Nostalgia vs. Craft in Original Art 0

[Rick2you2]

15 hours ago, Mercurious said:

Greetings,

Young dumbhead millennial collector here.  I generally collect mostly based off of character / title / overall aesthetics of the piece.  I factor in the artist only really when determining the value of the piece, a desire to buy that particular artist hardly ever figures into the equation.  Like I said, dumbhead.  But I'm pretty convinced there's a lot more people like me in the next wave of collectors.

You are not being dumb. Your views are a mirror of what every generation does--it buys what it likes and doesn't really care that much about the past (except to show it is different than what came before).

[PhilipB2k17]

16 hours ago, Nexus said:

I believe there is potential for pendulum to swing back to craft...if "craft" isn't strictly limited to draftsmanship/technical skill, but includes storytelling, as well. Which is not to say that interest in the Studio guys (as one example) hasn't already peaked, but we can't definitively predict how interest in this art form will evolve. I wouldn't bet on nostalgia continuing to rule the day indefinitely, either.

I would expect Nostalgia to keep on being the predominant driver of value, but what collectors are "nostalgic" about to change over time. I think, for example, the increasing (now, maybe coming back down to Earth - ) Preacher art is a classic example of a nostalgia bubble. 

[PhilipB2k17]

14 hours ago, Mr. Machismo said:

I’ve mentioned this before but it’s relevant: the gallery edition of DKR sits on my coffee table; I’ve had a number of fellow mellenials criticize the art. Same with Tim Sale—my wife thinks she can draw better than him. Mind you, I love them both, they just don’t get the same appreciation from younger readers as someone like Jason Fabok or Jim Lee would, as they’re not as palatable among the masses as more expected, more “heroic” comic artwork.

Point being, nostalgia isn’t much at play with exceedingly young collectors, and they’re left with craft. I believe this is both good and necessary to keep the hobby alive, as if newbie collectors are trying to hunt down HUSH pages, they’re going to see the prices and quickly bail. It’s far better if they go to someone like Felix and pick up a $200 page from the new Venom comic to stoke the flame. The collector who bought a $200 Venom page is more likely to develop his collection and pick up a $12000 HUSH page down the road than the collector who immediately seeks it. And if he doesn’t, who cares, it’s a new collector to the hobby.

PS: Sean Murphy roolz, BWS droolz.  

I disagree with this analysis. I remember not like Kirby at all back in the 70's and 80's. I did like the old reprints of his early Marvel stuff, but I didn't "like" his art as much as I did people like Neal Adams, Sienkiewicz, or Frank Miller (who himself is a stylized acquired taste). I think younger collectors who stay in the hobby a while, will eventually come to appreciate this art for what it is. Kirby art is actually much better appreciated in twice up black and white, rather than the shrunk down color bleed newsprint of a comic, IMHO. You get the full flavor of his genius. I think Ditko is also a bit of an acquired taste, outside of Spider-Man and Doctor Strange, which both fit his style perfectly.

I think each generation of collectors gravitates toward those artists they first "imprinted" on, if you will. This is why a guy like Sal Buscema is now more revered (whereas, at the time of his heyday, he was regarded as basically a competent, professional, house style artist). 

I think the early 90's Image style is generally (although not entirely) awful, but that's not my taste! There are collectors who LOVE that era, and art style, because that's the art that was "imprinted" on them when they first started collecting.

So, do the young collectors like a certain kind of art style (such as Fabok, or Adam Hughes) because of "craft" and technical proficiency) or because that's the art that made an impression on them when they first started in the hobby? 

I also agree that price is a big factor. I have started gravitating toward NEW art much more as it is very expensive to collect purely on Nostalgia. For me, anyway. That is likely true for the younger collectors, who can't afford to blow that much on vintage art (unless it is C or D level stuff sitting by the tens of thousands in dealer inventor, or on eBay).

[PhilipB2k17]

2 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

I think there are a few concepts and ideas in this thread that sort of criss-cross.

There are collectors who are largely interested in the Intellectual Property. Call it nostalgia, if you want, but that's not totally fair. SOme folks may have nostalgia as a driving motivator, but others it may just be a discovery later in life. They didn't grow up reading funny books, and have the kind of connection that many of us do. They discover comics in their late teens, early 20s, but because today's popular culture is so accepting of this  (this is going to sound harsh) infantilism, that so many young (and old) adults are deeply immersed in things that may not have really been on their radar during childhood. I've met a number of folks in the last few years buying their first comic OA from me, and these have been people who haven't been comic fans their whole lives. But with the emergence of social media, I feel like Instagram, Pinterest, Facebook and the like have been spreading the experience/existence of original art in numbers that would have been unfathomable even 5 or 10 years ago.

