SDCC 2019 - Original Art pics 1 1

[delekkerste]

16 hours ago, Bird said:

I am not sure that I buy this entirely. I have said in the past that everything I collect is not nostalgia based, I know that is the minority viewpoint but the market agrees with me I think. Look at Herriman, McCay and such...none of us were around when that stuff was produced and yet it is rising in price steadily. At the Comic Art Expo I was hoping to score a McCay editorial but they were all purchased prior to the show opening and I do not think that an 80 year old person bought them (although I have no idea honestly). As art ages it moves beyond nostalgia and the OA market is strong right now and it is carrying second and third tier pieces with it. I cannot get a Little Nemo so I got an editorial. I would be on the lookout for a lesser Herriman but they sell for a nice sum, even though the Krazy Kats sell for much more. GA art seems to be on the rise, the generic stuff as well as the top of the heap. Alex Raymond is another artist I never experienced but his market continues to rise. Now will it all continue? I do  not know. But I do know that I am in the market for lots of art created before I was born and that I was not acquainted with until my 40s and I clearly am not alone in this. 

It's nostalgia for other comics and/or comic art - or even the nostalgia of feeling the rush of discovery from being a comic reader/collector - that leads one to go back and collect GA comics and 1930s strip art and the like.  How many people go straight into collecting GA comics or old OA?  Almost nobody.  If I didn't have nostalgia for comics from my youth, I would never have gone back and expanded my appreciation for art/artists from earlier generations.  If people abandon actually reading comics in favor of movies, TV and videogames featuring comic characters, it's a BIG future problem, because reading COMICS is what eventually leads (some) people like myself to explore, read and collect Krazy Kat; how many people are going to see Avengers: Endgame and eventually end up buying Winsor McCay?  

[vodou]

8 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Great point (you, or whoever made it) about the collaborative and production nature of comic art. 

That'd be Rick I believe.

[vodou]

1 minute ago, delekkerste said:

If people abandon actually reading comics in favor of movies, TV and videogames featuring comic characters, it's a BIG future problem,

I can speak with certainty that if I never read comics or if they weren't a part of my cultural landscape past the first couple of years I would not be here at all. And my low seven figures of cost basis aggregate over my collecting lifetime (comics and art, hobby periodicals, etc) would not be part of the hobby economy. That is...one person. A very dedicated one, but nonetheless it's a seven figure swing by just one person.

[vodou]

1 minute ago, vodou said:

I can speak with certainty that if I never read comics or if they weren't a part of my cultural landscape past the first couple of years I would

...be a potential buyer of the first Death Dealer oil. I checked into that before comics...as art...without modifiers.

[exitmusicblue]

36 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

I have a few on my phone, I just have to pixellate the innocent. 

Can't wait, lolol.  Hope to post some up later this week that I prevented from making it over to SDCC.

[exitmusicblue]

40 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

It's nostalgia for other comics and/or comic art - or even the nostalgia of feeling the rush of discovery from being a comic reader/collector - that leads one to go back and collect GA comics and 1930s strip art and the like.  How many people go straight into collecting GA comics or old OA?  Almost nobody.  If I didn't have nostalgia for comics from my youth, I would never have gone back and expanded my appreciation for art/artists from earlier generations.  If people abandon actually reading comics in favor of movies, TV and videogames featuring comic characters, it's a BIG future problem, because reading COMICS is what eventually leads (some) people like myself to explore, read and collect Krazy Kat; how many people are going to see Avengers: Endgame and eventually end up buying Winsor McCay?  

Another related thought:  the digital and printed-word-and-art medium that comprises comics (also encompassing massively popular webtoons esp. in Asia) may indeed some day go the way of the dinosaur.  Or not.  But so may the printed word itself, if certain technologies (known and yet unknown) have their way.  And much other parts of culture.

But art is eternal.  I do believe this can distinguish OA from most other collectibles.  Of course nowhere near all OA, but enough to matter.

