Lichtenstein's "Whaam!" 1 1

[vodou]

8 minutes ago, aokartman said:

You have got to be kidding.  The derivative original comic book art for Lichtenstein's art surely would command a premium.  Even just the books, I have not looked into it, but maybe I should..  David

DECONSTRUCTING LICHTENSTEIN LINK

Not kidding, apathy is the word I'd use to describe the interest by all parties. There was at least one original that hit HA and it did marginally better, like $300 instead of $200 based on the notation of it's Lichtenstein connection, but that's it. That's my memory on the HA result, it may be different numbers but not wildly different. An extra $100 is a zero to me and speaks to...apathy.

[delekkerste]

6 hours ago, adamstrange said:

You've said that "fine art" for 20th Century and beyond is determined by how it is compensated and that "fine" is not an indication of quality.  So of what value is the term "fine"?  Isn't it misleading?

I disagree that no one defines "fine art" to indicate a measure of quality.  It was created in the hope that it would elevate art of a certain category to be viewed as higher quality and to make that art more desirable and valuable.  In other words, like ad copy is designed to sell toothpaste, it was designed to sell art by artists who whose works weren't selling for as much as they would like.

I agree somewhat that the distinction between "fine art" and "commercial art" or "illustration" is not black and white.  That said, your hammering of this point is dripping with value relativism, as if all art is art and that we cannot place value judgments on whether a Lichtenstein is of greater artistic value than a Russ Heath, etc.  This I disagree with completely (more on this to follow).

6 hours ago, vodou said:

IIRC Picasso was the first artist to be "effing rich" in his own lifetime. If correct, that draws a pretty hard line in the sand between 20th century and later and "everything else that came before". That Warhol (and Lichtenstein) fall after the line means, to me, nothing as many other artists did too that were not Pop Artists. Times just changed, possibly forever, and many artists had a chance at that brass ring where previously they didn't.

Also, lesser known by those that only see Warhol through a singular dismissive pov is the fact that he was already very successful as an illustrator before Pop Art. He was already rich.

http://www.campaignbrief.com/2017/05/andy-adman-why-andy-warhol-was.html

I can't find the reference I really want that lists his exact income during the 1950s and early (PrePop) 60s but my recollection is that it was several hundred thousand per year then. I could be wrong, that may be the adjusted to 198x number, maybe somebody can track that down, but the point is Pop didn't make Andy, Andy was already doing very fine and got bored being a freelance advertising illustrator. Considering how his ego worked, he probably wanted more adulation that advertising offered, the kind being a gallery wonder could.

Must have been an inflation-adjusted number you saw for Warhol.  Zero chance he was making hundreds of thousands of dollars of year back in the '50s and '60s.  The BLS says that $300K in Oct. 1960 is worth $2.545 million today, but, in the real-world, just look at comic book cover prices (up 40x since 1960), college tuitions, medical expenses, Manhattan real estate prices...strip out the hedonic adjustments and such and really, $300K in 1960 is like making $5-10 million in 2018.  

6 hours ago, adamstrange said:

I'm not missing the point.  I've seen Lichtenstein's work in museums as I've had an interest in the arts of all types starting in elementary school and never stopping since then.

My comment was intended to emphasize the debt that Lichtenstein owed to Heath (it's due to other artists as well but I'm using Heath as a stand in).  Lichtenstein's work is derivative and it's success is partly due to the image that Heath created.  Lichtenstein's work is also innovative, as hopefully people can see in the video I provided at the start of the thread.  I thought it was interesting to see "Whaam" up close and that others in the forum might find it interesting as well.  I was NOT expecting it devolve into this argument we previously had.

Where you and I disagree is in the degree to which Lichtenstein is an innovator.  I think "not much" and you think "a lot".  We have different opinions and that's cool.  You seem to want to defend your opinion based on the value of the art -- since the comics panel page is only worth a couple hundred it is artistically less than Lichtenstein.  But I don't define art as lesser or greater based on value so, to me, that's a useless argument.  You will probably bring up well "Whaam" is in a museum so it's better but then we'll have the discussion as to how art ends up in a museum...

Price and value do not exist in separate vacuums. Your argument that it's useless to say that the Lichtenstein is better than the Heath or Novick because of its market price presumes that there aren't very good reasons for the prices to be where they are, beyond the evil machinations of market-movers and snobby gallerists/museum curators.  The Lichtenstein is worth more because there is so much more to it, full stop.  Frame up that panel (either original or published) vs. the finished Lichtenstein work and put them side to side and there is no comparison.  Again, art is not all relative.  For proof of that, you know how I know that Lichtenstein has more value than the originals that he appropriated, outside of price?  Because we can talk about his art and influence for pages and pages and pages and pages.  The appropriated war and romance comics...not so much, other than as a foil to Lichtenstein. 

