Mike Jackson

I had a lot more respect for Lichtenstein until I discovered it was blatant theft. I mean, how hard would it have been to create his own panels. Lazy and talentless. At least Pollock created something original and Warhol's art was more a commentary on consumerism and didn't belittle what he stole from. I like Lucien Freud's art (wouldn't pay much for it, tho) but Francis Bacon's work reminds me of stuff I created when I was 10 and refused to paint inside the numbers.

Let me summarize pages and pages of that thread for you: Some people don't like Roy Lichtenstein. Other people like Roy Lichtenstein. Well put. I think that about covers it. I guess I should have started reading from beginning instead of the end. What I got from it was some people like Vanilla Ice and some people like Queen.

Thanks. I will have to read through it.

The problem is with the invention of the internet I have endless opportunities and subjects to get worked up about.

Since Gene brought up Lichtenstein earlier this article probably is on topic. http://comicsalliance.com/deconstructing-lichtenstein-source-comics-revealed-and-credited/ it has a link to a flickr account that shows all the comic artists he ripped off. http://www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/ Here is an article from the Village Voice that discusses the same topic. The Misbegotten Career of Roy Lichtenstein

Scroll down to Drake Tungsten's comment on this piece: http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=1107190 So true, so true...

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Need to use that generator the next time I comment on a piece at Comicartfans. Confuse the heck out of someone.

I find this work menacing/playful because of the way the optical suggestions of the facture makes resonant a participation in the critical dialogue of the 90s. Well, at least that's what The Instant Art Critique Phrase Generator came up with. http://www.pixmaven.com/phrase_generator.html

Well, here is a perfect example of what I find pretentious about the fine art community. http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2014/02/oops-cleaning-lady-throws-away-expensive-modern-art-mistook-trash/ The cleaning lady should quit her job and become an art critic.

Oh, it is definitely the price paid for it. As they say: I don't know art but I know what I like. And I don't mind being challenged. One of my great faults is I am very opinionated, though, and I can't help myself but to express them. I probably should just hold my tongue more often than I do.

Well, I guess the short answer is I find it pretentious. I get that. FWIW I have to assume that a good part of the price on that triptych is the subject matter. I.e. a Bacon painting of Freud is sort of like a Ditko drawing of Kirby or a Kirby drawing of Ditko, if such things were to exist. Even if such drawings were not esoecially well realized pieces of art, they would command a high price because you have one comic art god drawing the other. So too with this picture of Freud by Bacon. 142 million is a lot of pretentiousness. If it was Norman Rockwell, N.C. Wyeth, or Maxfield Parrish, then I might be more understanding.

Well, I guess the short answer is I find it pretentious.

Well, the "name" will certainly drives prices up if I am interested in the artist. Let's take Frank Miller, for example. I like his art but I wouldn't even think of paying the prices that his work commands. If I had that money it would all go to Krazy Kat Sunday pages, Little Nemos, Hal Foster Tarzan or Prince Valiant pieces. If art prices were irrelevant I would trade that $142 mil Francis Bacon triptych for a Little Nemo straight up.

I am sure it is for some but not for me. I have no interest in paying for a name.

I have so little interest in work by artists like Bacon, Warhol or Pollack. The super rich want the name as sort of a status symbol to show off. If their party friends aren't familiar with the artist then they aren't interested in buying it.

I would agree to a point. I think an exception to that rule would be the All New, All Different X-Men. I believe John Byrne's art probably outpaces Cockrum's marketwise. I believe the key to investing in this arena is to always buy quality pages or covers. If you see something you have to have then most likely there is someone else out there that feels the same way. You should be able to sell it quickly and make a profit. If you see something that you would like to have but it isn't a "must have," then it will probably be harder to sell later for much of a profit. I think a lot of new artists have already overpriced themselves. You would probably need to wait 10 or 15 to get any sort of return on investment. There is a lot of art out there. More pages are being produced every day. If you are not buying the best of the best, then you probably should just stick to the stock market for investing.

Very cool! Congrats!

It stretched my budget after the Alex Ross cover but I just had to have it. I love the old TV show and nobody does facial expressions like Maguire. Look, sorry man, I've never had to do this before, but I think you're gonna have to leave. I just can't have you around me, with something like that in your possession.

It stretched my budget after the Alex Ross cover but I just had to have it. I love the old TV show and nobody does facial expressions like Maguire.

I also won this on eBay a couple days ago. They should keep me satiated for a little while. Kevin Maguire - Batman '66

My first "big" splurge in a while. It helped that it was discounted from $6,000 to $4,000. Even with the mark down it is still the most I have ever spent on a piece of artwork. Anyway, hopefully I will be able to add more of Ross' painted work in the future.