Buy art you have no connection to? 1 1

[vodou]

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

Yeah.   And that’s the issue when people start saying that they buy based only on image.   It positions the buyer as having tastes and habits  that live in a vacuum and that’s just not true of anyone.   At 300 bucks, yeah okay, at any kind of substantial amount it’s a different story

I disagree somewhat at $300-$500 (that's the range I bought within) ten years ago (2006-2008) on a relative basis was substantial money. Double that, then, and you could get this at HA:

I bought for image. Never read a Deadworld. And still haven't.

Shoulda bought the Kirby though. But any two painted Deadworld beat that Kirby on image (but not on EXPLOSVIE ACTION!!)

[Bronty]

Well, let's not pick on subjective word definitions.    The point is, there's a ceiling when there aren't other valuation factors present.    And... even those who buy 'only for the image' take the presence or absence of other factors into account, generally speaking, when it comes time to talk price.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Bronty

[vodou]

56 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Well, let's not pick on subjective word definitions.    The point is, there's a ceiling when there aren't other valuation factors present.    And... even those who buy 'only for the image' take the presence or absence of other factors into account, generally speaking, when it comes time to talk price.

I dunno, but you are certainly convinced - that I can see

I mean what's substantial? Or ceiling? Numbers are deceptive as $300 (or whatever) to one guy is something else to another (millionaire guy), and yet another (just got fired guy).

As one who does buy for solely image (not always but sometimes) but doesn't try to position that as my having taste and habits* (at least I don't think this is so)...I can tell you that I've bought a single OT original (so not comic/illustration) for 10% of my annual pre-tax income. And I've done that on more than one occasion and not all in the same year either. I mean, after you pay your bills and put some away for a rainy day, it's just money sittin' there, right? I'd rather look at a nice painting.

*Instead I'd suggest that not everybody collects art around here, many are doing character collectibles that happen to be called art, largely as a side-effect of how the objects are created ("by artists"). I collect it all, call it all art, and don't really care that some has little or no context and others have a whole lot, and what complex ratio analysis of those two things produces FMV.

[Bronty]

You feel that way, because ego comes into it and we like to feel like we are free and liberated with our tastes sometimes, but is it really all about image for us in general, you included?   Would you be paying what you paid for your Barker if it was a no name, non-famous artist?   If it was done by a Granny in Hoboken last Tuesday?   Maybe you would have still been interested, but at the same price?     Probably not

You can't divorce price from the discussion.   In fact its the ultimate acid test.   And image alone doesn't cut it as a price driver unless there's a whole other context, a greater body of work by the artist, a significant place of publication, whatever, for us to consider.   Your Barker has it.    Granny in Hoboken doesn't.

Image is in many ways the best reason to buy a piece of art.   But its just one of dozens of reasons to consider a piece or more to the point a piece *at a price*.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Bronty

[vodou]

2 minutes ago, Bronty said:

You feel that way, because ego comes into it and we like to feel like we are free and liberated with our tastes sometimes, but is it really all about image for anyone, you included?   Would you be paying what you paid for your Barker if it was a no name, non-famous artist?   If it was done by a Granny in Hoboken last Tuesday?   Maybe you would have still been interested, but at the same price?     Probably not

My Barker wasn't was I was referring to actually. Barker was too much by at least 25% and probably 50%. (Just about everybody around here would stoutly argue 95% at least!) The open market ain't even close to there but that's the price you pay from source. And I held my nose and did it. Bringing that up, you actually made my case for me (lol) I overpaid for image (and the tactile qualities, etc.) but you are correct I would not have overpaid for a no-name...that's for sure. But that one, to turn a decent buck is a 20 year wait. At least. And even then...trust me, I did it and live with it as money good and truly lost. There's no salvage value to speak of, not really, when put against cost basis. And I'll remind you...it was a gift anyway.

As to ego, no, but I have immersed myself in the subject of art most of my life and I would like to think I've come away with something that maybe others that haven't have not. When I wrote: I'd rather look at a nice painting. I meant but forgot to add: And I trust myself enough to define "nice" without a large fan-base to bolster my confidence enough to buy.

