WARHOL vs. THE DOW [New York Sun]

[Mr.Glass-migration]

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.

 

I think you are confusing fads & trends in comic product lines with the art market. There is limited applicability of a characters natural market cycle following the release of franchise products and the affect on the art market. Moreover, you assume way to much in many of your statements [ie: People in Hollywood as the cause for price appreciation]. Ultimately, its supply & demand that makes a market & over-saturation of an 'image' is only a detriment in the short-term...as art is a (A) art is cyclical commodity (B) [and I believe this to my core] SUPER-HEROES ARE ETERNAL....they are America's Gods [like Zeus to the Greeks]

 

And with respect to your second paragraph -- all Im talking about is $$$$$...not labels like 'fine art' [which I would debate all evening, but Ive done it too many times]. And to reiterate, VALUATIONS are made by the masses....as supply and demand intersect...price is determined. That is an econmic fact, my friend. More people in the hobby means more demand....and with a constant supply....

 

well...its obvious.

 

WE SHALL SEE.....WE SHALL SEE....

[Spider-Variant]

Why do I get the feeling that Sybil has joined the boards?

[tth2]

 

What's taking the Mods so long to bounce KK this time?

[batman_fan]

how do you create two shill accounts so fast. You must have to type fast, I mean Krazy fast to keep up a conversation with yourself.

[delekkerste]

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.

 

The "Mass Man" doesn't have any money, brick. The insane values of Pollocks, Johns, Warhols and Rothkos are being defined by the moneyed elite. In the comic book OA hobby, you have countless "mass men" who say, "IF I had the money..." In the fine art world, you have people who actually have the money and can and will influence the price of what they deem to be valuable, regardless of whether anyone here disagrees. So it is and will ever be.

 

You may think $73 million for a Rothko painting that looks like it could have been done in an hour is ludicrous compared to what you perceive to be low valuations for Romita and Ditko ASM pages, but the difference is that someone just paid $73 million this week for that Rothko and no one is paying the kind of money you are talking about for the ASMs, and you're stone kold krazy if you think that the guys buying Rothkos are suddenly going to develop any kind of interest in Spider-Man art, let alone at multiples of today's prices.

[tth2]

how do you create two shill accounts so fast. You must have to type fast, I mean Krazy fast to keep up a conversation with yourself.

Nah, there are pretty big gaps in time between Glass/KK's posts and Artemaria/KK's posts.

[Mr.Glass-migration]

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.

 

The "Mass Man" doesn't have any money, brick. The insane values of Pollocks, Johns, Warhols and Rothkos are being defined by the moneyed elite. In the comic book OA hobby, you have countless "mass men" who say, "IF I had the money..." In the fine art world, you have people who actually have the money and can and will influence the price of what they deem to be valuable, regardless of whether anyone here disagrees. So it is and will ever be.

 

You may think $73 million for a Rothko painting that looks like it could have been done in an hour is ludicrous compared to what you perceive to be low valuations for Romita and Ditko ASM pages, but the difference is that someone just paid $73 million this week for that Rothko and no one is paying the kind of money you are talking about for the ASMs, and you're stone kold krazy if you think that the guys buying Rothkos are suddenly going to develop any kind of interest in Spider-Man art, let alone at multiples of today's prices.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolt_of_the_Masses

 

"the commonplace mind, knowing itself to be commonplace, has the assurance to proclaim the rights of the commonplace and to impose them wherever it will."

 

 

 

[Mr.Glass-migration]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6664623.stm

[Artemaria]

Thanks tth2.

 

I'm glad someone noticed that I am an actual individual person and not some strange ranting lunatic who makes fake identities on the boards and has no concept of syntax or grammar and struggles with spelling.

 

Kindly note that I'm not even mentioning Glass's inability to grasp even the basic substantive concepts underlying theories of society, art or economics, while purporting to rely upon those very same concepts in his pablum-filled posts.

 

Of course, I agree with the other posts who enjoy the hobby for what it is and extoll the virtues of it for the joy it brings them (and me).

 

Best regards.

[Mr.Glass-migration]

Thanks tth2.

 

I'm glad someone noticed that I am an actual individual person and not some strange ranting lunatic who makes fake identities on the boards and has no concept of syntax or grammar and struggles with spelling.

 

Kindly note that I'm not even mentioning Glass's inability to grasp even the basic substantive concepts underlying theories of society, art or economics, while purporting to rely upon those very same concepts in his pablum-filled posts.

 

Of course, I agree with the other posts who enjoy the hobby for what it is and extoll the virtues of it for the joy it brings them (and me).

 

Best regards.

 

I loved your statement of "truth" that Hollywood moguls are the cause for recent price appreciation. Revealed in a clarion manner your 'genius'.

