What art/artists have dropped in popularity? 0

[vodou]

2 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Has there been something of a split going on with Neal Adams pieces? The good ones keep going up, or at least stablizing, while the less desirable ones (including newer ones), don't hold their value?

People are still paying 4k for Tomahawk, so no the tilt has not righted itself. Yet.

[JadeGiant]

23 hours ago, joefixit2 said:

Sal Buscema's value continues to plummet.  Tell you what, for all you people still holding onto Sal Hulk pages, I will be a nice guy and pay $50/page just to take them off your hands. 

 

People have been paying me to remove SB art from their collections. I continue to do this difficult task for any of you out there that need to purge. 

[delekkerste]

On 3/7/2020 at 4:46 PM, exitmusicblue said:

I take it you're not an Artgerm fan, either.  

Can't stand him.  Looking at his art, I envision all of his clients being dateless Asian dudes.  

[pinupcartooncollector]

On 1/5/2020 at 9:33 AM, John E. said:

I like how "nude" beats out the likes of Frank Miller.

[ESeffinga]

5 hours ago, pinupcartooncollector said:

I like how "nude" beats out the likes of Frank Miller.

Take a look at the rest of that list. What isn't nude is largely still in that cheesecake, sexualized, nude or nearly nude area.

 

Manara, Vampirella, Bill Ward, Bisley, Timm, Root, Cho and Hughes can all be colored with a similar brush. Not all their work of course, but a very large chunk of it. Unfortunately in my mind, it even tarnishes the result for Wonder Woman. I'd like to think it's because people are inspired by a strong female leader, but I can't help but look at the rest of that list, and thing there's some dudes wanting to see up her skirt instead.

And I am not saying those artists are not talented, as clearly many of them are, insofar as style and illustrative quality go. ANd I've no beef with sexuality in art.  I think the list speaks more to the folks seeking it out, than it does to the names listed, IMO.

I'm at least heartened a bit, to see Sienkiewicz on the list.

[Rick2you2]

2 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

Take a look at the rest of that list. What isn't nude is largely still in that cheesecake, sexualized, nude or nearly nude area.

 

Manara, Vampirella, Bill Ward, Bisley, Timm, Root, Cho and Hughes can all be colored with a similar brush. Not all their work of course, but a very large chunk of it. Unfortunately in my mind, it even tarnishes the result for Wonder Woman. I'd like to think it's because people are inspired by a strong female leader, but I can't help but look at the rest of that list, and thing there's some dudes wanting to see up her skirt instead.

And I am not saying those artists are not talented, as clearly many of them are, insofar as style and illustrative quality go. ANd I've no beef with sexuality in art.  I think the list speaks more to the folks seeking it out, than it does to the names listed, IMO.

I'm at least heartened a bit, to see Sienkiewicz on the list.

In defense of the slant towards "cheesecake", I think women and their curves make them fundimentally better as subjects for art work than men. It isn't only about the sexuality, either. I had that discussion with artist Michelle Delecki a while ago. She just likes to draw women, and I suspect she is not alone. You can see it in other female artists' work, too. It's like when artists paint landscapes. Notice how they often include rolling hills? Curves just naturally work well with art.

But, of course, a good part of it is just raw sexuality; I don't want to overstate that point.

 

[ESeffinga]

I won't argue that the female form isn't more attractive artistically, across the board. But that's not what I'm talking about in those artist's work, or the work that floats to the top of CAF. It is very much sexually charged. Even the "innocuous" stuff. Most of them would not deny it. And again, it says more about the folks visiting CAF than the folks creating the work. Though there is a creative artistic argument to be made against artists who take the "easy sell" as well. But horses for courses.

[RBerman]

This has come up recently in discussions of the National Gallery of Art in Washington DC. A plurality of its artwork and a majority of its statuary is naked young women. 85% of the nudes are women. Rich people commissioned these for their homes, then donated them to the gallery upon their demise. Room upon room upon room.

