Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Bronty

  • Boards Title

Personal Information

  • Hobbies
    Comics, Basketball!
  • Location
    Prancing with Cocoa Butter
  1. Yes and that just underlined the differences between here and there because here the companies for whom illustrations are commissioned don’t give a $&@! once the product is released. There they have everything from decades ago under lock and key
  2. Fair point! But it just doesn't seem to happen. Its mind boggling. Maybe part of the issue is that the art everyone wants is from the successful artists? In a culture where selling art makes you look like a failure, the successful guys would never sell anything although the unsuccessful might... but we don't really care about those or even inquire. Here in NA though, the minute these guys croak there would be a fire sale. Doesn't happen over there. The estates hang on to it even.
  3. any time someone brings up cels, I have to remind them that... 24 frames a second... times 60 seconds in a minute... times 22 minutes an episode... times X episodes a season (let's say 20)... times Y seasons (let's say 8)... the amount of cels produced for the average cartoon series is mind boggling. In our example that math works out to 5 *million*. For ONE series. They are everywhere for a reason! *I'm sure 5 million is overstating it a little, because not every second of every episode has 24 frames a second. So let's divide by 5 to be conservative. Leaves one million even. Rare!! (The Akira movie alone, which was what, 90 minutes (?) used 100,000 cels. So one million cels for 160 episodes of a regular cartoon without the high production values of Akira? Probably not unreasonable). In addition, there are lots of "limited edition cels" of say 500, which I understand to be basically slapped together recreations not used in production. "Hand painted" (hem) but in an edition of that size and with art of such low complexity... more like a print than anything.
  4. I get the impression he does well. He probably doesn't care too much about about 15k (or 4k depending on the type of commission) less taxes. Might pay for a couple sets of braces for those 8 kids or a family vacation and that's about it. He must care about it somewhat, or he wouldn't bother, I suppose. But I think we are talking, in his world, little side hustle more than uncle scrooge money swim.
  5. Art Prices

    Well, the Picasso will be talked about 500 years from now where Romita likely will not be, no question. Fine Art is the first collectible, the collectible of kings as it were. Comic art is to fine art what MTG art is to comic art. Its something with a shorter history and a shakier outlook that is more dependent on the continued popularity of the related cultural artifact. That's not a risk for fine art, its teflon on that front for sure. It has been collected forever and will be collected forever. But it is, ultimately, collected. A collectible. And as such both markets are interested in where a piece places relative to the history of the market. Where it is in the narrative of fine art history, or comic book history, as a really important valuation factor, much more so than image. That clip from that Landis documentary where the reporters show a fake Rothko and a real one and the auction attendees can't tell them apart probes the same question and seems to... mock those that pay big money for something they can't tell from a fake. But the layman (and some collectors!) don't understand that it isn't the image being paid for, its the place in fine art history that drives the price. It doesn't really matter if they can tell a real from a fake, so long as they don't buy a fake, and that's part of the assurance you get from buying at the auction house.
  6. Art Prices

    - you have to look at when Romita's work happened too. His 1990s work is going to trade at a discount for example. - composition, color, contrast imagery... are the comic versions of buttshot, villains, webbing, storyline... etc.......... Marie Louise = Gwen? La Reve = Spidey 122 cover? I'm not saying the comparison is perfect. I'm saying both markets use valuation factors that don't have that much to do with the image itself. Both markets use important contextual factors. The primary valuation factor of a Picasso is that its a Picasso. Regardless of what it looks like. I've heard it said, and you've alluded to, the COLOR of certain paintings affecting value (because no one wants a pea green canvas or what have you). How much does that have to do with skill? Zero.
  7. Art Prices

    There are plenty of examples of poorly drawn or written first appearances. And lots of examples of art with fairly good context and fairly high prices that was that poorly written or drawn too. Obviously, the more 'hits' vs 'misses' the higher the price so finding an A++++ piece that isn't a first appearance that is also truly relevant while having art and story that also truly sucks will be hard, yes. But that's because you're already filtering to get there. The point though is that there's no shortage of pages worth more than the next page in the book because of "claws out" wolverine (or what have you) trumping the art or story specific to that sequence.
  8. Art Prices

    The specifics are important, of course, in the same way that with comics specifics are important too. Naturally the best rendering of someone's life will command more money than the worst rendering of someone's life (IF all other factors are held constant). I appreciate that there's probably a greater emphasis on the specifics with fine art because there aren't as many other things to differentiate with. But an 16" picasso vs a 48" picasso isn't that different than a 9 panel page versus a cover or splash. A Picasso portrait of Marie Louise isn't that different than Romita drawing ASM in that both subjects are 'good' subjects for the artist. Its not a perfect comparison of course, but there are parallels to be drawn there yes?
  9. Art Prices

    I'm not sure the of the two markets approaches are that different in the first place. I've come to see Fine Art as a collectible of sorts too. People don't value fine art based on how good the canvas looks, either (or at least not primarily). They value it based on the overall body of work of the artist, where it was exhibited, who the major collectors and dealers of the artist were, the impact the artist had on the fine art world at the time, etc etc etc. Its not about image or "standing alone" there either. Its also about context, just different context than for comics. The guy paying $100m for a Pollock isn't buying it because its the most beautiful thing he's ever seen, he's buying it because Pollock broke ground. He's buying it because of what it represents to the history of fine art, the same way the guy paying $50k for a Killing Joke page is paying that much because of what that story represents to the history of comics.
  10. Art Prices

    I suppose it comes up when there's a big Romita sale.
  11. Art Prices

  12. Art Prices

    Glad you agree Seriously though the only reason we know any of these guys is because they were published in comics. You can make the argument that its because the stories were compelling that it meant something to us at the time, and I agree with that, but time/place/opportunity can't be forgotten either. You've made the point yourself that an 'A' quality story today may simply not have the same overall impact as one from yesterday just due to the time and the place in the hobby today vs the 60s. Today's creator isn't any less skilled.... he just has a smaller audience because kids would rather be doing something else besides paying $3.99 for a couple minutes worth of entertainment......... (unless there is a webcam involved ).
  13. Art Prices

    Great! That sounds a lot like you agreeing with me Context comes first.
  14. Art Prices

    Adams and McFarlane etc are examples are a new artist and/or artist/writer team breathing new life into stale characters. That's quite different than Romita, who was tasked with continuing what had started before. I don't think anyone would argue Romita was a groundbreaking artist, even if he is their favorite artist. And, you're right in that there are some artists (Stevens is a great example) where the skill is so obviously at a whole other level that anything they touch is gold, strictly for the immense visual appreciation we have of their art. However, in my view, Romita was good but not 'at a whole other level' kind of good. We can agree or disagree on that, it doesn't really matter IMO. At the end of the day, I will just restate that the skill of the particular artist in examples such as Romita has SOME affect on price, yes. But its well down the list IMO. More to the point, what I'm saying is that the skill of the artist isn't why we collect what we collect. If you like Romita, why aren't you paying ASM prices for Romance? Because its about whether the work as a whole was memorable, and the skill of the artist has only a limited role in that, or everything they touch - all of it, would be memorable. (Now in Stevens' case that's probably true!).