This brings me to the argument I associate with Gene, that people don't just drop 50K on a Kirby page because he helped create Iron Man, and they saw the movie a dozen times. This is true as far as I'm concerned, and it cycles around to what Felix said. At some point age will catch up with prices on certain works and their creators, both. And in ways both possible to anticipate, and unexpected.

The way that I see the hobby is largely as divided by Populism and Distinct Visual Language. These are not mutually exclusive, but it is rare that they happen together.

Populism is work that is easily digested, accepted, and enjoyed by a majority. That could be based around an IP, or an artist. And I'm going to pick on some artists/works to give some examples. I actually enjoy works from all of these people, so in fact I'm picking on myself.

Jim Lee's work is easy to like. It's solid, has a general experienced grasp of anatomy, lighting, dynamics, a fairly identifiable style, and presents things in a general form of realism. He bends the rules with a bit of cartooning every so often (his HUSH Joker springs to mind), but by and large he makes things look "cool" and gives you want you want to see, as Chris C puts it above.

Then we can look to Tim Sale, since he's been brought into this thread already. Tim has created a unique visual language. If anyone thinks they can draw better than Tim, they better start a book now, because they are going to be a legend. At least for a time. Creating your own visual language is hard. In fact most artists try their whole lives and can't. Most people tend to learn to draw by looking at other people. Circling back to Jim Lee. His work is popular. And it's appealing, and most folks want to draw in a way that is popular and appealing. Some folks can and do, and their work remains uninspiring, and in the best case, it's a look alike. In a worse case, they evolve ever so slightly. Enough to be distinguishable and get work, but the comic book market is flooded with them. And I don't mean Jim Lee "clones", though there was a time where that was the case, but I mean people drawing all in a sort of similar, "what you expect to see" manner.

It's a natural progression for anyone into making art. You start off aping your heroes until you grow into a style that you develop that you own. Some apples don't fall too far from the tree. Some are hugely unique. Tim is one of those. He came up when Jim did, but his work was unique from the get go. Rough at first, like everyone including Jim, but his own style coalesced. The Long Halloween may prove to be the closest to a hit as Tim may ever have. But Sale has done something that many of the frequently best selling artists in comics may never do. He put a very distinct book out there in his own inimitable style. I think this had a massive influence in a different way. Which is as encouragement to creators that see the world differently. Than may feel discouraged by their work, or uninspired by their artistic choices.

BUT, style and influence doesn't mean popular, or money. People enjoyed TLH when it was released, but few seemed to get as excited during it's release as the rumbles created by TDKR.

And so we come to Mr. Miller. Frank hit the nail on the head in the 80s. Have gave the world a combo of a unique visual language, AND populism. It struck a nerve during a very specific era, and the shock waves of influence are still rippling out.

Here's the rub. As Mr. M. points out, there are folks coming up today that aren't wearing a scholarly blazer and sitting around researching the history of these old comics that were released more than a decade before they were even born, and 30 years in the past. That shock wave is mere ripples they may not ever be able to comprehend. They may not see why Sean Murphy is even bothering to compare himself to Frank Miller, when clearly Sean's the better artist... They see that work for it's surface only. They see people the "revolution" of it's time and it's lost on them because it's already been absorbed. The old timers they can still appreciate, absorbed Frank when they were coming up. Folks since then have done just about every permutation and homage of Dark Knight style Batman in both literal drawings, and ingested and re-imagined in their own work. To them what was revolutionary is actually just Thursday. They've seen it all. Or at least the tropes and the visual stylistics. The history of the thing... old news. Not important.

How many folks here love a film, and that film was directly influenced by something like a silent film? Some folks like to go back and see those old silent pictures, and they can be quaint. Fewer still will actually be moved by those old moving images. And so the popularity wanes with every passing year. And the famous directors of those films? The ones with distinct visual language, even if they also held popular sway? Also waning.

