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

[delekkerste]

I certainly agree that pacmans and picassos (or paul smiths for that matter) shouldn't be exhibited together, but I don't even think elevating is really the right term (although its the one commonly used). I think "grouping" is more appropriate. I mean in all seriousness what makes a pollock drip painting any "better" than a cutting edge building by one of the world's top architects or an exquisite piece of antique jewelry by a top maker or even a landmark game like pacman or super mario bros. In my mind, nothing. They were all cutting edge in their own way in their respective fields, and I think it cheapens the accomplishments in other fields to say they might be "elevated" to art.

 

I think that, like it or not, fine art is widely considered to be the highest expression of Western culture, moreso than any of the other things you mentioned. How else can you justify valuing a painting at more than the cost of an entire office complex in Manhattan? Not that crafts, design, architecture, film, comics, etc. aren't cool in their own right, but to say that fine art isn't any better...I don't want to live in a world of such cultural relativism that we can't say that a Pollock isn't a higher expression of ART than, say, "Dwarf Fortress".

[Terry Doyle]

Interestingly, several years ago, London's British Museum hosted an exhibition of a Manga-related project:

 

 

An exclusive opportunity to see the original drawings from the manga series Professor Munakata’s British Museum Adventure.

 

Hoshino Yukinobu (b.1954) is the creator of Professor Munakata, one of Japan’s most famous manga characters. Millions of readers eagerly following his adventures in the fortnightly magazine, Big Comic.

 

Hoshino first visited the British Museum in 2009 and was inspired to work on a Professor Munakata mystery in the unique setting of the Museum. Japanese readers followed the series for five months, first published in Big Comic, before the thrilling mystery was bought to a close with a dramatic final scene that sees the Rosetta Stone in grave danger.

 

All ten episodes will now be published as a book in English by the British Museum Press, and to celebrate, Hoshino has lent the Museum his finished drawings (genga) and sketches and even two of his fude brush pens which he used to draw this adventure.

 

In this display you can see the development of Professor Munakata’s British Museum Adventure from conception to finished work. This is an exceptionally rare opportunity to uncover the process of how the first British Museum manga was created.

 

 

[Bronty]

I certainly agree that pacmans and picassos (or paul smiths for that matter) shouldn't be exhibited together, but I don't even think elevating is really the right term (although its the one commonly used). I think "grouping" is more appropriate. I mean in all seriousness what makes a pollock drip painting any "better" than a cutting edge building by one of the world's top architects or an exquisite piece of antique jewelry by a top maker or even a landmark game like pacman or super mario bros. In my mind, nothing. They were all cutting edge in their own way in their respective fields, and I think it cheapens the accomplishments in other fields to say they might be "elevated" to art.

 

I think that, like it or not, fine art is widely considered to be the highest expression of Western culture, moreso than any of the other things you mentioned. How else can you justify valuing a painting at more than the cost of an entire office complex in Manhattan? Not that crafts, design, architecture, film, comics, etc. aren't cool in their own right, but to say that fine art isn't any better...I don't want to live in a world of such cultural relativism that we can't say that a Pollock isn't a higher expression of ART than, say, "Dwarf Fortress".

 

 

You complain about people mentioning the design wing and then you go and mention dwarf fortress? And what must be the cheapest office in manhattan? You live there not me but I know enough about the price of real estate there to know that an offer tower in manhattan is worth a lot more than a pollock painting?

 

You say fine art is the highest form of expression in Western culture? I say BS. The modern definition of "fine art" excludes music. You're asking me to infer that Pollock is "elevated" above Beethoven? No thanks.

 

I was wondering what yardstick you'd use to try and solidify your argument, IMO the one you chose (money) doesn't advance your argument. I can guarantee you more money has been made off of say "super mario bros." or even the avengers movie than from Jackson Pollocks "No. 5".

 

You'll probably say that's not a fair comparison... its apples to oranges since it takes millions of copies of SMB to ring in the same dough as a single pollock. OK. Well if money is the yardstick then the billion dollar architectural projects win, no?

 

Are you going to try and say that pollock is known worldwide and has influenced many people? You're not going to win using a populist yardstick either, that's for sure.

 

So if money and popularity are out as yardsticks what's left? The beauty of the product? uh oh. Much fine art isn't "beautiful" per se to look at, and its trended more that way over time. That's out.

 

It has to be the concept! The brilliance of thought! Oh wait, that's not it, a novel is a far better medium for the expression of ideas and thought than a sculpture is, let alone a vivisected shark or silkscreen of Marilyn Monroe.

 

Hmmm, so if today's fine art isn't the highest expression of western culture using the yardsticks of money, popularity, beauty, or thought, then what's left? The purity!!! the purity of expression, unencumbered by commercial restraints? What's that you say? Hirst and others activity manipulate the market for their own work? I guess that purity is gone isn't it? (side note - at that point are they even artists or just businessmen?)

