$1,000,000 Frazetta painting confirmed

[artcollector9]

It only takes ONE person to pay the price...Frazetta doesn't need to be the national phenomenon that Rockwell was (Frank loves and admires Rockwell very much, by the way).

 

'Niche' artists can do very well.

 

Plus, different kinds of folks are entering the marketplace now. Who would have thought in the 1940s-50s-60s that 'big money' would chase comics books to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars?

 

'Pop' culture has arrived. Warhol sells for 44 MIL, and his 'art' is pure and was largely done by assistants. Damien Hirst does an installation of junk performance art such as a shark in a tank and sells 200 MIL in two days.

 

If trash modern art does so well, how long until Frazetta, a REAL artist, sells for 10 MIL+? I'd say not long at all... And by comparison he would be a bargain at that.

 

If we were to sell The Egyptian Queen, we would be able to get multiple of millions of dollars for it, no question about it.

 

The point is that Frank has been able to get $1 Mil for certain pieces for many years now, but he decided to accept that price last week.

 

There is a price below which the family just won't sell, as they love the art too much.

 

Rob

 

 

[*paull*]

 

'Pop' culture has arrived. Warhol sells for 44 MIL, and his 'art' is pure and was largely done by assistants. Damien Hirst does an installation of junk performance art such as a shark in a tank and sells 200 MIL in two days.

 

If trash modern art does so well, how long until Frazetta, a REAL artist, sells for 10 MIL+? I'd say not long at all... And by comparison he would be a bargain at that.

 

mess or not, Warhol is viewed as a massive figure in modern art by the collectors that matter: big wallets who want to amass collections containing examples of the biggest names. And Hirst, Murakami, Prince, etc are viewed as the next generation. Whether they used assistants or not, created multiples, or made art that you don't or can't appreciate, the collectors have proven that it doesn't matter and won't matter. If you were to poll every collector in this year's Art In America top 100 collectors, not a single one would put Frazetta on any list, 100 deep or even 1000 deep of the most important artists of the 20th century. No slight against Frazetta, but he's definitely a niche artist, and I don't see his work escaping that label.

 

[buyatari]

I'm not really sure why this is striking a nerve with some here. How did this thread become a he is/isn't the greatest artist anyway?

 

The thread is about supply and demand and the price which one of his paintings recenty sold for. While it was a quality painting most would not consider it his single best piece or his most famous piece and if you can accept that much then it really isn't a stretch to assume that the ceiling price for his work has not yet been reached.

 

 

[artcollector9]

I agree with buyatari!

 

This thread is about a price barrier that was broken of $1 mil for a painting by Frazetta that was NOT his best work...a price achieved while the artist is still living.

 

If someone can justify 44 Mil for a piece of pop art that really wasn't even art in the traditional sense, it isn't a stretch to predict a 5-10 Mil price for a top shelf Frazetta oil in the next few years, especially given the imminent massive inflation that is sure to arrive soon.

 

I also believe that Frazetta's stature will only rise with time. In 50 years, who will rank higher, Hirst or Frazetta? Who cares anyway?

 

Truly, who really cares about elitist intellectuals who wax poetic about a stuffed shark in a huge fishtank that set back some sucker 20 MIL? Do they know about ART??!

 

 

 

 

[buyatari]

any speculation on what paintings "may be worth" is a waste if there isn't a buyer willing to pay a price in that area

 

$1,000,000 is an astounding sum of money and the question becomes more like "would the person who paid the record sum be willing to pay $2,000,000 for Death Dealer??" which is also an astounding sum.

 

Don't forget, regardless of the quality of Frazetta's work, people who collect Van Gogh, Renoir and Warhol are not the general candidates to buy "illustration" for a million bucks and Frazetta is an illustrator by definition due to the area where his paintings originate (as paid-for to be published as covers etc) unlike Warhol, Renoir and Van Gogh who did the paintings to be sold directly to art collectiors and not for publication. This designation (as an illustrator) will always follow Frazetta in the marketplace.

 

I do not believe that there is market support at sums above $2mil for Frazetta at this time.

