Comic Art to Fine Art?

[*paull*]

David Mack has crossed over to the mainstream art world?

 

The topic wasn't necessarily "mainstream" art, but comic artists whose work can also be considered "fine" art. But yes, Mack has done illustration for CD covers, calendars, and some other stuff.

 

Yes, the topic is "mainstream" art. Read again...

 

"Question for the group (perhaps some of the artists' reps out there might have some better insight into this) - have any comic book artists successfully made the transition over to the fine art world? "

[helionaut]

I think it more depends on whether or not your, or "the", definition of fine art has expanded to include genre art. Think of a painting of a man on a horse in a battelfield scene. If the soldiers are wearing Napoleonic uniforms and carrying muskets, it's fine art. If they are wearing barbarian chain mail and carrying swords, it's fantasy, or genre art and excluded, or at least marginalized.

 

Crumb, Alex Ross and Charles Burns, I think, have been taken up by the fine art world to some degree. I'm sure there are others.

[SignatureSelect]

Moebius or Yaaka Amano. They are both Very successful fine artist. Kent Williams, Dave Mckean. I have never understood why the Hildebrandts didn't cross. Clive Barker has had Much success with gallery showings. and he has written and drawn comics.

[groovyedwin]

Numerous countries judge artists on their ability and now what they work on. Only in the good ole USA does this question seem to pop up. So I will answer it from my perspective by primarly North American artists.

 

It probably depends no your definition.

 

Is something fine art if it is shown or sought after by National Portrait Gallery, Metropolitan Museum, or the Louvre?

 

- James Bama, Robert Crumb, Victor Moscoso, Rick Griffin, Vaughn Bode, etc.

 

What about if new pieces sell as quick as they product them for big bucks during the artist lifetime?

 

- Robert Williams, Robert Crumb, Alex Ross, Mark Ryden, Todd Schor(sp?), Tim Biskup, Gary Taxali, etc.

 

Or, the talent of the artist?

 

- Paul Mavrides, James Jean, etc.

 

Edwin

[delekkerste]

Is something fine art if it is shown or sought after by National Portrait Gallery, Metropolitan Museum, or the Louvre?

 

- James Bama, Robert Crumb, Victor Moscoso, Rick Griffin, Vaughn Bode, etc.

 

I've spent a lot of time in both the Met and the Louvre and I don't ever recall seeing a Bama or a Crumb or a Bode there. Not that they aren't all excellent artists (Crumb in particular has been noticed in fine art circles in recent years), but it's sloppy reasoning to infer that the Met is out looking for Bama Doc Savage paintings to showcase next to its Dutch Old Masters.

 

So far in this thread, there have been a lot of names listed of comic book artists whose work transcends traditional pen & ink linework, though I'm not sure how many of the names mentioned have actually been shown/sold in a fine art gallery, have dealt with subjects and themes outside of superheroes, paperback/pulp subjects, etc., and have developed followings outside of the ones that already exist for the artist's comic book and illustration work. As for those who have both met these criteria and achieved greater success outside of comics, I think the list is very short indeed.

 

 

What about if new pieces sell as quick as they product them for big bucks during the artist lifetime?

 

- Robert Williams, Robert Crumb, Alex Ross, Mark Ryden, Todd Schor(sp?), Tim Biskup, Gary Taxali, etc.

 

Has Alex Ross done much/any work outside of comics and commercial illustration (e.g., his work for the Village Voice, etc.)? If so, do those pieces command as much as his prime comic book work? I don't know for sure, but I would strongly doubt it...

 

Gene

[*paull*]

The list is either extremely short or completely empty. I don't think that Crumb even counts because it is his comics/doodles that are showing in galleries, the same stuff he's known for in the comic world.

[groovyedwin]

Did the National Gallery, Met or Louvre have Art Critics during the last 130 years? Probably yes. Could these be the same folks that caused these museums to not purchase numerous pieces of art during certain artists prime (e.g., Renoir, Cezanne, Matisse, etc.)? Definitely yes.

