Frank Frazetta's "Egyptian Queen" OA breaking comics records 3 3

[exitmusicblue]

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/paintings/frank-frazetta-egyptian-queen-painting-original-art-1969-/a/7209-91027.s?ic=Home-FeaturedItems-071515

The art was used as the covers for Eerie 23 and Creepy 92.

At $2.5 million after the first day (20 days left).  Already by far the most valuable comics lot auctioned by Heritage.  Final estimates at $5m+, but difficult to gauge.  This could soon become the most expensive comics-related item of all time, topping the Action 1 that went for $3.2m in 2014.

 

https://itsalljustcomics.com/2019/04/25/frazetta-egyptian-queen-painting-is-already-the-record-heritage-comics-lot/

 

Edit: Now at $2.64m.

Final update: Sold for $5.4m.

 

Edited May 16, 2019 by exitmusicblue

[RockMyAmadeus]

That's fantastic. It's nice to see something "comics related" be seen as fine art, and rewarded as such. Frazetta was a painter on par with many of the greats of the 20th century.

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

[GeneticNinja]

I think one lesson from this is never doubt that you might see the original of your favorite artwork for sale one day. Back when I owned a print of Egyptian Queen, it didn't even cross my mind that the original would ever be for sale. This will be a fun auction viewing at Heritage.

[NoMan]

man there's some crazy money in this world.

Everybody wants some, I want some, too......

[Dormian]

Amazing! How many of us have had or still own a print of this painting? 

Nice to see the family benefiting from his work.

[Aweandlorder]

Anyone has a scan from that art catalog from the 70s offering Frazetta drawings for $75? 

[grebal]

No, but this art is featured on the cover (and inside) of vol. 1 of the Frazetta art book series. 

[The Lions Den]

Upon viewing the original painting in all it's glory, I was, for one of the few times in my life, rendered speechless... 

[NoMan]

Molly Hatchet!

[valiantman]

9 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That's fantastic. It's nice to see something "comics related" be seen as fine art, and rewarded as such. Frazetta was a painter on par with many of the greats of the 20th century.

It had to be Frazetta. Every piece of art he created (apart from having to do Al Capp style) was art in the traditional sense with 20th century twists.  When people see comic book art and it's something weak (*cough* Liefeld), they rightfully scoff at the word "art", but I don't see how anyone with any sense would look at that piece from Frazetta and say "that's rubbish".  That's art for everyone, not just our nerdbase. 

[oakman29]

2 hours ago, The Lions Den said:

Upon viewing the original painting in all it's glory, I was, for one of the few times in my life, rendered speechless... 

I hear you on that. Frazetta should go down in history as one of the greats of the 20th century.  Every time I look at his work I see something new.

[The Lions Den]

2 hours ago, valiantman said:

It had to be Frazetta. Every piece of art he created (apart from having to do Al Capp style) was art in the traditional sense with 20th century twists.  When people see comic book art and it's something weak (*cough* Liefeld), they rightfully scoff at the word "art", but I don't see how anyone with any sense would look at that piece from Frazetta and say "that's rubbish".  That's art for everyone, not just our nerdbase. 

Well said!  

[The Lions Den]

34 minutes ago, oakman29 said:

I hear you on that. Frazetta should go down in history as one of the greats of the 20th century.  Every time I look at his work I see something new.

That's one thing that everyone agrees on, even other artists...there's only one Frazetta!   

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 hours ago, valiantman said:

It had to be Frazetta. Every piece of art he created (apart from having to do Al Capp style) was art in the traditional sense with 20th century twists.  When people see comic book art and it's something weak (*cough* Liefeld), they rightfully scoff at the word "art", but I don't see how anyone with any sense would look at that piece from Frazetta and say "that's rubbish".  That's art for everyone, not just our nerdbase. 

Indeed. There are a few excellent painters who have worked in and around comics...Frazetta, Barks are the big ones...and the subject matter, to a great extent, is what holds a lot of this material back.

Carl Barks, for example, was a fine painter...but he painted "cartoon characters", so he's not going to be seen as a "serious" artist by those in the "real" art community...those who hang works in galleries and museums. As good as it is...it's hard to put a Barks Duck painting next to a Monet water lilies, and not see the stark difference. As talented as Barks was...and he was...the subject matter is "not serious." 

Frazetta chose to paint more realistic subjects, and is thus more palatable to the snobs in the "high art" establishment. You can hang Egyptian Queen in a gallery, or a museum, or a study, or a ballroom, and it won't be considered "not serious" or "quirky." It's every bit "high art" as anything Picasso or Wyeth or Rockwell did. 

It's hard to break out of that mindset. "Comics are for kids" still holds powerful sway over the artform. 

[dupont2005]

It’s not that it’s quirky or cartoony, but that it’s corporate work for commercial purposes. Plenty of renown fine artists have worked in comics, I own comics by Femke Hiemstra, Tom Haubrick, Camilla d’Errico and probably a handful of other artists who you may find on the cover of any number of art magazines and hanging in any number of galleries. Almost every time though, the work they created for use in a periodical is not the same exact work they create for hanging in galleries. Fine art is usually created as fine art, not appropriated as such later because the artist is really popular. 

[entalmighty1]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Indeed. There are a few excellent painters who have worked in and around comics...Frazetta, Barks are the big ones...and the subject matter, to a great extent, is what holds a lot of this material back.

Carl Barks, for example, was a fine painter...but he painted "cartoon characters", so he's not going to be seen as a "serious" artist by those in the "real" art community...those who hang works in galleries and museums. As good as it is...it's hard to put a Barks Duck painting next to a Monet water lilies, and not see the stark difference. As talented as Barks was...and he was...the subject matter is "not serious." 

Frazetta chose to paint more realistic subjects, and is thus more palatable to the snobs in the "high art" establishment. You can hang Egyptian Queen in a gallery, or a museum, or a study, or a ballroom, and it won't be considered "not serious" or "quirky." It's every bit "high art" as anything Picasso or Wyeth or Rockwell did. 

It's hard to break out of that mindset. "Comics are for kids" still holds powerful sway over the artform. 

Kinstler has done some incredibly impressive work too.

[RockMyAmadeus]

If I had a million dollars....(that song doesn't hold up so well, does it...?)...I would absolutely buy Egyptian Queen and hang it in my study. Of course, I'd need a study, but if I could buy the painting, the study probably wouldn't be too difficult to procure.

 

[Gotham Kid]

1 minute ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

If I had a million dollars....I would absolutely buy Egyptian Queen

You'd need at least 4 by the time it's all over.

[James J Johnson]

6 minutes ago, Gotham Kid said:

You'd need at least 4 by the time it's all over.

Maybe more. A Picasso has sold for $179 million. Even if the Frazetta brings $5 million, that's still only 1/36th the price (about 3%) of a 1955 Picasso work. .You'd need five or six Frazetta $5 million dollar paintings just to pay the auction house commission for the sale of a Picasso!