[Bronty]

You say you wouldn't have overpaid for a noname, and that you paid double FMV.   The reasons (gift, tactile qualities, loving the artist, whatever) are not relevant.   You overpaid, fine.    Point is, if you take the price you paid, divide it by 2 you say to get to regular FMV... you wouldn't have paid that regular FMV for Granny's work done last Tuesday.     You would have paid 1/4 of that.

 

[Bronty]

The greater point is that it may not be truly possible to even consider image in a truly stand alone way stripped of all context.    What we like in a 1940s comic cover is so different than what we like in a 1970s comic cover let alone a 50s abstract painting.   Where and when are such important questions because they separate groundbreaking work from derivative.   If somebody did a drop painting that was better than Pollock or a Marilyn that was better than Warhol’s and did them last Tuesday would anybody care?   Nah.   

[vodou]

2 minutes ago, Bronty said:

You say you wouldn't have overpaid for a noname, and that you paid double FMV.   The reasons (gift, tactile qualities, loving the artist, whatever) are not relevant.   You overpaid, fine.    Point is, if you take the price you paid, divide it by 2 you say to get to regular FMV... you wouldn't have paid that regular FMV for Granny's work done last Tuesday.     You would have paid 1/4 of that.

 

I've bought plenty of naive/self-taught/outside type art. The one thing most of them and Granny share is: a stunning lack of technique. That's what drew me in to Barker though, who I knew of as an artist since the early 1990s but didn't pay attention to until fifteen, nearly twenty years later when I saw the art outside of books that only flatten the images. The work is three-dimensional, the technique is what got me. If you ever get a chance to see an Anselm Kiefer in person...that'll give you a big clue as to the sort of tactile-ness that pulls me in. Barker, for a period, had it in spades. His early style didn't and his later style doesn't seem to either, maybe just a 5-7 year period in the middle.

I'd definitely pay double FMV for the right Granny painting. But I'll tell you, I'd have to look at a lot of Granny-ish (meaning many, many different Grannies in many towns) art to find that one feather worth plucking. And double FMV would be a deal too. I've done that before and will again, I'm proud of my picking skills. There's another thread recently where paying the same as similar for exceptional is a fun game, and it rewards in the long run too. You enjoy an exceptional pick, then eventually sell it for much more than double (similar) FMV later when the market break-out function finally catches up.

I paid for the Barker because it displayed the qualities* I wanted, the price was financially possible, and there just wasn't any other way to get there. Price became a secondary consideration, and I knew it was a 'bad deal' (as far as wheelin' n dealin' goes). Unless you have a plan for me to get $5m together (and a much bigger house!) for the Anselm Kiefer that I really want

*The technique, not so much the name/signature which is not highly valued to me or the market. You presume too much there.

[vodou]

2 minutes ago, Bronty said:

The greater point is that it may not be truly possible to even consider image in a truly stand alone way stripped of all context.    What we like in a 1940s comic cover is so different than what we like in a 1970s comic cover let alone a 50s abstract painting.   Where and when are such important questions because they separate groundbreaking work from derivative.   If somebody did a drop painting that was better than Pollock or a Marilyn that was better than Warhol’s and did them last Tuesday would anybody care?   Nah.   

That's a big discussion you're tipping into, don't have time to do that now but I do like that comic art, unlike comics and art, doesn't always reward early over better! Warhol Marilyn or Pollock drip is early (first), everything else is not. Cap #1 is worth more than #10. But when you get to comic art, the better artists (better at least in terms the hobby has agreed upon) get more $$$. Miller DD or DKR is worth more than just about any other artistic iteration of the character, even though in both cases Miller was pretty late to the game, nowhere near #1 on either of those characters. Maybe not perfect apples:apples, but I hope my point is not lost - this aspect makes comic art fun for me, it's invigorating that at any time an artist today can pop up, shake things up, and leave us all scratching our heads as to how it happened (and perhaps scrambling to buy some oa before it all disappears into black holes!)

This book, just finished it. Very good. There is a very relevant section on just what we're talking about here...the weakness of the art world, of contemporary art, as it runs out of new ideas and becomes too self-referential, as so much (everything?) novel has now already been done!

[Bronty]

Yeah we’re going around in circles here but that double Granny FMV is still a fraction of what you’d pay for it as a Barker , which is the whole point.   Image may be driving your selection process but it’s not truly driving the price you’ll pay (except as a multiple of the already context adjusted FMV) and as such kinda meaningless.    

