Art Prices 3 3

[Bronty]

Just now, RICKYBOBBY said:

His layout skills were impeccable.

 

Show me the non ASM romita cover that so impeccable that it would sell for 478,000

[zhamlau]

22 hours ago, Bronty said:

Its like the comic market's own form of 'virtue signalling' or something.    With no disrespect to anyone who says that.   I think they think they mean it.    I just also happen to think that the actions of some of those that say so don't always align with the words.   

Some might say 'I don't buy comic art to invest' but then turn around and say 'I had to buy this for 3k, this art is going nowhere but up even though I don't like it that much' in a later conversation.

Yeah I never got that. These pages can and often do cost as much as a new car...You are hanging a piece of paper that likely was sold for 10 bucks at some point in your life time for a cost higher than most people spend on their rides. When that happens, you have to be honest and admit this is also investing.

[Bronty]

28 minutes ago, RICKYBOBBY said:

Both. Here is an example of his draftsmanship skill..

"Stan Lee showed me  Ayers' splash page for a Daredevil and asked me, 'What would you do with this page?' I showed him on a tracing paper what I would do, and then he asked me to do a drawing of Daredevil the way I would do it. I did a big drawing of Daredevil ... just a big, tracing-paper drawing of Daredevil swinging. And Stan loved it."

So not just personality. His layout skills were impeccable and just outright better then anyone around at that time.

 

Let's assume that you are right and he is the second coming of Raphael?

Who cares?    The market doesn't - Liefeld is hot right?    And this thread is about prices.

 

All I really want out of this thread is a little intellectual honesty at the end of the day.     Good, solid artist and certainly able to deliver what Marvel wanted at the time.    But it stops there, and the prices have frankly little or nothing to do with his artistic skill.    Again, he DID have skill.    But that's way down the list of what the market values.

So when people start talking about ASM 100 being beautifully rendered (as was the conversation earlier) being any kind of significant reason it did so well - that's IMO not being honest with oneself.

The reasons it did so well, in order, are 

1) marvel

2) ASM

3) many characters on cover

4) #100

5) Last, and definitely least, the skill of the artist.

 

Why do I care?   Well, because this debate doesn't just apply to ASM 100 covers.    It applies to a wide swath of comic and non comic art.    Its a critical thought IMO because it gets to the very heart of what the market values - CONTEXT of artwork.    Much, much more so than actual skill in artwork.

And its utterly obvious when you accept it as the truth.  Take the Hulk 181 cover.   It wouldn't matter if Frazetta drew the cover to Hulk 183, say.    181 would still be worth more than 183.     Good context (1st app of major character) trumps good skill every time.

And its the reason a stuffed shark can sell for $12m, too.    Until we accept that we are by and large collecting moments in comic history rather than collecting drawings for the sake of drawings, we haven't really opened our eyes.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Bronty

[RICKYBOBBY]

25 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Let's assume that you are right and he is the second coming of Raphael?

Who cares?    The market doesn't - Liefeld is hot right?    And this thread is about prices.

 

All I really want out of this thread is a little intellectual honesty at the end of the day.     Good, solid artist and certainly able to deliver what Marvel wanted at the time.    But it stops there, and the prices have frankly little or nothing to do with his artistic skill.    Again, he DID have skill.    But that's way down the list of what the market values.

So when people start talking about ASM 100 being beautifully rendered (as was the conversation earlier) being the reason it did so well - that's IMO not being honest with oneself.

The reasons it did so well, in order, are 

1) marvel

2) ASM

3) many characters on cover

4) #100

5) Last, and definitely least, the skill of the artist.

 

Why do I care?   Well, because this debate doesn't just apply to ASM 100 covers.    It applies to a wide swath of comic and non comic art.    Its a critical thought IMO because it gets to the very heart of what the market values - CONTEXT of artwork.    Much, much more so than actual skill in artwork.

And its utterly obvious when you accept it as the truth.  Take the Hulk 181 cover.   It wouldn't matter if Frazetta drew the cover to Hulk 183, say.    181 would still be worth more than 183.     Good context (1st app of major character) trumps good skill every time.