 

[Skizz]

On 1/6/2020 at 7:38 PM, delekkerste said:

This is going to be a shocker, but, I'll even say that Jack Kirby's popularity is probably flattening out or even starting to wane a bit.   The reality is that Kirby's OA price appreciation has slowed in recent years; the mostly 50/60-somethings who collect his Silver Age Marvel art (his best stuff) already bid up that market a lot back when they were 30 Noand 40 somethings, so, the rate of price appreciation has already inflected (2nd derivative) over the past 7-8 years.  Oh sure, put a great cover in like Cap 103 into a Heritage sale and it will do just fine, and some of the lower-end stuff has played catch-up in recent years by those who got priced out of the better stuff in the 2010s.  But, go do a deeper dive into the broad Kirby market and you'd have to say that there have been a fair number of  or disappointing results over the past couple/few years.  And that should not be surprising - while it's nowhere near as severe as with BWS Conan, it's pretty obvious that getting a great Kirby example is no longer considered to be a requirement for many younger collectors.  Even among my age cohort, precisely zero collectors in my close circle of friends are regular Kirby collectors.  Between high prices and changing tastes, I can easily see younger collectors buying, at the very least, LESS Kirby than their forebears.  While this may not be widely obvious now, I think it will be as the years go by.    

Hmm, interesting observation about Kirby. Articulates in words what I’ve been feeling internally and couldn’t quite put into a coherent thought. When I started dabbling in OA a few years and, I did think Kirby was more interesting than the rest of the Silver/Bronze age art (none of which holds much interest to me). But I wonder if I was swayed by his stature as a key creator or if I was truly attracted to the art.

And whilst I was previously keen to get a Kirby example, I still haven’t bought one and no longer feel particularly compelled to get one.  Also, there is always Kirby art coming up in auctions or with dealers.  So it doesn’t feel like there is any urgency.

Thanks for the insight @delekkerste

Edited July 10, 2020 by Skizz

[Skizz]

On 3/13/2020 at 12:17 PM, Rick2you2 said:

In defense of the slant towards "cheesecake", I think women and their curves make them fundimentally better as subjects for art work than men. It isn't only about the sexuality, either. I had that discussion with artist Michelle Delecki a while ago. She just likes to draw women, and I suspect she is not alone. You can see it in other female artists' work, too. It's like when artists paint landscapes. Notice how they often include rolling hills? Curves just naturally work well with art.

But, of course, a good part of it is just raw sexuality; I don't want to overstate that point.

 

Interesting observation. I’m minded to agree.

Having said that, curves go in both directions. Curves can be:

 (      )  
(        )

Or 

 )    ( 
(      )

And yet, most (all?) of the cheesecake art falls in the latter.

Edited July 10, 2020 by Skizz

[Rick2you2]

9 minutes ago, Skizz said:

Interesting observation. I’m minded to agree.

Having said that, curves go in both directions. Curves can be:

 (      )  
(        )

Or 

 )    ( 
(      )

And yet, most (all?) of the cheesecake art falls in the latter.

I think the former is more likely a product of eating the cheesecake. Or aren’t we allowed to say that anymore?

[delekkerste]

16 minutes ago, Skizz said:

Hmm, interesting observation about Kirby. Articulates in words what I’ve been feeling internally and couldn’t quite put into a coherent thought. When I started dabbling in OA a few years and, I did think Kirby was more interesting than the rest of the Silver/Bronze age art (none of which holds much interest to me). But I wonder if I was swayed by his stature as a key creator or if I was truly attracted to the art.

And whilst I was previously keen to get a Kirby example, I still haven’t bought one and no longer feel particularly compelled to get one.  Also, there is always Kirby art coming up in auctions or with dealers.  So it doesn’t feel like there is any urgency.

Thanks for the insight @delekkerste

I just want to make clear that Kirby art is not going DOWN by any stretch.  But, as the generational changes in OA tastes are taking hold, and as the most rabid Kirby collector base slows down due to (a) already having enough, (b) high prices, (c) getting older, there's no doubt that we've seen a second derivative inflection in price appreciation and mean reversion for not just the past year or two, but, at least 5, if not 6 years now.  Yes, the good/fresh stuff can and will bring out the buyers and produce big prices.  But, prices are not appreciating at the 15-20% (or thereabouts) annual clip they averaged in the 2000s and first half of the 2010s for the broad Kirby market  I would estimate that most Kirby has probably been appreciating at low-to-mid single digits a year for the past 5-6 years while the McSpideys, Killing Joke, Dark Knight, Watchmen, Sandman, Jim Lee X-Men, early Liefeld New Mutants/X-Force and other prime 1986-1996 properties have been escalating solidly in the double-digits during that time.  

