Frazetta painting sells for $1.5 million at San Diego Comicon

[metropoliscomics]

 

There is something very disturbing in painting over a published cover with a brand new drastically different image. A complete turn-off.

 

Steve, let's not forget that numerous Van Goghs, Renoir, Rembrandts and even dare I say Da Vincis are over painted with entirely new paintings. In the case of the Mona Lisa, it is believe there are 2 abandoned, but completed works over painted...

 

It's destroying the published image that I have a problem with. Van Goghs were not published and then re-painted. This painting was.

[NelsonAI]

 

While there may be some focus on $ value, I do find some of the commentary on this thread enlightening.

 

1) Rich always has great historic commentary and never pulls any punches.

2) I never realized that Frazetta had painted over the published cover to create a new one. I saw the similarities but just thought it was a different version.

 

Yes, I'm a long time OA collector but I still can find some insight on threads like this one.

 

I can however do without the references to Canadian musical artists with all due respect to my friends from up North.

 

Cheers!

N.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[2020-migration]

 

There is something very disturbing in painting over a published cover with a brand new drastically different image. A complete turn-off.

 

Steve, let's not forget that numerous Van Goghs, Renoir, Rembrandts and even dare I say Da Vincis are over painted with entirely new paintings. In the case of the Mona Lisa, it is believe there are 2 abandoned, but completed works over painted...

 

It's destroying the published image that I have a problem with. Van Goghs were not published and then re-painted. This painting was.

 

Spoken like a true comic book geek

 

By the way - I agree

 

Something about the eternally frozen image of a published piece that adds to the numinosity

 

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/n/numinosity.html

[Bronty]

well from what I understand this is hardly the only frazetta that's been fiddled with since publication so its kind of par for the course, isn't it? apparently he liked to rework the images a lot. maybe not to quite this extent I guess, but if what I hear is true a good number have had minor tweaks over the years.

[comicartcom]

It's destroying the published image that I have a problem with. Van Goghs were not published and then re-painted. This painting was.

 

I fully understand and appreciate this perspective Steve. I also agree with you. However, what's done is done and at least Frank did a bang up job on the painting

 

I'm more disturbed by the Vampirella #1 cover where he nudified her.

 

While there may be some focus on $ value, I do find some of the commentary on this thread enlightening.

 

1) Rich always has great historic commentary and never pulls any punches.

 

Nelson, why sugar-coat it? It is what it is, and changing the facts by omission is a dis-service to students of knowledge. Also, why spend 5 or 10 posts to get to a point when just being straight-forward with the facts and truth works in one?

 

(thumbs u

[bedrockcomics]

well from what I understand this is hardly the only frazetta that's been fiddled with since publication so its kind of par for the course, isn't it? apparently he liked to rework the images a lot. maybe not to quite this extent I guess, but if what I hear is true a good number have had minor tweaks over the years.

 

 

He was never satisfied......They only got better

[comicartcom]

well from what I understand this is hardly the only frazetta that's been fiddled with since publication so its kind of par for the course, isn't it? apparently he liked to rework the images a lot. maybe not to quite this extent I guess, but if what I hear is true a good number have had minor tweaks over the years.

 

 

He was never satisfied......They only got better

 

Rick has a very good point

[rockman2008]

well from what I understand this is hardly the only frazetta that's been fiddled with since publication so its kind of par for the course, isn't it? apparently he liked to rework the images a lot. maybe not to quite this extent I guess, but if what I hear is true a good number have had minor tweaks over the years.

 

 

He was never satisfied......They only got better

 

"Better" is in the eyes of the beholder. To me first impressions will always be strongest, and I will always prefer the earlier published version.

[bocaratondefense]

Generally I prefer the published versions as well, but the final Destroyer painting is, in my opinion, much better than the version used for the Lancer covers.

 

 

[Claudio]

Money legitimizes collectibles. That's just the way it is, unfortunately.

 

To who? To those that only care about the value and not the collectible itself. People who think comic books are silly or don't think about them at all suddenly take notice when something sells for $1m. This however is supposed to be a forum for collectors that are already fans of the medium/collectible. I understand that noteworthy prices will create some chatter but it's always (as far as I can tell) overwhelmingly the most popular threads. It's just a little... disheartening I guess is the best word I can come up with.