I'm confident that our hobby will doubtless evolve, but still be viable by the time I'm a wizened old fool.

....Darnit, just can't resist!  Proposal to move the conversation to Forbes article thread (not that it'll work).

Edited July 30, 2019 by exitmusicblue

[Timely]

To have substantial growth, you need a company, a title, an artist or a character that is relevant & will STAY relevant! The more of those 4 categories your art has the better your art will carry forward.

For example, a Harvey page of Speed Comics #19 by Arturo Cazeneuve of Speed Taylor sold for $109 in Heritage. Irrelevant company, irrelevant title, irrelevant artist, irrelevant character. Irrelevant $109 sale.

Does anyone here think in 100 years from now when people talk about Spider-Man, Batman & Superman, people will say, "who?" Doubtful! 200 years from now? Doubtful!

If you are worried about the value of your art, and nothing else, you better switch to mainline pieces now.

[buttock]

30 minutes ago, Timely said:

To have substantial growth, you need a company, a title, an artist or a character that is relevant & will STAY relevant! The more of those 4 categories your art has the better your art will carry forward.

For example, a Harvey page of Speed Comics #19 by Arturo Cazeneuve of Speed Taylor sold for $109 in Heritage. Irrelevant company, irrelevant title, irrelevant artist, irrelevant character. Irrelevant $109 sale.

Does anyone here think in 100 years from now when people talk about Spider-Man, Batman & Superman, people will say, "who?" Doubtful! 200 years from now? Doubtful!

If you are worried about the value of your art, and nothing else, you better switch to mainline pieces now.

I agree with this and advocate that anyone and everyone dump their lousy Russ Heath war art.  Just terrible stuff.  Sell it to me for cheap. 

[vodou]

10 minutes ago, buttock said:

and advocate that anyone and everyone dump their lousy Russ Heath war art

Oh I wish a zero would drop off the end of that stuff; it is nice.

[BPLZ]

6 hours ago, vodou said:

...it's Art Nouveau they identify with, not any individual artist. This is the stuff of retro alcohol labels and advertising, the odd revival poster for turn of the century plays, etc. Nobody is looking at the signatures, nobody cares Mucha versus Toulouse-Lautrect, etc...

You found the JSC and wanted to know more which took you back to HTL. Not vice versa, which is what JSC did. He did it because he knew it would work, it's an easy reference that sells, even though nobody (for the most part) knows HTL from Mucha from Adam...they 'know' (of a sort) Art Nouveau.

Must be true to say nobody cares about the signatures because Campbell made a copy of Steinlen, not Toulouse Lautrec.

It is written on the side of the signature.

[vodou]

11 minutes ago, BPLZ said:

Must be true to say nobody cares about the signatures because Campbell made a copy of Steinlen, not Toulouse Lautrec.

It is written on the side of the signature.

Just proves I don't care about J. Scott Campbell

Makes my eyes bleed.

[MyNameIsLegion]

On 7/29/2019 at 7:26 PM, exitmusicblue said:

It's a matter of "zeitgeist," I think.  That's why I love using HTL as an example.  So far, I stand by my original proposal from a page or two back.  I see comics (and moreover the associated entertainment) as an almost universally appreciated bulwark against an increasingly, inevitably cynical/digital/fakes amok era... transcending borders and class. Many movie reviews have covered this phenomenon.

I think, as art -- rather than as just another asset class or collectible type -- certain OA have an HTL-like chance of enduring.

 

think that's gonna hold it's value? What's interesting is this was done in 2016. Kinkade died in 2012.  There's whole series of this licensed DC .

[exitmusicblue]

Just now, MYNAMEISLEGION said:

think that's gonna hold it's value? What's interesting is this was done in 2016. Kinkade died in 2012.  There's whole series of this licensed DC .

Naw... "certain OA," sadly, may not include Mr. Thomas Kinkade.

Still reeling over Steinlen vs. HTL, to be honest.  Will figure out the ramifications.

