June 2023 Heritage Signature Auction #7340 4 4

[Grendel72]

On 4/23/2023 at 6:02 PM, bernoulli said:

Therein lies the paradox. He is a commercial genre artist whose works are being sold for more in relative terms than much better artists because of his focus on an (overwrought, as mentioned by something else, but appealing) theme.  Sure, he is a great fantasy artist. But there are much better things out there for the prices he commands. IMHO, of course. Nostalgia is one hell of a drug....

Could you show us something that's better for you for the prices he commands ? It would give some perspective on what you are comparing against. 

[comix4fun]

On 4/22/2023 at 5:58 AM, KirbyCollector said:

There is no paradox. Frazetta was an accomplished artist, whose skill we can appreciate and acknowledge. He was,  however, not a very original artist -- by his own admission, he swiped everything from comic books to magazines to fine art paintings, and thus falls short of inclusion into the higher category of fine art.

"Swiping" is a term too broadly used. And I think calling Frazetta "unoriginal" because he used model, photographed poses (many of which he took himself), or other inspiration to create a finished piece is not accurate. 

Swiping runs the spectrum from 'Lightbox magazines' and line for line copying and runs up to using models (either live or photographed) as a base from which to set poses and then creating a new work from those models. 

Simply because an artist uses a photograph as a starting point, or model, for posing or perspective doesn't mean they aren't original. If that were the case then you've got to doom Cezanne, Lautrec, Degas, Gauguin, and Van Gogh to the ranks of the "unoriginal". They ALL famously used photographs as starting points for their paintings. 

Grant Wood's American Gothic would be "unoriginal" using that as the only measuring stick



Seeing that some of the greatest fine artists of all time used models, or photos as their starting point, it's clear that cannot be the criteria by which someone is included or excluded from their ranks. What they create from the inspiration, model or photo is what I look to. Matching poses or similar staging isn't enough. 

[KirbyCollector]

On 4/23/2023 at 11:52 AM, Michael Browning said:

I have read this a few times and, no matter how hard I’ve tried, I just can’t understand the dislike you have for Frazetta’s art. It seems your dislike is so strong that you do your best to convince others that his art is hack work and all swipes. It’s just not so. In my opinion, and, after having read it numerous times before I decided what to say, it just drips with the “I don’t own a Frazetta so I don’t like Frazetta” sentiment.

I understand he’s not everyone’s favorite artist, but I’m sure more people like his art than don’t - and those who don’t usually are in the “I don’t own a Frazetta” camp. I mean no disrespect to you and it’s your opinion, but you attempt to make your case so strongly that it seems like you’re bitter against his art for a reason.

He was one of the finest commercial illustrators of the 20th century and THE best fantasy artist. Delineating why he is not considered a "fine" artist does not imply dislike, at all.

Also, I don't know what the "own a Frazetta argument" is. I don't own a Van Gogh and like his work; I don't own a Miró and don't like his. Ownership is irrelevant.

[KirbyCollector]

On 4/23/2023 at 1:07 PM, comix4fun said:

"Swiping" is a term too broadly used. And I think calling Frazetta "unoriginal" because he used model, photographed poses (many of which he took himself), or other inspiration to create a finished piece is not accurate. 

Swiping runs the spectrum from 'Lightbox magazines' and line for line copying and runs up to using models (either live or photographed) as a base from which to set poses and then creating a new work from those models. 

Simply because an artist uses a photograph as a starting point, or model, for posing or perspective doesn't mean they aren't original. If that were the case then you've got to doom Cezanne, Lautrec, Degas, Gauguin, and Van Gogh to the ranks of the "unoriginal". They ALL famously used photographs as starting points for their paintings. 

Grant Wood's American Gothic would be "unoriginal" using that as the only measuring stick



Seeing that some of the greatest fine artists of all time used models, or photos as their starting point, it's clear that cannot be the criteria by which someone is included or excluded from their ranks. What they create from the inspiration, model or photo is what I look to. Matching poses or similar staging isn't enough. 

https://www.frazettagirls.com/blogs/news/frank-frazetta-reference-and-the-statement

Examples are found at the bottom

[Bronty]

On 4/23/2023 at 1:24 PM, KirbyCollector said:

https://www.frazettagirls.com/blogs/news/frank-frazetta-reference-and-the-statement

Examples are found at the bottom

I mean if you expect that to be some kind of shocking revelation - illustrators have always looked to reference.    Do you have any sense of how many artists used him for reference?    

He is probably the most 'referenced' illustrator of the 20th century, and that's not an exaggeration.     That reference goes way beyond comics to all sort of images created for all sorts of products.

 

 

 

There's an entire list of similar frazetta references from video games here, and trust me its inexhaustive.    And that's just games. 

http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/tracing/tracing2.htm

Edited April 23, 2023 by Bronty

[Wolvie_Fan]

Using references/models/swiping, isn't really a new practice. This was being practiced over 500 years ago----

[MrBedrock]

On 4/22/2023 at 5:58 AM, KirbyCollector said:

There is no paradox. Frazetta was an accomplished artist, whose skill we can appreciate and acknowledge. He was,  however, not a very original artist -- by his own admission, he swiped everything from comic books to magazines to fine art paintings, and thus falls short of inclusion into the higher category of fine art.

Sorta like Lichtenstein. 