 

I agree... But in the popular culture, money talks. It is what it is.

[ivegotneatstuff]

They might have had to sell something to pay estate taxes no? I am so so so glad I was able to see all those pieces in the museum two years ago...

[bocaratondefense]

There is no Federal estate tax for 2010.

[Claudio]

Legitimized...

 

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/ap-conan-painting-sold.html

 

 

[comix4fun]

They might have had to sell something to pay estate taxes no? I am so so so glad I was able to see all those pieces in the museum two years ago...

 

 

No estate tax for 2010, but there must be attorney's fees surrounding the disposition of assets, property taxes, as well as expenses, costs, and needs that none of us know of or are privy to at this time.

[tth2]

umm.. I was being sarcastic! Guess it didn't translate

I know you were! But I really do like Faye Wong.

[tth2]

If OA tanked tomorrow and POGS were back in fashion and fetching major bucks, I wonder how quickly the tide and popularity would shift.

 

[tth2]

Here is the original painting as it appeared on the Lancer novelization. That painting as it was originally done no longer exists. If I remember correctly, Frazetta painted over the Conan figure and turned the painting into the one shown in this thread that was sold. If he didn't like a painting he did or thought he could improve it, that is just what he would do after the fact! I agree that the revised painting is much more powerful.

 

 

I really like the original version. The later one is spectacular, obviously. It's like a whirlwind of fury. But I really like the original too. It's almost like Conan is at peace with all the fury around him. It's quite different and I really like it.

 

There is something very disturbing in painting over a published cover with a brand new drastically different image. A complete turn-off.

Couldn't come up with the scratch to buy it, huh?

[tth2]

 

There is something very disturbing in painting over a published cover with a brand new drastically different image. A complete turn-off.

 

Steve, let's not forget that numerous Van Goghs, Renoir, Rembrandts and even dare I say Da Vincis are over painted with entirely new paintings. In the case of the Mona Lisa, it is believe there are 2 abandoned, but completed works over painted...

 

It's destroying the published image that I have a problem with. Van Goghs were not published and then re-painted. This painting was.

So you're saying that at the end of the day this is just commercial art, which derives its value from having been published, and therefore if there is no link between the painting and the published piece, then it's not worthy? As opposed to fine art which stands on its own?

[delekkerste]

I'm more disturbed by the Vampirella #1 cover where he nudified her.

 

Nudified her and gave her a couple of very ugly clubbed feet where her boots used to be. This totally ruined the painting (to be fair, not one of my favorites, even in its original form) as far as I'm concerned (I know at least one other super hard-core Vampi collector/Frazetta fan-owner who feels the same way). Just because Frazetta was the best doesn't mean he was perfect.

 

I do think the re-done versions of Conan the Buccaneer (aka "The Destroyer") and Conan the Avenger improved upon the originals. Though, like Steve, I think Frazetta probably should have left well enough alone and just done a separate version if he was dissatisfied with the original published images.

[Bronty]

 

There is something very disturbing in painting over a published cover with a brand new drastically different image. A complete turn-off.

 

Steve, let's not forget that numerous Van Goghs, Renoir, Rembrandts and even dare I say Da Vincis are over painted with entirely new paintings. In the case of the Mona Lisa, it is believe there are 2 abandoned, but completed works over painted...

 

It's destroying the published image that I have a problem with. Van Goghs were not published and then re-painted. This painting was.

So you're saying that at the end of the day this is just commercial art, which derives its value from having been published, and therefore if there is no link between the painting and the published piece, then it's not worthy? As opposed to fine art which stands on its own?

 

Hopefully I'm not just being argumentative but I think there are cases when fine art doesn't stand on its own either. IIRC, the "stuffed shark" piece that was paid millions for was dipped in an incorrect chemical solution and basically rotted, needing to be replaced. I very much doubt a new buyer would place the same value on it knowing the piece has zero of the original left in it. It just doesn't happen much in either illustration or fine art I don't think. Usually people leave their published images alone and move on to other projects.