Edited December 3, 2018 by delekkerste

[aokartman]

2 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I agree somewhat that the distinction between "fine art" and "commercial art" or "illustration" is not black and white.  That said, your hammering of this point is dripping with value relativism, as if all art is art and that we cannot place value judgments on whether a Lichtenstein is of greater artistic value than a Russ Heath, etc.  This I disagree with completely (more on this to follow).

Must have been an inflation-adjusted number you saw for Warhol.  Zero chance he was making hundreds of thousands of dollars of year back in the '50s and '60s.  The BLS says that $300K in Oct. 1960 is worth $2.545 million today, but, in the real-world, just look at comic book cover prices (up 40x since 1960), college tuitions, medical expenses, Manhattan real estate prices...strip out the hedonic adjustments and such and really, $300K in 1960 is like making $10 million-plus in 2018.  

Price and value do not exist in separate vacuums. Your argument that it's useless to say that the Lichtenstein is better than the Heath or Novick because of its market price presumes that there aren't very good reasons for the prices to be where they are, beyond the evil machinations of market-movers and snobby gallerists/museum curators.  The Lichtenstein is worth more because there is so much more to it, full stop.  Frame up that panel (either original or published) vs. the finished Lichtenstein work and put them side to side and there is no comparison.  Again, art is not all relative.  For proof of that, you know how I know that Lichtenstein has more value than the originals that he appropriated, outside of price?  Because we can talk about his art and influence for pages and pages and pages and pages.  The appropriated war and romance comics...not so much, other than as a foil to Lichtenstein. 

Great points, and I am now on the hunt for original appearances of Lichtenstein panels in the books and the original comic art.  David

[adamstrange]

7 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I agree somewhat that the distinction between "fine art" and "commercial art" or "illustration" is not black and white.  That said, your hammering of this point is dripping with value relativism, as if all art is art and that we cannot place value judgments on whether a Lichtenstein is of greater artistic value than a Russ Heath, etc.  This I disagree with completely (more on this to follow). 

I personally admire some art more than others because I think it is better so I'm not a relativist which, regrettably, is all too common these days in many fields, not just art.

[Nexus]

22 minutes ago, aokartman said:

You have got to be kidding.  The derivative original comic book art for Lichtenstein's art surely would command a premium.  Even just the books, I have not looked into it, but maybe I should..  David

DECONSTRUCTING LICHTENSTEIN LINK

The original STEVE ROPER strip art for this panel was sold on eBay in 2011 (I want to say by Phillip Anderson?). For $431. But fittingly, the buyer was David Barsalou.

(The Lichtenstein sold in the same year for $43M.)

 

[vodou]

16 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Must have been an inflation-adjusted number you saw for Warhol.  Zero chance he was making hundreds of thousands of dollars of year back in the '50s and '60s.

Yes, has to be. Whatever he was making nominally, the same section of the book talked about him buying not with a 30 year loan but outright or maybe paid off in a year or two a NYC building (not floor) in 1959. That is several years before Pop. Not too many that can do that, then or now, backing up that Warhol was already a man of means before his Second Act.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/realestate/30deal1.html

[aokartman]

Just now, Nexus said:

The original STEVE ROPER strip art for this panel was sold on eBay in 2011 (I want to say by Phillip Anderson?). For $431. But fittingly, the buyer was David Barsalou.

(The Lichtenstein sold in the same year for $43M.)

 

Thanks Felix, So I am not losing my mind.  Thanks for your podcasts, David

[adamstrange]

9 minutes ago, aokartman said:

I agree somewhat that the distinction between "fine art" and "commercial art" or "illustration" is not black and white

Some things called "fine art" may be a million times better than illustration art.  However, for the most part using the term "fine art" is done to distract from very useful discussion about what makes art great or one work of art greater than another.  And people do not wish to talk about the distinction because the discussion is not likely to lead to supporting the current prices and aesthetic valuation of 20th Century and contemporary art.

[vodou]

1 minute ago, aokartman said:

Thanks Felix, So I am not losing my mind.

We're getting excited over $451? How much is that really over FMV for other Steve Ropers?

[aokartman]

On 12/2/2018 at 6:39 PM, vodou said:

We're getting excited over $451? How much is that really over FMV for other Steve Ropers?

Not yet, and it's an emerging market of Lichtenstein source material, if you want to play.  David

Edited December 4, 2018 by aokartman
spelling

[vodou]

1 minute ago, aokartman said:

Not yet, and it's an emerging market of Whatshisstein source material, if you want to play.  David

I'll leave this one to others but I never say never, ephemera at a low cost point acquired in quantity can certainly provide a nice return over time. Been there and done. A lot. Have at it!

[aokartman]

Thanks Michael, I won't likely do anything, but it seems like a ripe market, and thanks for all your conversation today.  

