With Hard Asset Prices Plummeting, What's Next for the OA Market?

[delekkerste]

Check this out this Mel Ramos painting:

 

Someone paid $800K for that. And it wasn't one of the usual suspects in our hobby. Again, I'm not counting on it...but hesitate to say "never".

 

That proves my point exactly, Felix. It wasn't one of the usual suspects in our hobby, because, to them, they want a great piece of Green Lantern OA done by one of the character's signature artists, from a key storyline, that appeared in a published comic book. To the Ramos buyer, they are buying a Mel Ramos piece of early Pop Art. The fact that it depicts Green Lantern is entirely incidental. And never the twain shall meet. NEVER.

 

The fact that someone was willing to pay $800K for a piece of fine art depicting a comic book character says absolutely zero about what that person might pay for actual production art featuring that character. Absolutely zero. People paying tens of millions for a Lichtenstein or a Warhol comic-themed painting simply do not equate what they collect and what we collect. Like I said, Cadillacs and kumquats.

[vodou]

Check this out this Mel Ramos painting:

 

Someone paid $800K for that. And it wasn't one of the usual suspects in our hobby. Again, I'm not counting on it...but hesitate to say "never".

 

That proves my point exactly, Felix. It wasn't one of the usual suspects in our hobby, because, to them, they want a great piece of Green Lantern OA done by one of the character's signature artists, from a key storyline, that appeared in a published comic book. To the Ramos buyer, they are buying a Mel Ramos piece of early Pop Art. The fact that it depicts Green Lantern is entirely incidental. And never the twain shall meet. NEVER.

And if it had been one of Mel's girlies...over a mil. GL was definitely not a positive part of the equation!

[delekkerste]

All it takes is one buyer of that class to move the needle. You don't need the other five. In the past 20 years, there have been individual collectors at various times who have proven to be game changers. I'm thinking of three in particular. It doesn't take much...which either points to the limited appeal of comic book art or to the possibility that we are still in the early stages.

 

This is a hobby that is small enough where, I agree, a small number of moneyed buyers can move the needle somewhat. The Vacuum has certainly moved the needle at the ultra high-end, but we're talking about 0.1% of the OA out there. But, none of these buyers are Jay-Z or Roman Abramovich or Stevie Cohen realizing that they'd rather collect Kirbys over Koons. If you spend any time talking to people in the art world, you will quickly realize that this is strictly a pipe-dream of the highest magnitude.

 

 

Mid-seven figures nets you a cute, beginner's contemporary art collection. In OA, mid-seven figures makes you a king. That's potentially attractive to the type of collector who wants trophies, even if the audience to admire them is still small.

 

I don't agree with that characterization. You can assemble an excellent contemporary art collection with mid-7 figures. You're not going to have 8-figure Warhols, Basquiats, Koons, etc. of course, but you can own excellent examples by, say, Hirst, Condo, Kruger, Prince, Wiley, Walker, Haring, etc. $500K can get you the ASM #50 cover or probably 99+% of what is in NYC galleries. If your only reference are the headline grabbing evening contemporary art sales, you wouldn't necessarily think so. But if you actually pound the pavement and look at what's in the galleries, even the top ones, you'll find that prices are often much lower than you would expect, especially if your reference point is high-end OA. Are you going to get the best of the best of the biggest names on a mid-7 figure budget? No (but you can certainly buy the best of the best of up and coming artists). But, I think it is a ludicrous comparison to compare the best of the best OA to the best of the best fine art. Obviously everything on the planet is going to look ludicrously cheap next to the latter, whether you're talking about OA or ANYTHING else. And, to these peoples' peers, a tasteful, mid-7-figure contemporary art collection will be far more respected and prestigious than the equivalent value OA collection. Measuring the "best of the best" in one category vs. another is a totally spurious comparison; to the moneyed elites, the mid-7-figure contemporary art collection will be viewed like an entry level Ferrari while the trophy-laden OA collection will be regarded like a top of the line Subaru.

