• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

New podcast/video from Felix Comic Art (UPDATED 1/3/17!)
6 6

1,647 posts in this topic

11 minutes ago, RabidFerret said:

I hope you understand that this comment applies to you as well?

You may 'want to believe' that you're not advocating speculation, that your actions are altruistic and your intentions honorable, but it's still possible that your actions paint a different picture you are not seeing or understanding.

Actually, I'm *not* advocating speculation. I'm also not trying to be altruistic or honorable, either (wtf, lol).  I say what I think. However you take it, is how you take it.

If I say James Harren is a generational talent, guess what? I believe it. If some take that to mean anything else...I actually don't really care. It's amusing that The Shoveler's immediate reaction is that I'm bs'ing the audience, or trying to con them. Or something. I'd be more worried about what's going inside his head.

11 minutes ago, RabidFerret said:

I believe the compelling evidence of the day was provided by Kyle, with valid examples given of times art sales were pushed in a speculative fashion.

Sure, Kyle had his point. I'm glad he brought it up, so I have a chance to respond. I rebutted. You can choose to believe what you want to believe.

Otherwise, it appears that everyone else is picking and choosing which points to address. So to your first comment...I'll believe what I want to believe about that, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Nexus said:

What distinction? If I said Tradd Moore may be a gamechanger like Michael Golden, I mean that in terms of his talent, the quality of his art, and oh hey, if you've never heard of Tradd Moore, maybe you've heard of Michael Golden. Anything else you think you read, is on you.

Then what exactly am I saying? What am I presenting? You'll have to show me where I've said anything about future value.

"Lucrative high-water mark" is what you inferred. Again, that's you. My inference is creative high water mark.

In any case, Miller's "lucrative high-water mark" wouldn't be BORN AGAIN or YEAR ONE. It'd be DKR. And I've already said I'm, at best, agnostic about future prospects in terms of "investment". As a comic, though? It will remain great, regardless of what happens to the art's value. I'm keeping my Miller DKR art, regardless of what happens to its value. If there's a cliff, I've been warning people away from it. I believe most understand that. That some are so enamored with $$$, and can't see this hobby for anything more than that...again, that's on them. And you.

Marks, not mark.  Plural not singular.  Got it?  Do not quote me and then change my words.  Do you understand that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Shoveler said:

And me?  Prove it or your completely full of "spoon".

So I say "the next Frank Miller may have nothing to do with Batman comics." Your interpretation is that this statement has to do with $$$. That my only concern is $$$. So you tell me.

Meanwhile, you still haven't shown me where where I've said anything about future value. So who's full of "spoon"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mr. Machismo said:

Given how much Felix does for the hobby, and how clear he’s been about not treating comic art as an investment — to the point where it’s actually ruffled feathers with another artist trying to capitalize on that angle — I don’t believe he’s being duplicitous here. I raised it as a question and not an accusation, and I apologize if it came off as the latter. While Felix does have motive to speculate simply because he’s a rep, he routinely preaches the opposing viewpoint. The fan perspective rationalizes the perceived misalignment, at least for me. 

Like I said, I've been posting here for 12+ years. I've been a rep for 4 of them. My posts have been consistent, before and after. I've always spoken my mind.

I understand there's a natural suspicion when it comes to dealers. (I make the distinction between dealer and rep, but also accept that many won't care.) That suspicion is deserved, quite frankly. I've spoken out plenty about that, too.

So someone like The Shoveler is just going to assume the worst. It's apparent that there's nothing I can say that will change his mind. That's OK. But I do look forward to his posts when it comes to the real shenanigans in the hobby. Because if my perceived hype is enough to get him this wound up, his head's going to explode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Shoveler said:

If I take a nap, I could miss out on the next Frank Miller! :ohnoez:

lol Actually, Sean Murphy has explicitly proclaimed comic art to be an investment AND compared himself to Frank Miller AND called WHITE KNIGHT the next DKR. Where's the outrage?

