Top Tier Comic Art is Far From It's Eventual 3 3

[Rick2you2]

On 3/4/2024 at 8:46 PM, drdroom said:

As a jaded art world habitué, the problem I see with this is that no one in the art world thinks comics are primitive. Sixty years ago, when Lichtenstein was treating comic panels as essentially factory-made artifacts, you had some of that attitude, but even those same people held Krazy Kat in high regard. Nowadays comics are revered and referenced all the time. They (we, I guess) just believe that comic original art is made primarily for reproduction, and even if it looks pretty good on a gallery wall, no one is ever convinced that it was purpose built to be on that wall. There's a word you hear sometimes, "auratic," meaning the object itself has an aura, a presence and sense of wholeness that reproduction can't capture. In fine art, that's what you want in the single object. In comics, it's the published comic that is auratic, potentially. A page from it is just a production artifact, and this can be deeply cool, expensive, and even beautiful, but it's fundamentally a different category, and not the business that the art world is in. 

All that said, I've seen Kirby double splashes hold their own, auratically, on a wall with a Leon Golub, so it's not impossible. 

I think you are ignoring price when looking at quality. With comic art, a lot of the value is nostalgia-based. So, work with an aura can be relatively inexpensive if it doesn’t ring someone’s nostalgia bells. One the other hand, people don’t buy Lichtenstein because they recall when he drew it and loved it as a kid (although, even in high school, I had a soft-spot for Mondrian). And even in fine art, there are trends. How’s the market for 19th century landscapes holding up? Some of it is excellent, but, I don’t want it on my walls. The problem is much more severe with comic art where people buy what they loved when they saw it in a floppy.

That’s really one of the problems with OA. Age matters a lot more than with fine art. And as publishers sell to a shrinking market, it will eventually get worse. But yes, as art, it will hold up. 
 

[drdroom]

On 3/5/2024 at 3:56 AM, Rick2you2 said:

I think you are ignoring price when looking at quality. With comic art, a lot of the value is nostalgia-based. So, work with an aura can be relatively inexpensive if it doesn’t ring someone’s nostalgia bells. One the other hand, people don’t buy Lichtenstein because they recall when he drew it and loved it as a kid (although, even in high school, I had a soft-spot for Mondrian). And even in fine art, there are trends. How’s the market for 19th century landscapes holding up? Some of it is excellent, but, I don’t want it on my walls. The problem is much more severe with comic art where people buy what they loved when they saw it in a floppy.

That’s really one of the problems with OA. Age matters a lot more than with fine art. And as publishers sell to a shrinking market, it will eventually get worse. But yes, as art, it will hold up. 
 

That's right, the whole buyer motivation matrix is different in the two markets. Nostalgia in particular is highly suspect in the fine art world, which prefers innovation and "importance" (YMMV).  So demand would have to be created in acceptable fine art standards, like GrapeApe suggested with his  "Primitive pop cultural expression."  But it's a heavy lift, and IMHO it would have happened by now if it was going to. 

[Dr. Balls]

On 2/29/2024 at 8:16 AM, grapeape said:

I believe some comic art would translate to a small, but influential network of art pimps. It would just take a few well heeled galleries to experiment in "Primitive pop culural expression."

All you need is a bunch of pretentious art critic blowhards to slather on the verbal diarrhea to really sell the art to people who only buy it based on outlandish after-the-fact implied artistic motivations. For instance, the FF page that went for about $9000 more than it should have - can you imagine if you changed the description from:

This page features the first appearance of the infamous Invisible Woman costume which caught the attention of fans in the early '90s. The revealing outfit made a splash as little was left to the imagination, with the "4" cut-out on her chest. And she still has trouble getting Reed's attention.

to:

A visual monument to the stalwartness of empowered female protagonists, Sue Storm metaphorically breaks barriers by being illustrated outside of panel boundaries to actualize her strength of confidence in revealing her new costume (designed by Vera Wang), taking the patriarchal gesture of "rolling up your sleeves" and commandeering it for the new female regime. Paul Ryan astutely balances the light and dark behind Storm to reveal the dichotomy of her desire to be motherly nurturer and hero warrior, while juxtaposing it with the typical toxic masculinity that poisons the personality of the Fantastic Four's leader, Reed Richards. Bulanadi's short-stroked inks are a classic manifestation of internal struggles rising from the subconscious to exemplify the artist's frustration with matriarchal power dynamics. Overall, a testament to the rebellious nature of the trapped female form breaking out against societal norms, while standing up for individuality in the face of oppressive subservient marriage imprisonment.

That's how you sell it to rich people who want to spout the explanation verbatim to their house party guests and show off their art collection that was curated by a keen eye for social backstories. I've seen it first hand. When comic art begins to sell this way, that'll bring it to the next level.

[Will_K]

@Dr. Balls Can I commission you to write my CAF descriptions ??

[Nexus]

I'm agnostic as to whether or not OA will ever be regarded as ART by the cognoscenti. But I do believe people who collect art collect it for a myriad of motivations, with the art itself just one variable. And those motivations can also apply to OA.

I've beaten the drum on what the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art could potentially mean for our favorite art form, to have it exposed to the world in that setting. But what might have been blind optimism before now feels very real. I've gotten to know the comic art curator at the Museum. He's a legit comics guy...and he has plans. Really hoping to get him on the podcast later this year. I think you all will be just as excited when you hear the Museum's vision for comic art.