If you and I watch some girls pass by on the street , if we are considering who is the most attractive before considering personality, can we truly divorce body from face from hair from makeup from clothes etc?    It’s a total package and the context of the one affects the attractiveness of the other.    The same black boots might look a hell of a lot better on Sally than on Jill, and the same painting as a Barker is going to look a lot more attractive to you than as a Ethel Graumann.

 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Bronty

[vodou]

8 hours ago, Bronty said:

Yeah we’re going around in circles here but that double Granny FMV is still a fraction of what you’d pay for it as a Barker , which is the whole point.   Image may be driving your selection process but it’s not truly driving the price you’ll pay (except as a multiple of the already context adjusted FMV) and as such kinda meaningless.    

If you and I watch some girls pass by on the street , if we are considering who is the most attractive before considering personality, can we truly divorce body from face from hair from makeup from clothes etc?    It’s a total package and the context of the one affects the attractiveness of the other.    The same black boots might look a hell of a lot better on Sally than on Jill, and the same painting as a Barker is going to look a lot more attractive to you than as a Ethel Graumann.

 

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with this. Here's why:

1. When I look at a piece of art, where the image grabs me but I do not recognize the artist immediately by style (this is very often actually), I can price it pretty good for myself. Bang. A number or tight range is in my mind. Immediately. Then I go to the sticker price, and if it's right there, I go to some other thinking (let's call that the Art of the Deal). If sticker is significantly lower, then I wonder - what do 'they' (the market) know that I don't here? (Is it inks only over blueline, a bs transparency, a 'recreation', yadda yadda). If sticker is significantly higher, having been around the block a few times, I know it's because either the character/storyline or artist is some sort of darling of the current market, image is not the primary contributor to price. (Or the guy is a dreamer or otherwise out to lunch.) And I'm out. I don't pay up for faddishness or signatures as a rule. For my own nostalgia, very rarely I will satisfy that urge (which is not an 'art' thing much at all) and buy just for kicks. Hey that's fun and I'm not immune to having some nostalgic fun either. But that is the exception transaction for at least ten years now, maybe longer, I dunno. Going back to the first sentence here, if I do recognize the style as 'somebody', I'm actually already a bit turned-off...I know the price won't be justifiable to me, unless something is wrong (fake, what have you) or I've lucked into an arbitrage situation. Arbs used to be everywhere but aren't these days, so my default thought (without seeing the price tag) on an obvious 'name' style is the market will love (price higher) this more than I will (pay). That 'name' or obvious style is not a justification for me to pay up at all. I get no comfort from the fact that I could (hope to!!) pawn the thing off later on a greater fool.

2. I can, per above and more specifically to your girls pass by example, divorce actual physicality from artificial enhancement (clothing, make-up, boob job), well-done or not. A great (imo) painting has nothing to do with who did it. 'Who' is an enhancement that helps determines price, unless the seller is doing a liquidation sale or doesn't know the market. (Likewise that anonymous girl passing by, get to know her and you'll either like her a lot more or less based on that personality. A great painting may be considered even greater when the context of who, what, where, when, why is attained. But that's largely a post-purchase discovery for me.)

What I pay is very much dependent on what I can afford to pay. This Barker vs. Granny business ain't that though. My Barker offers something I'm not seeing elsewhere, no matter the price or artist, except previously noted Kiefer. They are similar but not the same though for style, and Kiefers are difficult to display privately (soaring 50' ceilings needed!) If I want that image/style/substance (and I did and do), Barker is where it's at (under six figures). Is somebody else somewhere doing that same thing for $100 bucks a a flea market? Maybe. But even though I do cast my art-hunting net far and wide live and on the internet, I haven't run into them, it's that simple. Back to Kiefer and Barker, except for a recent outlier event, even Barker was not affordable. When that changed, I paid the price, not because it was justifiable (it's not) but because that was the only option. A singular exception. I buy Grannys regularly and often, when I find the right images/etc, because they are more often affordable (to me), they are lower priced by the market, but not of lower value (to me), because they are out of favor or not signed by Somebody. And I've dated a lot of girls that looked better without their clothes on that with. This because they didn't know a lot about fashion, make-up and style, they bought the right clothes (from the right stores, for the right money) for the wrong body (type). If you can see past that though...there's a lot of very attractive girls out there that just don't know it! (Because few can see past the ill-fitting to their form clothes? Because groupthink isn't telling them they are?) Not only that, but they are a lot easier to successfully* ask out too

