furthur

Member
  • Content Count

    147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About furthur

  • Boards Title
    Collector is an understatement.

Personal Information

  • Location
    Atlanta GA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I am going with Michael Kaluta on this one. I have work from him from the early 70's that is amazing and I have work from him done in the last two years that is amazing. Go take a look at Michael Ingram's CAF gallery and you can see even more incredible work done in the past year. I don't think every piece he does is incredible-I just think he still does a lot of work that is top notch, and he has done work that I think is at the highest level in 5 different decades (He did work in the 1960's, but I don't think he hit his stride until the 70's) and I am pretty confident he will make that 6 decades very soon.
  2. Well, being the self absorbed guy that I am, I have already done this a few times. In fact, I have a commission theme that is a riff on Little Nemo with a bunch of pieces that will be worth approximately nothing someday except maybe to my kid when I am gone. Still, its been a fun exercise. Here is one of them.
  3. I own one Lichtenstein. I didn't buy it at Heritage, but here is a link to one they sold. (Hmmm, looks like the link didn't print-go look for Lichtenstein's "This must be the Place") It was a poster for the Reuben awards in 1965. While I understand the vehemence with which folks like Brian Peck want to call out Lichtenstein as a hack etc,, I think otherwise and pretty clearly the folks at the National Cartoonist Society felt differently at the very moment that Lichtenstein was doing a lot of his more comic book centric artwork (and while that was perhaps what made him most famous, its clearly only a fraction of the work he did in his career) If you are thinking about jumping into these waters though, I think just looking at Heritage and at this image in particular, will give you an idea of how difficult it is to really gauge pricing for multiples (lithographs, prints etc) The copy I have, like the one I linked to, was pencil signed by Lichtenstein. The ones that were not seem to be selling for under 1000 and mostly under 750. With the pencil signature, however, the prices start jumping around and these are for pieces sold within months of each other. Some went as low as 1700 or so, others went as high as 4000. In a sense, these are like buying vintage comics. Condition plays a stronger role than with original art, as does rarity since these are by definition not one of a kind, most still have some limitation on the total number available. This image was released in an un-numbered edition so I have no idea how many were printed-and some clearly were pencil signed and some were not-but often with lithographs the editions are numbered so you can at least have an idea of the total produced. When I bought mine, I was actually searching for this specific image. It hit several sweet spots for me. Unlike others here, I like Lichtenstein and respect what he was doing at that time (and like later stuff too after he had given up comic images and moved on to other types of work) It also was clearly connected directly to comics, but I don't know if the image is taken from somewhere else (and don't really care) Lichtenstein released this lithograph as a poster for the Reuben awards, but he also did a "fine art" release of the image without any of the type at the bottom in a numbered edition. As it so happens, that image was purchased by the parents of my college roommate and it hung in his bedroom at home. I loved it when I first saw it in 1977 and had no idea of its connection to the Reuben awards. When I later found out what it had been originally produced for (some 40 years later!) I looked around and saw that there were both pencil signed and unsigned copies around. I immediately decided to get a hand signed version and pounced when I found one at what I thought (and still think ) was a good price. Based on the Heritage results over the past year I have been proven correct.
  4. I don't know that I would pay a bundle for such a piece, but it clearly depends on the artist and the cover you are talking about, how much the cost of the recreation would be and whether that person plans to do a lot of the same piece. There are recreations by numerous artists that are pretty valuable and certainly more valuable than what was originally paid for them. I only have one in my collection, but it was a Silver Surfer Cover that Buscema did and it is certainly worth more than the original price of the piece-and even if I overpaid a bit to get it from the guy who commissioned it, I am glad to have it at a fraction of the cost of the original piece. I think my basic advice on commissions is that they are almost always worth less than what you pay when you buy them, but over time, some will appreciate and some will not. They will rarely, however, appreciate faster or to a greater extent than original published pieces by the same artist though.
