• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Profiles in History Dec 2019
2 2

364 posts in this topic

Vintage BWS 'TAR'...Artemis and Apollo has long been viewed as a "failed" painting by the artist himself...It 'failed' again [to meet reserve] in 2016...Perhaps it is simply destined to be so, again, & again.

 

 

 

 

Edited by First Upgrade
Privacy laws regarding posting addresses
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2019 at 10:24 AM, vodou said:

An old artist friend of mine would critique hyperrealism categorically as ultimately (and thus also essentially) unsettling/dissatisfying to the casual viewer because the entire image is all perfectly in-focus. Foreground, background, edges, center, etc. All in focus. Which is not how the human eye actually works. So what would initially be stunning in a slavish technical sense ("mad skillz, yo!") would eventually turn out to be empty calories ("not good art").

I'm not sure if he would ever criticize anything Wrightson, just cuz, but if we were still on speaking terms I would certainly challenge his pro-Wrightson prejudice against that other self-professed standard of his (which I do agree with).

image.thumb.png.df5aadbd2b2e91653966f31c3b504a1a.png

I think you're nuts.  

Does anyone else here think the Wrightson image is perfectly in focus?  It is hyper-detailed, but, it is not hyper-realistic; Wrightson's hand-breakingly fine hatching creates the illusion of light and shadow but is interpreted by the eye very differently than a photograph or hyper-realistic painting. 

I have never found hyper-realism to be compelling personally, and nor do I find certain Modern comic artists (who shall remain nameless!!) from the '90s through the present noted for their hyper-detailing very interesting either.  I'll even go so far as to say that I don't put Wrightson's Frankie plates on as high pedestal as some (the best are great, but, to hear some OA aficionados wax lyrically about them, nobody else in the history of art has ever come close to putting anything as nice on paper...ummmm, no).  

But, this one is genuinely (worship)(worship)(worship) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, First Upgrade said:

Vintage BWS 'TAR'...Artemis and Apollo has long been viewed as a "failed" painting by the artist himself...It 'failed' again [to meet reserve] in 2016...Perhaps it is simply destined to be so, again, & again.

Given that the reserve has been slashed by 2/3rds, my money is on A&A finding a buyer this time around. 2c 

Thankfully BWS scrapped the TAR in 2016.  I think he realized that it was just annoying to buyers and difficult/costly to enforce if he had to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2019 at 1:07 AM, zhamlau said:

The Frankenstein is probably my single favorite piece of "comic art" ever done...having said that....does anyone really see a million+ for it?

I don't know if it hits the $750K-$1MM estimate, let alone tops $1MM (I'm going to guess yes to the former and no on the latter), but, monetary value aside, I'd rather have this than any of the Frazettas which have sold for that much or more at Heritage (including "Egyptian Queen"). :blush: 

It was mentioned in an online chat this afternoon that PIH has a big (unnamed) Hollywood OA collector client.  It didn't hit me who that might be in the moment, but, then I realized, duh, I saw on Facebook that Guillermo del Toro flew out PIH chief Joe Maddalena to Mexico for an exhibition there this week.  And, of course, GDT is a big Wrightson collector with a bunch of Frankie plates, so, I'd have to think he's the odds-on favorite to take this prize home.  Though, I'm sure this will be on the radar of the Lucas Museum, that Belgian museum that took home Master Race last year and both some of the usual suspect BSDs and some unusual suspects that aren't (yet) widely known... :whistle: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, delekkerste said:

I don't know if it hits the $750K-$1MM estimate, let alone tops $1MM (I'm going to guess yes to the former and no on the latter), but, monetary value aside, I'd rather have this than any of the Frazettas which have sold for that much or more at Heritage (including "Egyptian Queen"). :blush: 

It was mentioned in an online chat this afternoon that PIH has a big (unnamed) Hollywood OA collector client.  It didn't hit me who that might be in the moment, but, then I realized, duh, I saw on Facebook that Guillermo del Toro flew out PIH chief Joe Maddalena to Mexico for an exhibition there this week.  And, of course, GDT is a big Wrightson collector with a bunch of Frankie plates, so, I'd have to think he's the odds-on favorite to take this prize home.  Though, I'm sure this will be on the radar of the Lucas Museum, that Belgian museum that took home Master Race last year and both some of the usual suspect BSDs and some unusual suspects that aren't (yet) widely known... :whistle: 

 

4 hours ago, delekkerste said:

I think you're nuts.  

