SDCC 2019 - Original Art pics 1 1

[Rick2you2]

2 minutes ago, 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 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.

 

 

But at what price?

[Bird]

2 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

First, a large part of OA's pricing is dependent upon nostalgia 

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. 

[exitmusicblue]

Just now, Rick2you2 said:

But at what price?

I'd wager there was a point in time when a greater % of the world population recognized HTL than is the case now.  Digital generation.  And yet I'd also wager that his art would sell for higher today than at any point in the past.

Likewise,  in the worst case future scenario of comic book properties crumbling, movies going out of vogue, etc... I do see a way up for certain OA.  

[exitmusicblue]

Oh , back to work.  Been a lot of fun, gents!  Long live Henri Toulouse-Lautrec, and the hope he has provided me.

[vodou]

10 minutes ago, exitmusicblue said:

I'd wager there was a point in time when a greater % of the world population recognized HTL than is the case now.  Digital generation.  And yet I'd also wager that his art would sell for higher today than at any point in the past.

Maybe, maybe not. I'll admit I've not done the research on the rise and fall (if any) in Toulouse-Lautrec. What I can suggest is giving this a read:

A significant part of Simon's early art resume was being consultant for an exceptionally large private European collection. Part of his experience in that role was realizing that entire categories of once blue-chip (and supposedly recession-proof) art acquired by that family couldn't even break even nominally 100 years later when some selling was required. Don't take my word for it, read the book, it's a good one from somebody that's actually lived it.

[zhamlau]

23 hours ago, grapeape said:

Tatis is a phenomenal young player...Pete is likely to see more walks, pitching around him. 50 is possible. He would have to fall apart completely not to be RoY.

God they love to walk him now.

[exitmusicblue]

5 hours ago, vodou said:

Maybe, maybe not. I'll admit I've not done the research on the rise and fall (if any) in Toulouse-Lautrec. What I can suggest is giving this a read:

A significant part of Simon's early art resume was being consultant for an exceptionally large private European collection. Part of his experience in that role was realizing that entire categories of once blue-chip (and supposedly recession-proof) art acquired by that family couldn't even break even nominally 100 years later when some selling was required. Don't take my word for it, read the book, it's a good one from somebody that's actually lived it.

Thanks for the rec.  Definitely am under no illusion that most of what has value today will retain or exceed that value in X years.  I hesitate to call any OA "blue chip" or recession proof, because that's for posterity to determine. I'm railing against blanket fatalistic presumptions, not being wishful.

Nonetheless, I do think some of our OA greats will be the Toulouse-Lautrecs of future generations. The best art is timeless regardless of style, and some artists' works look as good today (while retaining "snapshot" cultural significance) as they did X years ago, which can't be said for much of what's forgotten to the dusts of time.

Edited July 30, 2019 by exitmusicblue

[MyNameIsLegion]

1 hour ago, exitmusicblue said:

Thanks for the rec.  Definitely am under no illusion that most of what has value today will retain or exceed that value in X years.  I hesitate to call any OA "blue chip" or recession proof, because that's for posterity to determine. I'm railing against blanket fatalistic presumptions, not being wishful.

Nonetheless, I do think some of our OA greats will be the Toulouse-Lautrecs of future generations. The best art is timeless regardless of style, and some artists' works look as good today (while retaining "snapshot" cultural significance) as they did X years ago, which can't be said for much of what's forgotten to the dusts of time.

I think your point is obscured by the fact that said comic artists for the most part are known for drawing properties they don't own and did not create.  George Perez Avengers?  The OA may be desirable in the future. George Perez Cross-Gen art? No one cares much now or later. To the extent that the comic artist's reputation is defined by the pop-culture subject they drew- they are inextricably linked. Moebius might transcend this (ah but he worked in color!) and he did his own stuff as well.  McFarlane Spider-man will hold some attention, as will Larsen's- Spawn and Savage Dragon?  Likely not.  Look at where defunct comic strip art prices are (or have never been) Those properties that exist today in some pop-future medium endure, and the artist rides that coattail. As they fade, so does the artist. I think theres an argument that artist like Eisner's star will dim and prices dip in the next 20 years- first with non-Spirit material, and even Spirit art. The Spirit isn't part of the MCU or has a theme park or action figure.  Wally Wood Thunder Agents anyone? How about some Tuska Dynamo pages? Tusk Iron Man pages? Well now that different, and I think that's about to soften a little with RDJ exiting the MCU.  Fine art stands-alone. Comic art is pop-art at best, and really it's commercial art - whether it's told in a sequential format or not is more a technical distinction. Nobody commissions AH! to draw just a random hot chick, or a rocking chair for that matter- they want a hot depiction of a comic character that AH! does not own. 