 

Wasn't there an illustrator who went by the name of Norman Rockwell ? -

 

yes there was, however his contribution to American Culture is, even today, greater than Frazettas

 

Don't forget that Rockwell worked as one of the lead illustrators of his time working for the most popular magazine of the time - the Saturday Evening Post - which was looked at as the All-American magazine that influenced everything about our nation and our culture. There was not a single person in the nation that did not see his work from the 20s to the 60s. Also don't forget that to be a cover artist for the Saturday Evening Post was to be the highest paid illustrator of the day. Thousands of dollars per cover at that time.

 

In other words, Rockwell influenced hundreds of millions of people on a daily basis and was one of the most well known artists of the 20th century for decades while he was still working.

 

Frazetta does not have that stature in American culture. he does to us as fans of comics, but to the general population, Frazetta is still largely unknown wheras Rockwell was known by almost everyone.

 

To measure another way... there hasn't been a new Rockwell painting for decades - he's been dead for 31 years - when Frazetta is gone for 31 years, let's see how his paintings value against Rockwell then.

 

NC Wyeth by the way, though known as an illustrator also did easel paintings both before and after his career as an illustrator, and his family is viewed as an "American Dynasty", and as Rockwell.. these two artists historically are 2 of the most famous Americans of their time

 

I can certainly agree with the argument that Rockwell was very mainstream. Today in America he is about as famous as an artist can become. If you showed some of his famous Post covers to random people in public, many would guess the artist who illustrated them and identify him by name. How many artists can you say that about? His name and that particular style of art (even that done by Leyendecker) is now commonly (mis)identified as that of Rockwell by those who wouldn't even consider themselves art lovers but you can't say that of Wyeth. While Rockwell's fame has grown N.C Wyeth (just as Leyendecker) slowly fade as those who once read the stories he illustrated die off.

 

 

[blowout]

 

If trash modern art does so well, how long until Frazetta, a REAL artist, sells for 10 MIL+?

 

 

Now you are crossing over into a completely different debate about "what is art?". Your opinion on who a real artist is certainly would not be the same as everyone elses.

 

Art is subjective after all is it not...

[*paull*]

...that really wasn't even art in the traditional sense...

 

 

Sorry to say, the market doesn't care what you think.

 

 

 

In 50 years, who will rank higher, Hirst or Frazetta? Who cares anyway?

 

Truly, who really cares about elitist intellectuals who wax poetic about a stuffed shark in a huge fishtank that set back some sucker 20 MIL? Do they know about ART??!

 

 

So what exactly is going to make art collectors and intellectuals wake up to see Frazetta's modern art cache? Will they discover the before-ignored value of Conan paperbacks? Of Famous Funnies comic book covers?

 

Regarding Hirst, Warhol, Murakami, etc., history has been written, and so has Frazetta's. For some reason you just refuse to accept it.

 

 

 

 

[Nexus]

Let me preface this by saying I know nothing of contemporary art. "Damien Hirst" means nothing to me. However, after watching the documentary THE GREAT CONTEMPORARY ART BUBBLE (I posted a link to it in an earlier thread), I had to laugh. There is no way you will ever convince me that a shark encased in plastic is more valid as "art" than a Frazetta. Hell, even a Mike Hoffman. And don't get me started on that display of cigarette butts.

 

So if enough of the uber-rich can get snowed by tastemakers into believing Hirst produces great "art", then who's to say the same can't happen with anything else? Not to go all KK or anything...

 

Someone posted a fascinating link about "art funds" in a thread that got erased because of KK's participation. A shame, because it was interesting otherwise. This newly launched fund was of particular interest to me:

 

http://www.emotionalassets.com/

 

Just the name of the company says it all. How much longer before comics and OA are on their radar? Maybe never...but $1M sales will get someone's attention.

 

 

[buyatari]

So what exactly is going to make art collectors and intellectuals wake up to see Frazetta's modern art cache?

 

Why do they have to ?

 

Will they discover the before-ignored value of Conan paperbacks? Of Famous Funnies comic book covers? Regarding Hirst, Warhol, Murakami, etc., history has been written, and so has Frazetta's. For some reason you just refuse to accept it.

