Thoughts on buying Skottie Young art as an investment? 1 1

[Michael Browning]

16 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

^ This is only if you are evaluating the Marvel superhero work (which I expect many people gravitate to because they love characters more than art and artists).

It is worth reiterating Skottie also is involved in his own creator owned work, and they are absolutely not "always variant covers and never the main covers".

I still say buying more or less any art as investment is dumb move. Somewhere to park your money that you can enjoy? Absolutely. If you get a return on that money over decades of enjoyment, bonus! But investment only? There's generally better avenues for that.
 

Investing in his other work should be very cheap and an even worse ROI loss than his Marvel variant covers. The question isn't what you should invest your money in, the original poster is asking if he should invest his money in Skottie Young artwork. My answer to that is no. Creator-owned series like "I Hate Fairies" isn't something that people will be paying huge amounts for in the future. We're not talking about The Walking Dead artwork, we're talking about "I Hate Fairies" artwork.

[ESeffinga]

Otherwise known as I Hate Fairyland.

[Blastaar]

I like this one.

[Michael Browning]

4 hours ago, Blastaar said:

I like this one.

So, does he work with a digital component with inks on blue line pencils?

[Blastaar]

34 minutes ago, Michael Browning said:

So, does he work with a digital component with inks on blue line pencils?

My guess would be blue graphite, pencil, ink. 

[John E.]

6 minutes ago, Blastaar said:

My guess would be blue graphite, pencil, ink. 

I thought it was blue graphite too until I tried to erase a small portion of it to confirm and it did not come off. Thus, my suspicion is that it's a blue line print out. There is no trace of traditional pencils on his work. Maybe @Nexus could confirm?

If it's indeed ink over his own blue line, that's pretty much what you have to accept as a fact of life as collector of modern art in the 2010s. I still prefer pencil under inks.

[ESeffinga]

Pretty sure Skottie is working with digital thumbnails printed as bluelines and then inked.

From what I gather, his digital pencils are generally loose guidelines, and then the piece is drawn in ink.
Which is to say if you are looking at older forms of comic art with separate pencils and inkers, you would be used to tight(ish) pencils from one guy, and then an inker that comes along and interprets the first guy's drawing to finish things out. Some take more liberties than others.

What Skottie is doing is often giving himself the rough composition as blueline, and then doing his actual drawing over that skeleton. I'm sure some pieces are sketched out a bit tighter than others, but he adds so much character in his work. it'd be dumb for him to draw a bunch of expressions or details twice. And he is also one of those creators whose linework is about spontaneity and attack. You can't fake that by tracing it, and he is brilliant at it in the way that Watterson is. So he waits until the inking stage to really flush the drawing out. I think of it like a blueline thumbnail under the ink drawing.

So, it's a bit different than a lot of artists work.

Others have been going this way for a while. And I don't mean blueline, I meant skipping tight pencilling. Ashley Wood for instance, has abandoned any penciling, and draws straight with pen and ink on paper in order to capture all his spontaneity, but he also means the pieces that don't look great get trashed. So his "original comic pages used to be made up of a series of panels. THe last few years he's become so good at doing his thing, he is doing whole pages without pencils or piecing them together. That is supremely ballsy and freaking hard.

 

Edited January 16, 2020 by ESeffinga

[Nexus]

What Eric said!

[JadeGiant]

6 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

... he is also one of those creators whose linework is about spontaneity and attack ... 

 

liked the whole post but capturing this for emphasis - well said 

[NC101]

11 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

Pretty sure Skottie is working with digital thumbnails printed as bluelines and then inked.

From what I gather, his digital pencils are generally loose guidelines, and then the piece is drawn in ink.
Which is to say if you are looking at older forms of comic art with separate pencils and inkers, you would be used to tight(ish) pencils from one guy, and then an inker that comes along and interprets the first guy's drawing to finish things out. Some take more liberties than others.