[Rick2you2]

On 3/6/2024 at 12:21 PM, Dr. Balls said:

All you need is a bunch of pretentious art critic blowhards to slather on the verbal diarrhea to really sell the art to people who only buy it based on outlandish after-the-fact implied artistic motivations. For instance, the FF page that went for about $9000 more than it should have - can you imagine if you changed the description from:

This page features the first appearance of the infamous Invisible Woman costume which caught the attention of fans in the early '90s. The revealing outfit made a splash as little was left to the imagination, with the "4" cut-out on her chest. And she still has trouble getting Reed's attention.

to:

A visual monument to the stalwartness of empowered female protagonists, Sue Storm metaphorically breaks barriers by being illustrated outside of panel boundaries to actualize her strength of confidence in revealing her new costume (designed by Vera Wang), taking the patriarchal gesture of "rolling up your sleeves" and commandeering it for the new female regime. Paul Ryan astutely balances the light and dark behind Storm to reveal the dichotomy of her desire to be motherly nurturer and hero warrior, while juxtaposing it with the typical toxic masculinity that poisons the personality of the Fantastic Four's leader, Reed Richards. Bulanadi's short-stroked inks are a classic manifestation of internal struggles rising from the subconscious to exemplify the artist's frustration with matriarchal power dynamics. Overall, a testament to the rebellious nature of the trapped female form breaking out against societal norms, while standing up for individuality in the face of oppressive subservient marriage imprisonment.

That's how you sell it to rich people who want to spout the explanation verbatim to their house party guests and show off their art collection that was curated by a keen eye for social backstories. I've seen it first hand. When comic art begins to sell this way, that'll bring it to the next level.

I would have gone with something simpler: Nize teats

[drdroom]

On 3/6/2024 at 9:21 AM, Dr. Balls said:

while juxtaposing it with the typical toxic masculinity that poisons the personality of the Fantastic Four's leader, Reed Richards.

I mean, that's fair.

[PhilipB2k17]

On 3/6/2024 at 12:21 PM, Dr. Balls said:

All you need is a bunch of pretentious art critic blowhards to slather on the verbal diarrhea to really sell the art to people who only buy it based on outlandish after-the-fact implied artistic motivations. For instance, the FF page that went for about $9000 more than it should have - can you imagine if you changed the description from:

This page features the first appearance of the infamous Invisible Woman costume which caught the attention of fans in the early '90s. The revealing outfit made a splash as little was left to the imagination, with the "4" cut-out on her chest. And she still has trouble getting Reed's attention.

to:

A visual monument to the stalwartness of empowered female protagonists, Sue Storm metaphorically breaks barriers by being illustrated outside of panel boundaries to actualize her strength of confidence in revealing her new costume (designed by Vera Wang), taking the patriarchal gesture of "rolling up your sleeves" and commandeering it for the new female regime. Paul Ryan astutely balances the light and dark behind Storm to reveal the dichotomy of her desire to be motherly nurturer and hero warrior, while juxtaposing it with the typical toxic masculinity that poisons the personality of the Fantastic Four's leader, Reed Richards. Bulanadi's short-stroked inks are a classic manifestation of internal struggles rising from the subconscious to exemplify the artist's frustration with matriarchal power dynamics. Overall, a testament to the rebellious nature of the trapped female form breaking out against societal norms, while standing up for individuality in the face of oppressive subservient marriage imprisonment.

That's how you sell it to rich people who want to spout the explanation verbatim to their house party guests and show off their art collection that was curated by a keen eye for social backstories. I've seen it first hand. When comic art begins to sell this way, that'll bring it to the next level.

I would have written "Bulanadi's short-stroke, mastabatory inks are a classic Freudian manifestation of . . . ."

[PhilipB2k17]

On 3/4/2024 at 8:46 PM, drdroom said:

As a jaded art world habitué, the problem I see with this is that no one in the art world thinks comics are primitive. Sixty years ago, when Lichtenstein was treating comic panels as essentially factory-made artifacts, you had some of that attitude, but even those same people held Krazy Kat in high regard. Nowadays comics are revered and referenced all the time. They (we, I guess) just believe that comic original art is made primarily for reproduction, and even if it looks pretty good on a gallery wall, no one is ever convinced that it was purpose built to be on that wall. There's a word you hear sometimes, "auratic," meaning the object itself has an aura, a presence and sense of wholeness that reproduction can't capture. In fine art, that's what you want in the single object. In comics, it's the published comic that is auratic, potentially. A page from it is just a production artifact, and this can be deeply cool, expensive, and even beautiful, but it's fundamentally a different category, and not the business that the art world is in. 

All that said, I've seen Kirby double splashes hold their own, auratically, on a wall with a Leon Golub, so it's not impossible. 

Technically, aren't pages from illuminated manuscripts the same thing? Yet, no one would think twice about treating a page from the Book of Kells (if it were broken up into its constituent pages) as a legitimate work of art in its own right. 

[Dr. Balls]

On 3/7/2024 at 7:17 AM, PhilipB2k17 said:

I would have written "Bulanadi's short-stroke, mastabatory inks are a classic Freudian manifestation of . . . ."

I was saving that line for a Silvestri piece.

[drdroom]

On 3/7/2024 at 6:23 AM, PhilipB2k17 said:

Technically, aren't pages from illuminated manuscripts the same thing? Yet, no one would think twice about treating a page from the Book of Kells (if it were broken up into its constituent pages) as a legitimate work of art in its own right. 

Good point. Or a page from one of William Blake's books, which are in fact broken up, and which I recently had the pleasure of seeing several examples at the The Getty. So age seems to help (and, shallow as it may seem, I think color helps). If we step away from the modern/contemporary art world, so vigorously skewered by Dr Balls above, and think about the future gallery market for historical popular art, I don't doubt our grandchildren will be seeing exhibits of Herriman, McKay, Gould, Tezuka, Kirby, Crumb, etc., as, on occasion, we already do. The true originals. But just as we don't much recall the names of guys who were influenced at the time by, say, Blake or Hogarth, I'm not so sure about the swath of superhero art following in Kirby's wake, or the bulk of manga post-Tezuka.