I can agree with that list from 1-5 for this cover. However, if let's say Gil Kane drew this cover, I don't think it would have gone over 250k.

[Bronty]

11 minutes ago, RICKYBOBBY said:

I can agree with that list from 1-5 for this cover. However, if let's say Gil Kane drew this cover, I don't think it would have gone over 250k.

Agreed, but do you know why that is?   Because Gil Kane didn't have a long run on ASM.    Context.   Not because Kane's a worse artist.   

In fact for my money Kane was the stronger cover artist.     You say Romita was Marvel's art director , fair point, well, if you look at the 1975-1980 period I bet Kane did more covers in that span than any other artist in comics.   He was dynamite with layout.   Some of the strongest covers from the Romita period are the ones where Kane was involved IMO.    98, 101, 129, 151 etc.    Now interiors Romita was better but covers, no contest, Kane... IMO.

However, I will grant you faces weren't Kane's strong suit so maybe a #100 style cover just isn't Kane's baileywick period.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Bronty

[RICKYBOBBY]

10 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Agreed, but do you know why that is?   Because Gil Kane didn't have a long run on ASM.    Context.   Not because Kane's a worse artist.   

In fact for my money Kane was the stronger cover artist.     You say Romita was Marvel's art director , fair point, well, if you look at the 1975-1980 period I bet Kane did more covers in that span than any other artist in comics.   He was dynamite with layout.   Some of the strongest covers from the Romita period are the ones where Kane was involved IMO.    98, 101, 129, 151 etc.    Now interiors Romita was better but covers, no contest, Kane... IMO.

However, I will grant you faces weren't Kane's strong suit so maybe a #100 style cover just isn't Kane's baileywick period.

He did a lot of covers. Good a laying out but his drawing of characters and action are not attractive as Romita's.

It's why you would have Romita redo Kane's faces on some of these covers.

But you posted a good point. A piece of comic history by low end artist could trump a nice cover by a high end artist.

But for me, I would go with the cheaper better image cover vs the history and save my money.

My 

 

[Bronty]

6 minutes ago, RICKYBOBBY said:

He did a lot of covers. Good a laying out but his drawing of characters and action are not attractive as Romita's.

It's why you would have Romita redo Kane's faces on some of these covers.

But you posted a good point. A piece of comic history by low end artist could trump a nice cover by a high end artist.

But for me, I would go with the cheaper better image cover vs the history and save my money.

My 

 

I can certainly understand you having that preference!   I posted in another thread that for the prices involved I'd prefer to buy a kirby PH splash over a hero one.   Same idea.    Just more bang for the buck to my tastes. 

Edited March 20, 2018 by Bronty

[vodou]

1 hour ago, RICKYBOBBY said:

Both. Here is an example of his draftsmanship skill..

"Stan Lee showed me  Ayers' splash page for a Daredevil and asked me, 'What would you do with this page?' I showed him on a tracing paper what I would do, and then he asked me to do a drawing of Daredevil the way I would do it. I did a big drawing of Daredevil ... just a big, tracing-paper drawing of Daredevil swinging. And Stan loved it."

So not just personality. His layout skills were impeccable and just outright better then anyone around at that time.

 

Ayers? Might as well Bronty stick figures.

[Bronty]

Edited March 20, 2018 by Bronty

[vodou]

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

Its a critical thought IMO because it gets to the very heart of what the market values - CONTEXT of artwork.    Much, much more so than actual skill in artwork...

...Until we accept that we are by and large collecting moments in comic history rather than collecting drawings for the sake of drawings, we haven't really opened our eyes.

The not-skill argument is proven with just one name - Jay Anacleto. Otherwise everything of this quality would be 2x or more everyone else. The end.

[jjonahjameson11]

59 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Agreed, but do you know why that is?   Because Gil Kane didn't have a long run on ASM.    Context.   Not because Kane's a worse artist.   

