SDCC 2019 - Original Art pics 1 1

[Rick2you2]

3 hours ago, exitmusicblue said:

 

 

 

Tsk, tsk... this tired subject again?

If any doomsayers can explain or rationalize in their universes why Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec's works are so celebrated and collected to this day, give it your best shot.

It's a shame OA boardies themselves don't realize that the best OA isn't just any sort of asset or collectible.

It's art. And I too will be thrilled if the day comes when I can pick up Jim Lee X-Men on the super cheap.  Sadly, I don't see that day coming any time soon.

Since you asked, there are several reasons. First, a large part of OA's pricing is dependent upon nostalgia and that very definitely affects price. Fine art stands on its own: it can be appreciated, and will appreciate in price, without knowing the level of detail which separates, say, the first appearance of Wolverine from the artist's other work or a particular story line. Second, it is not dependent on carrying a portion of a story, like OA, which is a particular issue when getting to panel pages, and will definitely affect non-fans. Third, fine art is less dependent on the characters involved, although subject matter does matter (I expect Renoir's ballarinas would sell for more than, say, a picture of a dead parrot). Fourth, Toulouse-Lautrec aside, most of the market growth these days in fine art is not particularly representatonal, but more abstract. You can't really do that with OA. And a real biggie, there is the absence of color (which is making me suspect that those color guides may one day sell for more). 

So no, in my view, Jim Lee's X-Men won't hang onto high prices in 30 years because the X-Men won't be that big a deal. Kind of like buying cowboy comic art today but on a much grander scale. 

[exitmusicblue]

36 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Since you asked, there are several reasons. First, a large part of OA's pricing is dependent upon nostalgia and that very definitely affects price. Fine art stands on its own: it can be appreciated, and will appreciate in price, without knowing the level of detail which separates, say, the first appearance of Wolverine from the artist's other work or a particular story line. Second, it is not dependent on carrying a portion of a story, like OA, which is a particular issue when getting to panel pages, and will definitely affect non-fans. Third, fine art is less dependent on the characters involved, although subject matter does matter (I expect Renoir's ballarinas would sell for more than, say, a picture of a dead parrot). Fourth, Toulouse-Lautrec aside, most of the market growth these days in fine art is not particularly representatonal, but more abstract. You can't really do that with OA. And a real biggie, there is the absence of color (which is making me suspect that those color guides may one day sell for more). 

So no, in my view, Jim Lee's X-Men won't hang onto high prices in 30 years because the X-Men won't be that big a deal. Kind of like buying cowboy comic art today but on a much grander scale. 

Ah, but Toulouse-Lautrec's art wasn't considered "fine art" by his generation, either.  We don't determine what will be considered fine art by posterity; posterity will.

"In contrast to nearly all of the other artists in his circle, Toulouse-Lautrec had no trouble making a living. This is chiefly because Parisian business owners realized they could make money from his unique (modern) vision. In contrast to artists who worked for private collectors, galleries or the government, he worked for the entertainment business, where selling drinks and tickets was the bottom line."

Switch out drinks and tickets for comics and related entertainment... then it sure sounds like many of the OA greats.

[exitmusicblue]

1 hour ago, Rick2you2 said:

Fourth, Toulouse-Lautrec aside, most of the market growth these days in fine art is not particularly representatonal, but more abstract. You can't really do that with OA. And a real biggie, there is the absence of color (which is making me suspect that those color guides may one day sell for more). 

This point is most interesting for me.  If indeed fine art circles all hew towards further abstraction in X decades... but hard to gauge. I have a feeling variety will persist, yet who am I to say -- in fact, who are any of us to say.  Humans evolve and are retro all at once.  And some enduring fine art pays homage to the present-turned-past, a la Rockwell.

Edited July 29, 2019 by exitmusicblue

[vodou]

14 minutes ago, exitmusicblue said:

yet who am I to say -- in fact, who are any of us to say.

