• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

WARHOL vs. THE DOW [New York Sun]

Started by Mr.Glass-migration,

78 posts in this topic

delekkerste

delekkerste

Posted
Posted
I dont make this stuff up........

 

That's funny, I didn't see a single reference to a comic book artist in any of these articles. What makes you think you can extrapolate trends in the fine art market to the comic book market? Are the same forces propelling fine art to mind-boggling levels also making an impact on the comic book art market? Are the billionaire hedge fund managers and Russian oligarchs who are buying Richard Prince paintings with pocket change, and shelling out tens of millions for Johns, Warhol, Rothko and others, buying up Ditkos, Sterankos and Romitas as well? The answer is no, so why would anyone reasonably expect comic book art to soar into the stratosphere as well, versus, say, advertising art, animation art, illustration art or any other number of other types of non-fine art??

 

There is no logic to your arguments, just hot air and wishful thinking. sumo.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Glass-migration

Mr.Glass-migration

Posted
  • Author
Posted
See that SECOND word at the top of this section of the bulletin boards?!? "Original COMIC Art".

 

If your point is to say 'there is no connection' -- that is a silly limiting categorization that is artificial in construction. Museum's categorize their exhibitions, Auction houses categorize their sales events....and like it or not we are a niche market in the ART world. Hence, there is a relevant connection between what happens in the broader ART world and what happens in the niche market of OA. My point was that ART prices are on fire,...and there is therefore market relevance to what we all collect here.

 

I tend to pay attention to the word 'ART'.

 

You guys do notice the increased critical attention being afforded to comics within the last 10 years??????????....You honestly think Spider-man, Superman, Bat-man can be contained???? Nope..............MY GENERATION will care alot more about Spider-man than 'Lady with a Blue Dress' or 'Boy with Pipe' .............

 

and That my friends....is the way of the future!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spider-Variant

Spider-Variant

Posted
Posted

Welcome Mr. Glass.

 

There doesn't appear to be a lot of interest in discussing Art on this board except as it pertains to Original Comic Art.

 

Perhaps you would be better served searching out a Warhol message board and discussing your desire in that type of art on their board. As big as the Internet is, there must be a few boards dedicated to this.

 

Good Luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spider-Variant

Spider-Variant

Posted
Posted
Aw come on, you hafta love a good Krazy Kat thread.

 

Check this out - a Warhol Mao for $40K!!!!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ANDY-WARHOL-ORIGINAL...1QQcmdZViewItem

 

How much do Ditko silkscreens go for? Nothing? Invest now!!!!

 

Actually, I do get a good chuckle out of these Krazy Kat threads. hi.gif

 

He actually has some decent points, just no one likes hearing them over and over and over and over........

 

Not sure what drives a person to want to continually be banned from these paltry message boards. Almost like a badge of honor to him.

 

Of course, we don't need no stinkin' badges.......... 27_laughing.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Artemaria

Artemaria

Posted
Posted

Glass -

 

While the themes of your post are interesting, there are significant issues that undermine the credibility of the comparison you are attempting to make.

 

First, Warhol vs. Dow only focuses on the absolute most sought paintings by one of the most popular modern artists in history and compares it to a system of investing. For obvious reasons, that is a credible or trustworthy comparison. Any *spoon* can put $1K into a mutual fund and get 10% returns. But you have to be extremely lucky to pick the modern artist who will become popular and whose paintings will soar in value. For every Andy Warhol, there are millions of others, whose paintings also cost $10K in the 1960s, but are now worthless and the artists forgotten. The articles seem to ignore all of the paintings that the Rockefellers and others bought from other "up and coming" artists of the 1960s that are now worthless.

 

Second, fine art and comic art are not valued (or viewed) the same way by the world at large. Ditko and Kirby originals are of approximately the same vintage as Warhol (if not a tad bit older). Not a single piece of work done by either of these two gentlemen, who are amongst the most sought after artists on their respective books, has even come within sniffing range of Warhol valuations.

 

Third, the Marilyn Warhols combined a very scarce run of --five -- with a rare confluence of pop art and a timeless pop icon. Because no amount of money will pry any of them from their owner's hands, they are a prestige piece, like owning a Fabrege Egg. While there are relatively few Ditko Spiderman pages, there are still hundreds (if not thousands) of them. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of pages of art generated by lesser known talents on lesser known books. The scarcity of Warhol's Marilyn paintings adds to their value. Also, many people would rather look at Marilyn in their living room than Spiderman. Unfortunately, there are no comparable prestige pieces in comics (unless, of course, someone found the mint OA cover to Action No. 1, or something like that, but it would still cost less than Marilyn).

 

Fourth, the fine art establishment is very happy the way it is. It is unlikely that they will welcome Original Comic Art with open arms. There is an interesting film on the subject called "Who the %$*(@ is Jackson Pollack?" about a woman who finds what seems to be an original Jackson Pollack, but who is shunned by the fine art world. After you see this film, you might reconsider your desire to be lumped in with the luminaries of the fine art world.

 

Fifth, comics are very hot right now. That means that the valuations of OA are peaking right now. However, while comics are a type of cultural phenomenon whose existence is timeless, the comic industry still is subject to significant swings in interest. Remember the 1990s? Comics were very hot and then suddenly were not. The valuations of today in OA may not be the valuations of tomorrow.

 

Thanks for bringing some interesting discourse to the boards.

 

Best regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Glass-migration

Mr.Glass-migration

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Glass -

 

While the themes of your post are interesting, there are significant issues that undermine the credibility of the comparison you are attempting to make.