In fact for my money Kane was the stronger cover artist.     You say Romita was Marvel's art director , fair point, well, if you look at the 1975-1980 period I bet Kane did more covers in that span than any other artist in comics.   He was dynamite with layout.   Some of the strongest covers from the Romita period are the ones where Kane was involved IMO.    98, 101, 129, 151 etc.    Now interiors Romita was better but covers, no contest, Kane... IMO.

However, I will grant you faces weren't Kane's strong suit so maybe a #100 style cover just isn't Kane's baileywick period.

Y’know, it’s really a shame that Marvel didn’t get Boris to paint this cover.  All of those super Bronzed faces would certainly have helped this cover cross the $1M threshold 

[vodou]

14 minutes ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

Y’know, it’s really a shame that Marvel didn’t get Boris to paint this cover.  All of those super Bronzed faces would certainly have helped this cover cross the $1M threshold 

Bronzed not his 1971 style.

[Bronty]

46 minutes ago, jjonahjameson11 said:

Y’know, it’s really a shame that Marvel didn’t get Boris to paint this cover.  All of those super Bronzed faces would certainly have helped this cover cross the $1M threshold 

not bad!

But as I said before, we value context.    And the reason I buy certain Borises and Julies is primarily context.    They did a few high profile Nintendo and Sega game boxes in the day.   Those are the ones I have.   I don't have any random fantasy illustrations at all.

Soooooooooo......... comic art isn't the only thing where context is going to matter.   Same with illustration at large.    I didn't buy them to sell but I've done really well with the Borises and Julies I did end up selling, bronzed faces and all, because they were illustrations on 'stuff' people care about.    Didn't hear a single complaint about cocoa butter or abs btw.   And the ones I've kept or bought, I really enjoy, stiff poses and all.

This whole context discussion is relevant to Boris and Julie because if those bronzed faces were on ASM covers, people would love em!

Edited March 20, 2018 by Bronty

[williamhlawson]

44 minutes ago, vodou said:

The not-skill argument is proven with just one name - Jay Anacleto. Otherwise everything of this quality would be 2x or more everyone else. The end.

Skill versus style.  Something I've been struggling with heavily lately.  My wife is actually LOOKING at my art now that I'm buying skill over style.  I don't have an Anacleto yet, but he is on my very, very short list of artists desired.  I literally won a 12 year comic art hater over with one picture of his (Black Panther cover I believe), followed by one painting by Bianchi.  "Wow." she said, "Let's get some of that"! 

We must keep in mind that certain parties with LARGE amounts of works by one artist will protect the legacy/namesake/talent perception of those artists.  Why?  They love them and won't see reason as clearly as objective outsiders will.  Also, they have $kin in the game.  NOT anyone specific, just a thought that occurs to me often.  I know I certainly am not afraid to talk up my favorites, and as always, it always comes down to personal taste, just wish mine was cheaper.

 

[JadeGiant]

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

Are those published covers? I will give you $478K if so!

[Bronty]

3 minutes ago, JadeGiant said:

Are those published covers? I will give you $478K if so!

 

[suspense39]

3 hours ago, Bronty said:

comic art isn't the only thing where context is going to matter

yep!  

[SquareChaos]

The title of this thread should be edited to reflect what most of it is now about.

 

Romita is fine, I grew up reading him, just like a lot of the rest of you did, I'll never not like him. And that is more than I can say for JR.

 

Some of the points brought up though, they point more to how the hobby works than towards anything approaching a skills hierarchy of artists (if such a thing is even possible). Characters and arcs can add massive premiums to art that would otherwise sell for more modest sums. I don't think anyone should be arguing that, and I don't think anyone should attempt to use that fact to 'put an artist in their place' contextually. It is what it is.

[pemart1966]

6 hours ago, zhamlau said:

Yeah I never got that. These pages can and often do cost as much as a new car...You are hanging a piece of paper that likely was sold for 10 bucks at some point in your life time for a cost higher than most people spend on their rides. When that happens, you have to be honest and admit this is also investing.

...as much as a new car??  Hell, some cost as much as a new HOUSE! 

Point well made though.  In today's day and age, anyone spending that much and says that it's not investing is in denial.

[AnkurJ]

Booby Alert!