So when I read through this craft vs. nostalgia thread, I actually see a much muddier picture.
Jim Lee knows his craft. So does Tim Sale. To think that Jim's depiction of Batman is somehow more accomplished because he draws in a more universal realist language than Tim's exaggerated one, to me rings of ignorance and having never been an artist. Which let's be honest, most folks have never been. It's an understandable position, and for sure a popular one, but not a truth. They are distinct and different expressions coming from two distinct and different creators. And the more easily digestible will always be the more popular. When you challenge expectations, there will always be resistors.

And FWIW, it's not a new thing. BWS... a lot of his non-comics work schtick was to regurgitate the Pre-Raphaelites. Standing at the Tate Britain in "the" room, with so many of those Pre-Raphaelite originals hanging around, it was hard for me not to see BWS all over the place. There was one portrait especially... it's hard to shed those influences.

And then there's the old adage about he who ignores history... what passes for culture has largely become a giant recycle.
Recycle movies. Recycle music. Recycle comics. Recycle art. Take the old thing, put a tiny twist on it. Get famous. Chase the money.

Because generating a unique artistic language is hard.

 

I'm done yelling at the clouds... carry on! 
-e.

 

I agree with this. I use the Citizen Kane example a lot to explain this phenomenon. 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. I think Jack Kirby still stands out on pure style grounds, even if a lot of his storytelling techniques have been swiped a gazillion times. That's one reason Kirby stuff will always be in demand. He's unique. 

I think Sean Murphy is a talented artist, and self-promoter. But he's not an innovative genius - like Frank Miller - who is re-inventing a character in a profound way, or the way to tell a story. Miller is, in my mind, the absolute master of negative space. His drawings are almost impressionistic as well. Tricking your brain into seeing lines where there are no lines. Or into filling in the perceptual blanks. He creates dramatic tension with relatively empty space like no other comic book artist. he also creates a terrific sense of movement, that fits the character.

But, I digress....

[Lucky Baru]

If craft is so important then why aren't artist like Philip Tan, Brett Booth, and Matt Wagner's works more sought after? 

Matt Wagner's style is a throwback to another era, he has produced some important/iconic comics, and has worked on major characters.  Wagner's work on the Shadow is amazing.  He was born to illustrate stories set in the 1940's.  Also, he's perfect for Batman books set during that time.

Philip Tan is a modern master.  His work is stylistic, and incredibly detailed.  He's gaining in popularity.  If you don't know his work then take a look at this connecting cover he shared on twitter:

Spider-Man 4 & 5 connecting covers

It speaks for itself.

Brett Booth has been around since the 1990's and his work on the Flash was better than anyone else in memory.  The way he illustrated the movement of the Flash was groundbreaking.  If he's been doing that work on that character in the 1990's he'd have been a major star. 

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by Lucky Baru

[Mr. Machismo]

Modern master is subjective. That Phillip Tan cover has a LOT of issues to me. 

[Lucky Baru]

Just as I have issues with Sean Murphy's new work on Batman.  To each his own.  Not my cup of tea. 

Edited August 9, 2018 by Lucky Baru

[comix4fun]

20 hours ago, Mercurious said:

Greetings,

Young dumbhead millennial collector here.  I generally collect mostly based off of character / title / overall aesthetics of the piece.  I factor in the artist only really when determining the value of the piece, a desire to buy that particular artist hardly ever figures into the equation.  Like I said, dumbhead.  But I'm pretty convinced there's a lot more people like me in the next wave of collectors.

There's nothing wrong with the way you collect, or the way I do, or the way anyone does. 

I've always viewed collecting as a journey instead of a destination. Where you start, what you collect, what you value, what you appreciate rarely stays the same from day one as it is in day 1,000 or day 10,000. 

As I read and started paying more attention to artwork I realized I like technically precise work a great deal, that led me to Brian Bolland. Liking his work led me to his 2000AD work, which led me to the work of Mike McMahon, and Gary Leach, and Ezquerra...who are all drastically different than Bolland but brought life to their work in a unique way. Liking Brian's work also drove me to Murphy Anderson's work, who was the precision draftsman and craftsman of the Silver Age without par. Any piece he touched, even if it was just inks, became his and his line work and ink line were sublime. The road of collecting twisted and turned like that for me from characters, to signature artists, to their influences and those they influenced over the entirety of my collecting life. 