Steve Rude has wanted to exist the comic arena for years, he's a frustrated comic artist that wants do just do just fine art- but he can't make a living at it.  He's a pretty good painter, but not a great painter and no one cares unless it's Nexus or Supes, or Batman. His art may not age well given the bulk of it is tied to Nexus.  If Alex Ross hadn't done Marvels and Kingdom Come and instead had done story boards for GEICO commercials he'd be no one. You couldn't give his art away. Not even in color.

Edited July 30, 2019 by MYNAMEISLEGION

[Rick2you2]

9 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. 

Certainly, not all of the market. But will there be as big a market in 25 years to sustain the prices of many pieces, particularly middle of the road items? Too many of us will leave the hobby, either head first or feet first, so I doubt it.

Let me add that I would love to get a Thomas Nast political cartoon, and I sure wasn’t around in the 19th century.

While I am not positive, weren’t most of the items which you listed self-contained? You didn’t need outside knowledge of, say, X-men to like a piece? I expect those are more likely to hold up in price. That’s why I expect covers are more likely to hold up. They are closest to fine art.

[Rick2you2]

9 hours ago, exitmusicblue said:

I'd wager there was a point in time when a greater % of the world population recognized HTL than is the case now.  Digital generation.  And yet I'd also wager that his art would sell for higher today than at any point in the past.

Likewise,  in the worst case future scenario of comic book properties crumbling, movies going out of vogue, etc... I do see a way up for certain OA.  

There is so much money in the hands of wealthy people these days that even things like Banksy’s art sells for huge sums. So yes, HTL would sell for more today than in the past. I don’t follow the fine art market, except for general notice, but my understanding is that true representational art has not kept pace with more modern stuff.

[vodou]

44 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

but my understanding is that true representational art has not kept pace with more modern stuff.

Approximately correct as a sweeping statement. Pre-Impressionist has been faltering for decades. Next will be Impressionist, the once darling of anybody not enamored with Pop.Somewhere in there is quasi-Abstract/Conceptual beginning with Picasso & Friends and moving furthest out to that early Russian 20th C. material nobody will talk about here (lol), color field, land art, 1970s minimalism, etc. Even the massive Balloon Dogs will falter one day. We all love new 'n shiny, it's human nature, and take that on something else has to be left behind. Just like it's human nature to attempt to curate the past and 'show' everybody how cultured, refined and smart you are (were) by buying the stuff up way ahead of the curve, during the slump, before the renewed interest soared retrospectively. We're all guilty and proud of these traits, perhaps not any of us at our best but...we're having fun, no?

Responding to this:

10 hours ago, exitmusicblue said:

I'd wager there was a point in time when a greater % of the world population recognized HTL than is the case now.  Digital generation.  And yet I'd also wager that his art would sell for higher today than at any point in the past.

This is a bit apples and oranges, popularity of mass:price of 1/1. A mass distributed image (whether the painted cover of SEP or 15,000,00 likes on Instagram of somebody's butt in a thong) can be 'liked' (in clicks or by tearing the cover off framing it up in your kitchen) by a nearly infinite number of people. There's almost no friction to that action. But the original work, 1:1, that only takes two people to both insist this will be mine at all costs and the guy with $1 more than the other will win...and set a number for all to see that's truly shocking (or at least keeps pace with market expectations and COLA inflation!) The friction to play at that level is nearly insurmountable (by definition there can only be 1:1 winner of the contest); I don't think broad appeal of the mass being compared to high price achieved by two exceptionally motivated individuals for the unique is notable or tells us much of anything other than what we already know: lots of people used to (still do?) like it for free or nearly so and only a few people are (or ever were for that matter) ready to put words to action with a substantial part of their net worth.