 

Simply put, fine art, or at least the fine art of the last 50 years, occupies an interesting space on all of these yardsticks but is at the top of none. Its a form of expression that I'm interested in and appreciate and one you clearly love but to start with the presupposition that its the highest form of expression like its a fact is disrespectful to the other forms of expression (let's say music since I suspect you'll take less issues with that one) and frankly, it comes across as though you've concluded before even truly considering the question. And mentioning Dwarf Fortress is just embarassing since I would bet you've never actually seen or played it - I certainly haven't even heard of it - so its a bit like considering the fine art career of an artist of minor acclaim.

 

 

[Overthetopinc]

My prediction 5 years from now people will be saying damn I could have gotten that piece for a fraction of that amount just like its been every 5 year period since I started collecting 12 years ago. Heck I see pieces selling 2 months after they are publicly sold for nearly double. No one in this hobby has to worry about this stuff turning into tulips. Bunch of nonsense. Black and white art in history doesnt go for that much?...It will adapt. I see plenty of people who dogged artists for years now diversifying their collection to include them. We are a passionate bunch and plenty of people feel that way and more to come.

thanks,

Matthew

[Pete Marino]

My prediction 5 years from now people will be saying damn I could have gotten that piece for a fraction of that amount just like its been every 5 year period since I started collecting 12 years ago. Heck I see pieces selling 2 months after they are publicly sold for nearly double. No one in this hobby has to worry about this stuff turning into tulips. Bunch of nonsense. Black and white art in history doesnt go for that much?...It will adapt. I see plenty of people who dogged artists for years now diversifying their collection to include them. We are a passionate bunch and plenty of people feel that way and more to come.

thanks,

Matthew

 

Words every guy with cash into a bubble has ever said =)

 

I'm not saying we're in a bubble, or it will burst soon, just saying that's bubble speak...

[Nexus]

I think that, like it or not, fine art is widely considered to be the highest expression of Western culture, moreso than any of the other things you mentioned.

 

You say fine art is the highest form of expression in Western culture? I say BS. The modern definition of "fine art" excludes music. You're asking me to infer that Pollock is "elevated" above Beethoven? No thanks.

 

With all due respect to you gentlemen, there is no higher expression of Western culture than...a giant freakin' hamburger:

 

 

(You'll notice that the pickle is OUTSIDE the bun...daring!)

 

I understand Sotheby's will feature the artist's "Chicken Nuggets (with bbq dip)" in its next auction. Pre-sale estimate is $20M. A bargain!!

[jjonahjameson1]

My prediction 5 years from now people will be saying damn I could have gotten that piece for a fraction of that amount just like its been every 5 year period since I started collecting 12 years ago. Heck I see pieces selling 2 months after they are publicly sold for nearly double. No one in this hobby has to worry about this stuff turning into tulips. Bunch of nonsense. Black and white art in history doesnt go for that much?...It will adapt. I see plenty of people who dogged artists for years now diversifying their collection to include them. We are a passionate bunch and plenty of people feel that way and more to come.

thanks,

Matthew

 

Matt, I like your post because it is optimistic and a nice change of pace from the general tone on this thread. I do appreciate reading the positive and negative outlooks collectors have of the OA market and I hope you're correct.

[Terry Doyle]

I think that, like it or not, fine art is widely considered to be the highest expression of Western culture, moreso than any of the other things you mentioned.

 

You say fine art is the highest form of expression in Western culture? I say BS. The modern definition of "fine art" excludes music. You're asking me to infer that Pollock is "elevated" above Beethoven? No thanks.

 

With all due respect to you gentlemen, there is no higher expression of Western culture than...a giant freakin' hamburger:

 

 

(You'll notice that the pickle is OUTSIDE the bun...daring!)

 

I understand Sotheby's will feature the artist's "Chicken Nuggets (with bbq dip)" in its next auction. Pre-sale estimate is $20M. A bargain!!

 

This inspires me . . .

 

. . . to order myself a nice take-away . . .

 

. . . swilled down by a few cold beers!!

 

 

Your good health, Gentlemen!

[bocaratondefense]

That hamburger sculpture is a little sparse for my taste......no lettuce, tomatoes, cheese, bacon, etc. Even the pickle is on the exterior.

 

 

[delekkerste]

With all due respect to you gentlemen, there is no higher expression of Western culture than...a giant freakin' hamburger:

 

 

(You'll notice that the pickle is OUTSIDE the bun...daring!)

 

In all seriousness, you picked the wrong item to pick on. First, it's an item that you can't look at out of context - it was just one small part of Oldenburg's brilliant "The Street" and "The Store" series (http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/1320). Second, it actually was quite innovative - nobody up to that point had made "soft" sculptures like that before, so the use of materials was revolutionary.

