kav Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 Because it's actually based on something. ComicConnoisseur 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipB2k17 Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 Tell that to the..."Cabal."* *Whoever that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SquareChaos Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 9 hours ago, kav said: Because it's actually based on something. What do you mean when you say [comic art is] actually based on something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Machismo Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 I dunno, those canvases of solid colour at MoMA are pretty great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisco37 Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 Lichtenstein's most famous works are based on comic book panels, so where does he fall on the fine art ladder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComicConnoisseur Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 10 hours ago, kav said: Because it's actually based on something. Some people compare the art market to the diamond market with manipulation. I dunno I am on the fence. I know there is a lot of manipulation in both markets. so I could see Kav's argument and point of view.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SquareChaos Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 I may or may not agree with his point of view, but I don't really know what he means when he says it is based on something. At the high end of the OA market, I'm almost certain some of the same sort of manipulations occur, but I'll never swim in those waters so it is all based on observation, not personal experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nexus Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 Just now, SquareChaos said: I may or may not agree with his point of view, but I don't really know what he means when he says it is based on something. Haven't watched video yet, but I read the comment to mean that with comic art, there's context. There's a story. There's continuity. Subjects (characters) are recognizable. Which, of course, are among reasons why the art world at large snubs OA. Generally, it seems, positives for us, are seen as negatives elsewhere. Which is not to say that this is a permanent condition. But change is slow...I wouldn't expect anything too dramatic within our lifetimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SquareChaos Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 9 minutes ago, Nexus said: Haven't watched video yet, but I read the comment to mean that with comic art, there's context. There's a story. There's continuity. Subjects (characters) are recognizable. Which, of course, are among reasons why the art world at large snubs OA. Generally, it seems, positives for us, are seen as negatives elsewhere. Which is not to say that this is a permanent condition. But change is slow...I wouldn't expect anything too dramatic within our lifetimes. That is my guess of where he is coming from as well, but (as you allude to) that definition also makes it easier to dismiss as derivative. Recurring characters may not be an integral part of most fine art, but recurring themes often are, and that is shared with traditional superhero-based sequential art. If a modern critic were inclined to do so though, either category could be deconstructed down to almost nothing outside of the original artist's biases and socioeconomic status. Which is a long winded way for me to describe the things I dislike about the modern (fine) art scene and modern criticism in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisco37 Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 24 minutes ago, SquareChaos said: Recurring characters may not be an integral part of most fine art, but recurring themes often are, So true regarding the themes. Look at all the classic Renaissance Art by the masters. There's like 5 types of paintings: Adoration of the Magi Madonna & Child "Saint of the Day" Rich Guy (usually named Medici) that can afford a portrait The Crucifixtion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted August 25, 2017 Author Share Posted August 25, 2017 Yes by OA being based on something I mean it is published widely appreciated art that had to be good enough to publish. It has historical context. The actual collectors determine the value, based on what they, as afficianados, admire. Frazetta gets top billing. Wrightson gets top billing. Adams gets top billing. Not because some magazine and gallery owners n New York have deemed it. You can argue Lichtenstein is an 'artist', but there are plenty of ground breaking garage artist that never 'made it'. Lichtenstein was selected by the people who deem what 'art' is, and you can bet they made a bundle. But if he wasn't around there were hundreds of others they could have picked. But at least his work has merit. Swiping a smear and calling it art-no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooners151 Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 49 minutes ago, Nexus said: Haven't watched video yet, but I read the comment to mean that with comic art, there's context. There's a story. There's continuity. Subjects (characters) are recognizable. Which, of course, are among reasons why the art world at large snubs OA. Generally, it seems, positives for us, are seen as negatives elsewhere. Which is not to say that this is a permanent condition. But change is slow...I wouldn't expect anything too dramatic within our lifetimes. Most OA is also published, and has mass exposure to varying degrees. How many people knew what the Basquiat looks like before you saw articles covering it's 110 mil auction price. While I'm sure you can buy prints of that work, how many prints are sold vs. an average issue of a comic book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooners151 Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 4 minutes ago, kav said: Yes by OA being based on something I mean it is published widely appreciated art that had to be good enough to publish. It has historical context. The actual collectors determine the value, based on what they, as afficianados, admire. Frazetta gets top billing. Wrightson gets top billing. Adams gets top billing. Not because some magazine and gallery owners n New York have deemed it. You can argue Lichtenstein is an 'artist', but there are plenty of ground breaking garage artist that never 'made it'. Lichtenstein was selected by the people who deem what 'art' is, and you can bet they made a bundle. But if he wasn't around there were hundreds of others they could have picked. But at least his work has merit. Swiping a smear and calling it art-no. Ha! Saw the notification of this post in the topic while I was writing mine. I agree! kav 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skizz Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 