You must be nodding off, anyway, because you missed replying to several of my posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Nexus said:

Actually, I'm *not* advocating speculation. I'm also not trying to be altruistic or honorable, either (wtf, lol).  I say what I think. However you take it, is how you take it.

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that you're pushing comic art as some can't miss investment that people should be speculating into. Not at all.

But to put it a different way, if a stock broker stands on a soapbox talking about how great it was to invest in Walmart in 1980 or Apple in 2001, and then immediately follows that up with a "great deal on a brand new stock that will be the next Apple", it is seen as an attempt to create an association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nexus said:

lol Actually, Sean Murphy has explicitly proclaimed comic art to be an investment AND compared himself to Frank Miller AND called WHITE KNIGHT the next DKR. Where's the outrage?

You must be nodding off, anyway, because you missed replying to several of my posts.

I'm multi-tasking.  You're deflecting.

7 minutes ago, Nexus said:

So someone like The Shoveler is just going to assume the worst.

There you go again, putting your words and your inferences into my mouth.  I'm not assuming anything.  All I have to do is read your words. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RabidFerret said:

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that you're pushing comic art as some can't miss investment that people should be speculating into. Not at all.

But to put it a different way, if a stock broker stands on a soapbox talking about how great it was to invest in Walmart in 1980 or Apple in 2001, and then immediately follows that up with a "great deal on a brand new stock that will be the next Apple", it is seen as an attempt to create an association.

Interesting that you would compare comic artists to stocks, when I'm comparing comic artists to other comic artists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Shoveler said:

You're deflecting.

Sigh. Show me again where I said anything about future value. Or continue deflecting.

2 minutes ago, The Shoveler said:

There you go again, putting your words and your inferences into my mouth.  I'm not assuming anything.  All I have to do is read your words.

Right. And you've made clear what my words are saying...to you.

You accuse me of deflecting. While deflecting. You accuse me of inferring. While inferring. That says a lot...to me.

Edited by Nexus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nexus said:

Sigh. Show me again where I said anything about future value.

 

1 hour ago, The Shoveler said:
  10 hours ago, Mr. Machismo said:
  Quote
  • Daniel has set himself on the path of becoming a complete comics creator, writing and drawing his own stories. As anyone who has read EXTREMITY can attest, he is excelling at both. The next Frank Miller may actually have nothing to do with Batman comics.
  • And yes, Tradd's amazing art from the landmark VENOM #150 is headlining the show. VENOM #150 may go down as this generation's DOCTOR STRANGE #55, an artist's showcase and calling card for Tradd the way it was for Michael Golden. That's right, I'm saying Tradd may be a gamechanger like Michael Golden!
  • So long as Thanos remains a fan-favorite villain, “Thanos Wins” is destined to live on as an evergreen trade when this six-issue event is completed. It should be to Thanos what “Year One” is to Batman and “Born Again” is to Daredevil.
  • THOR #701 may very well represent peak Harren (to date). James is already hugely influential amongst his peers, and this issue only further establishes his status as a generational talent. THOR #701 will be studied for years to come.

Since you missed it the first time...

1 hour ago, The Shoveler said:

And when you promote somebody as the next Frank Miller and hype their latest project as being analogous to Miller's most lucrative high-water marks, then you build the cliff and announce how fabulous it would be to take a leap.

 

Edited by The Shoveler
Added middle quote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Shoveler said:

 

 

 

Since you missed it the first time...

 

No, this is great. Because you still haven't shown where *I've* said anything about future value, promoted speculation, or whatever.

Again, that *you* take it that way, says a lot about you and how you view this hobby.

And since *you* missed it the first time...

10 hours ago, Nexus said:

I'm glad you brought this up. When I mention these things, it's from the perspective of a fan. It's from the perspective of someone who has been a collector for 40 years. It's from the perspective of someone who really appreciates good comic art. It's in no way encouraging anyone to buy for value.