Eventually you may find yourself in an entirely different place, appreciating different characters or eras or even artists and there's nothing wrong if that happens or doesn't happen. Art is meant to be enjoyed and to take our minds someplace other than where it is in the mundane everyday. So I wouldn't worry yourself about being smart or dumb, even in jest, as long as you're getting food for your soul from the endeavor. 

 

[Panelfan1]

How do you guys feel about Chris Ware from a craft perspective?  Personally - I can't enjoy his work because it is so technical/clinical looking. If there is warmth or emotion in the art- I do not see it.  He is skilled - but his technical focus leaves me cold.  This thread has been looking at craft vs nostalgia - but to add another dimension - I buy art based on emotion. Nostalgia and craft both played a role in how I feel when I look at a work of art.  Appreciating art on an intellectual level (ex. Why an artist is important or influential, in the history of the medium etc..) does not budge me when it comes to spending.

I am asking because I know he has a lot of fans - and his work commands big bucks.  I suspect that what others like about his craft is exactly what turns me off to his work.

[ESeffinga]

Just wanted to say, you aren't totally alone.

For my part, I have a massive massive respect for Ware, what he does, how he does it. But it's just never moved my heart-needle. I enjoy it looking at it, as a sesigner, as a draftsman... but I don't feel much connection with it emotionally. I can totally get where someone might. I can appreciate seeing precision and extreme skillsets as much as the next guy. Folks who make it seem like magic, or computers are at play, and the human element is all but dissolved away.

But I'm lacking the gene that makes me want to own any.
And for my part I think it's got as good of a chance as any comic art at ending up in permanent American History/Culture museums.

[lobrac]

NOSTALGIA:

 

CRAFT:

[Carlo M]

Excellent thread, I found the contributions really interesting.  Personally, I collect OA as an alterntive to collecting mainstream art.  The problem in branching out to quality comic art material that does not have a nostalgia element for me is that for that kind of money I would then prefer to buy mainstream contemporary or modern art.  The nostalgia element, coupled with quality, is what makes me prefer comic OA to mainstream art. (BTW, nostalgia alone does not do it either...there must be some basic artistic quality to what I buy, wspecially over certain dollar amounts).

In order to branch out, I would need to invest significant time in reading that material, in order to develop at least an appreciation and potentially create a new emotional connection (hard to do at 50....).  Any suggetions for strong pre-hero sci-fi? (am intrigued by pre-Marvel work by Wood, for example, but would not know where to start).

Carlo

[comix4fun]

22 minutes ago, Panelfan1 said:

How do you guys feel about Chris Ware from a craft perspective?  Personally - I can't enjoy his work because it is so technical/clinical looking. If there is warmth or emotion in the art- I do not see it.  He is skilled - but his technical focus leaves me cold.  This thread has been looking at craft vs nostalgia - but to add another dimension - I buy art based on emotion. Nostalgia and craft both played a role in how I feel when I look at a work of art.  Appreciating art on an intellectual level (ex. Why an artist is important or influential, in the history of the medium etc..) does not budge me when it comes to spending.

I am asking because I know he has a lot of fans - and his work commands big bucks.  I suspect that what others like about his craft is exactly what turns me off to his work.

I love a lot of what Ware does and, for me, it's the juxtaposition of his technical/clinical style with the raw emotion of the subject matter (e.g. Jimmy Corrigan stuff is what I am referring to). He tackles life, aging, the tragedy of unfulfilled potential, the failures of interpersonal relationships and family in a way that rips to the core of the human experience in a way that belies the sanitary, simple look of the images. So while I don't love Ware for how the work "looks", I love Ware for the combination of what the images would represent without the story being told of his characters, and how the story of his characters entirely subverts the expectations the "look" of his artwork would give the reader at first glance. 

[delekkerste]

7 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

I love a lot of what Ware does and, for me, it's the juxtaposition of his technical/clinical style with the raw emotion of the subject matter (e.g. Jimmy Corrigan stuff is what I am referring to). He tackles life, aging, the tragedy of unfulfilled potential, the failures of interpersonal relationships and family in a way that rips to the core of the human experience in a way that belies the sanitary, simple look of the images. So while I don't love Ware for how the work "looks", I love Ware for the combination of what the images would represent without the story being told of his characters, and how the story of his characters entirely subverts the expectations the "look" of his artwork would give the reader at first glance. 

I put creators like Ware in a different category - it's not just technical craft or nostalgia there; they're writing and drawing and creating new characters and scenarios and sometimes worlds.  There's definitely more to the "craft" element there than just their drawing ability.  I own a couple of pieces by Adrian Tomine - I didn't buy these pieces out of nostalgia or appreciation of his drawing ability, I bought them because I appreciated his entire creative process (his words/storytelling being more important than the actual pictures which conveyed them), the output of which really resounded with me.  I'd say the same thing about my love for Krazy Kat - I have no nostalgia for it, and I'm not buying it because funny animals are my thing, I'm buying it because the whole package is pure, unadulterated genius.  

[ESeffinga]

I love Tomine. I recently found one of his old Optic Nerve xeroxes he mailed to me of available art, when I was looking to buy some pages. This was pre-website 90s era. I sometimes miss that old school correspondence. More on this next week.

Ware's work is something I enjoy in print form. There are certain artists' where I LOVE what they do, but I don't want to own something by them necessarily. There are a TON of folks whose work I've found I'm perfectly happy to have in print form. And Ware's print form is very VERY good.

Edited August 9, 2018 by ESeffinga

[PhilipB2k17]

Where would you put Larry Marder on the scale?

[ESeffinga]

That's the Beans-guy right? I remember seeing him around, but I can't speak to his actual work, as I've never read any.

I would like to chip in an additional thought that is probably no surprise to many, but because something is "simple" i.e. has less lines, rendering, realism... doesn't equal easier. not by a long shot. In fact great comics/cartooning can actually be made incredibly difficult when it's stripped down. There is nothing to "hide" behind. So many mediocre artists hide bad drawing with detail, shading, and other "flashy" techniques.

 

So someone like Watterson's art is far from being realism, but it doesn't make his drawings any less "true". So that is a big thing for me when considering "craft".

 

[JadeGiant]

Enjoying this discussion quite a bit and am coming to see what is being referred to in terms of craft. I don’t have a strong affinity for craft personally as it doesn’t align with what is most nostalgic for me and what I appreciate most in terms of what I collect. I appreciate craft in this context tremendously as a fan of art. I can get lost in the details in a good way and recognize the level of skill and craftsmanship required to make it. I would love to own some of it. That said, with a limited budget that is consumed with other focuses, adding it to the collection doesn’t happen for the most part. My comic “imprinting” was superhero and that is what resonates most with me. Stylistically, I enjoy clean lines that many seem to refer to as “house “ style (a term I don’t particularly agree with) as demonstrated by Marvel during the bronze and silver era. Great art will always have value and a following IMHO. If craft art is losing ground to nostalgia it seems that it might just be a cyclical thing due to the huge influx of fans of the superhero genre currently. Who knows, superheroes might be down in 5 years and horror/monster might have a huge cultural revival.

[stinkininkin]

11 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

That's the Beans-guy right? I remember seeing him around, but I can't speak to his actual work, as I've never read any.

I would like to chip in an additional thought that is probably no surprise to many, but because something is "simple" i.e. has less lines, rendering, realism... doesn't equal easier. not by a long shot. In fact great comics/cartooning can actually be made incredibly difficult when it's stripped down. There is nothing to "hide" behind. So many mediocre artists hide bad drawing with detail, shading, and other "flashy" techniques.

 

So someone like Watterson's art is far from being realism, but it doesn't make his drawings any less "true". So that is a big thing for me when considering "craft".

 

The "less is more" concept, with the assumption that it is usually harder and takes ungodly skills rings true to me.  Lord knows I tend to over render my own drawings because of lack of skills or confidence or both. 

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.

Edited August 9, 2018 by stinkininkin

[Pete Marino]

24 minutes ago, stinkininkin said:

The "less is more" concept, with the assumption that it is usually harder and takes ungodly skills rings true to me.  Lord knows I tend to over render my own drawings because of lack of skills or confidence or both. 

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.

Whenever i hear less is more, I go right to Eduardo Rizzo's art on 100 Bullets, that guy did some amazing stuff in that series.

For me, I feel like I have a fairly common theme to collecting.  The nostalgic stuff from my youth is all about the art.  Even if some people would call it horrible, but the 90's era, it's all about characters and art that i remember.  But the stuff I've read as an adult, it's more about story than the art at times.  Where i'll buy sub-par art, because it was part of a story I really enjoyed.