What Skottie is doing is often giving himself the rough composition as blueline, and then doing his actual drawing over that skeleton. I'm sure some pieces are sketched out a bit tighter than others, but he adds so much character in his work. it'd be dumb for him to draw a bunch of expressions or details twice. And he is also one of those creators whose linework is about spontaneity and attack. You can't fake that by tracing it, and he is brilliant at it in the way that Watterson is. So he waits until the inking stage to really flush the drawing out. I think of it like a blueline thumbnail under the ink drawing.

So, it's a bit different than a lot of artists work.

Others have been going this way for a while. And I don't mean blueline, I meant skipping tight pencilling. Ashley Wood for instance, has abandoned any penciling, and draws straight with pen and ink on paper in order to capture all his spontaneity, but he also means the pieces that don't look great get trashed. So his "original comic pages used to be made up of a series of panels. THe last few years he's become so good at doing his thing, he is doing whole pages without pencils or piecing them together. That is supremely ballsy and freaking hard.

 

Sort of off-topic, but I'm really interested in learning about things like this and building a more sophisticated appreciation for the art, what would I look for to learn more?

[Blastaar]

7 minutes ago, NewCollector101 said:

Sort of off-topic, but I'm really interested in learning about things like this and building a more sophisticated appreciation for the art, what would I look for to learn more?

Pinned Thread.

 

 

[ESeffinga]

13 hours ago, NewCollector101 said:

Sort of off-topic, but I'm really interested in learning about things like this and building a more sophisticated appreciation for the art, what would I look for to learn more?

I'm not 100% sure I know what you are asking for here.

If it's about the hobby of comic art collecting, and the variety of ways comic art is created and it's effect on pricing, the thread Blastaar posted is a good place to start. In general, read as much as you can of this board. Take every bit of art advice you read with a grain of salt, and apply it to your own experiences as it makes sense to do so. There are almost as many opinions on any topic in art collecting as there are collectors giving them.

If you are talking strictly about digging deeper into art appreciation and understanding the ways of artists create their art (i.e. the forms and effects of mark making, and it's dynamics and composition. Noticing things like the loss of immediacy from a pencil rough, to the stiffening effect that can come from tracing during inking. Or even comparing and contrasting art styles and their pros and cons, who's good at what, etc... there are a number of avenues to explore, but the biggest most general one is look at everything. Old, new, good and bad. Look at it all. Observation is important for any artist. Observation is equally important for any art collector. Some work will be obvious in what sets it apart. Other work will require more careful study. Not everything has to come to you at a glance. Is it just a bowl of oranges? Is there something else happening that needs further consideration? The world of comic art is vast (    V  A  S  T    ) but don't stop there. Look at other art. Look at illustration. Look at anything that you have the opportunity to. All throughout history as well. The very best teacher is experience. Drawing yourself is a great way to understand the work of others, BUT that's not what I mean. I mean, you can read all the writing by someone else in the world (especially me)  about a visual medium, but it is truly only the direct observation of it that will really yield the most concrete understanding of that work, and how it stacks up against all the other work you've seen. Become an art sponge & filter.

Check out CAF if you aren't on there, as it's an amazing resource. Really spend time there. Use it to go back to and look up artists work that you don't normally look at, Make friends with other OA collectors. Get yourself to any gatherings, con events or other opportunities to see original art. Seeing the colored published work is often distracting at best and misleading at worst. Look at the real deal in the flesh. You don't have to own it all to see it all.

Look at work you like and at work you don't like. Think about why that is. Look at the corrections. Look at the methods and materials the artists use. Pay attention to the little things. A smudge can be the sign of an amateur, or a great master, depending on how it is used (intelligently and with purpose, vs accidentally). The original work speaks for itself. Or at least it better.

There are some books that can help, if you want to read in between visits to every art museum at every city you visit, or Cons you are able to attend.

Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud is a great book, done in a simple and easy to follow way. It's more fun than a textbook, using the very medium he is discussing. Gary Martin and Steve Rude's Understanding Inking is a solid book as well, for understanding some of the nuts and bolts of how inking is not just a form of drawing outlines for a pencil piece, but the dynamic changes it can make to a single image. There are countless books on general art composition, theory and philosophy. I like Molly Bang's book How Pictures Work, if you want to get into a real understanding of composition. Beyond that there is so much available out there. Andrew Loomis had some incredibly solid books on drawing, etc. The more you understand these things, the deeper your understanding of what comic artists are doing as illustrators and storytellers, and where they fall short. The more info you absorb, the more you'll know what appeals to you and what doesn't. You may also discover the things that were "good enough" before, don't hold up as well and your appreciation of them may decline. On some level with most comic art, you have to find a balance between knowledge, sophistication and nostalgia, and take the good with the bad.