 

First, Warhol vs. Dow only focuses on the absolute most sought paintings by one of the most popular modern artists in history and compares it to a system of investing. For obvious reasons, that is a credible or trustworthy comparison. Any *spoon* can put $1K into a mutual fund and get 10% returns. But you have to be extremely lucky to pick the modern artist who will become popular and whose paintings will soar in value. For every Andy Warhol, there are millions of others, whose paintings also cost $10K in the 1960s, but are now worthless and the artists forgotten. The articles seem to ignore all of the paintings that the Rockefellers and others bought from other "up and coming" artists of the 1960s that are now worthless.

 

Second, fine art and comic art are not valued (or viewed) the same way by the world at large. Ditko and Kirby originals are of approximately the same vintage as Warhol (if not a tad bit older). Not a single piece of work done by either of these two gentlemen, who are amongst the most sought after artists on their respective books, has even come within sniffing range of Warhol valuations.

 

Third, the Marilyn Warhols combined a very scarce run of --five -- with a rare confluence of pop art and a timeless pop icon. Because no amount of money will pry any of them from their owner's hands, they are a prestige piece, like owning a Fabrege Egg. While there are relatively few Ditko Spiderman pages, there are still hundreds (if not thousands) of them. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of pages of art generated by lesser known talents on lesser known books. The scarcity of Warhol's Marilyn paintings adds to their value. Also, many people would rather look at Marilyn in their living room than Spiderman. Unfortunately, there are no comparable prestige pieces in comics (unless, of course, someone found the mint OA cover to Action No. 1, or something like that, but it would still cost less than Marilyn).

 

Fourth, the fine art establishment is very happy the way it is. It is unlikely that they will welcome Original Comic Art with open arms. There is an interesting film on the subject called "Who the %$*(@ is Jackson Pollack?" about a woman who finds what seems to be an original Jackson Pollack, but who is shunned by the fine art world. After you see this film, you might reconsider your desire to be lumped in with the luminaries of the fine art world.

 

Fifth, comics are very hot right now. That means that the valuations of OA are peaking right now. However, while comics are a type of cultural phenomenon whose existence is timeless, the comic industry still is subject to significant swings in interest. Remember the 1990s? Comics were very hot and then suddenly were not. The valuations of today in OA may not be the valuations of tomorrow.

 

Thanks for bringing some interesting discourse to the boards.

 

Best regards.

 

Ayyy Carumba!!!!

 

Artmeria,

 

For a very long time Modern Art itself was viewed as outside the canon of 'fine art'. While there is still debate today on the issue, there is zero doubt that Modern Art is accepted within the crritcal canon. My point is merely that OA is truly misunderstood by the art world today. When people like Delicatessen say it is 'mere production art', 'illustration art', or 'silly pictures of men in tights that the art world will never accept' -- my instincts tell me there is more here than meets the eye.

 

Please note, I didnt write the article,...all I am trying to say is that the second word in OA is 'ART' and that comic art is very very special for alot of reasons that make the body of work much more suseceptible to price appreciation in the future. Namely, for all the nonsense about fans of comic books being an insular niche group - I see the dynamic popularity for ICONIC images that define the ZEITGEIST of our era growing every day. An argument that says the cover to Amazing Spider-man # 5 by Steve Ditko has less intrinsic aethetic worth than a painting by Renoir is irrelevant to this discussion. We are entering an age in which THE MASS MAN will define value,...and the MASS MAN has less than noble taste. 'The Establishment' you refer to is merely a reflection of a given aesthetic...but make no mistake about...A REVOLUTION in aesthetics is on its way.

 

I agree....the valuations of today do not portend the values of tomorrow...all I know is that...supply & demand are rules of economics....and while there are many Ditko interior pages....to ASM...there are very few Covers....and it is with this fact in mind, namely a discussion of 'THE BEST' [like ASM #5 Cover]....that is at the heart of my belieft that these prices are in their infancy. I am not referring to OA generally,...and the modern drek/ commission garbage that is so pervasive. To my thinking, the Cover to ASM #39 is more meaningful and valuable than a silly Faberge Egg by the way,...and I am sure there are MANY who see a similar aesthetic.

 

Ultimately though..........the proof is in the puddin'.....but personally...I dont think its a question of IF...but more a question of WHEN....either in my life time..or after I am gone.....but I know OA...says some amazing things about how man perceives himself....and that truly will be examined one day.

 

Why do we need a Spider-man???????????????? And why does his IMAGE resonate so effectively on the MASS MARKET LEVEL?????????????

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Artemaria

Artemaria

Posted
Posted

Glass-

 

I'm glad you're passionate about OCA. Hopefully you are an OCA dealer, so it will serve you well.

 

However, don't confuse the popularity of a character generated by a good movie franchise with a "revolution." While I'd like to see revised thinking about OCA, I don't think it will happen anytime soon. Probably the most you can hope for anytime in the near future is that people don't look at OCA as a peripheral hobby.

 

But Spiderman, like Batman before him, is one or two bad movies away from being out of the public consciousness. Do you remember when Batman 1 came out with Michael Keaton? You couldn't walk 10 feet without seeing someone with a yellow circle bat sign. Two bad movies later, the franchise was buried for over a decade.

 

The ramifications of comics being hot right now may be broader than you expect. People in Hollywood with money are buying original Ditko ASM pages and putting them on their walls because it is the trendy thing to do. This is driving up prices. Once Spiderman is no longer hot, those will come down. And so will the prices.

 

Also, decisions about what is fine art and about fine art valuations are not made by the masses. They are made by people with significantly more influence than I (and I suspect you) will ever have. It has always been that way, and sadly, I suspect that it will continue to be that way.

 

Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing