August HA Auction 1 1

[comix4fun]

Just now, Bronty said:

So those Drektacular #1 pages I bought because Joe Schmucklack will be in fine art museums were a bad investment???

Buy What You Love™

[tth2]

7 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

14 minutes ago, tth2 said:

Yup.  And in fact the demand for his non-Watchmen pages is pretty tepid.

Wait...you mean to say that character, title, and subject matter are integral to demand and price in the comic art market?  

Would Gibbons OA with Spider-Man or Wolverine be that much more valuable than any other non-WM Gibbons art?

[comix4fun]

Just now, tth2 said:

Would Gibbons OA with Spider-Man or Wolverine be that much more valuable than any other non-WM Gibbons art?

Yep.

He's done some great work that demands higher prices, just like any other artist. 

And just like any other artist price and demand depends on the title, issue, story, and characters. 

[stinkininkin]

10 minutes ago, batman_fan said:

I don’t think Miller’s terrible artwork helped his story telling. I think it actually detracted from it. I find Neal Adams artwork with the story far more appealing. The truly sad thing is I think Miller allowed a slew of crappy artist to take over the comic scene. 

No one ever convinces someone else to change their mind in discussion like this, but besides not only completely disagreeing with you about Miller I would argue that Janson's inks are absolutely gorgeous and a high water mark for inking as an art form historically and beautifully elevate Millers already superb storytelling.  Very little of it was pretty, but it was all kinds of visceral and bold and at times sublime. Carry on!

[delekkerste]

12 minutes ago, Bronty said:

So those Drektacular #1 pages I bought because Joe Schmucklack will be in fine art museums were a bad investment???

I'm more of a Drektarella fan myself, and I prefer Joe Schmucklack's brother Sal Schmucklack.  

[Bronty]

8 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I'm more of a Drektarella fan myself, and I prefer Joe Schmucklack's brother Sal Schmucklack.  

Sal really revitalized the brand!

[batman_fan]

3 hours ago, Bronty said:

Its clearly not your cup of tea, but ask yourself this.

Is Schulz an amazing artist?   I can make a case that he's amazing.   And I can make a case that he draws like a third grader with a broken hand.

And that's essentially what all of these conversations boil down to. 

(You like Schulz so you forgive the childlike nature of it, as do I, and as do most people.   But he's not trying to outdraw frazetta either.   There is really no genius in his hand.   Its the writing and the fact that he faced the drawing board every single day for 50 years despite being clearly out of gas the last 20.   The early stuff is magic, but you can't really call it amazing drawing.   Yet I'd call him a great artist.).

I will pray for your soul. 

Schulz is not what I would consider a top notch artist although he had amazing line work but so does many other people  

My take is people say someone is good or bad based on their personal relationship with their works in a comic and what they value. Some people read the Miller DD stuff and lived it. They read it when they were young and have extremely fond memories. Others appreciate the work for other reasons like a Prince Valiant piece that they have no childhood association of. It is really hard to come up with any sort of objective standard to grade an artist. 

[Bronty]

Exactly right.

[grapeape]

3 hours ago, comix4fun said:

Wait...you mean to say that character, title, and subject matter are integral to demand and price in the comic art market?  

ha ha Amen 

[grapeape]

3 hours ago, stinkininkin said:

No one ever convinces someone else to change their mind in discussion like this, but besides not only completely disagreeing with you about Miller I would argue that Janson's inks are absolutely gorgeous and a high water mark for inking as an art form historically and beautifully elevate Millers already superb storytelling.  Very little of it was pretty, but it was all kinds of visceral and bold and at times sublime. Carry on!

+ 1

[batman_fan]

3 hours ago, stinkininkin said:

No one ever convinces someone else to change their mind in discussion like this, but besides not only completely disagreeing with you about Miller I would argue that Janson's inks are absolutely gorgeous and a high water mark for inking as an art form historically and beautifully elevate Millers already superb storytelling.  Very little of it was pretty, but it was all kinds of visceral and bold and at times sublime. Carry on!