Edited July 10, 2020 by delekkerste

[Skizz]

14 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I just want to make clear that Kirby art is not going DOWN by any stretch.  But, as the generational changes in OA tastes are taking hold, and as the most rabid Kirby collector base slows down due to (a) already having enough, (b) high prices, (c) getting older, there's no doubt that we've seen a second derivative inflection in price appreciation and mean reversion for not just the past year or two, but, at least 5, if not 6 years now.  Yes, the good/fresh stuff can and will bring out the buyers and produce big prices.  But, prices are not appreciating at the 15-20% (or thereabouts) annual clip they averaged in the 2000s and first half of the 2010s.  Most Kirby has probably been appreciating at low-to-mid single digits a year for the past 5-6 years while the McSpideys, Killing Joke, Dark Knight, Watchmen, Sandman, Jim Lee X-Men, early Liefeld New Mutants/X-Force and other prime 1986-1996 properties have been escalating solidly in the double-digits during that time.

I appreciate this and these are exactly the factors I’m taking into consideration is deciding what art I should go after in the next five years. I figure that I should go after the art that has been rising at a more steeper pace than spending those funds on a Kirby example. Not because I’d want to sell it later but because that art may well become unaffordable in five years time. Whereas, if I was to wait say 10 years for an Kirby example, I appreciate I would likely pay more for it then than I would now; but hopefully the not-as-steep increase on Kirby can be compensated by the increase in income over this time.

 

15 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

I think the former is more likely a product of eating the cheesecake. Or aren’t we allowed to say that anymore?

Seems you’re allowed say it. Just not draw it 😁

[Rick2you2]

19 minutes ago, Skizz said:

Hmm, interesting observation about Kirby. Articulates in words what I’ve been feeling internally and couldn’t quite put into a coherent thought. When I started dabbling in OA a few years and, I did think Kirby was more interesting than the rest of the Silver/Bronze age art (none of which holds much interest to me). But I wonder if I was swayed by his stature as a key creator or if I was truly attracted to the art.

And whilst I was previously keen to get a Kirby example, I still haven’t bought one and no longer feel particularly compelled to get one.  Also, there is always Kirby art coming up in auctions or with dealers.  So it doesn’t feel like there is any urgency.

Thanks for the insight @delekkerste

While a good portion of what I buy is Silver/Bronze age art, I have never had any great appreciation for Kirby. The raw energy often conveys a sense of disorganization, and I don’t care for things like anatomical errors or bizarre interrelationships of objects (if that makes sense). Kirby was capable of beautiful work; I saw it in Evanier’s biography, but at Marvel, in particular, I didn’t like it.

 I am, however, a fan of a lot of new work. Page layouts are more open now, and the drafting is often at a very high skill rate. In the old days, excellent artists, like Sparling or the old EC crowd, couldn’t really strut their stuff. On the other hand, it permitted tighter, short stories that went somewhere— not the latest crises to end the universe which goes on interminably to suck out extra money from the readers.

[christosgage]

On 1/5/2020 at 8:13 AM, Blastaar said:

Mark Bagley is much more affordable today for reasons I can’t explain. Would imagine over time the arrow can only go up. 

He's extremely prolific, that might have something to do with it. Collectors who just want an example of his work (as opposed to a specific story or issue) have a lot to choose from.

[jjonahjameson11]

I’m really, really hoping that McFarlane art drops in popularity soon 🤞🏻

[exitmusicblue]

10 hours ago, christosgage said:

He's extremely prolific, that might have something to do with it. Collectors who just want an example of his work (as opposed to a specific story or issue) have a lot to choose from.

Bagley work on the flagship titles is already getting $$$.  Missin' the days I could pick up a nice ASM or V:LP action page for low to mid-three digits. Those days are gone.

But yes, he has a sprawling body of work, so pickin' up any example (esp. from the past decade or two) is pretty easy.

Edited July 11, 2020 by exitmusicblue