Not everyone in comics is going to be Mazzuuchelli (even Mazzuuchelli in the early days).

Sorry for the TL/DR for those who could give a fig about this stuff.

[NC101]

2 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

I'm not 100% sure I know what you are asking for here.

If it's about the hobby of comic art collecting, and the variety of ways comic art is created and it's effect on pricing, the thread Blastaar posted is a good place to start. In general, read as much as you can of this board. Take every bit of art advice you read with a grain of salt, and apply it to your own experiences as it makes sense to do so. There are almost as many opinions on any topic in art collecting as there are collectors giving them.

If you are talking strictly about digging deeper into art appreciation and understanding the ways of artists create their art (i.e. the forms and effects of mark making, and it's dynamics and composition. Noticing things like the loss of immediacy from a pencil rough, to the stiffening effect that can come from tracing during inking. Or even comparing and contrasting art styles and their pros and cons, who's good at what, etc... there are a number of avenues to explore, but the biggest most general one is look at everything. Old, new, good and bad. Look at it all. Observation is important for any artist. Observation is equally important for any art collector. Some work will be obvious in what sets it apart. Other work will require more careful study. Not everything has to come to you at a glance. Is it just a bowl of oranges? Is there something else happening that needs further consideration? The world of comic art is vast (    V  A  S  T    ) but don't stop there. Look at other art. Look at illustration. Look at anything that you have the opportunity to. All throughout history as well. The very best teacher is experience. Drawing yourself is a great way to understand the work of others, BUT that's not what I mean. I mean, you can read all the writing by someone else in the world (especially me)  about a visual medium, but it is truly only the direct observation of it that will really yield the most concrete understanding of that work, and how it stacks up against all the other work you've seen. Become an art sponge & filter.

Check out CAF if you aren't on there, as it's an amazing resource. Really spend time there. Use it to go back to and look up artists work that you don't normally look at, Make friends with other OA collectors. Get yourself to any gatherings, con events or other opportunities to see original art. Seeing the colored published work is often distracting at best and misleading at worst. Look at the real deal in the flesh. You don't have to own it all to see it all.

Look at work you like and at work you don't like. Think about why that is. Look at the corrections. Look at the methods and materials the artists use. Pay attention to the little things. A smudge can be the sign of an amateur, or a great master, depending on how it is used (intelligently and with purpose, vs accidentally). The original work speaks for itself. Or at least it better.

There are some books that can help, if you want to read in between visits to every art museum at every city you visit, or Cons you are able to attend.

Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud is a great book, done in a simple and easy to follow way. It's more fun than a textbook, using the very medium he is discussing. Gary Martin and Steve Rude's Understanding Inking is a solid book as well, for understanding some of the nuts and bolts of how inking is not just a form of drawing outlines for a pencil piece, but the dynamic changes it can make to a single image. There are countless books on general art composition, theory and philosophy. I like Molly Bang's book How Pictures Work, if you want to get into a real understanding of composition. Beyond that there is so much available out there. Andrew Loomis had some incredibly solid books on drawing, etc. The more you understand these things, the deeper your understanding of what comic artists are doing as illustrators and storytellers, and where they fall short. The more info you absorb, the more you'll know what appeals to you and what doesn't. You may also discover the things that were "good enough" before, don't hold up as well and your appreciation of them may decline. On some level with most comic art, you have to find a balance between knowledge, sophistication and nostalgia, and take the good with the bad.

Not everyone in comics is going to be Mazzuuchelli (even Mazzuuchelli in the early days).

Sorry for the TL/DR for those who could give a fig about this stuff.

Thank you! That's really helpful (I was asking about the art appreciation, sorry that wasn't clear). I think I'm gonna start with the Scott McCloud book and go from there.