  5. I purchased this Sam Keith commission piece 5 or 6 years ago from a friend.
  6. I have a lot of preliminary art in my collection. Here is a Blue Beetle cover from Cully Hamner. I own the final for this one, but I have a lot that I only have prelims for .
  7. here is one from my collection that isn't up anywhere. Jason Schacter had this preliminary piece in pencil at Heroes Con at Tim's table a few years ago and rather than getting one of Tim's fast pass pieces, I bought this and had him ink it as my "convention sketch". I thought it was pretty darn cool and super close to the cover, just smaller size.
  8. Every artist has antecedents. Eisner certainly built on what had come before and the earliest comic strips drew on humorous work by people like Hogarth (William, not Burne) but that doesn't mean the earliest antecedent is the Master. The exhibit was titled Masters of American Comics. As Glen noted starting this thread, it may have been an attempt to create a Canon-and certainly I don't think it completely succeeded in that-but mostly because the scope was too big to begin with. If it had been Masters of American Comic Strips and only had the comic strip guys they included it would clearly have been a bad job-and the same with American Comic Book Artists-but to have an exhibit with more than 15 artists and actually show a representative sample of their work would also have been a difficult task. My 15 would have certainly been different-but I think we all could probably pick 15 strip artists and 15 comic artists and then we would still be fighting over who got left out and why someone was included over someone else.
  9. In general, I loved the original show-and made it a point to see both exhibits in LA during a lucky visit to LA while it was up, but I will admit that I was surprised by the inclusion of Feininger, for whom comics was a tiny part of a much larger career in art, and Panter, who I just didn't think belonged in the pantheon. I would absolutely have subbed in Foster, or more likely Raymond, on the strip side and though I am not the Carl Barks fan that some are, I think he probably deserved inclusion-but if the point was to include that "punk" sensibility that Panter brought in and to show contemporary cartoonists deserved a place at the table, I would have gone with Lynda Barry and killed two birds with one stone by making the show both more inclusive and having someone I thought was a better and more interesting comic artist. I really like Chris Ware's work and could certainly see why he was included, but I could absolutely make the argument that the show was way too short on mainstream cartoonists and that Neal Adams might better have been added (or Jack Davis if I was in charge-the sheer breadth of his cartooning talent still amazes me)
  10. In that "inevitable person I forgot and will feel stupid I didn't mention" category let me put in colorist extraordinaire Laura Martin. I think Trina or Colleen may deserve a place, but neither of them are people I would be anxious to add to my collection, whereas I would be happy to add anyone on my original list and already have nearly half. If anyone has a Shary Flenniken or Roz Chast in particular, I would be very interested.
  11. I think the nature of the industry has meant that many of the women on the list would be outside the mainstream, but I would certainly include Marie Severin, Ramona Fradon, Lynda Barry, Shary Flenniken, Jill Thompson, Dale Messick, June Brigman, Roz Chast, Lily Renee, Wendy Pini, Aline Kominski, Fiona Staples and Mary Fleener in my top fifteen with a few spots left for the inevitable person I forgot and will feel stupid I didn't mention. .
  12. In case I didn't have your address or somehow forgot to send you an invitation, I am having a comic art brunch at my house on March 30. Please email me if you haven't gotten an invitation and you are interested in attending at benno119@gmail.com. Look forward to seeing lots of friends and lots of art (and eating lots of food!) Benno
  13. I am always amused to come back to this thread and read all the overblown outrage about Lichtenstein on here. I love his stuff and was thinking about this thread on a recent visit to the High Museum in Atlanta where this piece is a highlight of the art that is outside on their plaza. Impossible to see from a photo, but the construction of the piece as three dimensional rather than flat makes it appear to rotate as you move around it, though of course it remains still. I also love the shadow it casts on the wall of the museum behind it. Presumably, no ones tender feelings were trampled upon in the creation of this art-but given the propensity for pointless flame wars here, I guess I may be speaking too soon.
  14. Mitch Itkowitz has always been his rep as far as I know.