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

[drdroom]

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

 

Rockwell is a commercial artist just like Kirby, though quite a bit less interesting ( ). His collectors have pretty much zero crossover with Damien Hirst collectors. I agree, as paintings they look like "art is supposed to look" and I imagine that is important to a big part of his collector base. But there are also collectors like Lucas & Spielberg who are into narrative popular culture and might very well put out serious dough if necessary for, say the cover to X-men 1 or something like that.

 

Considering the various Kirby franchises ( oops, I mean the Marvel characters that Stan Lee created, how silly of me to credit them to Kirby ) are more vital than ever, and Rockwell's Americana is getting close to incomprehensible to young people in the 21st century, I predict that blue chip Kirby pages will surpass Rockwell canvasses in the next fifty years. Of course, that is not only Kirby going up, but also Rockwell coming down.

[Aman619]

thats akin to my argument... times change, The people making their preferences known are not the same people who came before them. Young(er) people's tastes change the world... we are seeing it everyday in all media. And we have seen it in collectibles Im not saying that OA will surpass or eclipse "real fine art", or that it should... merely that further inroads may be paved by the generations that have grown up watching the current movies to a greater degree than we accomplished having grown up reading the funny books themselves. (reading the what, grampa?)

 

the best part for me if anyone who disagrees with this, is, I dont really care, since I dont collect OA. But I see the possibility. Im not promoting anything for my benefit.

[Nexus]

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 shark in formaldehyde became prestigious and valuable because of marketing. I don't underestimate clever marketing and I don't overestimate the audience's BS meter. OA carries the "comic book" stigma, no doubt...too great a marketing challenge? Maybe, but at the same time, marketers haven't been motivated. But if OA values keep climbing, I wouldn't be surprised if *someone* gave it a shot. In this discussion, we should consider commerce as much as "art".

 

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.

 

I agree. I have no delusions that comic art will be elevated, in any sense, to fine/contemporary art levels. Or, in the best case scenario, for any such dramatic shift to occur in my lifetime. My only point in all this is that stranger things have happened...and we need look no further than contemporary art, from Duchamp's fountain (someone had to champion a urinal!) to Murakami's "my lonesome cowboy" (Google at your own risk).

[Nexus]

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.

 

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=241991&Number=5279153#Post5279153

 

As for names that will be relevant in 30 years...I suspect it will be very different from what we currently value, and likely not nearly as superhero-centric (although Jack Kirby will still be King). Guys like Daniel Clowes, Chris Ware, Adrian Tomine, Gary Panter (not a personal fave, but highly regarded by the intelligentsia of the hobby)...artists who can be considered "auteurs". Possibly even a Mike Mignola. Creators who aren't primarily known for working on corporate-owned properties. Robert Crumb. It doesn't seem that hard to me to identify them.

 

(thumbs u

[adamstrange]

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).

NYC's MOMA exists because the Met refused free modern art + money to build a gallery to house it. Wealthy collectors of modern art banded together and founded an entirely new museum. Even after it opened and became popular the Met still resisted adding post-Impressionists to their collection.

 

hat tip to Gene for recommending "Rogue's Gallery."

 

If there's enough money involved, however, there are quite a few museums that will stretch their rules to accommodate a gift.

[ShaneTurgeon]

I tend to agree that it may only take a handful of up and coming people or events to really help the OA market explode into higher levels but i also agree that it will likely never be as haughtily regarded as contemporary or fine art - mostly because i think that market is far too contrived (as pointed out far more eloquently in this thread).

 

But to think that the obvious mass cultural importance of comic and pop culture to this and upcoming generations isn't going to have some long-lasting impact on this stuff in the future is kind of short-sighted (and by no means am i calling anyone here short-sighted as i think the immense amount of knowledge presented here by everyone is staggering and makes for incredibly intelligent and enjoyable conversation such as this).

 

Two names have been referenced in this thread such as Kirk Hammett and George Lucas and i think it's important to elaborate on them just a bit further. While it's true that Hammett didn't hold on to his X-Men #1 pages, it's not like he sold them to invest in the fine or contemporary art markets. The guy is a nerd, through and through, and his horror collection of art, props, posters, costumes, etc is unparalleled. It just happened that his interest in owning cool horror stuff outweighed his interest in owning cool comic art. I don't think it should be a reflection of OA not holding water - i think Hammett's overall interests should be a greater indication that interest in pop culture stuff is attracting serious, high level people.