Yep, who knows, nobody knows, what does it matter. Cool. Why bother posting then? Especially over and over on the same thing. Boring.

But thank you for posting anyway, an opportunity to remind everybody of the appeal to authority fallacy and why even writing "who are any of us..." is specious from the get-go

[exitmusicblue]

4 minutes ago, vodou said:

Yep, who knows, nobody knows, what does it matter. Cool. Why bother posting then? Especially over and over on the same thing. Boring.

But thank you for posting anyway, an opportunity to remind everybody of the appeal to authority fallacy and why even writing "who are any of us..." is specious from the get-go

Hey, I wasn't one among the mob bringing this back up.  Why I quoted you.  :-*

[exitmusicblue]

6 minutes ago, vodou said:

Yep, who knows, nobody knows, what does it matter. Cool. Why bother posting then? Especially over and over on the same thing. Boring.

But thank you for posting anyway, an opportunity to remind everybody of the appeal to authority fallacy and why even writing "who are any of us..." is specious from the get-go

Plus, I'm happy to be on an OA forum mulling over + defending its prospects rather than spending my time denigrating it at every turn, snookums. 

[vodou]

38 minutes ago, exitmusicblue said:

Plus, I'm happy to be on an OA forum mulling over + defending its prospects rather than spending my time denigrating it at every turn, snookums. 

Defending or pumping? LOL.

[exitmusicblue]

3 minutes ago, vodou said:

Defending or pumping? LOL.

I'll be blunt, then.  That was a polite way of saying -- you are not to say. No one here is, short of bonafide time travelers.

So why be snide unto infinity?

Ahh, yes... I can somehow pump OA prices through my meanderings.  Someone hand me the Infinity Gauntlet already. Laughable.

[vodou]

2 minutes ago, exitmusicblue said:

So why be snide unto infinity?

I only do snide in-person for the most special of deserving folks. You only think you've seen snide, but then evidently your bar for many things is...low.

[exitmusicblue]

2 minutes ago, vodou said:

I only do snide in-person for the most special of deserving folks. You only think you've seen snide, but then evidently your bar for many things is...low.

Touche, vodou baby, touche. Keep goin' low, and come back to papa when you have something of substance on art, aside from mud.

Sometimes I legit think the doomsaying coiterie on here are playing 3-D chess, panicking folks into selling low far too early.   If so, it's appreciated... I guess.

 

[Bronty]

9 minutes ago, exitmusicblue said:

I'll be blunt, then.  That was a polite way of saying -- you are not to say. No one here is, short of bonafide time travelers.

So why be snide unto infinity?

Ahh, yes... I can somehow pump OA prices through my meanderings.  Someone hand me the Infinity Gauntlet already. Laughable.

I know you’re talking to Michael, but if I’ve been snide on my end it’s because I simply don’t see the application of any real logic.   It very much seems to me that you’re starting with your desired outcome and then actively searching for reasons that it wish it could, wish it might, come true.   That’s not a nuanced discussion and it doesn’t leave those of us listening to that with anything of substance to debate.    Which leads to snide because there’s precious little to have an exchange about.

Edited July 29, 2019 by Bronty

[exitmusicblue]

1 minute ago, Bronty said:

I know you’re talking to Michael, but if I’ve been snide on my end it’s because I simply don’t see the application of any real logic.   It very much seems to me that you’re starting with your desired outcome and then actively searching for reasons that it wish it could, wish it might, come true.   That’s not a nuanced discussion and it doesn’t leave those of us listening to that with anything of substance to debate.    Which leads to snide because there’s precious little to have an exchange about.

It can be borderline censorship to assume such things. I hate it when folks have their say, then go meta on opposing views.

One of the things Rick said made me pause + think twice, as you can see above.

Wouldn't go there, friend.

[vodou]

Comic art is awesome cuz...COMIC ART IS AWESOME!!!

(btw, I totally agree but per Bronty...not much to discuss...is there?)