Does anyone else here think the Wrightson image is perfectly in focus?  It is hyper-detailed, but, it is not hyper-realistic; Wrightson's hand-breakingly fine hatching creates the illusion of light and shadow but is interpreted by the eye very differently than a photograph or hyper-realistic painting. 

I have never found hyper-realism to be compelling personally, and nor do I find certain Modern comic artists (who shall remain nameless!!) from the '90s through the present noted for their hyper-detailing very interesting either.  I'll even go so far as to say that I don't put Wrightson's Frankie plates on as high pedestal as some (the best are great, but, to hear some OA aficionados wax lyrically about them, nobody else in the history of art has ever come close to putting anything as nice on paper...ummmm, no).  

But, this one is genuinely (worship)(worship)(worship) 

Well you’re kind of avoiding the larger point.   The eye doesn’t see all 343 beakers even when they are there necessarily; in order for our brains to be able to pick up a workable amount of information we only see a 3 degree cone at a time in full detail and then things get blurrier as you move away from that.   If you’re going to draw 343 beakers it’s gorgeously done, but why do that in the first place except to show you can, I guess.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

 

Well you’re kind of avoiding the larger point.   The eye doesn’t see all 343 beakers even when they are there necessarily; in order for our brains to be able to pick up a workable amount of information we only see a 3 degree cone at a time in full detail and then things get blurrier as you move away from that.   If you’re going to draw 343 beakers it’s gorgeously done, but why do that in the first place except to show you can, I guess.    

I am not a Wrightson expert but I am also in the camp "lots of detail does not necessarily = great art".  And that applies to comic and other art equally.  Having said that, this particular piece is quite spectacular, and in this case the detail provided is probably instrumental to convey and enforce the obsession of the characters and the drama of the situation.  In other cases, detail is totally gratuitous and...just not for me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

Well you’re kind of avoiding the larger point.   The eye doesn’t see all 343 beakers even when they are there necessarily; in order for our brains to be able to pick up a workable amount of information we only see a 3 degree cone at a time in full detail and then things get blurrier as you move away from that.   If you’re going to draw 343 beakers it’s gorgeously done, but why do that in the first place except to show you can, I guess.    

"It's quality work...and there are simply too many beakers drawn, that's all.  Just cut a few, and it will be perfect." :makepoint: 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Carlo M said:

I am not a Wrightson expert but I am also in the camp "lots of detail does not necessarily = great art".  And that applies to comic and other art equally.  Having said that, this particular piece is quite spectacular, and in this case the detail provided is probably instrumental to convey and enforce the obsession of the characters and the drama of the situation.  In other cases, detail is totally gratuitous and...just not for me...

Exactly.  This scene calls for 343 (or whatever) beakers.  Not 3 and not 3,430.  It is, as you noted, instrumental in portraying the obsession of Dr. Frankenstein.  A sparse and meticulous lab would give the character and the scene a totally different interpretation.  Any more crowded and it would have been exaggerated to the point of not being believable.  

I've seen single-character covers that have totally unnecessary and gratuitous detail.  There is nothing gratuitous or unnecessary about this image at all.  It is sublime.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Exactly.  This scene calls for 343 (or whatever) beakers.  Not 3 and not 3,430.  It is, as you noted, instrumental in portraying the obsession of Dr. Frankenstein.  A sparse and meticulous lab would give the character and the scene a totally different interpretation.  Any more crowded and it would have been exaggerated to the point of not being believable.  

I've seen single-character covers that have totally unnecessary and gratuitous detail.  There is nothing gratuitous or unnecessary about this image at all.  It is sublime.  

Yeah I’m not buying that post hoc forcing of a reason into the result but that’s okay.   I’m sure whomever buys it will love it and rightfully so in many respects.

Truthfully there are lots of other plates that make more sense to me in terms of the level of detail and the layout so if he wanted to have one plate where he went all out, who am I to fault that; I have to remember that this piece was part of a book and not meant to stand alone.    My real sticking point I guess is that the market seems to value this particular piece above all others wrightson ever created except perhaps the hos 92 cover (more lines = more money), but hey I won’t be the buyer so more power to those interested.

its no disrespect to wrightson fans (I include myself in that category) or to potential buyers but it’s an odd result (at least to me) when a piece from outside comics proper is a comic artist’s (a professional who spent more time in comics than any other medium) arguably most valuable work.     There are very very few examples of that which I can think of.   

