Art Prices 3 3

[Bronty]

Just now, delekkerste said:

 I think it means that we appreciate the skill when applied to something we are contextually interested in.  

Great!   That sounds a lot like you agreeing with me   Context comes first.    

[delekkerste]

Just now, Bronty said:

Great!   That sounds a lot like you agreeing with me   Context comes first.    

I think it sounds more like me partially agreeing with you.  

[Bronty]

42 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I think it sounds more like me agreeing with you.  

Glad you agree

Seriously though the only reason we know any of these guys is because they were published in comics.    You can make the argument that its because the stories were compelling that it meant something to us at the time, and I agree with that, but time/place/opportunity can't be forgotten either.    You've made the point yourself that an 'A' quality story today may simply not have the same overall impact as one from yesterday just due to the time and the place in the hobby today vs the 60s.     Today's creator isn't any less skilled.... he just has a smaller audience because kids would rather be doing something else besides paying $3.99 for a couple minutes worth of entertainment......... (unless there is a webcam involved ).

Edited March 21, 2018 by Bronty

[The Voord]

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

. . .  kids would rather be doing something else besides paying $3.99 for a couple minutes worth of entertainment......... (unless there is a webcam involved ).

I can't top that observation.

Edited March 21, 2018 by The Voord

[Bronty]

[BCarter27]

Anyone old enough around here to remember this thread? Because it was a really long time ago.

 

[Bronty]

I suppose it comes up when there's a big Romita sale.  

[Rick2you2]

6 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

The pages we buy, either older with a copy of the words lettered on or with glued on bubbles, or minus the words in the case of modern work, are still only part of the work. It’s something of a totem that “represents” to us. 

 

It is always a partial work unless you have something like say a complete issue at hand that is your favorite. Otherwise even that is a bit of a settling for what you can get your hands on. We pick “examples” because we can’t truly have the work we want. Whether it’s as broad as all of it. Or as narrow as that one piece some would call a true grail that is enough of a representation of a book that it’s all the collector really needs.

From the perspective of how I framed my initial comment, your view is more compatible with the "OA as a collectible" than "fine art" approach. That's fine, but I don't think it is universal. It isn't my approach.

A piece of fine art stands on its own, so long as you understand its context (which a modern teenager may not). But understanding context is not the same as appreciating what is on the canvas. For another example, look at Don Quixote, a masterpiece of writing. On one level, it's a darn good story. But, it is also a political satire of the governing institutions of Spain at that time. You don't need context to still like it. 

Every collector obviously has different interests which propel his/her purchases. For me, I don't want a totem and I wouldn't care about buying a full book. If I want the full book, I'll get the comic--for a lot less money, the publishers even throw in some color. The teenager may be thrilled with a "seniorita on black velvet" painting, but I don't think that's a fair sort of standard when considering OA as the equivalent of fine art.

I look at a page from the perspective of whether it is doing what it is supposed to do in order to move the story along. Does it do a good job conveying narrative, like a traditional six panel, without losing the reader's interest? (This is why I always like sophisticated border work) Does it emphasize a point to the reader like a splash? Does it combine action and narrative which balance the two in the context of the story on that page? For a collection, I like focusing on a single character. It let's me compare styles, adding to my personal appreciation.

For people who are interested in financial value, by all means, nostalgia matters a lot (for now). And I'm not so pig-headed to think it should be entirely left out of valuation. But to elevate OA to another level, the primary consideration should be the "canvas", not the other stuff.

[Bronty]

10 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

From the perspective of how I framed my initial comment, your view is more compatible with the "OA as a collectible" than "fine art" approach.

I'm not sure the of the two markets approaches are that different in the first place.    I've come to see Fine Art as a collectible of sorts too.

People don't value fine art based on how good the canvas looks, either (or at least not primarily).

They value it based on the overall body of work of the artist, where it was exhibited, who the major collectors and dealers of the artist were, the impact the artist had on the fine art world at the time, etc etc etc.

Its not about image or "standing alone" there either.    Its also about context, just different context than for comics. 

The guy paying $100m for a Pollock isn't buying it because its the most beautiful thing he's ever seen, he's buying it because Pollock broke ground.    He's buying it because of what it represents to the history of fine art, the same way the guy paying $50k for a Killing Joke page is paying that much because of what that story represents to the history of comics.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Bronty

[Rick2you2]

7 hours ago, rsonenthal said:

That's an interesting perspective.  If I could add on, I would think the strength of the story matters, no?  Consider a well laid out page of Spidey fighting Tombstone as compared to a less well laid out page from the issue where Gwen Stacy was killed.  Shouldn't that matter in this hobby?

I would rather have a great Spidey fighting Tombstone page than a mediocre page from when GS was killed. I passed up bidding on a John Byrne page from Legends with a mediocre Phantom Stranger image for that reason (and which ultimately sold for just a little less than 2K).