 

I think George Lucas needs to be brought up because he's going to be opening his own museum soon - a museum that will showcase all of the types of art here that we're debating the merits of against fine and contemporary art. I personally think this is exactly the sort of thing that could really help trigger the kind of interest we're talking about here. Sure, it's been known for decades that Uncle George is into comic, pop culture and illustration art but he's a multi-billionaire and many of his purchases against MJ in the 80s set the bar for things like the best of the best animation art. A couple more nerdy billionaire people like that paying attention to what George has been busy doing over the past few decades and is now displaying in his museum may be very important players in the future.

 

I do think that it's plausible for the right people making it in Hollywood or the tech industry over the next few years could really help establish new records and depending on what social clout they have, establish greater interest from other socialites. Nothing is improbable. And considering the best of the best in pop-culture "collectibles," like OA, props, posters, etc continues to set record highs, i think it's an indication that younger, wealthy people crave this stuff far more than dusty old pieces of art or weird sharks in tanks.

 

My last comment, and i've been meaning to say this the entire thread as it's kind of what the original topic was geared to, is that any collector who is worth their salt who knowingly pays beyond top dollar and sets records to own a piece, should never, ever be surprised if that doesn't pay off long-term. If you've been in any hobby at any level for any amount of time, you should know that when you're paying beyond top dollar, it's because you want it BAD and you have to expect a loss, not a gain, down the road. If that's not a concept you can grasp, you shouldn't be involved in the game at all.

[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.

 

 

Science Museum, South Kensington, London

 

 

Selection of Dan Dare OA on display

 

 

Enki Bilal OA

 

I remember attending an auction of Dan Dare original comic-strip artwork at Christie's in the early 1990s. One of the bidders was in the employ of London's Science Museum. He purchased a number of OA pages for the museum's permanent collection.

 

Several years later, on a visit to the museum, I saw the artworks on display (far as I'm aware they're a permanent fixture)

 

In addition to the Dare OA there were a number of superb Enki Bilal comic-strip pages (see above photo).

[delekkerste]

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.

 

:yeahok:

 

You forgot to mention that I've sat on one of the acquisitions committees of a major NYC/worldwide museum for the past 7 years. Don't get me wrong - I have next to zero influence in what goes on there, but I have at least had a front row seat in observing how the sausage is made in terms of how art makes it from idea to actually getting into the museum's collection. And, knowing what I do, I can tell you that the probability of comic art ever making into the permanent collection is zero.

 

 

NYC's MOMA exists because the Met refused free modern art + money to build a gallery to house it. Wealthy collectors of modern art banded together and founded an entirely new museum. Even after it opened and became popular the Met still resisted adding post-Impressionists to their collection.

 

hat tip to Gene for recommending "Rogue's Gallery."

 

If there's enough money involved, however, there are quite a few museums that will stretch their rules to accommodate a gift.

 

Yes, though it took the Rockefeller fortune and influence to get MoMA off the ground! Like I said in my earlier post, the best that could be hoped for is if a mega collector like Roberts or Halperin donated their collections to, say, a prominent regional museum, along with an 8-figure donation to be paid out over some years. Then you might at least have one outpost for OA in the museum world. It won't be MoMA or the Met, but maybe an institution like Crystal Bridges or the Wichita Art Museum might bite. Or, alternatively, they could start a museum of their own or team up with the Lucas museum. But, again, it would just be ONE outpost, and it would require someone(s) donating many millions of dollars of both cash and art to make it happen. IT WILL NEVER JUST HAPPEN ORGANICALLY.

 

There's been some talk along the lines of, "No one can predict the future [so I'm just going to keep believing in my rainbows, unicorns and OA fantasy]". Regarding the future, sure, I could be wrong about the OA market. Maybe future generations will enter this hobby in greater numbers and with greater passion than I envision, resulting in a continued uptrend in prices. I doubt it, but it could conceivably happen. When you are talking about OA becoming widely accepted as fine art and sharing permanent display space at the Met with Rubens and Rembrandt, though...sorry, that will NEVER happen. A urinal and a shark in formaldehyde were both concepts that became regarded as edgy fine art. OA is not a concept. OA is way too grounded in both its production and illustration history to become appreciated by curators, critics, collectors, etc. as fine art. Pop Artists appropriating the images and re-contextualizing it...yeah, that can be packaged and sold as fine art. The source material itself? Sorry. Not that OA can't be a thriving hobby on its own, but the fine art establishment will never embrace it like we do.

