Nostalgia vs. Craft in Original Art 0

[lb jefferies]

40 minutes ago, stinkininkin said:

Obviously some of the greatest artists in the medium work in dense and detailed fashion, but the ability to convey powerful visual ideas in just a few lines...it's magic.

See: Alex Toth 

[eewwnuk]

I'd rank drivers for art collecting are 1 - nostalgia; 2 - character; 3 - artist; 4 - craft.   seems like the path that most newbies take are sketches to commissions to affordable OA and ultimately to personal grail level nostalgia.   given today's market prices and the amount of other things that take on ones time / money, veering into a collection that is focused on 'craft' without correlation to artist/character/nostalgia is a path that I haven't seen many take.

[JadeGiant]

26 minutes ago, eewwnuk said:

I'd rank drivers for art collecting are 1 - nostalgia; 2 - character; 3 - artist; 4 - craft.   seems like the path that most newbies take are sketches to commissions to affordable OA and ultimately to personal grail level nostalgia.   given today's market prices and the amount of other things that take on ones time / money, veering into a collection that is focused on 'craft' without correlation to artist/character/nostalgia is a path that I haven't seen many take.

well said, I agree

[ESeffinga]

50 minutes ago, eewwnuk said:

given today's market prices and the amount of other things that take on ones time / money, veering into a collection that is focused on 'craft' without correlation to artist/character/nostalgia is a path that I haven't seen many take.

Describes me pretty well, I think. But I often do feel like an OA outsider. Totally ok with that. Takes all kinds.

Edited August 9, 2018 by ESeffinga

[Panelfan1]

1 hour ago, LB JEFFERIES said:

See: Alex Toth 

I'll second that motion! Alex Toth art is not simple in any way.  It's just less detailed. Details/rendering doesn't = craft. Craft I think is working at a high level (due to knowledge, skill, practice and effort) in any area of expertise. So while it applies to artists, it could apply to most skilled professions.

On the less is more argument - I always think of Charlie Brown. Damn he seems so simple to draw- but it ain't easy!

[Hekla]

9 hours ago, stinkininkin said:

<snip>.... the ability to convey powerful visual ideas in just a few lines...it's magic.

I love J Buscema breakdowns for this reason. With just a few lines, tnis Conan panel conveys SO much

[The Voord]

Interesting thread though I've now left it a bit later than intended to chime in with some thoughts of my own  (that have now pretty much been covered by others).

Although not comic-book stuff, the Magic the Gathering art market does seem to underline some of Gene's observations in comic-book OA that can perhaps be transposed.  I dabbled, briefly, in MTG original artwork . . . not because I ever played the game (I have zero knowledge about it) but because I was attracted to the craft of those paintings that appealed to me purely as painted images.  Someone like Bronty has a broader and deeper knowledge of how the MTG marketplace works . . . which, as best as I can ascertain, works on two interconnected main levels . . .  nostalgia and strength of the card within the game (the latter components perhaps equating to the compartmentalising of the 'A' and 'B' level ranking system collectors in comic-book OA like to obsess over?).  Craft does seem to take on on a lesser importance.

Over in Bronty's MTG thread, a 1993 MTG artwork recently came up for auction that sold for $72k.  Craft?  Seems crude and unappealing to me . . . but the high price-tag seems to be driven by the nostalgia/card strength factors . . .

Edited August 10, 2018 by The Voord

[Taylor G]

23 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

Citizen Kane, when it came out, was revolutionary in the story telling technique and the way it was shot. And a ton of Directors were influenced by it, and incorporated a lot of its innovations into their own work. The DNA of Citizen Kane was imbued into a large number of popular and influential films that followed it. But, if you ask a moviegoer today about Citizen Kane, and they watch it, they will wonder what the big deal is. It's freshness, and innovativeness doesn't stand out to them because to them it isn't fresh or innovative. It's tropes and techniques are now film clichés that they've seen in a hundred other movies.

The same is true for Comic Art. I think Will Eisner is the Orson Wells of the Comic medium. Hugely innovative in the way he told a story. But, every artist since then has swiped his techniques and tropes, so now Eisner's stuff looks clichéd.