Edited by Bronty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, delekkerste said:

I think you're nuts.  

Does anyone else here think the Wrightson image is perfectly in focus?  It is hyper-detailed, but, it is not hyper-realistic; Wrightson's hand-breakingly fine hatching creates the illusion of light and shadow but is interpreted by the eye very differently than a photograph or hyper-realistic painting. 

LOL. Gene...where exactly is the focal point. (Identifying direction of light source is not the correct answer ;) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Yeah I’m not buying that post hoc forcing of a reason into the result but that’s okay.   I’m sure whomever buys it will love it and rightfully so in many respects 

There's nothing post hoc about it.  It's so clear that I'd wager that Wrightson is on record somewhere detailing his motivations behind why he drew this piece like he did.  

Anyhow, the notion that anything beyond what we can process in a 3-D cone of vision is somehow surplus to requirements in a painting is crazypants.  The best figurative/narrative art draws the viewer in to uncover more and more details and nuances the closer one looks, as this one does.  And, as I detail below, looking at this piece head-on is definitely not how you should be looking at this piece anyway.

25 minutes ago, vodou said:

LOL. Gene...where exactly is the focal point. (Identifying direction of light source is not the correct answer ;) )

What are you trying to imply?  That it's just a hot mess?  If you think that, I'd hate to hear what you think of Guernica.  "Where exactly is the focal point, Pablo??"     

Don't think of it as what you can see in a cone of vision or just what your eyes can focus on. Think of it as telling a story, cinematically panning from left to right revealing the lab (which tells you a lot about Dr. Frankenstein's backstory without actually having to explain it) and then culminating in revealing the conflict between the Doctor and the Monster.  Nothing messy about it.  You should be applauding its cinematic scope and ability to tell a strong narrative without sequential panels.  The Lucas Museum of Narrative Art could do a lot worse. 

Edited by delekkerste
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

There's nothing post hoc about it.  It's so clear that I'd wager that Wrightson is on record somewhere detailing his motivations behind why he drew this piece like he did.  

Anyhow, the notion that anything beyond what we can process in a 3-D cone of vision is somehow surplus to requirements in a painting is crazypants.  The best figurative/narrative art draws the viewer in to uncover more and more details and nuances the closer one looks, as this one does.  And, as I detail below, definitely not how you should be looking at this piece. 

What are you trying to imply?  That it's just a hot mess?  If you think that, I'd hate to hear what you think of Guernica.  "Where exactly is the focal point, Pablo??"     

Don't think of it as what you can see in a cone of vision or just what your eyes can focus on. Think of it as telling a story, cinematically panning from left to right revealing the lab (which tells you a lot about Dr. Frankenstein's backstory without actually having to explain it) and then culminating in revealing the conflict between the Doctor and the Monster.  Nothing messy about it.  You should be applauding its cinematic scope and ability to tell a strong narrative without sequential panels.  The Lucas Museum of Narrative Art could do a lot worse.   

I’m sure that was wrightson’s reasoning so I guess you’re right that it’s not after the fact reasoning; just poor reasoning.   We don’t need to see every speck of dust in the lab to know he’s bonkers when there’s that small matter of stitching up dead bodies?   Is the book about reanimation or is it about housekeeping?

When I look at that piece I don’t think ‘wow look at all that lab equipment that doctor must be insane’ I think ‘WTF is even going on here; it’s hard to see.’

I literally didn’t notice the third body in the picture until today because of what I would term visual distractions .

Again as a stand alone piece for the money it will go for, it’s not for me but I do see why an artist might do this for a single plate in an illustrated edition of a book, and I do see why the piece would have its fans.   But it’s valuation seems to run on principles counter to the norm for comic artists (where work outside comics proper is less valuable) so that part doesn’t make sense to me.    But , I’m sure it will find a very very happy home.

Edited by Bronty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

Again as a stand alone piece for the money it will go for, it’s not for me but I do see why an artist might do this for a single plate in an illustrated edition of a book, and I do see why the piece would have its fans.   But it’s valuation seems to run on principles counter to the norm for comic artists (where work outside comics proper is less valuable) so that part doesn’t make sense to me.    But , I’m sure it will find a very very happy home.

