual response.  There are a ton of artists who get hyped whose appeal I don't understand, but I'm generally able to remind myself that an audience who genuinely loves it might not have been manipulated.  Or just manipulated.   BTW, the play RED by John Logan was wonderful. I saw it a few years ago - Alfred Molina as Rothko, and he paints a Rothko on stage during the play.  Of course, if he'd done it with eight arms, it have been more on topic for the rest of us.

[pemart1966]

On 1/6/2022 at 10:57 AM, alexgross.com said:

i think the two should be related. like in the case of this wonderful mark rothko painting "red orange yellow" that sold for 88 million dollars a decade ago. one can clearly appreciate the genius behind it. 

Holy cxxx!!!  Someone's hacked my home security camera!!!  That's not $88M worth of art!  That's a recent photo of my den when my wife and I were trying to decide which colour of wall paint we liked the best.   

Edited January 7, 2022 by pemart1966

[Rick2you2]

On 1/7/2022 at 8:23 AM, KingOfRulers said:

The true art to this so-called "Rothko fine art" is the art of the deal. The ability to convince two or more people that a Sherwin Williams testing substrate is "art" is itself an artistic talent. An $88M canvas awash with color that could easily be confused for the sheet over there in the corner that's used by painting contractors to determine if a particular shade of red is too intense for the duplex job. Only masters of salesmanship would be able to convince a group of wealthy individuals that it's not only "art", but that they should pay tens of millions of dollars for it. THAT is an artistic talent that most people don't have, and one that I truly admire.

Do you really want to get into a debate about what is art? What about Jackson Pollack and his drip paintings? Or Christo and his monumental wraps, like in Central Park, NY around 10 years ago? Or my personal favorite, Piet Mondrian and his lines creating boxes? Or, is your complaint that it isn’t worth 88 Mil? I wouldn’t pay it for a Rothko if I had it, but there is a lot of OA I wouldn’t buy for the price, either. If a piece is done for the purpose of moving the viewer, it qualifies, in my opinion. Except, maybe, for Sal’s work.

[vodou]

This trumps all, but maybe we can get back to Heritage now?

[KingOfRulers]

On 1/7/2022 at 12:17 PM, Rick2you2 said:

Do you really want to get into a debate about what is art? What about Jackson Pollack and his drip paintings? Or Christo and his monumental wraps, like in Central Park, NY around 10 years ago? Or my personal favorite, Piet Mondrian and his lines creating boxes? Or, is your complaint that it isn’t worth 88 Mil? I wouldn’t pay it for a Rothko if I had it, but there is a lot of OA I wouldn’t buy for the price, either. If a piece is done for the purpose of moving the viewer, it qualifies, in my opinion. Except, maybe, for Sal’s work.

There's nothing to debate. If someone is of the mindset that Painting ABC is art, then it's art. If someone decides that a used piece of toilet paper is art, it's art. There's nothing quantitative here. Whatever you or anyone else perceive to be art, is art (to you and the likeminded).

Whenever I travel, visiting at least one art museum is my priority. I've been to many, many art museums all around the world. Paris'Louvre, Musee d’Orsay, Musée de l'Orangerie. London's National Gallery and the Tate. National Gallery in Dublin. National Gallery in Prague. National Gallery in Copenhagen. Numerous art museums from sea to shining sea in the United States. I've seen a lot of what I'd consider amazing art, and a lot of what I'd consider junk.

For me, quality art requires technical skill. That is a necessary condition. As well, art should not have to be explained [sold] to me in order to enjoy it. That Rothko (or Jackson Pollack drips if you want to swap them out), as far as I'm concerned requires no technical skill. To you or someone else, it might be art. To me, it's junk, and commodity built entirely upon salesmanship. In this instance, as previously mentioned, I find the salesmanship to be the art, not the thing being sold.

Edited January 7, 2022 by KingOfRulers

[Infamouspure22]

Lots of great stuff that I didn't see has been mentioned yet.

Any guesses what these will go for?

Kirby Cap Bicentennial cover

Batman Hulk cover

Byrne Bullpen

Art Adams X-Men annual pages

 

 

[bisquitodoom]

That Byrne is amazing.  I always figured he'd have kept that one.  

[Drummy]

Agreed -- it has a special appeal to Byrne fans, for sure ,and anyone who enjoys the idea that comic artists loved the characters themselves.  As far as a prediction, I'd say $80k?

Dan

[pemart1966]

On 1/7/2022 at 8:23 AM, KingOfRulers said:

The true art to this so-called "Rothko fine art" is the art of the deal. The ability to convince two or more people that a Sherwin Williams testing substrate is "art" is itself an artistic talent. An $88M canvas awash with color that could easily be confused for the sheet over there in the corner that's used by painting contractors to determine if a particular shade of red is too intense for the duplex job. Only masters of salesmanship would be able to convince a group of wealthy individuals that it's not only "art", but that they should pay tens of millions of dollars for it. THAT is an artistic talent that most people don't have, and one that I truly admire.

There's a fascinating documentary entitled:  Made You Look:  A True Story About Fake Art

It's all here:  greed; deceit; ignorance; lots of money; (sounds like the current comic art market) fake Rothkos and Pollacks and more.  It will have you questioning "What IS art?"

[pemart1966]

On 1/6/2022 at 11:34 AM, KingOfRulers said:

If putting aside $88M and only looking at the artwork, this one would be put outside on the curb for the next trash day.

...or magnetized to the fridge with a "Great Work!" sticker attached from Johnny's Grade 2 art teacher...

[rsonenthal]

It's been said that art and beauty are in the eye of the beholder. I think that qualifies in our little hobby too. Convincing wealthy people that something used for a comic book is worth a lot of money.  Doesn't that sound like the hobby? Don't the same rules apply?