 

Edwin

[delekkerste]

Any thoughts on the BWS fine art piece that Mitch I just posted for sale on his website (www.graphiccollectibles.com):

 

 

The reviews of BWS's Opus Vol. 1 and 2 art books on Amazon.com are interesting and worth checking out. There's a mixed reaction about his standing as a non-comic artist. I dunno; in any case, the piece that Mitch has for sale strikes me as being more worthy of the price tag than if that James Jean Fables cover on eBay approaches a similar figure as some are speculating (IMHO).

 

Gene

[delekkerste]

The list is either extremely short or completely empty. I don't think that Crumb even counts because it is his comics/doodles that are showing in galleries, the same stuff he's known for in the comic world.

 

Hmmm...upon further reflection, you may very well be correct. A lot of the names mentioned have produced gallery work, but have any really achieved fame/critical acclaim/financial success/etc. that exceeded what they achieved in the comic book or commercial illustration world and substantially expanded their base of fans and collectors in the process? I'm not sure I can say that is definitively the case for any of the artists mentioned (granted, I am not intimately familiar with all of them either).

 

Maybe it is simply the case that achieving success in the one field is so difficult, that it is almost impossible to replicate it to an equal or greater extent in the other?

[adamstrange]

The list is either extremely short or completely empty. I don't think that Crumb even counts because it is his comics/doodles that are showing in galleries, the same stuff he's known for in the comic world.

 

Hmmm...upon further reflection, you may very well be correct. A lot of the names mentioned have produced gallery work, but have any really achieved fame/critical acclaim/financial success/etc. that exceeded what they achieved in the comic book or commercial illustration world and substantially expanded their base of fans and collectors in the process? I'm not sure I can say that is definitively the case for any of the artists mentioned (granted, I am not intimately familiar with all of them either).

 

Maybe it is simply the case that achieving success in the one field is so difficult, that it is almost impossible to replicate it to an equal or greater extent in the other?

 

Given what passes for fine art these days, would comics artists necessarily want to achieve success in that field?

[Smokinghawk]

 

Yes, the topic is "mainstream" art. Read again...

 

"Question for the group (perhaps some of the artists' reps out there might have some better insight into this) - have any comic book artists successfully made the transition over to the fine art world? "

 

I'm reading it again, and although you quote the word "maintream," I simply do not see that word in the phrase you suggest I reread. I do, however, see the words "fine art" as I had stated. Am I missing something in your quote you intended me to notice? Because otherwise your post seems to support MY premise.

 

Or more pertinantly, why the sudden objection and challenge to my posts about David Mack? I simply contributed to this thread, and suddenly have to defend myself for doing so as if I'd perpetrated some objectionable transgression for which you're holding me responssible.

[bluechip]

David Mack has crossed over to the mainstream art world?

 

The topic wasn't necessarily "mainstream" art, but comic artists whose work can also be considered "fine" art. But yes, Mack has done illustration for CD covers, calendars, and some other stuff.

 

Yes, the topic is "mainstream" art. Read again...

 

"Question for the group (perhaps some of the artists' reps out there might have some better insight into this) - have any comic book artists successfully made the transition over to the fine art world? "

 

If the mind-set of comics begins to pervade the art world, won't that mean restored pieces will plummet in value? Might be a good time to dump that cleaned and color-touched PLOD in the Sistine Chapel.

[*paull*]

 

Yes, the topic is "mainstream" art. Read again...

 

"Question for the group (perhaps some of the artists' reps out there might have some better insight into this) - have any comic book artists successfully made the transition over to the fine art world? "

 

I'm reading it again, and although you quote the word "maintream," I simply do not see that word in the phrase you suggest I reread. I do, however, see the words "fine art" as I had stated. Am I missing something in your quote you intended me to notice? Because otherwise your post seems to support MY premise.

 

Or more pertinantly, why the sudden objection and challenge to my posts about David Mack? I simply contributed to this thread, and suddenly have to defend myself for doing so as if I'd perpetrated some objectionable transgression for which you're holding me responssible.

 

 

No offense intended... I'm simply trying to keep the discussion on-topic.