Wrightson is a bit of an anomaly. He didn't do a lot of mainstream comic work and, yet, the market for his work is currently very strong (even as the market for much of BWS, Jones and Kaluta is largely flatlining...mainstream hero artwork and GoT tie-ins by them excluded!)  You're right that this is an exception to the norm of franchise characters and nostalgia generally triumphing over craft (not that there isn't at least some nostalgia and character-driven appreciation for the Frankie cover as well). 

That said, who's buying the Wrightson art these days...GDT is in his mid-50s IIRC and the other Wrightson aficionados I know are in that age range as well.  Who knows if the Wrightson market (Frazetta too, for that matter) will continue to go from strength to strength after these, say, late 40s/50s/60s collectors are eventually supplanted by the next generation at the top of the hobby food chain. 

I guess from that standpoint, one may be better off with the Batman #251 or DKR #1 covers, but, the Frankie is the one I'd most like to see every day on my wall out of the three. 

Edited by delekkerste
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

one may be better off with the Batman #251 or DKR #1 covers, but, the Frankie is the one I'd most like to see every day on my wall out of the three. 

Agreed.

Back around 2013, Mr. Young politely declined an all cash offer of ~$400K...($380k, all cash, IIRC)...Even Mr. Darabont couldn't, or wouldn't/didn't, pry it loose after 'decades' of interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

Wrightson is a bit of an anomaly. He didn't do a lot of mainstream comic work and, yet, the market for his work is currently very strong (even as the market for much of BWS, Jones and Kaluta is largely flatlining...mainstream hero artwork and GoT tie-ins by them excluded!)  You're right that this is an exception to the norm of franchise characters and nostalgia generally triumphing over craft (not that there isn't at least some nostalgia and character-driven appreciation for the Frankie cover as well). 

That said, who's buying the Wrightson art these days...GDT is in his mid-50s IIRC and the other Wrightson aficionados I know are in that age range as well.  Who knows if the Wrightson market (Frazetta too, for that matter) will continue to go from strength to strength after these, say, late 40s/50s/60s collectors are eventually supplanted by the next generation at the top of the hobby food chain. 

I guess from that standpoint, one may be better off with the Batman #251 or DKR #1 covers, but, the Frankie is the one I'd most like to see every day on my wall out of the three. 

1) For those who've been inside real "old school" labs -- a la Counter Culture Labs in Oakland -- Bernie's lab looks positively minimalist.  The impact of the art would be muted were it cropped.  Me likey!

2) Just saw the inanimate corpse for the first time thanks to Bronty's tipoff.  I enjoy spotting new details over time, though I know that's not for everyone.

3) For the next gen of Frazetta fans, look no further than the family-powered account at https://twitter.com/frazettagirls.  The responses to tweets are Bieberesque in scale.  Amazes me to this day (and gives me hope for other artists' legacies... though Fritz may well be an outlier). The Frazetta Museum FB account is even magnitudes more bustling, but lots of older fans are mixed in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, exitmusicblue said:

3) For the next gen of Frazetta fans, look no further than the family-powered account at https://twitter.com/frazettagirls.  The responses to tweets are Bieberesque in scale.  Amazes me to this day (and gives me hope for other artists' legacies... though Fritz may well be an outlier). The Frazetta Museum FB account is even magnitudes more bustling, but lots of older fans are mixed in there.

Number of Twitter followers:

Justin Bieber:  107.3 million

Jim Lee:  363.4 thousand

Jeff Koons:  237.6 thousand

Alex Ross:  94.6 thousand

Scottie Young:  86.5 thousand

Sean Gordon Murphy:  61.7 thousand

Bill Sienkiewicz:  59.7 thousand

Walter Simonson:  41.5 thousand

Joelle Jones:  25.1 thousand

Frazetta Girls/Frank Frazetta Art:  18.4 thousand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, delekkerste said:

Number of Twitter followers:

Justin Bieber:  107.3 million

Jim Lee:  363.4 thousand

Jeff Koons:  237.6 thousand

Alex Ross:  94.6 thousand

Scottie Young:  86.5 thousand

Sean Gordon Murphy:  61.7 thousand

Bill Sienkiewicz:  59.7 thousand

Walter Simonson:  41.5 thousand

Joelle Jones:  25.1 thousand

Frazetta Girls/Frank Frazetta Art:  18.4 thousand

Hollywood

1345

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2