You make the incorrect assumption I am trying to convince someone to change their minds. I’m not. I am saying someone’s opinion of an artist are highly subjective and can come from many angles. Someone can discuss their opinions on what they like and dislike but there is no objective standard for definitively saying someone is good or bad. I use Miller as an example since I know a lot of people love his work for a host of reasons but I would not fit in that group even though his stuff came out when I was young and reading regularly. Bronty brought up Schulz which is a completely valid point from him. 

[Bronty]

49 minutes ago, batman_fan said:

Bronty brought up Schulz which is a completely valid point from him. 

I knew it would be a relatable point for my homie P-Nutz

[batman_fan]

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

I knew it would be a relatable point for my homie P-Nutz

I laugh but it is very true, why Schulz?  It is because I have very fond childhood memories of reading the strips.  We didn’t get the paper so my exposer was from the TV shows and the local libraries had some collected works that me and my brother would check out and read (he read, I more looked at the pictures and read when they didn’t make sense).  I think a lot of people saying someone is good or bad is tied to how they got connected to the work.

[Bronty]

3 minutes ago, batman_fan said:

I laugh but it is very true, why Schulz?  It is because I have very fond childhood memories of reading the strips.  We didn’t get the paper so my exposer was from the TV shows and the local libraries had some collected works that me and my brother would check out and read (he read, I more looked at the pictures and read when they didn’t make sense).  I think a lot of people saying someone is good or bad is tied to how they got connected to the work.

Of course.   Otherwise we are just laypeople trying to be drafting professors.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Bronty

[zhamlau]

9 hours ago, stinkininkin said:

No one ever convinces someone else to change their mind in discussion like this, but besides not only completely disagreeing with you about Miller I would argue that Janson's inks are absolutely gorgeous and a high water mark for inking as an art form historically and beautifully elevate Millers already superb storytelling.  Very little of it was pretty, but it was all kinds of visceral and bold and at times sublime. Carry on!

Amen, I mean at the end of the day all of these guys had long amazing careers producing work that we all loved and like owning pieces from. It’s just opinions on art, they can’t really be right or wrong really (just snarky/funnier than others  ).

 

Having said that I’m still a Miller guy. Having owned a few DD pages it always felt special to me holding them. They felt like he was creating the art on two levels (sort of like Steranko) where it was not only a collection of beautiful panels that told a well written story flawlessly, but that when you held the page away from you they actually worked as well balanced visually striking pieces of art. 

[stinkininkin]

6 hours ago, batman_fan said:

You make the incorrect assumption I am trying to convince someone to change their minds. I’m not. I am saying someone’s opinion of an artist are highly subjective and can come from many angles. Someone can discuss their opinions on what they like and dislike but there is no objective standard for definitively saying someone is good or bad. I use Miller as an example since I know a lot of people love his work for a host of reasons but I would not fit in that group even though his stuff came out when I was young and reading regularly. Bronty brought up Schulz which is a completely valid point from him. 

For the record, my initial point was that I will never be able to convince YOU to like something that you do not like, not the other way around, and I would never bother trying.

[tth2]

8 hours ago, Bronty said:

8 hours ago, batman_fan said:

Bronty brought up Schulz which is a completely valid point from him. 

I knew it would be a relatable point for my homie P-Nutz

[batman_fan]

     8 hours ago,  Bronty said: 

     9 hours ago,  batman_fan said: 

Bronty brought up Schulz which is a completely valid point from him. 

I knew it would be a relatable point for my homie P-Nutz

 

Guilty as charged 

On the upside, my frames came in tonight so I will be spamming the out of the boards with lots of pictures of mu four framed P-Nutz pieces.

 

[adamstrange]

Charles Schultz's Peanuts is the epitome of graphic storytelling. 

Neal Adams is a better artist but his better art often interfered with the flow of story and at no point did he ever produce anything as profound and fundamentally human as Schultz.

[Brian Peck]

16 hours ago, tth2 said:

Yup.  And in fact the demand for his non-Watchmen pages is pretty tepid.

What is your basis for tepid? Just because people won't pay 5 figures for his non-watchmen art doesn't mean there isn't any interest.