 

 

History isn't written it is constantly being written. Some artists fade from favor and others aren't appreciated until after they are gone. How others will see an artist years from now is anyone guess but it doesn't really matter if his work doesn't hang next to Warhol in a musuem.

 

Let us say for argument that every art critic joins forces and commonly denounces illustration art as a non-art. That will not stop those who apprecaite the art from buying it. You'd think this topic was brought up in a fine art forum. Doesn't everyone here collect illustartion art?

[*paull*]

I don't have a horse in this race. I don't have a Warhol hanging on my wall, and my comic book art collection is modest. However, I have read as much about modern art (maybe more) as I have comic book illustration. I think that the people here who want to fly the OA flag could really benefit from learning more about the modern art world.

 

I think there are people that think that if one great shining hope like Frazetta can break the barrier of the castle gates and "cross over" to the art world proper, then the rest of the comic book greats can also storm the castle and be valued by the same intellectuals and collectors that revere Warhol, etc. I don't know what these people are waiting for, frankly. Comic book art is a hundred years old. Lichtenstein "appropriated" comic books almost 50 years ago. Kirby's career was over almost 40 years ago. Tick tock.

 

 

[Tim's Freedom]

I remember seeing Frazetta as boy growing up working at my LCS and being struck by the

 

uniqueness of his artistic ability. And know 1 million bucks... way cool!

[*paull*]

So what exactly is going to make art collectors and intellectuals wake up to see Frazetta's modern art cache?

 

Why do they have to ?

 

 

That's my question exactly. But obviously, some people are krazy...

 

P.S.: I should also mention that I am a fan of Frazetta's work. I just tire of hearing "why doesn't the rest of the world value what I (and my friends) love?"

[comicartcom]

I think that the people here who want to fly the OA flag could really benefit from learning more about the modern art world.

 

Specifically on that quote, I couldn't agree more.

 

Having such knowledge gives one a perspective of understanding.

 

But I would go even further. I would say that art collectors of any kind should also read books on:

 

the History of Art

the History of Art in America

The Impressionists

American Art of the Golden Era (18th + 19th century art)

Art of the Rennaisance

Modern Art

 

etc etc etc.

 

it is only by reading such material that you can give yourself a solid knowledge of art of any kind and what makes one art better than another or why one artist becomes more important than others and why some artist's art is more valuable than another's.

 

Damien Hirst, who is more of a "conceptualist" has become expensive art because he promoted himself in the world of art and happily sold his art to fans who paid ever higher prices.

 

the Frazettas in some ways actually "hamstrung" the values of his art by not selling some pieces for the kind of money they had been offered. This essentially kept the prices lower than they may otherwise have been. However they did this for an assortment of reasons, among them that Frank's output is considerably lower than most artists, especially those in the field of illustration, by Frank's choice. He did not wish to work every day at the drawing board for 12 hours doing both book illustration and covers for a variety of subjects. As a result, he has fewer pieces to sell.

 

Norman Saunders did 20 pieces or more for every one Frazetta

Kirby did probably 200 pieces for every Frazetta

 

Rob.. I hear you when you say Egyptian Queen could sell for beaucoup cash. I believe it, and Death Dealer and Conan, which are the three keystones to Frazetta's career. Until that happens, it's like saying the Mona Lisa would be worth $500,000,000.... It isn't selling.. it's only value is for insurance purposes

 

But beyond those three paintings, I'll bet that $1,000,000 remains a milestone for some time.. Not many people have that money to spend and all the paintings are not of the same quality. Furthermore, if Frank won't sell a painting today that he could for $2 or $3million, waits 10 more years and sells it for $4 or $6 million.... is that really selling it for more?? Invested wisely, $2million becomes $4million or more in 10 years. I'm not saying Frazetta should sell the paintings, I'm just saying there are other perspectives to what is the value of something.

 

Rich

[Nexus]

I don't have a horse in this race. I don't have a Warhol hanging on my wall, and my comic book art collection is modest. However, I have read as much about modern art (maybe more) as I have comic book illustration. I think that the people here who want to fly the OA flag could really benefit from learning more about the modern art world.