*And then, after we're comfortable with each other, I give them fashion tips. How to let their hair and make-up illuminate their already fine structure and form. Let those enhancers work with the infrastructure not fight against it. The advertisers in Vogue just want you (the girl) to BUY, they don't care if it's right for your body type. I tell them - find a model with your body type that looks great and then buy what she's wearing! Ever see a really fat guy that nonetheless is noticeably notable in confidence and carrying the room? It's because he's spending a lot with his (artist) tailor, his suits don't just cost a lot, they are tailored to hide the worst of it and enhance the best of it. The dude that gets his stuff tailored by 'whomever' at Men's Wearhouse that day, he looks like a sht-sandwich. Whether the suit was $300 or $3,000...sht-sandwich.

[Bronty]

There’s no attack to your collecting style here.   We both understand you buy a lot of ‘Granny’ art and that’s great; fabulous.    But you’d never pay for a granny what you’d pay for a Barker... so whether we want to slice it this way or that way you’re not divorcing context from image in your own buying.   In fact you’re specifically considering it as per your beingf turned off by ‘names.’   Your tastes aren’t in a vacuum because what you can afford is shaped by the buying preferences of others.   You choose to date Sally because there’s ten guys asking Jill out but that doesn’t change the fact that you might ask Jill out yourself if she wasn’t already being fought over

Edited October 7, 2017 by Bronty

[vodou]

10 minutes ago, Bronty said:

There’s no attack to your collecting style here.   We both understand you buy a lot of ‘Granny’ art and that’s great; fabulous.    But you’d never pay for a granny what you’d pay for a Barker... so whether we want to slice it this way or that way you’re not divorcing context from image in your own buying.   In fact you’re specifically considering it as per your beingf turned off by ‘names.’   Your tastes aren’t in a vacuum because what you can afford is shaped by the buying preferences of others.   You choose to date Sally because there’s ten guys asking Jill out but that doesn’t change the fact that you might ask Jill out yourself if she wasn’t already being fought over

I've paid near Barker money for a number of non-Barkers (or anybodys), on image alone. Remember my 10% of pre-tax gross statement? It was Grannys. Several times too. I believe the rest of the world will catch up to them in my lifetime. But I may be wrong too! And I would never pay Barker price for anything (even a Barker) if a substitute of equal (image/tactile) value existed. That's what you keep missing. I only did it because the option was binary and the price unflexible, there was no substitute and I decided to just do it anyway. It's such an aberration though. A true one-off. Not worth making so much of, except that you seem to be really hung up on it.

The Jill and Sally...you're loosing me there. I'd still take the Deadworld paintings 2:1 over the Kirby pencil on image, but that's a devilish mistake as to FMV and likely future FMV delta. Writing that has nothing to do with how many are backing up behind me to buy next or not. Lack of widespread interest in an object is no more attractive (in isolation) to me than widespread interest. That I can ferret out the nuggets (the Sallys among the Jills) merely provides leverage, no more nor less. Weird why this bugs you so much.

If you're ever out my way, you're always welcome to visit all my collections...seeing is believing I guess, as I'm not pulling your leg or suffering self-delusion on any of this. Every piece acquired the last 10-15 years has a justification and only the stuff I bought early oughts and prior (or the occasional comic art piece since) has a hobby/fanboy justification. The rest is image and the prices all over the place, but none of it is based on the opinions of others, context, the stuff you think is impossible to get away from. The sheer quantity and variety of this stuff would make your head spin, you'd need to step outside for a breath of fresh air...there would be so little* you could connect to except image strength...I'd be interesting in seeing this happen actually. Dan, you gotta realize...we're not all exactly cut from the same mold. That doesn't make one mold better than another, just not the same.

*No recognizable signatures (to you or anybody in those pockets either), or obvious types, no referencing classic genres or paying homage to 'x', etc. Just pictures that 'wow' the brain.

[Bronty]

So image is all that matters?  You comsidered nothing else in making those purchases?    you didn’t consider the date and who did it and whatever other context there was?    You’d pay the same for a tracing of a Kirby as a Kirby huh?