 

And it's not that the Establishment hates comic art. It's not like you'll never see anything comic book-related in a museum, whether a science museum like Terry has pointed out, or otherwise. There was a surrealist-inspired drawing exhibition at MoMA last year which included a Herriman Krazy Kat drawing. Comic books have made it into the Met's Costume Institute for temporary exhibitions. Of course, there was the Masters of American Comics exhibitions that toured the U.S. in 2005-6 or thereabouts. But these were all temporary exhibitions. All of the art used in these exhibitions was borrowed from collectors. And, a cynical critic might say that the museums' motivations for doing so were to get more Average Joes through the turnstiles.

 

Regarding the "auteur" theory that Felix has referenced in another thread, I predicted in that thread that, in the end, nostalgia will win out over fine art pretensions:

 

That said, the question is whether comic book art will be firmly co-opted by the fine art world at some point, where museums and critics and dealers will be the kingmakers instead of the fanboys. Personally, I think our hobby is too nostalgia-driven for that to ever happen, so I'm betting that capes & masks win out over the "auteurs" in the end. Though, you might want to pick up some Chris Ware in case I'm wrong.

[suspense39]

http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/923735/what-we-learned-from-londons-summer-cycle-of-auctions

[tth2]

I predict that blue chip Kirby pages will surpass Rockwell canvasses in the next fifty years. Of course, that is not only Kirby going up, but also Rockwell coming down.

I am willing to put up every dollar I can scrape together to bet that your prediction will never come true (not even close to becoming true), and I will even give you 1000-1 odds.

[dem1138]

http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/923735/what-we-learned-from-londons-summer-cycle-of-auctions

 

It's good to be The Nahmad family. When they win, they win big, and when they fail to meet reserve, they still win.

[Terry Doyle]

thats akin to my argument... times change, The people making their preferences known are not the same people who came before them. Young(er) people's tastes change the world... we are seeing it everyday in all media. And we have seen it in collectibles Im not saying that OA will surpass or eclipse "real fine art", or that it should... merely that further inroads may be paved by the generations that have grown up watching the current movies to a greater degree than we accomplished having grown up reading the funny books themselves. (reading the what, grampa?)

 

the best part for me if anyone who disagrees with this, is, I dont really care, since I dont collect OA. But I see the possibility. Im not promoting anything for my benefit.

 

And, speaking personally, I really don't care if this hobby receives recognition by the masses in order to help validate my own collecting passion.

 

It may not appeal to the elitists of the fine art world, but so what? Preserved sharks in formaldehyde (and the like) is not my bag either.

 

Be true to yourself. Enjoy the hobby for what it is and what it means to you.

[drdroom]

I predict that blue chip Kirby pages will surpass Rockwell canvasses in the next fifty years. Of course, that is not only Kirby going up, but also Rockwell coming down.

I am willing to put up every dollar I can scrape together to bet that your prediction will never come true (not even close to becoming true), and I will even give you 1000-1 odds.

 

Very generous terms! I am too kindhearted to take advantage though

Curious: do you think Frazetta will get to where Rockwell is? I'm inclined to think his work is already approaching its peak value. But I'm not so confident about that one.

[Mmehdy]

At 1.5 million and another painting at 1 million for the last two records sales, I don't believe Rockwell has sold for those numbers. There are many more Rockwells out there...

[Bronty]

At 1.5 million and another painting at 1 million for the last two records sales, I don't believe Rockwell has sold for those numbers. There are many more Rockwells out there...

 

Where do you get your information from? Some guy named Theo?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/30/rockwell.auction/

 

 

[tth2]

thats akin to my argument... times change, The people making their preferences known are not the same people who came before them. Young(er) people's tastes change the world... we are seeing it everyday in all media. And we have seen it in collectibles Im not saying that OA will surpass or eclipse "real fine art", or that it should... merely that further inroads may be paved by the generations that have grown up watching the current movies to a greater degree than we accomplished having grown up reading the funny books themselves. (reading the what, grampa?)

