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

[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.

 

 

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.

 

Dan Dare comic -strip . . . I am talking about production art orginals.

 

I'm at work now, but will try to find some reference photos on the internet when I return home tomorrow.

[delekkerste]

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?

 

I'm talking mostly about the interplay between dealers, collectors, critics, curators, etc. Pretty much everything is done differently in the fine art world vs. the OA world and vice versa. I'll touch on some of it below.

 

Aman talks about the museum potential of comic art. First, I'm sorry, but he's totally wrong about museums having potential interest in comic art that resembles other museum art (e.g., paintings, drawings without stats, etc.) Aman, I'm sorry, but museum curators don't want to show what my girlfriend likes to refer as "Saddam Hussein art" (given the late Iraqi dictator's penchant for fantasy paintings).

 

And let me ask you this: just how is this art even supposed to get to the museum? You think the Metropolitan Museum is gonna send down a curator and a money man to Dallas to bid in the next Heritage auction? Pass the crack pipe, please! IF they had any interest at all in adding this material to their permanent collection, they'd want the best of the best - AND THEY'D WANT IT FOR FREE. Yes, they'd want a collector like, say, Eric Roberts or Jim Halperin, to simply gift them their collection (again, assuming they'd even want it at all). Does this sound like something that's going to happen in the numbers and quantities required to get this material into museums? Oh, the irony - big time collectors want the museum imprimatur to bolster the value of their collections, but the only way they'd even have a shot at seeing that happen is if they give their collections away to them...and leave an 8-figure donation on top of it. Best case is that maybe you could get a decent regional museum to bite.

 

And, again, that's if the top museums would even take the art in the first place (these days, they turn away most bequests since so little of it adds anything beyond what they already have). I mean, are they really going to hire or retrain a curator to become an expert in the Marvel Universe so they can write up an intelligent little sign next to the art (assuming it'd ever get displayed)? Are they going to hire/train Kirby experts and people who are versed in all the key issues, characters and storylines? Who are the critics and scholars that will applaud this move? Who are the patrons and donors who will support it financially? Who's going to propose this at the next Acquisitions Committee meeting?

 

On the dealer side, most galleries sell artwork in the primary market (i.e., the first time a piece of art is sold). Few people care about the primary market in OA - all the money and interest is in vintage. So, right off the bat, what major dealer is going to specialize in secondary art sales of vintage comic art? Even most OA dealers don't even deal in primary sales of OA, because most people don't care about 99.9999% of it.

 

You know, there is actually one comic artist who has made serious inroads into the fine art world. No, sorry, it's not BWS, Dave McKean, Jeff Jones, Bill Sienkiewicz or whoever your favorite comic artist is that has been shown in a gallery that nobody outside of the comics world cares about (sorry, the truth hurts). It's R. Crumb, who shows at David Zwirner, one of the top galleries out there. Not that people are beating down Zwirner's door to get a piece of Crumb, but he's at least taken somewhat seriously. Why, you ask? Because it's his work - he's an "auteur". The work is relatively easy to understand. There are no continuity considerations. You don't need to have read the past 50 years of Marvel superhero titles to understand it. There isn't a separate writer, artist, letterer, colorist, etc. working on characters that someone else created and were all edited by Smilin' Stan Lee.

 

To the extent that comic art gains any traction in the fine art/museum world, it's these "auteur" types that will dominate. R. Crumb. Dan Clowes. Chris Ware. Gary Panter. Maybe some Eisner and Kirby thrown in so people can relate. But no curator is going to give a about Spider-Man, Batman, the first appearance of Gambit, the Death of Gwen Stacy, or the fact that McSpidey #1 and X-Men #1 sold millions of copies and were beloved by kids everywhere in the '90s. You have to realize that outsiders to our hobby will simply not look at this material like you and I will look at it.

 

Again, everyone, love the hobby you have, not the pie in the sky one you want it to be.

[Bronty]

Thx Gene! A very interesting read; much appreciated.

