Dazzler # 1 🥰🥳🥰🥳🥰🥳🥰🥳🥰🥳🥰🥳🥰 1 1

[Peter G]

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/bob-larkin-dazzler-1-cover-original-art-marvel-1981-/p/7270-40001.s?ic4=GalleryView-ShortDescription-071515

[chrisco37]

3.4 million 

[John E.]

And there’s the Marvel 80s #1 cover. 

[heartened]

Yeah, this is literally price-less to me.  As in I wouldn't want it at any price LOL.  Thankfully, different strokes for diff folks, knock yourselves out!

[GotSuperPowers?]

You can see it, and an interesting writeup about it here - https://www.instagram.com/p/CY9JPYzrphT/

[Rick2you2]

If you go to a comic art show, Anthony sometimes has a table with a pile of loose junk on it, which can include the covers of crummy old paperbacks from the 1960’s-1970’s (and includes painted covers by comic artists). This one reminds me of a piece he couldn’t move for $600.

 

[Drummy]

I like Dazzler just fine, but when I first saw this cover as a 14-year-old I couldn't reconcile this art style with what I already loved about Marvel Comics...therefore, I didn't much care for it (too jarring).  Now I can see more clearly the artistic skill involved, but still wouldn't necessarily want it, as I have no nostalgic connection.  But give me a Byrne page with Dazzler on it anytime!

Dan

[Rick2you2]

On 1/22/2022 at 8:55 AM, Drummy said:

I like Dazzler just fine, but when I first saw this cover as a 14-year-old I couldn't reconcile this art style with what I already loved about Marvel Comics...therefore, I didn't much care for it (too jarring).  Now I can see more clearly the artistic skill involved, but still wouldn't necessarily want it, as I have no nostalgic connection.  But give me a Byrne page with Dazzler on it anytime!

Dan

From Wikipedia:

"Dazzler was originally developed as a cross-promotional, multi-media creation between Casablanca Records and Marvel Comics until the tie-ins were dropped in 1980."

She was a character, who, with DC's Looker, well-represented the shallowness of 1980's culture. Saturday Night Fever says it all.

 

[Bronty]

On 1/22/2022 at 6:44 AM, Rick2you2 said:

If you go to a comic art show, Anthony sometimes has a table with a pile of loose junk on it, which can include the covers of crummy old paperbacks from the 1960’s-1970’s (and includes painted covers by comic artists). This one reminds me of a piece he couldn’t move for $600.

 

That doesn’t mean it’s bad art.   It’s a nice cover.   It just means comic fans don’t give AF about art that isn’t for comics. 

[Bronty]

On 1/22/2022 at 8:55 AM, Drummy said:

I like Dazzler just fine, but when I first saw this cover as a 14-year-old I couldn't reconcile this art style with what I already loved about Marvel Comics...therefore, I didn't much care for it (too jarring).  Now I can see more clearly the artistic skill involved, but still wouldn't necessarily want it, as I have no nostalgic connection.  But give me a Byrne page with Dazzler on it anytime!

Dan

Your 14 year old mind couldn’t understand why there were no black lines!

[Bronty]

^ It does have a softer edge.  Maybe they were hoping some girls would pick up the book too. 

[Michael Browning]

This is absolutely one of the most classic covers from the 1980s and I am shocked that the owner is actually selling it. Wow, I know a whole lot of people who will be going for this one because Dazzler art is highly sought after these days -- and this is the piece all Dazzler collectors want. A bunch of us have been trying to get this one for years. There is no better image that exemplifies that wild disco era. This is one of those great artworks that has a lot of nostalgia to go with it and it is also one of the most memorable covers that will undoubtably sell very high.

[vodou]

On 1/22/2022 at 9:28 AM, Rick2you2 said:

"Dazzler was originally developed as a cross-promotional, multi-media creation between Casablanca Records and Marvel Comics until the tie-ins were dropped in 1980."

 

That's interesting, didn't know that. I wonder "who" Casablanca had in mind to "be" Dazzler IRL.

Safe to assume live performances if they happened at all would be dubbed?