Think I'm wrong?  Show a friend of the family - a civilian, a non collector - your "best" piece (however you define best).  And, then ask them how much they would pay for it.

[Xatari]

Good point. 

[J.Sid]

On 1/7/2022 at 8:08 PM, rsonenthal said:

It's been said that art and beauty are in the eye of the beholder. I think that qualifies in our little hobby too. Convincing wealthy people that something used for a comic book is worth a lot of money.  Doesn't that sound like the hobby? Don't the same rules apply?

Think I'm wrong?  Show a friend of the family - a civilian, a non collector - your "best" piece (however you define best).  And, then ask them how much they would pay for it.

I don't know if this story is related or not, but I brought a half-dozen pieces with me back home to Nebraska over the holiday break to show a few friends from my old Local Comic Shop.... There was zero interest. A Neal Adams, an Art Adams, a Mignola.... nobody glanced at any of them for longer than two seconds. They were too busy talking about some variant cover that'd come out a couple weeks prior which was already on the store wall priced at $40 bucks.

 

[tth2]

On 1/8/2022 at 1:51 AM, KingOfRulers said:

For me, quality art requires technical skill.

The only people who rate technical skill so highly these days 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 right.  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.  

Edited January 8, 2022 by tth2

[Rick2you2]

On 1/8/2022 at 2:00 AM, J.Sid said:

I don't know if this story is related or not, but I brought a half-dozen pieces with me back home to Nebraska over the holiday break to show a few friends from my old Local Comic Shop.... There was zero interest. A Neal Adams, an Art Adams, a Mignola.... nobody glanced at any of them for longer than two seconds. They were too busy talking about some variant cover that'd come out a couple weeks prior which was already on the store wall priced at $40 bucks.

 

Which ought to tell you something about the future of this hobby and the high prices for prized pieces. And, at least those were old comic book fans. Try the same experiment with non-fans, and aside from polite staring for the sake of an old friend/relative, you may see even less interest. That’s where fine art has an advantage: it doesn’t require knowledge of a backstory to evaluate (“When this book was issued with that character, it became the highest selling .…”). Just comp’s and do you like it.

[Timely]

On 1/8/2022 at 6:44 AM, Rick2you2 said:

Which ought to tell you something about the future of this hobby and the high prices for prized pieces. And, at least those were old comic book fans. Try the same experiment with non-fans, and aside from polite staring for the sake of an old friend/relative, you may see even less interest. That’s where fine art has an advantage: it doesn’t require knowledge of a backstory to evaluate (“When this book was issued with that character, it became the highest selling .…”). Just comp’s and do you like it.

This is an illogical fallacy towards any item of considerable value. Take the Action Comics #1 or AF #15 that both sold for about $3 million to your local 7-11 and try and make a sale to anyone who walks in. Stay there all day! See the largest offer you get! No one will offer more than a few hundred bucks for it, maybe $1000 if you get lucky!

 Take a $400k Lamborghini to a Kia dealership. Stay there all day! See the largest offer you get! 
 

There is a place and a time to show and to sell all of these things. Don’t expect others to value or be able to afford high end goods everywhere you go. That’s why auction houses exist. That’s why Lamborghini dealerships exist. 
 

You won’t get much art appreciation if you take a million dollar piece of art out of its environment either. Right place, right time, or it’s all artificial to some degree.

Edited January 8, 2022 by Timely

[Rick2you2]

On 1/8/2022 at 11:37 AM, Timely said:

This is an illogical fallacy towards any item of considerable value. Take the Action Comics #1 or AF #15 that both sold for about $3 million to your local 7-11 and try and make a sale to anyone who walks in. Stay there all day! See the largest offer you get! No one will offer more than a few hundred bucks for it, maybe $1000 if you get lucky!

 Take a $400k Lamborghini to a Kia dealership. Stay there all day! See the largest offer you get! 
 

There is a place and a time to show and to sell all of these things. Don’t expect others to value or be able to afford high end goods everywhere you go. That’s why auction houses exist. That’s why Lamborghini dealerships exist. 
 

You won’t get much art appreciation if you take a million dollar piece of art out of its environment either. Right place, right time, or it’s all artificial to some degree.

And, if you take a DeVinci painting to the gas station, same response. But, I doubt that those prized pieces taken to Nebraska were in that category. The ultra high end of the market retains or grows in value. It’s everything else that hollows out, including generic Adamses. Persian rugs have gotten crushed in the last 25 years—except for truly rare specimen pieces which hold value. It’s been mentioned by other boardies that golden age pages (presumably the nothing-special type) have dropped in value. Our little world is a lot smaller than the generic market for fine art. Here, nostalgia rules the pricing roost. So, don’t bet the farm on them in 25 years. Ah, but a “cool” variant cover? Sure, it’s interesting and will attract attention. And it doesn’t matter if Cap’n No-name stars in it. 
 

I think we need to view pricing in more stratified ways for the future. Those prices aren’t moving in lockstep now, and it ought to be recognized more plainly.

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 1/7/2022 at 1:37 AM, bernoulli said:

It is interesting how comic book people are insecure enough that "comic book art is real art" is still a sore topic but are quick to s**t on fine art that they don't like or understand. Rothko is great. You don't like his work? Fine. But there is nothing strange about his art yielding U$88 million in action. At least it was not created for children. 

True.  It just looks as if it was created BY children, and belongs on a refrigerator.

[Rick2you2]

On 1/8/2022 at 1:13 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

True.  It just looks as if it was created BY children, and belongs on a refrigerator.

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.

Edited January 8, 2022 by Rick2you2