[delekkerste]

You complain about people mentioning the design wing and then you go and mention dwarf fortress? And what must be the cheapest office in manhattan? You live there not me but I know enough about the price of real estate there to know that an offer tower in manhattan is worth a lot more than a pollock painting?

 

First, you misunderstood me. I didn't say that a Pollock was worth more than an office tower in Manhattan (though, I suspect that some would rival the smaller office towers), I said that there is some fine art that would be worth that much or more. Second, the price of a building is worth as much as it is, because it costs many millions of dollars to build and has intrinsic value in the form of rents and materials. Similarly, it takes many millions of dollars to make The Avengers and millions of dollars to design, manufacture, package and distribute millions of copies of Super Mario Bros. The value ascribed to those examples you cited can be attributed to a lot of things other than its artistic merit, whereas the value ascribed to a painting or sculpture is, in most cases, almost exclusively attributable to its value as art. The intrinsic value of a painting is almost zero, and yet the best ones sell for tens/hundreds of millions of dollars and I'm sure there are some masterpieces that would crack the billion dollar mark to some governments eager for masterpieces to stock in their new national museums.

 

Good point about music, and you could probably throw literature into the mix as well. But, in terms of tangible expressions of Western culture, I think my original point still stands. And I never said that Pollock is elevated over Beethoven (though I would argue that he's elevated over Justin Bieber). And I only mentioned Dwarf Fortress because that is one of the videogames on display at MoMA. Dwarf Fortress is elevated to the level of Picasso? Again, I don't want to live in a world of cultural relativism where one can make that statement with a straight face. I love comic art. And, I'm sure a lot of comic art can rightly be considered artisticly and creatively superior to a lot of fine art paintings and sculpture. Heck, some of it might even legitimately called fine art. But, on the whole, I don't believe that the best comic art is an equal or better representative of the height of Western culture than the best fine art. And, deep down, I don't think you'd place even Kirby, Eisner, Frazetta, Ditko, Wood, etc. in the same company as da Vinci, Raphael, Rubens, Rembrandt, Velazquez, Goya, Monet, Van Gogh, Picasso, etc. either.

[Nexus]

With all due respect to you gentlemen, there is no higher expression of Western culture than...a giant freakin' hamburger:

 

 

(You'll notice that the pickle is OUTSIDE the bun...daring!)

 

In all seriousness, you picked the wrong item to pick on. First, it's an item that you can't look at out of context - it was just one small part of Oldenburg's brilliant "The Street" and "The Store" series (http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/1320). Second, it actually was revolutionary - nobody up to that point had made "soft" sculptures like that before, so the use of materials was revolutionary.

 

Indeed. Without Oldenburg's genius breaking down barriers, the arts would have never achieved this masterpiece (referenced earlier in this thread):

An inflatable Hulk as fine art doesn't happen without the giant hamburger. Thank you, Mr. Oldenburg...Western civilization is in your debt...

 

[delekkerste]

Indeed. Without Oldenburg's genius breaking down barriers, the arts would have never achieved this masterpiece (referenced earlier in this thread):

 

No, without people like Duchamp, Pollock, Warhol, Lichenstein, Oldenburg and everyone else who is getting trashed by people here, the art of the 21st century would be a rehash of things that were done ad nauseum for hundreds of years. Obviously, not all new art is good. In fact, most of it isn't. But, then again, I'm not sure what artistic statement is being made by most comic book artists either, and especially not when they veer off into fine art. I mean, I don't find that painting scenes suitable for a chocolate box design or rehashing Pre-Raphaelite art in the late 20th century is really advancing discussion in the world of art forward. At least an inflatable Hulk with a basket of flowers is trying to say something and elicits a reaction!

[Bronty]

(though I would argue that he's elevated over Justin Bieber).

Agreed! I almost used the exact same example! And the worst part is he's Canadian We are in the process of trying to disown him.

 

And I only mentioned Dwarf Fortress because that is one of the videogames on display at MoMA. Dwarf Fortress is elevated to the level of Picasso? Again, I don't want to live in a world of cultural relativism where one can make that statement with a straight face.

 

Well of course not - but that was my whole point, you can't use a minor project in one field as a comparison point. At least compare Pollock to Shigeru Miyamoto (creator of SMB, zelda, and many others) if you want to compare fine art to games.

I love comic art. And, I'm sure a lot of comic art can rightly be considered artisticly and creatively superior to a lot of fine art paintings and sculpture. Heck, some of it might even legitimately called fine art. But, on the whole, I don't believe that the best comic art is an equal or better representative of the height of Western culture than the best fine art. And, deep down, I don't think you'd place even Kirby, Eisner, Frazetta, Ditko, Wood, etc. in the same company as da Vinci, Raphael, Rubens, Rembrandt, Velazquez, Goya, Monet, Van Gogh, Picasso, etc. either.