Let's go over these:

- If anyone's going to be the "next Frank Miller", it won't be because they worked on a Batman comic. It will be because they kick at writing and drawing their own work. Let's not forget, Frank Miller could actually write. Does this mean DWJ's art will be worth what Frank Miller's art is now worth? NO. It just means he's a badass comics creator.

- How many of you even get the DOCTOR STRANGE #55 reference? Or care about Michael Golden? This is just how *I* see it. Michael Golden is an artist's artist. He does not have the name, or market, value of an Art Adams or a Todd McFarlane. I'm not saying Tradd's going to be "hot". Just respected by his peers.

- Marvel is so happy with THANOS WINS, that both Donny and Geoff are being treated very well. There's not much I can say about this, other than all will be revealed in time. So yes, THANOS WINS is destined to be a go-to story for Thanos fans...much like BORN AGAIN and YEAR ONE. I mentioned those specifically, because like TW, they were inserted into a regular run, they weren't standalones. But they proved to be defining stories.

- This one is easy. James is already hugely influential to younger artists. He already has countless imitators. He IS a generational talent.

Now, am I excited by these guys? Am I enthusiastic about their art? YES. Of course. I wouldn't be doing this otherwise. But I have also been very, very vocal about "investment", speculation, values, etc., throughout the years. I don't know how much more I can stress that. If the art was worth nothing, I'd still be a fan of Frank Miller, DOCTOR STRANGE #55, BORN AGAIN, YEAR ONE, etc. I loved that stuff before I even knew about OA.

 

(I've also said that "all art started off as modern art". Some might take that to mean get it now while it's cheap. NO. It means get it now WHILE YOU CAN. Circling back to our earlier discussion, I'd LOVE to have been able to buy AMERICAN FLAGG!, GRENDEL, MAGE, NEXUS, BADGER, JON SABLE, etc. covers when they were first sold. But I wasn't in this hobby when the opportunity was there. We know, intellectually, that they will lose value over time. But I still wish I had them, terrible "investments" or not.)

Edited by Nexus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Shoveler said:

A fan who's a dealer that is sending a marketing newsletter hyping the goods as the next Frank Miller product.

 

Anyway, have a great evening.  It was lovely chatting with you.

lol "...hyping the goods as the next Frank Miller product"...you'll have to show me where I said that, too.

Was it really "lovely"? Or is someone full of "spoon"?

lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nexus said:

Interesting that you would compare comic artists to stocks, when I'm comparing comic artists to other comic artists.

My god, this is like trying to have a conversation with Trump...

I'm very sorry if this is going over your head.

Maybe I can simplify it even more for you:

You are equating a financially successful item from 30 years in the past with a brand new item you are attempting to sell.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RabidFerret said:

My god, this is like trying to have a conversation with Trump...

I'm very sorry if this is going over your head.

Maybe I can simplify it even more for you:

You are equating a financially successful item from 30 years in the past with a brand new item you are attempting to sell.

 

No, *you're* equating a financially successful item from 30 years in the past with a brand new item I'm attempting to sell.

I've not mentioned anything "financial". I'm comparing a supremely talented young artist with a supremely talented older artist. I'm comparing a new story with a well-remembered one.

When I look at a BORN AGAIN page, I marvel at Mazzuccelli's perfect artistic translation of Miller's brilliantly composed story. You apparently see a financially successful item from 30 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nexus said:

No, *you're* equating a financially successful item from 30 years in the past with a brand new item I'm attempting to sell.

I've not mentioned anything "financial". I'm comparing a supremely talented young artist with a supremely talented older artist. I'm comparing a new story with a well-remembered one.

When I look at a BORN AGAIN page, I marvel at Mazzuccelli's perfect artistic translation of Miller's brilliantly composed story. You apparently see a financially successful item from 30 years ago.

You are an art dealer. You are in the business of selling artwork. Your whole purpose is "financial".

But please, show me examples then of where you're equating the art you're selling to wonderful but worthless books from the past? To your point, there must be plenty of examples of you doing this, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
6 6