 

You know the type of collector who would rather be a big game trophy hunter in OA vs. owning a merely nice collection of contemporary art? The kind of collector who grew up with comics and loves the medium. It's not like a newly minted hedge fund or tech millionaire is going to wake up and say, "Hmmm, I'm rich enough now to buy art...should I be a big fish in the comic art world or just be a middle class fine art collector?" That thought doesn't even cross people's minds! The more probable thought process is, "Hmmm, should I start buying contemporary art...or maybe I should buy a luxury vacation home or supercar or a fancy watch." To people who don't already love comics, being a King of OA does not confer the image or prestige or envy that they crave. And it never will. This is a small hobby full of people who "get it". Outsiders will never "get it" and will never even begin to frame or contemplate the question of whether to collect OA or contemporary art in the way that you and others here are.

[Bronty]

Actually all it takes is a 'significant' dealer and several 'significant' collectors (from the Big Boys club) to all suddenly begin promoting comic OA. Quietly at first, then the waitlists begin.

 

 

You may be right about that, but why would a significant dealer take the risk of potential embarassment with good customers by promoting comic OA? My sense is they would risk looking like insufficiently_thoughtful_persons, and over what is to them small potatoes.

[vodou]

Actually all it takes is a 'significant' dealer and several 'significant' collectors (from the Big Boys club) to all suddenly begin promoting comic OA. Quietly at first, then the waitlists begin.

 

 

You may be right about that, but why would a significant dealer take the risk of potential embarassment with good customers by promoting comic OA? My sense is they would risk looking like insufficiently_thoughtful_persons, and over what is to them small potatoes.

Yes, I forgot to include "but I have no idea why anybody that could actually would."

 

And bouncing off Gene's comments above about newly-minted wealthy, even the Metallica boyz didn't hang onto their trophies for long (Kirk's complete X-Men #1, Lars' Basquiats et al). It's brief wish fulfillment but not really prized the way we'd think...and that's among diehard fanboyz too!

[Nexus]

Check this out this Mel Ramos painting:

 

Someone paid $800K for that. And it wasn't one of the usual suspects in our hobby. Again, I'm not counting on it...but hesitate to say "never".

 

That proves my point exactly, Felix. It wasn't one of the usual suspects in our hobby, because, to them, they want a great piece of Green Lantern OA done by one of the character's signature artists, from a key storyline, that appeared in a published comic book. To the Ramos buyer, they are buying a Mel Ramos piece of early Pop Art. The fact that it depicts Green Lantern is entirely incidental. And never the twain shall meet. NEVER.

 

The fact that someone was willing to pay $800K for a piece of fine art depicting a comic book character says absolutely zero about what that person might pay for actual production art featuring that character. Absolutely zero. People paying tens of millions for a Lichtenstein or a Warhol comic-themed painting simply do not equate what they collect and what we collect. Like I said, Cadillacs and kumquats.

 

Sure, I understand that. Because someone paid $12M for a specific shark in formaldehyde installed by a specific artist doesn't mean anything for other preserved sharks. My point, though, was more about the subject matter. The fact that someone paid $800K for a Mel Ramos Green Lantern says zero about what he/she might pay for a piece of Green Lantern OA. But it does say that it's possible for Green Lantern to sell for $800K. Given the right context and under the right conditions, of course. Did anyone ever dream that the conditions would ever be right for a shark-in-formaldehyde to sell for $12M? I have no doubt there are those who would have said "never". Again, while I don't like to compare OA with fine art, there really is no telling what might be considered "art" some day.

[Nexus]

Actually all it takes is a 'significant' dealer and several 'significant' collectors (from the Big Boys club) to all suddenly begin promoting comic OA. Quietly at first, then the waitlists begin.

 

 

You may be right about that, but why would a significant dealer take the risk of potential embarassment with good customers by promoting comic OA? My sense is they would risk looking like insufficiently_thoughtful_persons, and over what is to them small potatoes.

 

Every artist/art form needs an advocate. I do believe that with the right advocates (e.g. the right dealers, the right collectors, the right scholars), that anything is possible. No other way to explain why certain things are anointed as "art" and become trophy pieces for the rich-and-famous.