Best, David

[adamstrange]

26 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Price and value do not exist in separate vacuums.

When I use the word value, I'm referring to aesthetic value.  You may think that dollar value must relate to aesthetic value but I have never held that position and I think that a little research would reveal a number of supporters for it.  At the very least, I would point out that the dollar value of artists have varied quite widely over the centuries.  Even if we consider the very short time line of the last 60 years, was Lichtenstein's art of less aesthetic value in the 60s when it was cheaper than it is now when they cost tens of millions?  There are generally three buyer communities at the high end:  uber-wealthy, governments and museums.  My understanding is that by far the biggest chunk is spent by the uber-wealthy.  Therefore, I am uncertain as to why I should give special weight to what the uber-wealthy buy as I have no reason to credit them with especially sensitive and intelligent artistic judgment. 

For these reasons, I ignore value as a factor aesthetic value. 

24 minutes ago, aokartman said:

Because we can talk about his art and influence for pages and pages and pages and pages.  The appropriated war and romance comics...not so much, other than as a foil to Lichtenstein. 

I would say that "influence" of an artwork is a factor that I consider when judging the aesthetic value of a piece.  It is, however, only one factor and I consider whether the influence was positive or negative and the period of time of that influence.  I think it's early to say how influential Lichtenstein will be and I probably have a different thought as to whether that influence was positive than you do.

[Nexus]

4 minutes ago, vodou said:

I'll leave this one to others but I never say never, ephemera at a low cost point acquired in quantity can certainly provide a nice return over time. Been there and done. A lot. Have at it!

The STEVE ROPER original was marketed to comic art enthusiasts via eBay, where its market value was determined to be $451. Again, by comic art enthusiasts/collectors/fans.

How much would it go for at Christie's (where the Lichtenstein sold), to an audience that normally wouldn't give two $#!+s about OA? I suspect a lot more than $451!

(Of course, it's understood that if it wasn't for the Lichtenstein connection, the Overgard original is unlikely to do better at Christie's than it did on eBay.)

[vodou]

5 minutes ago, aokartman said:

Thanks Michael, I won't likely do anything, but it seems like a ripe market, and thanks for all your conversation today.  

Best, David

I think somebody could build a market out, it's not there yet, but the bigger challenge might be sourcing enough quantity to corner the market (to then 'make' it). Any one of those oddball comics, how easy (or hard rather) is it to get x50 or x100 or more in at least vg condition, for a relatively low price? I think it's not the outlay per se, it's the finding that will be hard. Newer stuff you can find weird hoards with publishers and artists, but stuff that's already sixty years old, uncommon and mouldering, if not exactly collectible...sounds like a lot of work.

[vodou]

3 minutes ago, Nexus said:

The STEVE ROPER original was marketed to comic art enthusiasts via eBay, where its market value was determined to be $451. Again, by comic art enthusiasts/collectors/fans.

How much would it go for at Christie's (where the Lichtenstein sold), to an audience that normally wouldn't give two $#!+s about OA? I suspect a lot more than $451!

(Of course, it's understood that if it wasn't for the Lichtenstein connection, the Overgard original is unlikely to do better at Christie's than it did on eBay.)

Yes and no re: Christie's upstream. I think maybe the only truly motivated buyer(s) would be those that already own a Lichtenstein of the image (not just Roper but the others, some of which he did multiple versions of). More than $451, okay, but how much more? Maybe as I get older, I get tired(er) and just don't want to work that hard trying to squeeze 8 bits out of a nickel in. The work I mean of setting up all the searches, on all the venues and databases, checking all the false positives every day for ten years, until finally...one shtty but real OA of relevance hits the market and then...get sniped. I'm already too tired just typing this out

[drdroom]

23 minutes ago, vodou said:

We're getting excited over $451? How much is that really over FMV for other Steve Ropers?

At the time I thought it was about 3X value. I would have bid more myself, but like many people, I don't have a watchlist set up for Steve Roper, or Overgard, or even Lichtenstein, so the auction passed me and perhaps many others by. As I recall the listing stated the Lichtenstein connection, which is how Barsalou came across it. I certainly think it would have done better on Heritage, like maybe $750 or so.

[adamstrange]

8 minutes ago, vodou said:

work

Using a four letter word.  Mods notified.

[adamstrange]

48 minutes ago, aokartman said:

Frame up that panel (either original or published) vs. the finished Lichtenstein work and put them side to side and there is no comparison.

The originals were drawn with the expectation they would be reproduced half-size with color added.  So I would not expect them to be aesthetically equivalent when blown up to the size of the Lichtenstein painting.

[Dr. Love]

10X for the Lich romance.  The higher the grade, the higher the multiple.  If you know which issues to look for.  Many are sourced, but some are not, and there is no definitive list. 

Primarily because, believe it or not, those that know definitively aint telling.