These days, film makers are pretty well educated about the giants whose shoulders they stand on, so it's sometimes fun to spot the references in their films to scenes and tropes in "classic" films.  I don't believe those film makers think those classic films they reference are cliched at all, if anything they have great respect for the genius of the people who invented the visual language they use in their films.  See for example Marty Scorsese's clear influence by Max Ophuls in Age of Innocence, and then the people who reference 1970s Scorsese.  Modern film makers, the good ones, will watch these classic films over and over, like listening to great classical music.  Certainly the average punter going to a Star Wars film doesn't care about that stuff, but surely a collector spending serious $$$ should have some of the same appreciation for that heritage as the professionals.  I guess if the point is that the classic stuff seems cliched to relatively young collectors, one would hope that that attitude would change as they became more serious.  Or maybe I'm just showing my age.

As an aside re Citizen Kane, I'd say Ford's Stagecoach is at least as influential; Welles watched it as he made Citizen Kane, adopting elements of Ford's visual language.  The best steal constantly. 

[Ironmandrd]

I wonder how much nostalgia and art appreciation is being passed down to the next generation--how many children of OA collectors in their 40s, 50s and 60s etc. are themselves interested in comics and/or the art.  I'm reminded of recently seeing my friend's 13 daughter wearing an AC/DC tee-shirt and I asked it was that just fashion or something else--and he said she listens to their music and is a fan. It's clear that at least a part of her affinity for AC/DC is because her father listened to that music.

[Rick2you2]

18 hours ago, Ironmandrd said:

I wonder how much nostalgia and art appreciation is being passed down to the next generation--how many children of OA collectors in their 40s, 50s and 60s etc. are themselves interested in comics and/or the art.  I'm reminded of recently seeing my friend's 13 daughter wearing an AC/DC tee-shirt and I asked it was that just fashion or something else--and he said she listens to their music and is a fan. It's clear that at least a part of her affinity for AC/DC is because her father listened to that music.

No luck on my end. The kids would go if I went, but otherwise, forget it. 

The AC/DC point is a little different. Music of all ages is enjoyed by the younger ones. 

[Rick2you2]

22 hours ago, The Voord said:

Interesting thread though I've now left it a bit later than intended to chime in with some thoughts of my own  (that have now pretty much been covered by others).

Although not comic-book stuff, the Magic the Gathering art market does seem to underline some of Gene's observations in comic-book OA that can perhaps be transposed.  I dabbled, briefly, in MTG original artwork . . . not because I ever played the game (I have zero knowledge about it) but because I was attracted to the craft of those paintings that appealed to me purely as painted images.  Someone like Bronty has a broader and deeper knowledge of how the MTG marketplace works . . . which, as best as I can ascertain, works on two interconnected main levels . . .  nostalgia and strength of the card within the game (the latter components perhaps equating to the compartmentalising of the 'A' and 'B' level ranking system collectors in comic-book OA like to obsess over?).  Craft does seem to take on on a lesser importance.

Over in Bronty's MTG thread, a 1993 MTG artwork recently came up for auction that sold for $72k.  Craft?  Seems crude and unappealing to me . . . but the high price-tag seems to be driven by the nostalgia/card strength factors . . .

I don't know anything about the game either, but I agree with you; it is crude and unappealing. My guess is the flatness is supposed to be representative of an old time period, but that's no excuse for poor drawing. When was the last time you saw a woman casually leaning on her own hair? (modelling doesn't count) And then there is that right hand; did she lose her thumb? 

[artcollector9]

1 hour ago, Rick2you2 said:

I don't know anything about the game either, but I agree with you; it is crude and unappealing. My guess is the flatness is supposed to be representative of an old time period, but that's no excuse for poor drawing. When was the last time you saw a woman casually leaning on her own hair? (modelling doesn't count) And then there is that right hand; did she lose her thumb? 

I agree with you, and it is a perfect example of eschewing craft asa reason for collecting, and replacing it with something else. It looks like cereal box art. Obviously the purchaser was buying something else than craft. Nostalgia 

[Rick2you2]

In my view, the whole question of "craft" is not just subjective but varies by the limitations in the comic art itself and when the art was drawn. In the "old days", panel layouts were not as adventuresome (in general) and the characters were more stiffly drawn (Wayne Boring, anyone?). Throw in the terrible pay rates, and you have art not generally drawn to the same standards of today. These definitely affect the price, and it isn't just nostalgia. So when I see a nicely done EC page, by, say Wally Wood, I admire it when I look at it closely. But if I were going to spend that kind of money, it wouldn't be on the Wally Wood page.

Another factor which is going to depress the long-run of pricing is simply the niche nature of this art. I have shown my pieces to a number of people who feigned interest, and the most honest answer I got was: "it's a lot of black lines; there isn't any color." They liked some of it, like covers and splashes, but most...eh; it all looked pretty much the same. That suggests this is not going to be a break-out field for the future.