 

The contemporary art movement didn't emerge out of the womb fully accepted. It took time and the efforts of advocates. There's a book released last year called THE ART PROPHETS. It's a history of emerging artists/art forms (and specifically, art markets) since the '50s. For every artist who "popped", there was a dealer, collector, and/or institution that lead the way. Is this possible with OA? I agree with that it feels unlikely. But what's interesting is that there's a chapter in the book devoted solely to comic books and comic book art...

[Nexus]

All it takes is one buyer of that class to move the needle. You don't need the other five. In the past 20 years, there have been individual collectors at various times who have proven to be game changers. I'm thinking of three in particular. It doesn't take much...which either points to the limited appeal of comic book art or to the possibility that we are still in the early stages.

 

This is a hobby that is small enough where, I agree, a small number of moneyed buyers can move the needle somewhat. The Vacuum has certainly moved the needle at the ultra high-end, but we're talking about 0.1% of the OA out there. But, none of these buyers are Jay-Z or Roman Abramovich or Stevie Cohen realizing that they'd rather collect Kirbys over Koons. If you spend any time talking to people in the art world, you will quickly realize that this is strictly a pipe-dream of the highest magnitude.

 

 

Mid-seven figures nets you a cute, beginner's contemporary art collection. In OA, mid-seven figures makes you a king. That's potentially attractive to the type of collector who wants trophies, even if the audience to admire them is still small.

 

I don't agree with that characterization. You can assemble an excellent contemporary art collection with mid-7 figures. You're not going to have 8-figure Warhols, Basquiats, Koons, etc. of course, but you can own excellent examples by, say, Hirst, Condo, Kruger, Prince, Wiley, Walker, Haring, etc. $500K can get you the ASM #50 cover or probably 99+% of what is in NYC galleries. If your only reference are the headline grabbing evening contemporary art sales, you wouldn't necessarily think so. But if you actually pound the pavement and look at what's in the galleries, even the top ones, you'll find that prices are often much lower than you would expect, especially if your reference point is high-end OA. Are you going to get the best of the best of the biggest names on a mid-7 figure budget? No (but you can certainly buy the best of the best of up and coming artists). But, I think it is a ludicrous comparison to compare the best of the best OA to the best of the best fine art. Obviously everything on the planet is going to look ludicrously cheap next to the latter, whether you're talking about OA or ANYTHING else. And, to these peoples' peers, a tasteful, mid-7-figure contemporary art collection will be far more respected and prestigious than the equivalent value OA collection. Measuring the "best of the best" in one category vs. another is a totally spurious comparison; to the moneyed elites, the mid-7-figure contemporary art collection will be viewed like an entry level Ferrari while the trophy-laden OA collection will be regarded like a top of the line Subaru.

 

You know the type of collector who would rather be a big game trophy hunter in OA vs. owning a merely nice collection of contemporary art? The kind of collector who grew up with comics and loves the medium. It's not like a newly minted hedge fund or tech millionaire is going to wake up and say, "Hmmm, I'm rich enough now to buy art...should I be a big fish in the comic art world or just be a middle class fine art collector?" That thought doesn't even cross people's minds! The more probable thought process is, "Hmmm, should I start buying contemporary art...or maybe I should buy a luxury vacation home or supercar or a fancy watch." To people who don't already love comics, being a King of OA does not confer the image or prestige or envy that they crave. And it never will. This is a small hobby full of people who "get it". Outsiders will never "get it" and will never even begin to frame or contemplate the question of whether to collect OA or contemporary art in the way that you and others here are.

 

As you know based on our offline conversations, I agree with you. Mostly. I wonder though...how does a shark-in-formaldehyde become "prestigious" and "tasteful"? Someone had to decide and others had to follow. And did the fans of the shark grow up loving preserved sharks?

[suspense39]

All it takes is one buyer of that class to move the needle. You don't need the other five. In the past 20 years, there have been individual collectors at various times who have proven to be game changers. I'm thinking of three in particular. It doesn't take much...which either points to the limited appeal of comic book art or to the possibility that we are still in the early stages.