 

Funny that you mention Crumb - I was thinking about him as somebody that might actually have a shot one day; I didn't realize that day was basically already here.

 

As a side note, does anyone know how there comes to be such a large volume of crumb at heritage? Its seems like every auction there are pages and pages and pages.

[drdroom]

 

You know, there is actually one comic artist who has made serious inroads into the fine art world. No, sorry, it's not BWS, Dave McKean, Jeff Jones, Bill Sienkiewicz or whichever your favorite comic artist is that has been shown in a gallery that nobody outside of the comics world cares about (sorry, the truth hurts). It's R. Crumb, who shows at David Zwirner, one of the top galleries out there. Not that people are beating down Zwirner's door to get a piece of Crumb, but he's at least taken somewhat seriously. Why, you ask? Because it's his work - he's an "auteur". The work is relatively easy to understand. There are no continuity considerations. You don't need to have read the past 50 years of Marvel superhero titles to understand it. There isn't a separate writer, artist, letterer, colorist, etc. working on characters that someone else created and were all edited by Smilin' Stan Lee.

 

To the extent that comic art gains any traction in the fine art/museum world, it's these "auteur" types that will dominate. R. Crumb. Dan Clowes. Chris Ware. Gary Panter. Maybe some Eisner and Kirby thrown in so people can relate.

 

I agree with you almost entirely on this topic, but Kirby IS an auteur who dominated all his collaborations and continuously reworked his own idiosyncratic vision, even under adverse conditions like Stan Lee. The art world (curators, critics, artists; not collectors yet) already holds him in high regard, and his splash pages hold a gallery wall pretty well. The weirdness of his drawing, that some comic fans find difficult, is entirely a plus for the fine art world. I loaned some pages to a show of Kirby, Leon Golub and Peter Voulkos recently, and the Kirbys looked great, much better than when they are hung next to a bunch of other comic art. But as you point out, there is a problem with fitting Kirby into the fine art paradigm, since he was not a fine artist. I think this is why terms like "outsider" and "primitive" get thrown at him by people who are actually trying to articulate his importance. It's an attempt to recast the commercial nature of his work as something more like a handicap or a disadvantaged condition that Kirby the genius had to struggle against. I don't think this will ever fly, though. I see the commercial imperative as a force that enabled Kirby, even as it damaged or aborted various of his works.

[inovrmihd]

Thanks Gene and everyone else who has contributed to this thread. It has been very enjoyable to read. Keep the comments coming (I still want to hear more stories about the dealer loans).

[Bronty]

I agree with you almost entirely on this topic, but Kirby IS an auteur who dominated all his collaborations and continuously reworked his own idiosyncratic vision, even under adverse conditions like Stan Lee.

 

I think you guys are using different definitions of the term or at least different perspectives on it. I think what Gene is getting at is that the types more likely to be accepted by the fine art crowd are those like Crumb whose work isn't about Biff! Bam! Pow! superheroes but about human nature, human beings, existence, sexuality. You know how the US superhero crowd looks at Barks' ducks like they are kid's stuff? Well I imagine the fine art crowd looks at superhero comics like they are kid's stuff. What goes around comes around ; I love barks ducks!

 

In other words. You are saying (if I may paraphrase) that Kirby was an auteur.. presumably meaning that his artistic voice shone through. What Gene is saying (if I may) is that nobody is going to care about whether or not a voice shone through unless it had something to say! And Biff Bam Pow & the Forever People are not going to cut it.

[drdroom]

I agree with you almost entirely on this topic, but Kirby IS an auteur who dominated all his collaborations and continuously reworked his own idiosyncratic vision, even under adverse conditions like Stan Lee.

 

I think you guys are using different definitions of the term or at least different perspectives on it. I think what Gene is getting at is that the types more likely to be accepted by the fine art crowd are those like Crumb whose work isn't about Biff! Bam! Pow! superheroes but about human nature, human beings, existence, sexuality. You know how the US superhero crowd looks at Barks' ducks like they are kid's stuff? Well I imagine the fine art crowd looks at superhero comics like they are kid's stuff. What goes around comes around ; I love barks ducks!