[exitmusicblue]

23 minutes ago, Bronty said:

I know you’re talking to Michael, but if I’ve been snide on my end it’s because I simply don’t see the application of any real logic.   It very much seems to me that you’re starting with your desired outcome and then actively searching for reasons that it wish it could, wish it might, come true.   That’s not a nuanced discussion and it doesn’t leave those of us listening to that with anything of substance to debate.    Which leads to snide because there’s precious little to have an exchange about.

Also, "logic" when it comes to art ain't all that.  If any of Toulouse-Lautrec's contemporaries could've logically deduced or inferred that eons later a JSC would come out with a resonant/connected/successful homage variant comic cover of his art, that person should win the Logic Olympiad. : )

Ain't it purty.

And wouldn't it be something if an artist 100+ years into the future created something in homage to an iconic comic cover OA, a la AF15.  And the original could be more $$ than the homage, after all... as with Toulouse-Lautrec vs. JSC.  Who's to say?

Imagination, fellas.  We're in the comic book art hobby... it's okay to imagine a little.

Edited July 30, 2019 by exitmusicblue

[Bronty]

17 minutes ago, exitmusicblue said:

It can be borderline censorship to assume such things. I hate it when folks have their say, then go meta on opposing views.

One of the things Rick said made me pause + think twice, as you can see above.

Wouldn't go there, friend.

Umm I already did?

Look, if you want to hang onto your viewpoint and your “because reasons” then be my guest.   We can all have our opinions:

But don’t expect me to agree with “because reasons.”

[exitmusicblue]

Just now, Bronty said:

Umm I already did?

Look, if you want to hang onto your viewpoint and your “because reasons” then be my guest.   We can all have our opinions:

But don’t expect me to agree with “because reasons.”

No expectations.

Just having my say, as are others; in my way, as are others. : )

[Rick2you2]

1 hour ago, exitmusicblue said:

Ah, but Toulouse-Lautrec's art wasn't considered "fine art" by his generation, either.  We don't determine what will be considered fine art by posterity; posterity will.

"In contrast to nearly all of the other artists in his circle, Toulouse-Lautrec had no trouble making a living. This is chiefly because Parisian business owners realized they could make money from his unique (modern) vision. In contrast to artists who worked for private collectors, galleries or the government, he worked for the entertainment business, where selling drinks and tickets was the bottom line."

Switch out drinks and tickets for comics and related entertainment... then it sure sounds like many of the OA greats.

No, because sequential art is connected to a story. Fine art is the story. A splash page is not a story.

Don't get me wrong, I love this hobby. It's fun, it connects me with my past, and I get to see some really creative stuff. But it is substantially dependent on people who have background knowledge of what they are looking at. Maybe that's the reason most poltical cartooning has not increased in value as much as one might otherwise think it should. People don;t know history that well, or what is shown in the image isn't that historical to them.

Edited July 30, 2019 by Rick2you2

[exitmusicblue]

1 minute ago, Rick2you2 said:

No, because sequential art is connected to a story. Fine art is the story. A splash page is not a story.

Hoom... will think on this.

[exitmusicblue]

17 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

No, because sequential art is connected to a story. Fine art is the story. A splash page is not a story.

Don't get me wrong, I love this hobby. It's fun, it connects me with my past, and I get to see some really creative stuff. But it is substantially dependent on people who have background knowledge of what they are looking at. Maybe that's the reason most poltical cartooning has not increased in value as much as one might otherwise think it should. People don;t know history that well, or what is shown in the image isn't that historical to them.

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.

 

Edited July 30, 2019 by exitmusicblue

[Rick2you2]

4 minutes ago, exitmusicblue said:

Hoom... will think on this.

Let me add that we are all ignoring the absence, in most cases, of color. For an average person, it matters. Best analogy I can think of is Chinese calligraphy. If you study it, I have no doubt it has value. For me, none at all.