Whether the strength of the story matters, is a different question. In my view, not so much. 

[Rick2you2]

1 minute ago, Bronty said:

I'm not sure the of the two markets approaches are that different in the first place.    I've come to see Fine Art as a collectible of sorts too.

People don't value fine art based on how good the canvas looks, either.

They value it based on the overall body of work of the artist, where it was exhibited, who the major collectors and dealers of the artist world, the impact the artist had on the fine art world at the time, etc etc etc.

Its not about image or "standing alone" there either.    Its also about context, just different context than for comics. 

The guy paying $100m for a Pollock isn't buying it because its the most beautiful thing he's ever seen, he's buying it because Pollock broke ground.

 

I think you are undervaluing the specifics of a particular piece of fine art. Every artist has good and bad days; that applies to the artwork, too. Not all Pollock is great either. And, don't forget that people are sometimes buying as an investment in a recognized market. OA isn't there.

When fine art has been reduced to a collectible status, it has a tendency to rise and then fall with popularity. Traditional landscapes and realistic artwork used to be more highly valued (inflation adjusted) than now. 

So in my opinion, while context does have an impact, it ought not be valued as highly as it is.

[Carlo M]

I think it is just toot difficult to separate context, quality of the story and quality of the art.  Let's leave first appearances aside for a second.  It seems to me the context really is a consequence of a perfect fusion of text and art, as it should be for a medium like comics (the same as saying, can there be a masterpiece movie with an amazing story but poorly acted?).

So I would like to ask this forum, origins / first appearances aside, can anyone mention one issue or storyline that was truly relevant for the medium that was either poorly written or poorly drawn? I can't.... 

Carlo

[Bronty]

1 hour ago, Rick2you2 said:

I think you are undervaluing the specifics of a particular piece of fine art. Every artist has good and bad days; that applies to the artwork, too. Not all Pollock is great either. And, don't forget that people are sometimes buying as an investment in a recognized market. OA isn't there.

When fine art has been reduced to a collectible status, it has a tendency to rise and then fall with popularity. Traditional landscapes and realistic artwork used to be more highly valued (inflation adjusted) than now. 

So in my opinion, while context does have an impact, it ought not be valued as highly as it is.

The specifics are important, of course, in the same way that with comics specifics are important too.    Naturally the best rendering of someone's life will command more money than the worst rendering of someone's life (IF all other factors are held constant).

I appreciate that there's probably a greater emphasis on the specifics with fine art because there aren't as many other things to differentiate with.     But an 16" picasso vs a 48" picasso isn't that different than a 9 panel page versus a cover or splash.     A Picasso portrait of Marie Louise isn't that different than Romita drawing ASM in that both subjects are 'good' subjects for the artist.     

Its not a perfect comparison of course, but there are parallels to be drawn there yes?

Edited March 21, 2018 by Bronty

[Bronty]

1 hour ago, Carlo M said:

I think it is just toot difficult to separate context, quality of the story and quality of the art.  Let's leave first appearances aside for a second.  It seems to me the context really is a consequence of a perfect fusion of text and art, as it should be for a medium like comics (the same as saying, can there be a masterpiece movie with an amazing story but poorly acted?).

So I would like to ask this forum, origins / first appearances aside, can anyone mention one issue or storyline that was truly relevant for the medium that was either poorly written or poorly drawn? I can't.... 

Carlo

There are plenty of examples of poorly drawn or written first appearances.

 

And lots of examples of art with fairly good context and fairly high prices that was that poorly written or drawn too.

Obviously, the more 'hits' vs 'misses' the higher the price so finding an A++++ piece that isn't a first appearance that is also truly relevant while having art and story that also truly sucks will be hard, yes.  

But that's because you're already filtering to get there.   

 

The point though is that there's no shortage of pages worth more than the next page in the book because of "claws out" wolverine (or what have you) trumping the art or story specific to that sequence.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Bronty

[Chaykin Stevens]

5 hours ago, delekkerste said:

Carlos Ezquerra is Steve Ditko to Bolland's Romita as far as Judge Dredd is concerned. Though, in this case, "Romita" has far eclipsed "Ditko" based on skill/talent/aesthetics. 

Although Ezquerra co-created Dredd, he protested at being forced to share the character with other artists, and only drew him a couple of times in 2000AD's early years, only becoming the regular artist with the Apocalypse War after Bolland had left.  I'd say a case could be made for the Ditko to Bolland's Romita being Mike McMahon, who drew the first published Dredd strip in 2000 AD prog 2.  I think Bolland saw his version of Dredd as an idealised version of McMahon's.

[Rick2you2]

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

The specifics are important, of course, in the same way that with comics specifics are important too.    Naturally the best rendering of someone's life will command more money than the worst rendering of someone's life (IF all other factors are held constant).