[*paull*]

The list is either extremely short or completely empty. I don't think that Crumb even counts because it is his comics/doodles that are showing in galleries, the same stuff he's known for in the comic world.

 

Hmmm...upon further reflection, you may very well be correct. A lot of the names mentioned have produced gallery work, but have any really achieved fame/critical acclaim/financial success/etc. that exceeded what they achieved in the comic book or commercial illustration world and substantially expanded their base of fans and collectors in the process? I'm not sure I can say that is definitively the case for any of the artists mentioned (granted, I am not intimately familiar with all of them either).

 

Maybe it is simply the case that achieving success in the one field is so difficult, that it is almost impossible to replicate it to an equal or greater extent in the other?

 

 

It's certainly possible.

 

Let me propose another possibility... It would take time to establish a fanbase in the art world. And who holds the key? Not agents or representatives... it's art gallery curators. Think about the comic book world... it's not even necessary to have an artist rep as long as you have someone who can create a decent website for you that lists your work for sale. Bill Sienkiewicz sells inked sketches for $1000 on his site and painted original art pages from Stray Toasters for $6000. I would imagine that a fully realized painting by Bill would run $10K and up. What percentage of that does he keep? If he has no rep (which appears to be the case, correct me if I'm wrong, but let's be hypothetical), he keeps 100% of that money. In the "fine art" world, he only keeps 50%, and has to deal with some unsavory characters in the process. He has established himself as somewhat of a legend in comics... people will come to him for commissions. He could drum up commercial work (album covers, magazine covers and illos) with no problem also. If I were Bill, I'd fly solo and do what he's currently doing and forget about "fine art" even if the returns could be higher in the long run once he were established.

[Nexus]

Bill S's rep is Sal Abbinanti (who also reps Alex Ross and Simone Bianchi). Bill's former rep was Mitch Itkowitz of Graphic Collectibles. When he moved over to Sal, his prices took a dramatic jump. There was a long discussion on the comicart-l list about whether or not this was a smart move, and the impact it would have on his market. Obviously, Bill S. collectors weren't happy about it.

[*paull*]

My question is this.... what's the need for a rep for someone that popular? I would simply have someone create a website and keep it updated. Why split the purchase prices of those pieces?

[Nexus]

My question is this.... what's the need for a rep for someone that popular? I would simply have someone create a website and keep it updated. Why split the purchase prices of those pieces?

 

I would agree...however, not all artists have good business sense or are even organized enough to handle their own sales. Leaving the mundane (answering queries, shipping art, etc.) to a rep makes sense, I'm sure, to a lot of artists. Why spend time on the nitty gritty when you could be creating more art?

 

It's not a matter of a 50% cut (as you mentioned for gallery sales), either. My understanding is that most reps charge between 10-20%.

[Jesusjon]

My question is this.... what's the need for a rep for someone that popular? I would simply have someone create a website and keep it updated. Why split the purchase prices of those pieces?

 

Some artists, especially popular ones that rake in the dough, would rather spend their time doing other things (producing art and meeting deadlines even) than order fulfillment and having to interface with the fan community.

[*paull*]

I understand not wanting to have to deal with order shipping and website updates, but in my opinion, 10-20% for a guy like Bill Sienkiewicz is ludicrous. For a rep to make $500 on a $5000 piece is robbery for listing something on a website and shipping it out.

[Jesusjon]

You're thinking in small dollars. To some of the big artists in the industry, $500 on a $5000 piece is chump change for being able to remove themselves from the bother of repping their own work. I'm sure they're happy to get a check in the mail every month for 80% - 90% of what their work sold for.

 

Beyond that, some of the obscenely high prices are not high for the sole purpose of making money. They'd rather sell one piece a month for $5000 than 10 pieces for $500 each. It's about creating the mystique surrounding yourself that your work is worth $5000 per piece. If buyers live with that reality long enough, they may begin to believe it.

 

Once you are big enough that you "no longer need the money" a lot of the things us regular joes take for granted change. Name and reputation supercede dollars and cents as motivating factors.