 

Sure, I agree with that.

[drdroom]

Indeed. Without Oldenburg's genius breaking down barriers, the arts would have never achieved this masterpiece (referenced earlier in this thread):

 

No, without people like Duchamp, Pollock, Warhol, Lichenstein, Oldenburg and everyone else who is getting trashed by people here, the art of the 21st century would be a rehash of things that were done ad nauseum for hundreds of years. Obviously, not all new art is good. In fact, most of it isn't. But, then again, I'm not sure what artistic statement is being made by most comic book artists either, and especially not when they veer off into fine art. I mean, I don't find that painting scenes suitable for a chocolate box design or rehashing Pre-Raphaelite art in the late 20th century is really advancing discussion in the world of art forward. At least an inflatable Hulk with a basket of flowers is trying to say something and elicits a reaction!

[Bronty]

The intrinsic value of a painting is almost zero, and yet the best ones sell for tens/hundreds of millions of dollars and I'm sure there are some masterpieces that would crack the billion dollar mark to some governments eager for masterpieces to stock in their new national museums.

 

Sure, but my greater point in all that was that you can't use financial value as a yardstick to the value of the creative expression. Period. Not only are there creative expressions that can't be bought and sold, but also, the ones that can be bought and sold are effected tangibly by factors that have nothing to do with their artistic excellence. Things like... whether the artist had a large or small oeuvre, whether his or her work is locked up in institutional hands... the size of the piece (not everyone has room for a 50 ft tall sculpture... etc etc etc). The value of something is a poor barometer for its artistic worth and the depth/quality of the creative expression. In there some correlation, of course, but I'd certainly argue that whether or not a painting is worth as much as an office tower is simply about supply and demand. And that demand is just as often fuelled, as we've seen in the course of this discussion, by investment concerns or even by vapid ego stroking as by an appreciation for the creative expression.

[RockMyAmadeus]

[drdroom]

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.

 

It's completely opposite from what you are saying.

 

We want the cool kids to beg to join the nerd table.

 

Either way, it`s not gonna happen, no matter if every comic book movie grosses $2 billion from now on and Charles Saatchi, Eli Broad and Steve Cohen suddenly start buying up all Kirby OA.

 

But it still raises the question why so many people on these boards are so desperate to get the endorsement of the cool kids (whether being invited to their table or being begged to be allowed to join the nerd table)? Seriously, people, it`s time to get over your adolescent inferiority complexes.

 

As one of the cool kids, let me assure you that Jack Kirby has our full endorsement! That doesn't magically turn his commercial art into fine art, of course. But his genius is well appreciated in the art world, as I've mentioned before.

[delekkerste]

So, guess what. I was at MoMA today. I saw the videogame exhibition (see pics below), which is basically just a posted statement explaining why they are there (pic below) and terminals where you can play the games and a brief description of why they are noteworthy from a design perspective.

 

You know, it's not like I couldn't ever see comic art at a place like MoMA (like I said, Herriman's been shown at least a couple of times already, most recently last year, and they do sell comic and other pop culture themed books, postcards, etc. in the gift shop). There's already a lot of temporary exhibitions of photos, drawings, prints, films, posters, design and now videogames. Why not comic art? I just don't see it as being anything on permanent display (there are already institutions like The Smithsonian or smaller institutions like MoCCA or the upcoming Lucas museum for things like that). And, for anything to make it into the permanent collection, let alone permanent display, it would take a very large donation of both art and money.

 

But, y'know what? Even if all of that happened (which is already a huge stretch), the corollary is that OA guys would want the art to be taken as seriously as painting and sculpture. They'd want museums to fight over it at auction. They'd want guys like Eli Broad to start buying it. They'd want prices to soar into the hundreds of thousands for A pieces and millions for A+ pieces. And none of that is even remotely likely to happen. Eli Broad is not buying Pac-Man or Dwarf Fortress just because they have videogames at MoMA. MoMA itself would want donations of art - they wouldn't be buying it at the expense of Modern and contemporary art. And they'd strip the nostalgia out from it, just like they've done with the videogames, focusing instead on the auteurs. R. Crumb. Yes. George Herriman Krazy Kat? Yes. Dave Cockrum X-Men? Ehh...don't think so.

 

The fine art world and OA worlds are just set up so differently that any incursion of the latter into the former is just not going to happen in the way that people think. Actually, I don't think people really think about it at all; they just have some blind faith that OA will get this kind of mass acceptance and recognition on its own despite the fact that I've already described why it's structurally almost impossible to happen organically.

[Bronty]

agreed.