[vodou]

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

So image is all that matters?  You comsidered nothing else in making those purchases?    you didn’t consider the date and who did it and whatever other context there was?    You’d pay the same for a tracing of a Kirby as a Kirby huh?

Huh?! Image is very important. Yes. When you're working with non-commercial art there's no 'used as...' to fall back on. There's no accumulated adoration and nostalgia, no fanbase or following...except for the Cult of Warhol (or insert another artist name). Absent that, and when it's works signed by no-names or not signed at all, then image, style, skill, technique are what you have. You have what's in front of you. I'm telling you - and I guess daring you to call me a liar - that I can and do skillfully navigate that situation often and sometimes pay a lot of money (relative to my financial situation) for those objects. (I certainly pay a lot more for any of this stuff than non-art folks would, my own Dad regularly tells me 'hey they have that sht at the flea market for $25, I wouldn't even give 'em that! You big dummy!!') I fall back on my accumulated appreciation of art as means of expression and what I like and want in my life. I also have a pretty good feeling that if I run into somebody else like me, they will also 'get it' and further...I very much believe there are more than just two of us out there, and that's the faith I have that when I need to sell some of this stuff, it won't fall flat and go no bid. But maybe I'm all wrong but I'm not a liar. Promise!

No I would not pay the same for a tracing of a Kirby as a Kirby. Kirby is overpriced as to my taste in art. I wouldn't pay anything worth discussing for any Kirby, save it scratches a nostalgic itch and that's the going price. (I've admitted to the itch and the scratching already.) But not on an image basis? Nope.

[vodou]

Let me add, I buy art two ways: with the intention of re-selling for a profit and then for me (with no particular profit motive).

What we've been talking about yesterday and today is my 'for me' purchases. (I still have every single one of those Vince Locke Deadworld pieces. I've been asked to sell, but never once have I considered it. Never. "For" me.) The re-sell I do (and have to) think about all those things you mention, chiefly 'use' and 'context'. To be a successful re-seller you have to get into the mind of your potential customers, you have to buy they way they buy and anticipate that, so you can feed into it...for a profit. Otherwise it's all stale unsaleable inventory, no liquidity, and poof! you're out of business. But yesterday and today, it's been 'for me', that includes my Barker, and that's image driven. Price, signature, justifications, yadda yadda, not on the radar. I'm the final end-user. There's no anticipation (or need to anticipate) turning a profit or how to do that. Since I'm buying for life, not to let go of later and in such a way that I need a 'pitch' or 'hook' to sell with, I don't need to 'sell' myself on anything other than image. So the image, not the price, not the use/context is what needs to make sense up front but then also forever. I never say never, but this is the stuff that's generally going to the grave with me, I have different standards I apply to those purchases. That standard is what I've been talking about.

[Ducky13]

I generally keep to pieces which appeal to me based on the book, artist or character. Although I didn't follow the Chaos War (Marvel), a Thor character piece was on my want list so I got the page and then bought and read the book. That being said there is nostalgia in some works that outweigh this, such as the dead world piece you have posted. Which is fantastic by the way. It would contradict my first statement.

[Brian Peck]

On 10/6/2017 at 12:25 PM, vodou said:

They were great when Vince was eBaying them about ten years ago with a staring bid of $300 and that's about what they went for. Well-executed cover paintings for $300ish. Too cool. I got too many of them for start or just a bid increment or two above. Occasionally I was even outbid. Don't know what Brian paid for his (or if it came from Vince or somebody else) but somewhere along the way Vince decided that wasn't working, stopped listing them on eBay and put what was left on his site for a thousand or three per. As you might expect they didn't sell well that way.

Somehow, somewhere Deadworld oa will be worth good money. In the same way that generic pre or post code 50s horror is today. But it might be a very long wait.

Vince's ink line on Deadworld is nice too if a low priced opportunity hits you in the face

I traded a friend for the Deadwood cover.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Brian Peck

[vodou]

11 hours ago, Brian Peck said:

I trade a friend for the Deadwood cover.

Typo or got Ironwood on brain there Brian?

[Weird Paper]

On October 9, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Brian Peck said:

I traded a friend for the Deadwood cover.

I've tried to trade my friends for art, but I just can't get enough for them. I think I need more marketable friends.