 

This is a hobby that is small enough where, I agree, a small number of moneyed buyers can move the needle somewhat. The Vacuum has certainly moved the needle at the ultra high-end, but we're talking about 0.1% of the OA out there. But, none of these buyers are Jay-Z or Roman Abramovich or Stevie Cohen realizing that they'd rather collect Kirbys over Koons. If you spend any time talking to people in the art world, you will quickly realize that this is strictly a pipe-dream of the highest magnitude.

 

 

 

 

Mid-seven figures nets you a cute, beginner's contemporary art collection. In OA, mid-seven figures makes you a king. That's potentially attractive to the type of collector who wants trophies, even if the audience to admire them is still small.

 

I don't agree with that characterization. You can assemble an excellent contemporary art collection with mid-7 figures. You're not going to have 8-figure Warhols, Basquiats, Koons, etc. of course, but you can own excellent examples by, say, Hirst, Condo, Kruger, Prince, Wiley, Walker, Haring, etc. $500K can get you the ASM #50 cover or probably 99+% of what is in NYC galleries. If your only reference are the headline grabbing evening contemporary art sales, you wouldn't necessarily think so. But if you actually pound the pavement and look at what's in the galleries, even the top ones, you'll find that prices are often much lower than you would expect, especially if your reference point is high-end OA. Are you going to get the best of the best of the biggest names on a mid-7 figure budget? No (but you can certainly buy the best of the best of up and coming artists). But, I think it is a ludicrous comparison to compare the best of the best OA to the best of the best fine art. Obviously everything on the planet is going to look ludicrously cheap next to the latter, whether you're talking about OA or ANYTHING else. And, to these peoples' peers, a tasteful, mid-7-figure contemporary art collection will be far more respected and prestigious than the equivalent value OA collection. Measuring the "best of the best" in one category vs. another is a totally spurious comparison; to the moneyed elites, the mid-7-figure contemporary art collection will be viewed like an entry level Ferrari while the trophy-laden OA collection will be regarded like a top of the line Subaru.

 

You know the type of collector who would rather be a big game trophy hunter in OA vs. owning a merely nice collection of contemporary art? The kind of collector who grew up with comics and loves the medium. It's not like a newly minted hedge fund or tech millionaire is going to wake up and say, "Hmmm, I'm rich enough now to buy art...should I be a big fish in the comic art world or just be a middle class fine art collector?" That thought doesn't even cross people's minds! The more probable thought process is, "Hmmm, should I start buying contemporary art...or maybe I should buy a luxury vacation home or supercar or a fancy watch." To people who don't already love comics, being a King of OA does not confer the image or prestige or envy that they crave. And it never will. This is a small hobby full of people who "get it". Outsiders will never "get it" and will never even begin to frame or contemplate the question of whether to collect OA or contemporary art in the way that you and others here are.

 

I really like this analysis, and agree.

On a side note, I collect both and hang the art together....i am probably one of the few, based on reading many posts here, that sees both art forms as mutually important, and actually feed each other. the asthetics are not a one way street, comic art borrows from fine art as well.

[inovrmihd]

After reading through the last several comments, I think Gene makes a pretty good case on the chances of a hedge fund manager/ Jay-Z type getting involved. It still doesn't explain the McSpidey nut punch cover. If anyone knows what the hell happened there, please im me offline.

[bocaratondefense]

I think we are all curious about what happened with the ASM 328. I know Metropolis put out a press release about winning the ASM 328, but did they really keep it?

 

 

[SAM MALONE-migration]

Hume was so right about our faculties limited by cause/effect & our prejudices & bias. Ouspensky too mentions that we are thrown in these bodies and it is hard to get outside oneself.

 

History is prosaic. There is so much going on under the surface that most cant see [except Gene ].

 

In the 1800's Manhattan was a field. In the 1900's it was a very developed urban area. In the 2000's Manhattan has become a Metropolis.

 

Every 25 years the turnings move in directions that are predictable in direction but not in detail.

 

25 - 100 years from today contemporary art might be less sought and OA may be in vogue.

 

Anyone who tells you they have unique insight into the OA market and its development is a snake oil salesman.

[Bronty]

I think we are all curious about what happened with the ASM 328. I know Metropolis put out a press release about winning the ASM 328, but did they really keep it?