[ESeffinga]

It's a good read, and very informative. Scott did a great job, and I wish more comic fans gave it a proper look.

Enjoy!

Edited January 17, 2020 by ESeffinga

[BCarter27]

3 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud is a great book, done in a simple and easy to follow way. It's more fun than a textbook, using the very medium he is discussing. Gary Martin and Steve Rude's Understanding Inking is a solid book as well, for understanding some of the nuts and bolts of how inking is not just a form of drawing outlines for a pencil piece, but the dynamic changes it can make to a single image. There are countless books on general art composition, theory and philosophy. I like Molly Bang's book How Pictures Work, if you want to get into a real understanding of composition

McCloud and Martin's books are great! I have to check out the Molly Bang book.

23 minutes ago, NewCollector101 said:

I think I'm gonna start with the Scott McCloud book and go from there.

I'd also add Terry Moore's drawing book as well as the magazines from Two Morrows. Rough Stuff, iirc, had a great column by Bob McLeod where he would break down sample pages and show you how to rework them. It was fascinating. And of course, their Comic Artist and Modern Masters series are just gold through and through!

https://twomorrows.com/

 

 

[alxjhnsn]

4 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

Sorry for the TL/DR for those who could give a fig about this stuff.

This is why I use spoiler tags for this slightly off-topic and long replies. Just click the "eyeball" icon and type away!

[vodou]

Everything Eric wrote is great, however he skipped an exceptionally salient point (an obvious and intentional omission to us old hands here) - there is a reason crummy comic art by crummy artists sells for a lot. That reason? It's not about "The Art" (aka everything that Eric is pointing you toward) but "The Collectors" (and/or also "The Dealers"   aka The Market.)

What this means is, Sal Buscema's sharp angles may make you want to slit your wrists BUT The Collectors (en masse) have determined that Avengers, Spider-Man, and a mountain of fill-ins are worth more for the "content" than the art. (As long as those favored characters are: IN COSTUME ) You miss this point, you will end up with a rather aesthetically pleasing stash of stuff (to you, a few others probably too but almost nobody else with eyes only for: comic art) that without a growing audience will sit flat or decline in value over time (not only in inflation adjusted but even real terms), even faster if you overpaid to begin with. (Paid vs. Over/Underpaid is very much a separate topic too.)

The above doesn't mean you have to collect "popular" (but not-so-great at best) art, but the awareness should be there that when you buy offbeat/niche "artsy" comic art you may have left your money behind at POP never to return. Either your collecting DNA (and bank account) can accept this (the absolute consumption aspect of money spent) or not. If not, then try to find art that others like now and will continue to like even more that also tickles your aesthetic view of the art world too. At least then you have a chance of evening out over time. Otherwise, you have zero chance of changing the world...it will move as it does, and that may or may not be closer than today as far as seeing comic art as comic ART

Skottie...who knows. But not cheap today, is it? (So are you willing to throw a larger amount away never to return?)

[ESeffinga]

38 minutes ago, vodou said:

however he skipped an exceptionally salient point (an obvious and intentional omission to us old hands here) - there is a reason crummy comic art by crummy artists sells for a lot. That reason? It's not about "The Art" (aka everything that Eric is pointing you toward) but "The Collectors" (and/or also "The Dealers"   aka The Market.)

 

5 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

 On some level with most comic art, you have to find a balance between knowledge, sophistication and nostalgia, and take the good with the bad.
 

Didn't so much skip it as give it short shrift. The OP's question was about Skottie Young.

NC101's question was a bit more specific, as regards to appreciating the mark making of comic art. My urging is only to step outside of comic art for a wider view. The world is a big big place.
I'm not speaking at all to collector values to him, as frankly that is what this board discusses ad nauseam. I wanted to stretch out a bit was all. NC101 said, a fair bit off topic, but this was the thread he asked in.

 

Is what it is.

And as Vodou says in his post, that stuff is super important if you are thinking about money regarding art, and not strictly aesthetics and art understanding. Hence my parting lines about taking the good with the bad. We all gotta find our happy place in there somewhere.