[Rick2you2]

1 hour ago, vodou said:

Somewhere in there is quasi-Abstract/Conceptual beginning with Picasso & Friends and moving furthest out to that early Russian 20th C. material nobody will talk about here (lol), color field, land art, 1970s minimalism, etc. 

Great news! I always wanted my own Mondrian. 

[exitmusicblue]

1 hour ago, Rick2you2 said:

Great news! I always wanted my own Mondrian. 

Put yo' hands up!  Me too...

[exitmusicblue]

5 hours ago, MYNAMEISLEGION said:

I think your point is obscured by the fact that said comic artists for the most part are known for drawing properties they don't own and did not create.  George Perez Avengers?  The OA may be desirable in the future. George Perez Cross-Gen art? No one cares much now or later. To the extent that the comic artist's reputation is defined by the pop-culture subject they drew- they are inextricably linked. Moebius might transcend this (ah but he worked in color!) and he did his own stuff as well.  McFarlane Spider-man will hold some attention, as will Larsen's- Spawn and Savage Dragon?  Likely not.  Look at where defunct comic strip art prices are (or have never been) Those properties that exist today in some pop-future medium endure, and the artist rides that coattail. As they fade, so does the artist. I think theres an argument that artist like Eisner's star will dim and prices dip in the next 20 years- first with non-Spirit material, and even Spirit art. The Spirit isn't part of the MCU or has a theme park or action figure.  Wally Wood Thunder Agents anyone? How about some Tuska Dynamo pages? Tusk Iron Man pages? Well now that different, and I think that's about to soften a little with RDJ exiting the MCU.  Fine art stands-alone. Comic art is pop-art at best, and really it's commercial art - whether it's told in a sequential format or not is more a technical distinction. Nobody commissions AH! to draw just a random hot chick, or a rocking chair for that matter- they want a hot depiction of a comic character that AH! does not own. 

Steve Rude has wanted to exist the comic arena for years, he's a frustrated comic artist that wants do just do just fine art- but he can't make a living at it.  He's a pretty good painter, but not a great painter and no one cares unless it's Nexus or Supes, or Batman. His art may not age well given the bulk of it is tied to Nexus.  If Alex Ross hadn't done Marvels and Kingdom Come and instead had done story boards for GEICO commercials he'd be no one. You couldn't give his art away. Not even in color.

I agree with this distinction. Agree that, e.g., McFarlane's Spidey will hold its own while Spawn falls by the wayside.

Again, it comes down to zeitgeist, methinks.  HTL's work doubtless benefited over the years + stayed in the public eye in some part thanks to its association with Moulin Rouge.  Other artists might have produced similar -- or even more brilliant -- work, only to fall into eventual obscurity.

Edited July 30, 2019 by exitmusicblue

[exitmusicblue]

2 hours ago, vodou said:

Responding to this:

This is a bit apples and oranges, popularity of mass:price of 1/1. A mass distributed image (whether the painted cover of SEP or 15,000,00 likes on Instagram of somebody's butt in a thong) can be 'liked' (in clicks or by tearing the cover off framing it up in your kitchen) by a nearly infinite number of people. There's almost no friction to that action. But the original work, 1:1, that only takes two people to both insist this will be mine at all costs and the guy with $1 more than the other will win...and set a number for all to see that's truly shocking (or at least keeps pace with market expectations and COLA inflation!) The friction to play at that level is nearly insurmountable (by definition there can only be 1:1 winner of the contest); I don't think broad appeal of the mass being compared to high price achieved by two exceptionally motivated individuals for the unique is notable or tells us much of anything other than what we already know: lots of people used to (still do?) like it for free or nearly so and only a few people are (or ever were for that matter) ready to put words to action with a substantial part of their net worth.

For sure. In the end, though, value is value for art... whether 50 people are bidding, or 2.  The problem is when it's 0.

'twas a minor tack-on point for me, fwiw!

[exitmusicblue]

13 hours ago, exitmusicblue said:

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.

Tackily quoting my own post -- probably my fave in recent memory.  Maybe it's just because of Felicia.