It seems to me that fine art market is somewhat arbitrary. There might be 5 artists who can be called good if you look at their art objectively; but maybe only one of them comes from the right social background or has enough of a marketing machine behind him. So his art sell for thousands whilst the others sell for hundreds and eventually they give up altogether. With comic art on the other hand, if both the art and the writing are good, then the book will (should) be a best seller. A portion of those readers will be comic art collectors. So the more people who read the book, the more the art collectors there will be and more demand for the pages. The more the demand for the pages, the more the price. Add another 20 to 30 years, children who read the book are now in their 40s and 50s and have more disposable income than they have ever had in their life, and are willing to pay stupid money for that same art. If enough people in their 40s and 50s feel that way, the prices go up even more. Add another 30 years, those people are now dying. The younger generation doesn't have have nostalgia for that page (say something like Neal Adams Batman pages) and the prices go down (albeit it takes another 10 years or so). Alternatively, the original book is objectively good and hasn't aged despite the passing of years (say something Dark Knight Returns or Watchmen), this means that newer readers are coming in year after year. As those new readers get disposable income, they start buying. If enough new readers feel that way, there will be confidence in that market. So they prices stay high despite the change in generation. Overall, I feel that original art prices have (or at least will have) a clear life cycle and allow for democratisation that fine art doesn't allow. That said, as a comic art collector, I am biased. So it would be interesting to hear from any fine art collector. Mr. Machismo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted August 25, 2017 Author Share Posted August 25, 2017 Keep in mind GA OA is still highly sought by people in their 30s-40s and they were not around when the books came out. Pretty sure they will have staying power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skizz Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, kav said: Keep in mind GA OA is still highly sought by people in their 30s-40s and they were not around when the books came out. Pretty sure they will have staying power. I guess my proposed life cycle of OA pricing in the post above is its most simplified version, and there are other variables that complicate matters. For example, I have never read any silver age comics. I tried reading Dr Stange after the movie and after a few pages, I felt like slitting my wrists with a rusty blade. Nevertheless, I would very much like a Jack Kirby or Ditko page because they are auteurs who created something that stands the test of time. There might be a similar variable for any given art/artists. And if a handful of non nostalgic collectors are influenced by such a variable the prices stay up. Which creates a feedback loop of generating more confidence in the market for that art. This in turns gives more confidence to other non nostalgic buyer to invest with the thought of reselling. But all of this aside, I guess the point I was trying to make earlier is that OA allows for a certain amount of democratisation of pricing in a way that fine art doesn't. Fine art seems completely arbitrary whereas even the few things that can seem artibary with OA can be understood if we take a step back and apply a certain degree of social psychology. Edited August 25, 2017 by Skizz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SquareChaos Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 Yes, comic art is published art, and that means it is viewed by the masses, but as has been pointed out by other comments here - and by the original video - fine art has it's own way of spreading the word. Both mechanisms seem to work for the given social circles. The idea that (overall, as a genre) comic art may have some level of general quality over fine art due to having met the minimum... aesthetic? technical? ... standards necessary to be published ... I'm not so sure about that. Fine art has a much stronger gatekeeping mentality, and I think we might all agree that their strict hold on who is prominent and who is not doesn't guarantee quality, and the originally linked video would argue that is fine since that is not the intent of the barrier in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted August 25, 2017 Author Share Posted August 25, 2017 1 minute ago, Skizz said: I guess my proposed life cycle of OA pricing is a simpled version and there are other variables that complicate matters. For example, I have never read any silver age comics. I tried reading Dr Stange after the movie and after a few pages, I felt like slitting my wrists with a rusty blade. Nevertheless, I would very much like a Jack Kirby page because he is an auteur. There might be a similar variable for any given art/artists. And if a handful of non nostalgic collectors are influenced by influenced by such a variable the prices stay up. Which creates a feedback loop off generating more confidence in the leaker for that art. Which gives more confidence to non nostalgic buyer to invest with the thought of reselling. But all of this aside, I guess the point I was trying to make earlier is that OA allows for a certain amount of democratisation of pricing in a way that fine art doesn't. Fine art seems completely arbitrary whereas even the few thing that can seem artibary with OA can be understood if we take a step and try to understand it with a certain degree of social psychology. I love the SA stories-but then I grew up with them. GA stories bore me to tears but the covers are magnificent. 1950's war comics 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted August 25, 2017 Author Share Posted August 25, 2017 I highly recommend the movie Art School Confidential for a peek at how a nobody can become a master overnight in the fine art world. 1950's war comics 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamhlawson Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 (edited) I haven't watched the video, but I'll go with everyone's assumptions of it LOL... this begs a similar or at least parallel question. The cost of original art based on style versus skill... Love certain guys 'style' but would rarely pay the same as I would for 'skill' These things are usually very evident in the fine art world, less so in our beloved medium...but those artist's easily assigned to one or the other category (style/skill) in comics are what I speak of. I am also speaking of same era/same historical significance, etc. for the comparison. Edited August 25, 2017 by williamhlawson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