 

 

Magic 8 ball says.... "unlikely"

[delekkerste]

As you know based on our offline conversations, I agree with you. Mostly. I wonder though...how does a shark-in-formaldehyde become "prestigious" and "tasteful"? Someone had to decide and others had to follow. And did the fans of the shark grow up loving preserved sharks?

 

A shark in formaldehyde became prestigious and valuable because Damien Hirst and Charles Saatchi conspired to make it so. A-ha, you say, well, why couldn't some tastemaker in the future do the same for comic book art? Because a shark in a tank of formaldehyde had no grounding or pre-conceptions about whether it is or isn't art. Comic book art, on the other hand, carries with it a lot of baggage - it's already considered by various people to be a collectible, illustration (in the pejorative sense of the word), work-for-hire, Americana, production art, kiddie stuff, etc. At best, the open-minded among the fine art world consider OA to be its own thing. But it will never be "their" thing.

 

Every time I hear people pontificating about how some intrepid fine art dealer could promote OA to the next level, I have to laugh. It just ain't going to happen. The fine art world just operates completely differently than the OA world. It's not a matter of some dealer suddenly having an epiphany and wising up to OA. There is huge infrastructure, history and established processes that keep the fine art world spinning, things that simply don't exist or happen in the OA world (and vice versa).

 

Sorry to sound so strident, but sometimes I wish that people would get a grip and enjoy the great hobby we already have instead of wishing it was something that it isn't and is never going to be.

[Bronty]

I agree with all that but I am curious about the "huge infrastructure, history, and established processes." I know its probably not an easy question to give a short answer to, but can you elaborate just a touch? Are you referring to the wait lists and that sort of thing?

[Aman619]

You know the type of collector who would rather be a big game trophy hunter in OA vs. owning a merely nice collection of contemporary art? The kind of collector who grew up with comics and loves the medium. It's not like a newly minted hedge fund or tech millionaire is going to wake up and say, "Hmmm, I'm rich enough now to buy art...should I be a big fish in the comic art world or just be a middle class fine art collector?" That thought doesn't even cross people's minds! The more probable thought process is, "Hmmm, should I start buying contemporary art...or maybe I should buy a luxury vacation home or supercar or a fancy watch." To people who don't already love comics, being a King of OA does not confer the image or prestige or envy that they crave. And it never will. This is a small hobby full of people who "get it". Outsiders will never "get it" and will never even begin to frame or contemplate the question of whether to collect OA or contemporary art in the way that you and others here are.

 

I agree.

 

however, there COULD be a small subset of these financial tycoons who DO have an affinity for comics and characters. As we have seen, Hollywood in general looked down on comics through the 70s and 80s, as kid stuff etc. Stan moved out there and couldnt get anything of the ground. Ever!

 

But today, Hollywood demographics are filled with kids who grew up with Marvel and comics. Its these guys who saw and see potential in comics as films... (well, the grosses have done that) , but Stan is a very popular guy these days, and has been for a decade. Take a meeting with Stan the Man, a kids dream come true out there!

 

OK, my point is that, wouldnt it be possible, that given todays worldwide success in comics having been propelled by the movies, that we are growing a crop of Harvard MBAs that will in ten years have the cash AND THE INCLINATION to collect blue chip OA?

 

 

I think thats a possibility. And while I agree that museums aren't interested in production art at all, the top 100 pieces that DONT LOOK LIKE production art (paintings, clean clean stand alone drawings without stats and glue stains) might be a core of a museum collection.

 

I think theres a chance social barriers will morph in a direction that breaks down the walls even more between HIGH art and LOW art.

 

Si Im saying "theres a chance!"

 

[delekkerste]

OK, my point is that, wouldnt it be possible, that given todays worldwide success in comics having been propelled by the movies, that we are growing a crop of Harvard MBAs that will in ten years have the cash AND THE INCLINATION to collect blue chip OA?