 

[tth2]

6 hours ago, MYNAMEISLEGION said:

think that's gonna hold it's value? What's interesting is this was done in 2016. Kinkade died in 2012.  There's whole series of this licensed DC .

WHY DID YOU HAVE TO POST THAT PICTURE?!?! 

My eyes are still bleeding... from the 9" spikes I just jammed into them after seeing that image.

[Bronty]

2 hours ago, tth2 said:

WHY DID YOU HAVE TO POST THAT PICTURE?!?! 

My eyes are still bleeding... from the 9" spikes I just jammed into them after seeing that image.

Its not that bad.   

People like to bag on Kinkade (and for good reason, don't get me wrong given way that art was promoted) but on a technical level there's really nothing "wrong" with his art.   There's a reason it appealed to a lot of people. 

As a straight illo from an unknown illustrator, publish that as the cover of "JLA:  Dateline 1942" or some dumb crepe like that, and somebody will want to buy it for 2-5k.   

To me Kinkade hate is sort of the flip side of the coin from "Buscema Love".   The one's not that bad, and the other's got his flaws.

Edited July 31, 2019 by Bronty

[Pete Marino]

8 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Its not that bad.   

People like to bag on Kinkade (and for good reason, don't get me wrong given way that art was promoted) but on a technical level there's really nothing "wrong" with his art.   There's a reason it appealed to a lot of people. 

As a straight illo from an unknown illustrator, publish that as the cover of "JLA:  Dateline 1942" or some dumb crepe like that, and somebody will want to buy it for 2-5k.   

To me Kinkade hate is sort of the flip side of the coin from "Buscema Love".   The one's not that bad, and the other's got his flaws.

After listening to the Dollop about Kinkade I'll never be able to look at his art the same way.

Most of the time I can separate the art from the artist, but this is one case where it's so apparent he was just out to take advantage of his fanbase that I can't.

[Bronty]

14 minutes ago, Pete Marino said:

After listening to the Dollop about Kinkade I'll never be able to look at his art the same way.

Most of the time I can separate the art from the artist, but this is one case where it's so apparent he was just out to take advantage of his fanbase that I can't.

Haven't heard the Dollop (what is that?) but yeah, I agree, I think that's what leaves the bad taste.

When the subject matter is kept in check (big assumption at times ) the art itself is perfectly fine.

Edited July 31, 2019 by Bronty

[Pete Marino]

1 minute ago, Bronty said:

Haven't heard the Dollop (what is that?) but yeah, I agree, I think that's what leaves the bad taste.

The art itself?   When the subject matter is kept in check, its perfectly fine.

The Dollop is a American History / Comedy podcast.  The conceit is that the comedian has no idea what the topic is and just talks about the facts as they're presented.  I find it pretty interesting and it can be pretty damn funny at times.

http://thedollop.libsyn.com/77-thomas-kinkade

 

[vodou]

24 minutes ago, Bronty said:

publish that as the cover of "JLA:  Dateline 1942" or some dumb crepe like that, and somebody will want to buy it for 2-5k. 

The art is awful, the same way all Kinkade is, the same way most comic art is too...overly planned "to sell" (to the publisher, from the publisher to the public) so...the same way Alex Ross is awful. Once you get past the surface appeal of Ross (wow - he makes comics look REAL!!!)...well, that's it then isn't it?

Kent Williams...real artist. To provide a counterpoint. There are plenty of others too, but not (especially) either Buscema, Alex Ross, Neal Adams (see: Alex Ross above, can't paint either), along with T.Kinkade.

[BCarter27]

9 hours ago, MYNAMEISLEGION said:

think that's gonna hold it's value? What's interesting is this was done in 2016. Kinkade died in 2012.  There's whole series of this licensed DC .

They couldn't even get the eras right. 80s WW and Superman. DKR Batman. 60s Justice League logo. 40s Lois, Jimmy, and NY. Ugh. Non-comics people are the worst.

Edited July 31, 2019 by BCarter27