[vodou]

31 minutes ago, exitmusicblue said:

Again, it comes down to zeitgeist, methinks.

Yes. But I think for everybody with an interest outside academia/institutional or the 1/10th of 1% income/wealth further cut down to only those that collect art...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. I don't think breaking out "HTL" because of a specific influence you've latched onto because of something JSC did that you really want and/or now own (do you?) referencing that means anything.

He's hitting Art Nouveau imo not HTL specifically and the zeitgeist or genius of that or whatever we're talking about is sort of dubious (on the part of JSC) because it's homage, which is nifty but really just a sugar-filled hit to the senses versus healthy and satisfying like a balanced meal would be. That's not a knock on the artist or the art but it is why I'm not particularly impressed by it (certainly wouldn't buy it or even want to) and the same with your argument flowing forth. Bronty suggested that you have a formed conclusion already that you're trying to back facts into to support and I think you've shown that with your JSC image reveal...that's where the appreciation/HTL connection you're working so hard is coming from. 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.

[exitmusicblue]

1 minute ago, vodou said:

Yes. But I think for everybody with an interest outside academia/institutional or the 1/10th of 1% income/wealth further cut down to only those that collect art...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. I don't think breaking out "HTL" because of a specific influence you've latched onto because of something JSC did that you really want and/or now own (do you?) referencing that means anything.

He's hitting Art Nouveau imo not HTL specifically and the zeitgeist or genius of that or whatever we're talking about is sort of dubious (on the part of JSC) because it's homage, which is nifty but really just a sugar-filled hit to the senses versus healthy and satisfying like a balanced meal would be. That's not a knock on the artist or the art but it is why I'm not particularly impressed by it (certainly wouldn't buy it or even want to) and the same with your argument flowing forth. Bronty suggested that you have a formed conclusion already that you're trying to back facts into to support and I think you've shown that with your JSC image reveal...that's where the appreciation/HTL connection you're working so hard is coming from. 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.

I'm a lawyer by trade, and the "formed conclusion then work backwards" approach is just often how I've operated.  Not everyone on here is a data scientist, or stock trader, or banker or investor, etc... peace. : )  Picking at that just does nothing for me.

The Art Nouveau point is interesting -- leads me to think that there will be certain standard bearers for our comic entertainment epoch, as well.  Many, however, should fall by the wayside.

[exitmusicblue]

49 minutes ago, vodou said:

Yes. But I think for everybody with an interest outside academia/institutional or the 1/10th of 1% income/wealth further cut down to only those that collect art...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. I don't think breaking out "HTL" because of a specific influence you've latched onto because of something JSC did that you really want and/or now own (do you?) referencing that means anything.

He's hitting Art Nouveau imo not HTL specifically and the zeitgeist or genius of that or whatever we're talking about is sort of dubious (on the part of JSC) because it's homage, which is nifty but really just a sugar-filled hit to the senses versus healthy and satisfying like a balanced meal would be. That's not a knock on the artist or the art but it is why I'm not particularly impressed by it (certainly wouldn't buy it or even want to) and the same with your argument flowing forth. Bronty suggested that you have a formed conclusion already that you're trying to back facts into to support and I think you've shown that with your JSC image reveal...that's where the appreciation/HTL connection you're working so hard is coming from. 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.

Oh, and a HTL piece (not super famous) has long been my mobile phone background!  I've liked him for years before the JSC homage, which I too don't have -- not one to shell out that much for a modern variant.  Hence, coincidence, not pre-planned.  

Dawned upon me to use HTL as an example because the circumstances of his art and enduring spotlight negate so many doomsaying points made to date.  And I reference the homage because it signals the value of the original many many years from the date of its creation... fingers likewise crossed for representative OA in the distant future.

Edited July 30, 2019 by exitmusicblue

[vodou]

53 minutes ago, exitmusicblue said:

I'm a lawyer by trade, and the "formed conclusion then work backwards" approach is just often how I've operated.

Guilty until proved innocent? Certainly that would be the LE approach to everything. Awesome. Please tell me you work defense and I can reverse that. It's faulty logic, but then if we're dumping logic altogether, as I believe you prefer...oh well.