 

That's always possible, but why would it be any more probable than the Harvard MBAs from the '70s and '80s and '90s who might have actually grown up with the actual comics as opposed to the films? The answer is: it's less probable. Nowadays, it's all about the films and comics themselves are the first derivative and OA is the second derivative. Is there a chance, as you said? Sure. But all logic says that it's a smaller chance than it has been in the past. Meanwhile, with virtually all comic art going to change hands at least once between now and then next 40 years, at the then-current prevailing prices, you better hope that there will be enough future collectors to even support prices where they are. My long-term prediction: fat chance.

 

 

I think thats a possibility. And while I agree that museums aren't interested in production art at all, the top 100 pieces that DONT LOOK LIKE production art (paintings, clean clean stand alone drawings without stats and glue stains) might be a core of a museum collection.

 

I disagree 100% and don't think this makes any sense at all. To the (minuscule) extent that they're going to want any of this material, it's going to be stuff that actually looks like comic book art, not paintings and drawings without stats and such.

 

Anyway, have to run...will get to Bronty's previous question later as it requires a lengthier response.

[Terry Doyle]

. . . while I agree that museums aren't interested in production art at all, the top 100 pieces that DONT LOOK LIKE production art (paintings, clean clean stand alone drawings without stats and glue stains) might be a core of a museum collection.

 

 

London's Science Museum, at South Kensington, United Kingdom, have displayed (and may continue to do so, haven't been there for a while) science-fiction OA. In particular Frank Hampson's Dan Dare comic-strip.

 

 

[Aman619]

OK, my point is that, wouldnt it be possible, that given todays worldwide success in comics having been propelled by the movies, that we are growing a crop of Harvard MBAs that will in ten years have the cash AND THE INCLINATION to collect blue chip OA?

 

That's always possible, but why would it be any more probable than the Harvard MBAs from the '70s and '80s and '90s who might have actually grown up with the actual comics as opposed to the films? The answer is: it's less probable. Nowadays, it's all about the films and comics themselves are the first derivative and OA is the second derivative. Is there a chance, as you said? Sure. But all logic says that it's a smaller chance than it has been in the past. Meanwhile, with virtually all comic art going to change hands at least once between now and then next 40 years, at the then-current prevailing prices, you better hope that there will be enough future collectors to even support prices where they are. My long-term prediction: fat chance.

 

 

I think thats a possibility. And while I agree that museums aren't interested in production art at all, the top 100 pieces that DONT LOOK LIKE production art (paintings, clean clean stand alone drawings without stats and glue stains) might be a core of a museum collection.

 

I disagree 100% and don't think this makes any sense at all. To the (minuscule) extent that they're going to want any of this material, it's going to be stuff that actually looks like comic book art, not paintings and drawings without stats and such.

 

Anyway, have to run...will get to Bronty's previous question later as it requires a lengthier response.

 

my thinking for the "this time its different" argument is that the MBS in the 70s were not us comics nerds. they were the smart nerds. We were loser nerds... average grades etc. Their families actually sneered when I would trot out a comic book on summer outings. SO those kids had an aversion to comics as kids stuff same as their parents.

 

But todays kids live and breathe comics as a natural part of the social consciousness, and Marvel is "cool." Thats the gateway I see as a possible generator of a future hedge funs guy dabbling in the best of the best comics and art. And, it would only take a few to move the needle to the next level.

 

I disagree that ANY museum would want pieces with stats that were not affixed for any reason other than artifice. That why I say they'd allow the best pieces that are clean: Frazetta, and, well, cant think of too many that dont have stats that arent paintings! SO that leaves famous covers WITH their godawful (probably replaced over time) stats.

 

[Aman619]

. . . while I agree that museums aren't interested in production art at all, the top 100 pieces that DONT LOOK LIKE production art (paintings, clean clean stand alone drawings without stats and glue stains) might be a core of a museum collection.

 

 

London's Science Museum, at South Kensington, United Kingdom, have displayed (and may continue to do so, haven't been there for a while) science-fiction OA. In particular Frank Hampson's Dan Dare comic-strip.

 

 

I think that SF art, mostly paintings and non-started pen and ink IS very much museum quality art. Or at least COULD be should more museums see fit someday.

 

Its the production art that IMO will be a deal breaker for them.