 

 

[Rick2you2]

On 1/22/2022 at 9:47 AM, Bronty said:

That doesn’t mean it’s bad art.   It’s a nice cover.   It just means comic fans don’t give AF about art that isn’t for comics. 

Honestly, it doesn't do anything positive for me. Yes, the artist has a skill set, but the whole disco/1980's scene to me was flashy but flat. If it were a poster of the period, it works. As a part of the period I lived in, no thank you.

As a comic book cover? It doesn't pull at me to buy what is inside, and shouldn't that be the real test of whether a cover is good or not? Does it sell the contents?

Anthony's similarly had art on his table that shows skill, but that didn't make it worth buying.

[Bronty]

On 1/22/2022 at 1:31 PM, Rick2you2 said:

Honestly, it doesn't do anything positive for me. Yes, the artist has a skill set, but the whole disco/1980's scene to me was flashy but flat. If it were a poster of the period, it works. As a part of the period I lived in, no thank you.

As a comic book cover? It doesn't pull at me to buy what is inside, and shouldn't that be the real test of whether a cover is good or not? Does it sell the contents?

Anthony's similarly had art on his table that shows skill, but that didn't make it worth buying.

Blah blah blah.   I talk to comic collectors and they don’t get paintings.  Like, they are all coloured and stuff.    I talk to collectors of game art or magic art and they don’t want black and white pieces - trash with no Color?

Its just what the collector pools are used to. Nothing more nothing less.    One is not better than the other.    One is the norm in its genre, and one isn’t.

Sometimes comic art collectors find painted work a little scary, or hard to understand, and just not what they are expecting.    There’s nothing wrong with buying based on what you are most comfortable with, but understand that generally preferring drawings to paintings is a peculiarity only found in comic art, and that line art typically sells for a fraction in other markets.  
 

My guess is that your discomfort with the work when we peel it back, is simply based on it not looking like what you expect a comic cover to look like.   It’s a lovely illo . 

Edited January 22, 2022 by Bronty

[Chaykin Stevens]

On 1/22/2022 at 3:51 PM, vodou said:

That's interesting, didn't know that. I wonder "who" Casablanca had in mind to "be" Dazzler IRL.

Safe to assume live performances if they happened at all would be dubbed?

 

 

I think she was originally intended to be black.  JRJR was said to have been basing her on Grace Jones, also an influence on how Rogue looked originally in Avengers Annual #10.  The people developing a Dazzler movie project insisted Marvel made her look more like Bo Derek.

[Bronty]

Wow!   Cool info.   I didn’t know that.

[fsumavila]

Dazz was originally supposed to be black, because JRjr designed her that way. It's why her dialogue in X-men 130 sounded different; Claremont thought she was supposed to be a black character.

i interviewed Romita Jr among others involved with Dazzler's origin story for this video essay I did for SyFy 

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by fsumavila

[Rick2you2]

On 1/22/2022 at 4:23 PM, Bronty said:

Blah blah blah.   I talk to comic collectors and they don’t get paintings.  Like, they are all coloured and stuff.    I talk to collectors of game art or magic art and they don’t want black and white pieces - trash with no Color?

Its just what the collector pools are used to. Nothing more nothing less.    One is not better than the other.    One is the norm in its genre, and one isn’t.

Sometimes comic art collectors find painted work a little scary, or hard to understand, and just not what they are expecting.    There’s nothing wrong with buying based on what you are most comfortable with, but understand that generally preferring drawings to paintings is a peculiarity only found in comic art, and that line art typically sells for a fraction in other markets.  
 

My guess is that your discomfort with the work when we peel it back, is simply based on it not looking like what you expect a comic cover to look like.   It’s a lovely illo . 

Not at all. I like painted works and covers when I can find one. Paint has layers of complexity which you just don't get with CYMK.

What I don't like is the disco era or that cover.  It doesn't particularly promote the story or tell me anything about the subject except to expect guest stars in the firmament of a fundimentally flat period of time where Gordan Gecko was real. The one below doesn't tell me anything significant either, except it looks way cooler.

Edited January 23, 2022 by Rick2you2