 

In other words. You are saying (if I may paraphrase) that Kirby was an auteur.. presumably meaning that his artistic voice shone through. What Gene is saying (if I may) is that nobody is going to care about whether or not a voice shone through unless it had something to say! And Biff Bam Pow & the Forever People are not going to cut it.

Actually I think Kirby's work does concern human nature, human beings, existence, sexuality, etc. And I AM the fine art crowd!

[Bronty]

well, we'll agree to disagree, all I know is that however we pigeonhole him, he was a terrific talent whose work deserves to be valuable and whether that's as a result of fanboy adulation or museum appreciation, it doesn't really matter

[dem1138]

Gene you are worth every penny that we are paying you to share your knowledge with us! And thank you for also getting that Art Market Certificate so that you could inform us so didactically.

Your perspective has been very valuable to me and I appreciate it and thank you.

[Mmehdy]

I believe if any great appreciation or investment is to be made in the comic book world today...it is in original art. Sure there are a dozen books (Action 1, the marvel keys etc) you really cannot go wrong on, but the comic book market is downsizing on all the other material. Gone are the days of paying 3500 bucks for some mid-range number and condition more fun comics....not when you can get an original piece of art.

 

The price is art in relation to the comic book can be a real bargain and still is today.

 

If I had 5K to invest or buy something now, its not gonna get one of the key books in top shape. But you might be able to get a one of a kind piece of art. In the old days it was just the opposite until russ Cochran built a market over 25 years.

 

The times have changed, I do see upside on the non-600K art pieces now and in the future. 100K for a FF page, gives me a pause to think...you are in GA?SA key price level such as a mid-range Cap 1 which might have more upside down the road.

 

I am happy for the OA collectors here on the board, but is does reduce the demand and prices of GA/SA comic books as the money is drained out of the market place.

 

As long as you do not pay a insane price

 

 

[tth2]

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?

The reality is that the contemporary art market is dominated by sheep.

 

What I mean is that contemporary art is a huge gamble because by definition it is is contemporary and therefore no one really knows at the time the pieces are being produced who is going to stand the test of time and who is going to turn out to be a highly overrated flash in the pan.

 

Some of the sheep have no appreciation of art at all and just simply want some pieces to show they`ve made it. Others of the sheep might actually like and appreciate art and know what they personally like, but won`t lay out big bucks based on their own personal tastes because they don`t want to look stupid if their choices don`t pan out.

 

Therefore, everyone mills about, like sheep, waiting for one of the big influential collectors (Saatchi, Broad, etc.) and the coterie of sycophantic dealers who surround them to make a decision, and then everyone piles in in sheep-like fashion, thus ratifying the decision of the big collectors and creating a self-perpetuating trend that further reinforces the influence of the critical big collectors. Rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

[tth2]

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.

Plus, the shark in formaldehyde is a big and impressive piece. It would dominate the room in which it is being displayed. OA, on the other hand, is tiny. Even GA and early SA art is simply not big enough to have that "wow" factor when you`re some nouveau riche trying to impress all your shallow friends. At best they would be hung up in hallways and narrow spaces, because they would be swallowed up by some mega-tycoon`s living room or other big display rooms. Even Hal Foster`s OA for Tarzan and Prince Valiant, which seem gigantic compared to comic OA, would be considered quite small by fine art standards.

 

And before someone points out that the Mona Lisa is relatively small, I would say it`s the exception that proves the rule.

[mtlevy]

This post is a bit esoteric for me - but I like the sentiment that predicting the future is not as easy as it feels...in any case, fun thread!

 

I also agree, Crumb et al are easier to see transitioning than Buscema...

 

Finally, Is Norman Rockwell considered contemporary art? I see that as the analog

______________________

 

 

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.