I appreciate that there's probably a greater emphasis on the specifics with fine art because there aren't as many other things to differentiate with.     But an 16" picasso vs a 48" picasso isn't that different than a 9 panel page versus a cover or splash.     A Picasso portrait of Marie Louise isn't that different than Romita drawing ASM in that both subjects are 'good' subjects for the artist.     

Its not a perfect comparison of course, but there are parallels to be drawn there yes?

The comparison wouldn't work. You have to look at things like when it was painted: Picasso's cubist period, pre-War, post-War, etc. Then, you start getting into things like composition, color balance/contrast, imagry, and a whole host of things I don't know much about. 

If you mean Marie-Therese, one of his mistresses, Picasso's variations are extensive. If you look at this Wikipedia site, it lists various paintings and busts with links to what they are. Take a look at them for a few seconds. It's worth it.

Now, look at Romita's drawings in ASM (from my recollection, sorry), they aren't all that different--at least not when compared to Picasso.

[Bronty]

8 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

The comparison wouldn't work. You have to look at things like when it was painted: Picasso's cubist period, pre-War, post-War, etc. Then, you start getting into things like composition, color balance/contrast, imagry, and a whole host of things I don't know much about. 

If you mean Marie-Therese, one of his mistresses, Picasso's variations are extensive. If you look at this Wikipedia site, it lists various paintings and busts with links to what they are. Take a look at them for a few seconds. It's worth it.

Now, look at Romita's drawings in ASM (from my recollection, sorry), they aren't all that different--at least not when compared to Picasso.

- you have to look at when Romita's work happened too.     His 1990s work is going to trade at a discount for example.

- composition, color, contrast imagery... 

are the comic versions of buttshot, villains, webbing, storyline... etc..........

Marie Louise = Gwen?

La Reve = Spidey 122 cover?

I'm not saying the comparison is perfect.    I'm saying both markets use valuation factors that don't have that much to do with the image itself.   Both markets use important contextual factors.   

The primary valuation factor of a Picasso is that its a Picasso.    Regardless of what it looks like.

I've heard it said, and you've alluded to, the COLOR of certain paintings affecting value (because no one wants a pea green canvas or what have you).    How much does that have to do with skill?   Zero.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Bronty

[Rick2you2]

2 hours ago, Carlo M said:

I think it is just toot difficult to separate context, quality of the story and quality of the art.  Let's leave first appearances aside for a second.  It seems to me the context really is a consequence of a perfect fusion of text and art, as it should be for a medium like comics (the same as saying, can there be a masterpiece movie with an amazing story but poorly acted?).

So I would like to ask this forum, origins / first appearances aside, can anyone mention one issue or storyline that was truly relevant for the medium that was either poorly written or poorly drawn? I can't.... 

Carlo

I don't think we are using "context" in the same way. I view "context" as involving matters outside the comic, and more narrowly, outside the particular page. So, a crummy page from the Spider-man wedding issue does not deserve a high price just because it is a wedding issue, or because it was written by Michelinie and Shooter (for example). I think you are using it to refer to the combination or art and -script. 

[Rick2you2]

2 minutes ago, Bronty said:

- you have to look at when Romita's work happened too.     His 1990s work is going to trade at a discount for example.

- composition, color, contrast imagery... 

are the comic versions of buttshot, villains, webbing, storyline... etc..........

Marie Louise = Gwen?

La Reve = Spidey 122 cover?

I'm not saying the comparison is perfect.    I'm saying both markets use valuation factors that don't have that much to do with the image itself.   

The primary valuation factor of a Picasso is that its a Picasso.    Regardless of what it looks like.

But Romita isn't Picasso, at least not to anyone who isn't into comics. And that is a very big difference. It is what separates the collectible from the permanent art collection and dooms its 20 year future.

[Bronty]

46 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

But Romita isn't Picasso, at least not to anyone who isn't into comics. And that is a very big difference. It is what separates the collectible from the permanent art collection and dooms its 20 year future.

Well, the Picasso will be talked about 500 years from now where Romita likely will not be, no question.   

Fine Art is the first collectible, the collectible of kings as it were.    Comic art is to fine art what MTG art is to comic art.       Its something with a shorter history and a shakier outlook that is more dependent on the continued popularity of the related cultural artifact.

That's not a risk for fine art, its teflon on that front for sure.    It has been collected forever and will be collected forever.

But it is, ultimately, collected.   A collectible.    And as such both markets are interested in where a piece places relative to the history of the market.     Where it is in the narrative of fine art history, or comic book history, as a really important valuation factor, much more so than image. 

That clip from that Landis documentary where the reporters show a fake Rothko and a real one and the auction attendees can't tell them apart probes the same question and seems to... mock those that pay big money for something they can't tell from a fake.     But the layman  (and some collectors!) don't understand that it isn't the image being paid for, its the place in fine art history that drives the price.    It doesn't really matter if they can tell a real from a fake, so long as they don't buy a fake, and that's part of the assurance you get from buying at the auction house.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Bronty