 

I think there are people that think that if one great shining hope like Frazetta can break the barrier of the castle gates and "cross over" to the art world proper, then the rest of the comic book greats can also storm the castle and be valued by the same intellectuals and collectors that revere Warhol, etc. I don't know what these people are waiting for, frankly. Comic book art is a hundred years old. Lichtenstein "appropriated" comic books almost 50 years ago. Kirby's career was over almost 40 years ago. Tick tock.

 

 

Heh...well, all I'm saying is that as goofy as comic art looks to the rest of the world, so does a shark encased in plastic to me. At least my goofy's cheaper.

 

How does a Warhol or a Hirst come to be valued by collectors in the first place? What motivates people to collect these artists? It can't just be solely about the art.

 

As for Frazetta crossing over...makes no difference to me. I don't own any, either. It wouldn't surprise me, though, if he and other illustrators (like the Studio guys) got more attention from the mainstream...or if even certain comic artists like Kirby became appreciated outside our hobby. Granted, $1M is a pittance relative to some contemporary art. But $1M is $1M and such sales will inevitably bring in outside interest. For better or for worse.

 

Anyhow, even in the kraziest scenarios, we're only talking about a small handful of guys who ever worked in comics. For now, all just fodder for a b.s. session.

 

[tylerdurden-migration]

I don't have a horse in this race. I don't have a Warhol hanging on my wall, and my comic book art collection is modest. However, I have read as much about modern art (maybe more) as I have comic book illustration. I think that the people here who want to fly the OA flag could really benefit from learning more about the modern art world.

 

I think there are people that think that if one great shining hope like Frazetta can break the barrier of the castle gates and "cross over" to the art world proper, then the rest of the comic book greats can also storm the castle and be valued by the same intellectuals and collectors that revere Warhol, etc. I don't know what these people are waiting for, frankly. Comic book art is a hundred years old. Lichtenstein "appropriated" comic books almost 50 years ago. Kirby's career was over almost 40 years ago. Tick tock.

 

 

Heh...well, all I'm saying is that as goofy as comic art looks to the rest of the world, so does a shark encased in plastic to me. At least my goofy's cheaper.

 

 

 

Couldn't agree more. If the cover to Action # 1 or Spiderman # 1 were to ever surface then I think we would see 8 figure sales before very long. It makes you realize that it is all about the quality of the piece. The OA hobby is still relatively young and I would bet in the next 25 years that prices appreciate considerably. Especialy on iconic characters and artists like Superman and Batman or by Kirby and by Frazetta.

[georgehagenauer-migration]

It is also nice that the artist got the money as opposed to a speculator just flipping the art.

Lord knows Frank deserves the benefit of a lifetime of incredible work and it is nice that hestil lahs some art and is a live to reap the benefits. So many artists ahd t osell off their art cheap to live or never got it back

Best George Hagenauer

[Solar]

Comic art and contemporary/fine art are as different as night and day and IMO there's no point in comparing them or saying one is better than the other. Contemporary art collectors are likely to say that comic art is "just illustration." Comic art collectors are likely to say that contemporary art is "just a shark in a vitrine."

 

Comic art is about the image/nostalgia; contemporary is more focused on the concept of the work and its relevance to art history. It's just silly and ignorant to call Warhol "trash" - he had a far greater impact on American culture than Frazetta and, whether you like it or not, he is at the head of a major movement in art history. On the other hand, Frazetta is the premier fantasy illustrator and can obviously paint circles around Warhol. It's completely apples and oranges.

[artcollector9]

" It's just silly and ignorant to call Warhol "trash" - he had a far greater impact on American culture than Frazetta and, whether you like it or not, he is at the head of a major movement in art history"

 

 

 

Something having a great impact on America doesn't preclude it from being trash, does it?

 

(Especially when you consider we are quickly becoming, or have become, a trash, low brow culture.)

 

 

 

[Solar]

(Especially when you consider we are quickly becoming, or have become, a trash, low brow culture.)

 

I think one could easily call an illustration for the cover of a Conan the Barbarian novel low brow trash too.

[artcollector9]

It depends on the illustration!

 

I believe Frazetta's execution elevated the material.