 

Oh, the irony:

 

The command over public life exercised to-day by the intellectually vulgar is perhaps the factor of the present situation which is most novel, least assimilable to anything in the past. At least in European history up to the present, the vulgar had never believed itself to have "ideas" on things. It had beliefs, traditions, experiences, proverbs, mental habits, but it never imagined itself in possession of theoretical opinions on what things are or ought to be- for example, on politics or literature. What the politician planned or carried out seemed good or bad to it, it granted or withheld its support, but its action was limited to being an echo, positive or negative, of the creative activity of others. It never occurred to it to oppose to the "ideas" of the politician others of its own, nor even to judge the politician's "ideas" from the tribunal of other "ideas" which it believed itself to possess. Similarly in art and in other aspects of public life. An innate consciousness of its limitation, of its not being qualified to theorise, * effectively prevented it doing so. The necessary consequence of this was that the vulgar never thought, even remotely, of making a decision on any one of the public activities, which in their greater part are theoretical in character. To-day, on the other hand, the average man has the most mathematical "ideas" on all that happens or ought to happen in the universe. Hence he has lost the use of his hearing. Why should he listen if he has within him all that is necessary? There is no reason now for listening, but rather for judging, pronouncing, deciding. There is no question concerning public life, in which he does not intervene, blind and deaf as he is, imposing his "opinions." -

 

* There is no getting away from it; every opinion means setting up a theory. -

 

But, is this not an advantage? Is it not a sign of immense progress that the masses should have "ideas," that is to say, should be cultured? By no means. The "ideas" of the average man are not genuine ideas, nor is their possession culture. An idea is a putting truth in checkmate. Whoever wishes to have ideas must first prepare himself to desire truth and to accept the rules of the game imposed by it. It is no use speaking of ideas when there is no acceptance of a higher authority to regulate them, a series of standards to which it is possible to appeal in a discussion. These standards are the principles on which culture rests. I am not concerned with the form they take. What I affirm is that there is no culture where there are no standards to which our fellow-men can have recourse. There is no culture where there are no principles of legality to which to appeal. There is no culture where there is no acceptance of certain final intellectual positions to which a dispute may be referred. * There is no culture where economic relations are not subject to a regulating principle to protect interests involved. There is no culture where aesthetic controversy does not recognise the necessity of justifying the work of art. -

 

* If anyone in a discussion with us is concerned with adjusting himself to truth, if he has no wish to find the truth, he is intellectually a barbarian. That, in fact, is the position of the mass-man when he speaks, lectures, or writes. -

[Artemaria]

 

Glass -

 

I took the liberty of forwarding your "revolutionary" posts to the appropriate officials at the United States Department of Justice. They were very very interested in what you have to say.

 

In fact, they may be watching you right now. You may make a bigger impact than you think!

 

Good luck.

 

- A

[Mr.Glass-migration]

 

Glass -

 

I took the liberty of forwarding your "revolutionary" posts to the appropriate officials at the United States Department of Justice. They were very very interested in what you have to say.

 

In fact, they may be watching you right now. You may make a bigger impact than you think!

 

Good luck.

 

- A

 

I refuse to believe even you are this dumb.

[Spider-Variant]

Thanks tth2.

 

I'm glad someone noticed that I am an actual individual person and not some strange ranting lunatic who makes fake identities on the boards and has no concept of syntax or grammar and struggles with spelling.

 

Kindly note that I'm not even mentioning Glass's inability to grasp even the basic substantive concepts underlying theories of society, art or economics, while purporting to rely upon those very same concepts in his pablum-filled posts.

 

Of course, I agree with the other posts who enjoy the hobby for what it is and extoll the virtues of it for the joy it brings them (and me).

 

Best regards.

 

Actually, if you can get beyond your fine grasp of syntax and grammar, and re-read what tth2 implied within his response, not sure a "Thanks" was in order.

[Artemaria]

This was a joke.

 

Nice of you to work in the insult though.

 

Another fine post!

[Artemaria]

Spider -

 

I see what you are saying. I was so busy having fun with "Glass" that I skimmed tth's post.

 

But still, the whole purpose was for people to understand that Glass/KK(??) and I are not the same person (or are we . . . . ).

 

Regards.

 

- A

[Mr.Glass-migration]

$71 mIL FOR A WARHOL AND EVERYBODY SAID IT WASNT ART

 

45 YEARS LATER - PRICES SAY OTHERWISE

 

MANY, MANY PARALLELS WITH OA.

 

MANY.

[comix4fun]

$71 mIL FOR A WARHOL AND EVERYBODY SAID IT WASNT ART

 

45 YEARS LATER - PRICES SAY OTHERWISE

 

MANY, MANY PARALLELS WITH OA.

 

MANY.

 

 

So there are many?

[mica]

[Mr.Glass-migration]

$71 mIL FOR A WARHOL AND EVERYBODY SAID IT WASNT ART

 

45 YEARS LATER - PRICES SAY OTHERWISE

 

MANY, MANY PARALLELS WITH OA.

 

MANY.

 

 

So there are many?

 

Warhol wasnt even considered art...similar to OA.

 

OA actually is a totalization of Wharolian principles...namely art created as consumption vehicle ala' Campbell Soup Cans.

 

OA is the realization of the Warhol's concept of capitalism totalizing even art.

 

Thw irony of OA is that it began as a vehicle of consumption [the comic book]...whereas Wharol conceptualized the art as a TOKEN-IMAGE manifestation of the SYMBOL.

 

So you see....they are 2 sides of the same coin.....but both are really expressing inverse propositions about Capitalism & Art.

[mister_not_so_nice]

"Argue with the fool and you become the fool" - Jack Henry Abbott