 

 

[tth2]

Gene you are worth every penny that we are paying you to share your knowledge with us!

If you weren`t a friend of Gene`s, I would think you were taking the mickey out of him.

[tth2]

Finally, Is Norman Rockwell considered contemporary art?

No.

 

And by the way, it is Rockwell`s paintings that go for many millions. His B&W line drawing stuff, and some of his lesser paintings, go for five and six figures. You can often find his B&W work and lesser paintings in Heritage`s Illustration Art auctions.

 

So if one of the most popular and beloved American artists of the 20th century (and a genuinely great artist) can`t get his B&W work to go for millions, why would people here think that comic OA has a chance to go for millions?

[batman_fan]

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?

The reality is that the contemporary art market is dominated by sheep.

 

What I mean is that contemporary art is a huge gamble because by definition it is is contemporary and therefore no one really knows at the time the pieces are being produced who is going to stand the test of time and who is going to turn out to be a highly overrated flash in the pan.

 

Some of the sheep have no appreciation of art at all and just simply want some pieces to show they`ve made it. Others of the sheep might actually like and appreciate art and know what they personally like, but won`t lay out big bucks based on their own personal tastes because they don`t want to look stupid if their choices don`t pan out.

 

Therefore, everyone mills about, like sheep, waiting for one of the big influential collectors (Saatchi, Broad, etc.) and the coterie of sycophantic dealers who surround them to make a decision, and then everyone piles in in sheep-like fashion, thus ratifying the decision of the big collectors and creating a self-perpetuating trend that further reinforces the influence of the critical big collectors. Rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

 

And this is different than comic collectors how ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[suspense39]

Very entertaining read Gene, also don't forget that major galleries at major art fairs like frieze or Basel pay up to 40,000 plus just to set up a booth there, could you imagine any comic art dealer doing the same! Different promotional system all together.

[Aman619]

Finally, Is Norman Rockwell considered contemporary art?

No.

 

And by the way, it is Rockwell`s paintings that go for many millions. His B&W line drawing stuff, and some of his lesser paintings, go for five and six figures. You can often find his B&W work and lesser paintings in Heritage`s Illustration Art auctions.

 

So if one of the most popular and beloved American artists of the 20th century (and a genuinely great artist) can`t get his B&W work to go for millions, why would people here think that comic OA has a chance to go for millions?

 

 

That's easy. Rockwell is known for his paintings, and the paintings are in color, so demand for his b/w isn't here. But OA ia nearly always b/w by definition.

 

I you re going to buy an Rockwell you want a painting. If you want OA, it will be b/w

[Bronty]

Some truth to that although I don't think you can dismiss the lack of color so easily. That's a *significant* stumbling block IMO. It would basically be a first.

 

 

Maybe that hurdle can be overcome for someone like Crumb where the work has other potentially appealing aspects and color is basically the one barrier. But to expect comic OA to break down several barriers all at once? Just not realistic.

[tth2]

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?

The reality is that the contemporary art market is dominated by sheep.

 

What I mean is that contemporary art is a huge gamble because by definition it is is contemporary and therefore no one really knows at the time the pieces are being produced who is going to stand the test of time and who is going to turn out to be a highly overrated flash in the pan.

 

Some of the sheep have no appreciation of art at all and just simply want some pieces to show they`ve made it. Others of the sheep might actually like and appreciate art and know what they personally like, but won`t lay out big bucks based on their own personal tastes because they don`t want to look stupid if their choices don`t pan out.

 

Therefore, everyone mills about, like sheep, waiting for one of the big influential collectors (Saatchi, Broad, etc.) and the coterie of sycophantic dealers who surround them to make a decision, and then everyone piles in in sheep-like fashion, thus ratifying the decision of the big collectors and creating a self-perpetuating trend that further reinforces the influence of the critical big collectors. Rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

 

And this is different than comic collectors how ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The contemporary OA market could very well be like this, for all I know!