• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About hmendryk

  • Boards Title

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I have 34 pages of unpublished art in my collection. Obviously I won't show them all. One went unpublished because it was written off by DC. Two risque? By Craig Flessel no less. The Foxhole by Jack Kirby cover went unused because it the very start of the Comic Code and got rejected. Some like the Strange Worlds of Your Dream cover, also by Jack Kirby, was never even inked probably because the title got cancelled. The Ayers cover for PT-109 was never used because the project never got past 6 pages of story art.
  2. Warfront #28 (January 1956) pencils and inks by Jack Kirby. But I do believe it originally was made for Simon and Kirby's Mainline comic Foxhole #2 (December 1954) but not used.
  3. I can't help but make a comparison to fine art prints (etchings, lithography, silk screen etc.). There artists typically make a edition of a set number of prints which are then signed by the artist and each print numbered with the edition size. That of course is a promise like the one being made today by monoprint comic artists. But with fine art prints you often do not know what was done with the original plates used to make the prints. Some artists will physically damage the plates so that no further prints are possible. But some do not. And yes sometimes when the plates are not destroyed, they are used again years later (generally not by the artist himself). This of course is fraud, as would be the cases if a monoprint is later reprinted. In the case of fine art prints since the printing is done by hand it is pretty much impossible to make a perfect copy of the original edition. There will always be subtle differences that can be detected. But if the original file for a monoprint is used again on the same printer model the result would likely be indistinguishable from the original. I guess my take away is that if you are going to invest in a monoprint, you have to insure a good provenance otherwise there will always be the possibility that sometime in the future it will be considered worthless. But even with a good provenance, a monoprint may be significantly devalued since any fraudulent copies may be indistinguishable from the original.
  4. Here we will have to agree to disagree. It was the aesthetics that brought me back into comics and comic art. While the commercial art you list is certainly more photogenic it generally lacks aesthetic qualities (at least for me). Technical realism is just not that appealing to me. This is true even with some comic book artists, for example Alex Ross. It is the aesthetics that predominate in art museums, with the cultural aspects taking a distinctly second place in importance. The Mona Lisa is not important because of what it reveals about the life in Renaissance Italy, but because of its aesthetics. And before you point out the technical perfection in the Mona Lisa, I would also point out that artists like Van Gogh, Jackson Pollack and others are also coveted by art museums who are not realistic artists.
  5. If you are talking about value as in dollars, then of course you are right. But I have collected comic book art that was never intended to be published and while their financial value may not be that much, their personal value is still great. Today's comic original art market is driven by three traits (in descending order) nostalgia, collectability and aesthetics. If comic book art ever actually makes it into art museums like so many talk about, that order will be the exact opposite.
  6. Another example from my collection. I have an unused cover for Alarming Tales #3 by Jack Kirby. Joe Simon redid the whole thing to produced the published version. And by the way the original art for Joe's version has survived and is in some black hole collection. I can understand why Joe made the changes, the published version stood out better on the racks than Jack's would have. But am I the only collector that would prefer to have the Kirby version over the Simon one?
  7. While I can see how some (many?) collectors might feel this way, I hold a different position. While being published certainly adds value to a piece of comic book art, in the end for me it is about the art. That is what an artist puts down on the paper. Stats are no more original art than the published comic book. In my collection I have a unused cover art for Captain America #125 by Marie Severin and Frank Giacoia that I personally value much more than the published version because IMO it is a much better piece of art. I am not sure I would ever purchase a piece with a stat covering some original art, but if I did I would probably have the stats removed and put a mylar overlay so that I could see and admire the artist's original intention.
  8. In general I am not a collector of illustration art. But I do have some that have a comic book connection. As for instance this piece by John Florety Jr. The original has an agency label on the back. But Joe Simon used it, with some modifications, for the cover of Young Brides #19 (November 1954).
  9. I was quite pleased with Comic Art Live. Actually I enjoyed it more than most art cons. Usually when I buy art I am not looking for any particular artist but just searching for something that grabs me at a price I am happy with. After a while such a physical search can get tiresome. Here I could search for the art types I am interested in (covers and splashes). The price ranges for the search really did not work for me but I actually enjoyed going through the high end items which were out of my range. I picked up a few things on the first day but unfortunately one of them was bought just ahead of me. Because of that I came back today and picked up a few more pieces. In the end I picked up more, both in terms of number of pieces and money spent, than at regular cons (where it is not unusual for me to come back empty handed). Some of my new acquisitions were by artists I was not previously familiar with, which is always a plus for me.
  10. My oldest, cover for Pocket Comics #4 (January 1942) The first piece of original art that I bought and therefore my longest owned, cover for Dakota North #1 (June 1986) by Tony Salmons.
  11. That was at a time when Garney was popular. In fact I bought a couple of double page spreads by Garney for that price at that time. Think about the prices that Jim Lee demands today. I am not comparing the artists, just that contemporary art by popular comic book artists will be priced higher. I do not think their prices goes down with age as much as not following the same price climb that other art generally follow.
  12. How about turning the theme backwards, art created as a cover but ended up being used in the story. The original Simon and Kirby art for the transfer of Fighting American from his previous body still existed (but current location unknown) and showed the art was intended for a cover. However it ended up being used in the story.
  13. I bought the Avengers #6 page from Conrad about that time period. Payed much less than the price given by the ad. Still have it.