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by ESeffinga
Typos like a mofo.

[Blastaar]

2 hours ago, vodou said:

Everything Eric wrote is great, however he skipped an exceptionally salient point (an obvious and intentional omission to us old hands here) - there is a reason crummy comic art by crummy artists sells for a lot. That reason? It's not about "The Art" (aka everything that Eric is pointing you toward) but "The Collectors" (and/or also "The Dealers"   aka The Market.)

What this means is, Sal Buscema's sharp angles may make you want to slit your wrists BUT The Collectors (en masse) have determined that Avengers, Spider-Man, and a mountain of fill-ins are worth more for the "content" than the art. (As long as those favored characters are: IN COSTUME ) You miss this point, you will end up with a rather aesthetically pleasing stash of stuff (to you, a few others probably too but almost nobody else with eyes only for: comic art) that without a growing audience will sit flat or decline in value over time (not only in inflation adjusted but even real terms), even faster if you overpaid to begin with. (Paid vs. Over/Underpaid is very much a separate topic too.)

The above doesn't mean you have to collect "popular" (but not-so-great at best) art, but the awareness should be there that when you buy offbeat/niche "artsy" comic art you may have left your money behind at POP never to return. Either your collecting DNA (and bank account) can accept this (the absolute consumption aspect of money spent) or not. If not, then try to find art that others like now and will continue to like even more that also tickles your aesthetic view of the art world too. At least then you have a chance of evening out over time. Otherwise, you have zero chance of changing the world...it will move as it does, and that may or may not be closer than today as far as seeing comic art as comic ART

Skottie...who knows. But not cheap today, is it? (So are you willing to throw a larger amount away never to return?)

My original post and reason for bringing it up was that he is a local guy here in my city (Kansas City) and his work shows up around comic shops, plus I also have contacts that have access to his work. That being said it was more of a I don't necessarily care for his work but if I can get a stockpile for say 60% of what you might see in the wild would it be worth throwing some money at and sitting on for 5 or so years?

[NC101]

3 hours ago, vodou said:

Everything Eric wrote is great, however he skipped an exceptionally salient point (an obvious and intentional omission to us old hands here) - there is a reason crummy comic art by crummy artists sells for a lot. That reason? It's not about "The Art" (aka everything that Eric is pointing you toward) but "The Collectors" (and/or also "The Dealers"   aka The Market.)

What this means is, Sal Buscema's sharp angles may make you want to slit your wrists BUT The Collectors (en masse) have determined that Avengers, Spider-Man, and a mountain of fill-ins are worth more for the "content" than the art. (As long as those favored characters are: IN COSTUME ) You miss this point, you will end up with a rather aesthetically pleasing stash of stuff (to you, a few others probably too but almost nobody else with eyes only for: comic art) that without a growing audience will sit flat or decline in value over time (not only in inflation adjusted but even real terms), even faster if you overpaid to begin with. (Paid vs. Over/Underpaid is very much a separate topic too.)

The above doesn't mean you have to collect "popular" (but not-so-great at best) art, but the awareness should be there that when you buy offbeat/niche "artsy" comic art you may have left your money behind at POP never to return. Either your collecting DNA (and bank account) can accept this (the absolute consumption aspect of money spent) or not. If not, then try to find art that others like now and will continue to like even more that also tickles your aesthetic view of the art world too. At least then you have a chance of evening out over time. Otherwise, you have zero chance of changing the world...it will move as it does, and that may or may not be closer than today as far as seeing comic art as comic ART

Skottie...who knows. But not cheap today, is it? (So are you willing to throw a larger amount away never to return?)

Thanks, that's good stuff to keep in mind. Right now I'm just interested in work I want to see on my wall, I get the impression that buying for investment is kind of a crapshoot anyway, but maybe further down the line when I'm more knowledgeable I'll feel differently. Also if I look at something amazing that I got for cheap, that feels really satisfying, I don't know if I could enjoy work the same way if I knew I'd paid a lot for it. But I got really excited by the talk about SY's brush work, that kind of thing is really interesting to me.

Edited January 17, 2020 by NewCollector101