For those of you who have big bucks in pieces from the stories you loved as a kid, I can't see them having a high appreciation future when the next generation hits its peak buying range.

[comix4fun]

3 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

I don't know anything about the game either, but I agree with you; it is crude and unappealing. My guess is the flatness is supposed to be representative of an old time period, but that's no excuse for poor drawing. When was the last time you saw a woman casually leaning on her own hair? (modelling doesn't count) And then there is that right hand; did she lose her thumb? 

I can agree on the aesthetics, but in this case the artwork was meant to be reduced down to a 2 inch by 2 inch box on a game card. They were commissioned and produced by the thousands. When shown large none of its flaws are hidden the way they were on the teeny tiny original production format. 

In this case the value is, almost entirely, on the place this artwork held within the game. It was from a very early and very important expansion to the game and this was one of the better/best cards from the set. Much like the first appearance of some character, like Gambit for example, where the artist's rendering may not be technically well done it is still the only example of the first appearance. 

I think to someone willing to pay serious money for a piece like this they are seeing the piece but not actually "seeing" the piece....if that makes sense. 

[Rick2you2]

54 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

I can agree on the aesthetics, but in this case the artwork was meant to be reduced down to a 2 inch by 2 inch box on a game card. They were commissioned and produced by the thousands. When shown large none of its flaws are hidden the way they were on the teeny tiny original production format. 

In this case the value is, almost entirely, on the place this artwork held within the game. It was from a very early and very important expansion to the game and this was one of the better/best cards from the set. Much like the first appearance of some character, like Gambit for example, where the artist's rendering may not be technically well done it is still the only example of the first appearance. 

I think to someone willing to pay serious money for a piece like this they are seeing the piece but not actually "seeing" the piece....if that makes sense. 

Unfortunately, it makes a lot of sense--a nostalgia purchase which has no chance of holding its value in, say, 25-30 years. Like the "high end" Beany Baby market, it will eventually break some old people's hearts.

[Mr. Machismo]

Woof at that MTG artwork.

How’s the market for current MTG releases, if any? Judging by the cards I’ve seen, they all look digital. 

[Pete Marino]

3 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Unfortunately, it makes a lot of sense--a nostalgia purchase which has no chance of holding its value in, say, 25-30 years. Like the "high end" Beany Baby market, it will eventually break some old people's hearts.

I disagree on that point.

Magic the Gathering is currently in it's heyday IMO.  There's tons of players, people buy cards by the crate, and it's a thriving sub-culture.

I think there's a long tail on these art prices, and the old school sets always have a special place in player's hearts.  Plus, these old cards are still played in some current formats.

When we see the game start to wane then we can start the 20-30 year timer on the OA prices, but right now we're in a growth period, like the early 2000's of comic art.

[Rick2you2]

I just saw this from an article in the Forbes piece mentioned in another thread at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robsalkowitz/2018/08/10/its-up-up-and-away-for-prices-at-the-latest-comic-art-auction/#3c6b482454f3

Cultural and sentimental factors influence all art markets, of course, but they tend to diminish as the work’s historical context fades from living memory. Comic art still has visceral emotional appeal to the people who grew up reading the comics as kids and participated in fandom – and who are now at the top end of their professional careers with money to spend.  You can bet that many of the people bidding on these auctions are bidding from the heart at least as much as from the head, and that kind of passion can turn an already-hot market into a spectacular firestorm in the blink of an eye.

[Rick2you2]

10 minutes ago, Pete Marino said:

I disagree on that point.

Magic the Gathering is currently in it's heyday IMO.  There's tons of players, people buy cards by the crate, and it's a thriving sub-culture.

I think there's a long tail on these art prices, and the old school sets always have a special place in player's hearts.  Plus, these old cards are still played in some current formats.

When we see the game start to wane then we can start the 20-30 year timer on the OA prices, but right now we're in a growth period, like the early 2000's of comic art.

You may like this article at:https://www.thestreet.com/slideshow/13567213/1/10-collections-that-have-lost-their-value-and-why.html

It mentions these cards, and then, compares them to baseball cards (with some mixed opinion on comic books).

[Bronty]

Rick no offence but way off base :) the cards are doing very well and so is tre art.   They have been popular for a full 25 years.   Comparing that to beanie babies is totally incorrect. 

 

I bought a couple vintage cards last year for 600 and 800 , worth about 1500 ea now.    That’s not the beanie babies.