[The Voord]

On 4/23/2023 at 2:52 PM, Bronty said:

I think 'sword and sandal' is more along the lines of material set in ancient rome/greece/egypt...   Ben-Hur, Cleopatra, Spartacus, stuff like that.

I believe 'sword and sorcery' is the term here.

And yes Frazetta may be more than 'sword and sorcery' but in fairness, that's really 90% of what he's known for.

I deliberately used the 'sword and sandal fantasy' tag attributed by the poster I was responding to . . . and, yes, I do know the difference . . . which was totally lost on the original poster  ;)

[MrBedrock]

On 4/22/2023 at 9:00 AM, KirbyCollector said:

Yes, Roy used comic art -- but he had a meaning behind his usage. Frank did not.

 

The only meaning either had, or needed, was a desire to sell the art. Any other "meaning", or lack thereof, has been attributed by others after the fact.

Edited April 23, 2023 by MrBedrock

[Bronty]

On 4/23/2023 at 2:10 PM, The Voord said:

I deliberately used the 'sword and sandal fantasy' tag attributed by the poster I was responding to . . . and, yes, I do know the difference . . . which was totally lost on the original poster  ;)

I thought it was strange that it was lost on you ;)

For my part I let it go once, with the second mention of it I had to say something ;)

[The Voord]

On 4/23/2023 at 7:12 PM, Bronty said:

I thought it was strange that it was lost on you ;)

For my part I let it go once, with the second mention of it I had to say something ;)

It wasn't, lol!

More to the point, the OP seemed to be dismissing Frazetta's art because he's not a fan of the 'sword and sandal fantasy' type-thang (yeah, it's a nonsense description, which was why I quoted him, exactly) . . . and I was just pointing out that if you're not a fan of the (ahem) 'sword and sandal fantasy' stuff  ;)   there are other genres Frazetta worked in that he should perhaps be exploring.

 

Edited April 23, 2023 by The Voord

[comix4fun]

On 4/23/2023 at 12:24 PM, KirbyCollector said:

https://www.frazettagirls.com/blogs/news/frank-frazetta-reference-and-the-statement

Examples are found at the bottom

I think you're making my point for me. 
Of course Frazetta used photos and other works to base his posing on.
Before photos existed people used live models.  
The final piece he created, in each instance, was his and not a line for line copy. 

If you're saying that photographs, models, other works cannot be included in the artist's eye of a piece I think you're eliminating almost everyone you're elevating above Frazetta from inclusion as well. 

[comix4fun]

I mean. If using a photo as a basis for posing or look is disqualification from the fine artist's club based on lack of originality then they're going to have to go back and evict Paul Gauguin for using Henri Lemasson photos of Polynesian islanders as the basis for so many of his paintings, including "Mother and Daughter" from 1901. The final piece is ultimately Gauguin, I think everyone can agree. 

Edited April 23, 2023 by comix4fun
fixed the date

[MrBedrock]

On 4/23/2023 at 1:51 PM, comix4fun said:

I mean. If using a photo as a basis for posing or look is disqualification from the fine artist's club based on lack of originality then they're going to have to go back and evict Paul Gauguin for using Henri Lemasson photos of Polynesian islanders as the basis for so many of his paintings, including "Mother and Daughter" from 1901. The final piece is ultimately Gauguin, I think everyone can agree. 

(See if you can detect the subtle hint of sarcasm...) But even the final Gauguin, which I agree is categorized as "fine art" and is purely his, is technically so much more advanced and has so much more "meaning" than any lowly fantasy artist such as Frazetta. 

[Bronty]

On 4/23/2023 at 2:57 PM, MrBedrock said:

(See if you can detect the subtle hint of sarcasm...) But even the final Gauguin, which I agree is categorized as "fine art" and is purely his, is technically so much more advanced and has so much more "meaning" than any lowly fantasy artist such as Frazetta. 

bah you're just saying that as a frazetta owner ;)

(kidding... and jealous!  that was a nice buy even at the time!).

[grapeape]

On 4/23/2023 at 8:54 AM, wurstisart said:

well here is my Sienkiewicz version of this.

https://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=1408160

I was talking to a new friend about the Frazetta Molly Hatchet album covers just this week. Than I saw Sienkewicz' Frazetta version (yours) on Twitter. Than my new friend informed me that Dark Victory was now at HA. Now you post here. 6 degrees of Frank Frazetta.

[JC25427N]

On 4/23/2023 at 11:52 AM, Michael Browning said:

but you attempt to make your case so strongly that it seems like you’re bitter

I'm stealing this line

[MrBedrock]

On 4/23/2023 at 2:22 PM, Bronty said:

bah you're just saying that as a frazetta owner ;)

(kidding... and jealous!  that was a nice buy even at the time!).

Unfortunately I don't own a Rembrandt so I hate that guy's work. What a hack.

[Bronty]

On 4/23/2023 at 5:37 PM, MrBedrock said:

Unfortunately I don't own a Rembrandt so I hate that guy's work. What a hack.

I hear you!    I call him Rembrandt van Eyerape.

[cstojano]

Serious question, do Frazetta paintings have pencils under them? I have watched a few "how to" videos by modern fantasy artists and am surprised how common this seems to be. It seems a bit like cheating to me, in a way. (note: am not a painter).