 

the best part for me if anyone who disagrees with this, is, I dont really care, since I dont collect OA. But I see the possibility. Im not promoting anything for my benefit.

 

And, speaking personally, I really don't care if this hobby receives recognition by the masses in order to help validate my own collecting passion.

 

I`ve never understood why so many collectors are so desperate for validation from the mainstream. Not just in OA. Comic collectors in general treat comic book movie success as their holy grail. It`s like they believe that they`ll now be allowed to sit with the cool kids in the high school cafeteria.

 

[tth2]

Curious: do you think Frazetta will get to where Rockwell is? I'm inclined to think his work is already approaching its peak value. But I'm not so confident about that one.

Not a chance in hell. But still a better chance than any Kirby OA going for more than a comparable Rockwell painting.

[tth2]

At 1.5 million and another painting at 1 million for the last two records sales, I don't believe Rockwell has sold for those numbers. There are many more Rockwells out there...

 

Where do you get your information from? Some guy named Theo?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/30/rockwell.auction/

 

 

Mitch, seriously, are you really this stupid or is this just a big put-on?

[delekkerste]

Curious: do you think Frazetta will get to where Rockwell is? I'm inclined to think his work is already approaching its peak value.

 

I agree. Frazetta was one of the greatest artists to work in comics, but, as others have also pointed out, nostalgia is infinitely more important than skill or aesthetics when it comes to comic art. Unfortunately, Frazetta never worked on Spider-Man or Batman or any of the mainstream properties that is getting reintroduced to new generations. Yes, he did work on Conan, but, guess what? When I was a kid and discovered the REH Conan stories even before I read my first comic, I went to the library and checked out those old paperbacks with the Frazetta covers (which is how I came to love both Conan and Frazetta's artwork). Unfortunately, though, those Frazetta paintings haven't been used in decades now for those Conan paperbacks - today's kids aren't getting introduced to Frazetta like I did back in the day.

 

Frazetta's popularity probably peaked at some point in the '70s or '80s. There are enough of us 40 and 50-somethings, like the two gentlemen who purchased the 7-figure Frazetta paintings in recent years, to keep the Frazetta market healthy for now, but I really wonder if subsequent generations are going to have the same passion and intensity for his work than ours did. Realistically, I don't think so, but, greatness speaks for itself and I'm sure he will always have some admirers in each generation.

 

As a side note, if you look at the auction results from the '80s and '90s (some of which Terry has posted in the Russ Cochran thread), it's curious to note that, on a % basis, Frazetta's artwork has already appreciated at a much, much slower rate than Marvel art over the past 20-25 years, as he was hugely popular and already the most expensive comic and sci-fi/fantasy illustration artist by a wide margin back then. Since then, of course, the more nostalgia based superhero material has appreciated at a much faster rate than the art that was already expensive back then because of its perceived quality and "importance" (e.g., Frazetta paintings, Krazy Kat Sundays, etc.)

[Eric Seffinga]

There are some places that straddle a sort of middle ground, and some others to come.

A great example would be the Delaware Art Museum. Sure it isn't the Met, but as a museum it really is a lovely space. Far more impressive than I had expected. Their Pyle collection is utterly astounding to see, and they're the backbone of the permanent collection along with some pretty great pre-raphaelite pieces, and some very cool changing exhibitions. Anybody within driving distance owes the place a visit.

 

I might have never discovered the place had I not gone to see the show curated by David Apatoff a few months back. And people that haven't read David's Illustration Art blog really should.

 

http://www.delart.org

http://illustrationart.blogspot.com/

 

The other is the previously mentioned upcoming Lucas museum project. It is unclear how it will present itself. I expect something akin the the way the Smithsonian has presented pop culture items, like props from Star Wars and the Wizard of Oz, along side the gowns of the First Ladies, etc. As bits of popular culture ephemera. I see that association to be closer to reality than The Hulk next to Goya.

 

Also I would suggest reading the letter from the Smithsonian to the Lucas museum project. After he and Speilberg lent the Smithsonian their Rockwell pieces for that magnificent exhibition a year ago or so, and Lucas has lent Star Wars artifacts to the museum for years, I believe they have set up some good ties.

 

http://www.lucasculturalartsmuseum.com/

 

-e.