July Heritage Auction Sorta Shaping Up! 3 3

[ESeffinga]

1 hour ago, Bronty said:

Oh and as for crying over a piece, that says more about the viewer than the piece.  My wife cried over soap commercials when she was pregnant.    It didn't mean they were art or particularly moving to almost anyone else.     It meant she was pregnant.

Your friend that cried on viewing that piece may have had other issues going on at the time    

Nice. Classy.

[Bronty]

6 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

Nice. Classy.

I love it when someone can take a joke  Loosen the belt, brah.   Someone crying over a piece is unusual to say the least and needs a little more explanation.    I provided it

Edited June 25, 2020 by Bronty

[ESeffinga]

Speaks more of you than I, or anyone else.

I feel genuinely sad for anyone that hasn’t been moved, and I mean truly moved, by a piece of art. That is what it is for. If the world lacks that for you, how tragic.

But as you mostly like commercial Work, I can see why that might be. To that all I can say is, enjoy.

[Bronty]

9 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

Speaks more of you than I, or anyone else.

I feel genuinely sad for anyone that hasn’t been moved, and I mean truly moved, by a piece of art. That is what it is for. If the world lacks that for you, how tragic.

But as you mostly like commercial Work, I can see why that might be. To that all I can say is, enjoy.

Tell you what Eric.     Why don't you start a poll, and ask how many people have cried at a piece?    

I suspect the number is not very high my friend.    

("Moved" is far too plastic a word - we've all been moved to one degree or another.    The works in comics and elsewhere have inspired joy in all of us or we wouldn't be here.    Don't move the goalposts - I'm asking about tear glands opening up and running down the face.   Tears.   Crying.      Since... according to you, there's something wrong with anyone that doesn't bawl when they look at a Liefeld drawing.    ERRRR... bad example....... I DO bawl when I look at that  ).

Edited June 25, 2020 by Bronty

[ESeffinga]

Me too

[ESeffinga]

12 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Tell you what Eric.     Why don't you start a poll, and ask how many people have cried at a piece?    

I suspect the number is not very high my friend.    

("Moved" is far too plastic a word - we've all been moved to one degree or another.    The works in comics and elsewhere have inspired joy in all of us or we wouldn't be here.    Don't move the goalposts - I'm asking about tear glands opening up and running down the face.   Tears.   Crying.      Since... according to you, there's something wrong with anyone that doesn't bawl when they look at a Liefeld drawing.    ERRRR... bad example....... I DO bawl when I look at that  ).

From where I sit, you are the only one setting goalposts. Moving them, etc.
 

Who said anything about “bawling”? Who said everyone has to? I said I feel sad for people that don’t find art that deeply moves them. Can be joy. Can be heartache. Can be massive inspiration. Can be straight up hatred.

Maybe I am punking you, and my art is to illicit your fury?

I mentioned I’ve seen people cry at art galleries, not that everyone that enters brings a hankie. When you balk at the assertion you immediately jump to I think everyone must do it? 

my assertion of your comments speaking more about you than anyone else is simply I think it’s cheap and  tacky to jump to, someone cried, ergo they are unstable or have something wrong that isn’t about art. Or that some people can’t be moved by art alone.
 

I do feel sorry for people who aren’t more involved in the art available in the world than a passing, “hey cool. This makes me feel nostalgic.” Or, “man I’m gonna make a killing selling this some day”.

A deeper connection with a piece of work generated to share something with the world that is not specifically tied to someone selling someone a product. 

Some people aren’t wired that way. Many people aren’t wired that way. I can feel sadness for them. I’m not afraid to feel deeply saddened. Empathy is a strong part of the creative process. It’s a great part of why people find something they connect with deeply, they do so. They identify with it on a shared level with that creator. But now we cycle back to human condition again.
 

I know people that never listen to music and derive absolutely no pleasure from it. It’s such a foreign concept to me.

Not having the hair on your arms stand up in a gallery of gobsmacking work... is like never experiencing visual art in that same way as those movies or music or even comics can sometimes do.
 

I cried once or twice during my years reading Sandman. I don’t mind saying so. I had nothing going on. No emotional turmoil. There were issues that stirred me. Not to bawling, or weeping, or being loony. Just a couple tears, I am sure. But I remember doing it. I’m sure there have been other instances over the years.

If you can’t relate, that is just sad to me. You don’t have to like it. Or me. Or what I’m talking about, for that to be any less true. I’m OK with that. I don’t need a poll, or to feel like I am in a majority. 

Clearly.

I’ll just leave it there.

-e.

 

[Bronty]

I'm not reading all that.  have a great day.

[vodou]

3 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

Some people aren’t wired that way. Many people aren’t wired that way.

I disagree. We're all wired the same except that small percentage that are socio/psychopathological. They are actually different and, my definition here, are not human or redeemable. My goal, when I'm allowed to and wish to, has been to identify fertile potentially open minds and help those folks expand their horizons beyond their comfortable (and realistically herd-following "pop" safety-net). Whether or not that's successful, that the other person begins to appreciate and embrace from a broader spectrum...that doesn't matter...I merely set the case to challenge and question things and let others run with it if they wish, along with making myself available as a shepherd of sorts...exactly the way others did for me.

[vodou]

And now I'm going to challenge @ESeffinga a bit.

Eric, I'm not familiar with the full extent of your collection but judging by what you've discussed here and share on CAF...I know you appreciate a wide range of Art but...have you ever put 'real' money out for, 'collected' and hung, something that moved you to that point that is not even tangentially related to the "company" comic/fantasy/illustration genre? (Here I am intentionally eliminating the entire ASFA roster of 'gallery works' by ex-Vertigo artists.) I mean I define that as by artists that have not and were not ever associated with product marketing images and do not pay homage to or work "in the style of" that sort of material or an artists that has worked that way?

Too long-winded. Boiled down: own any gallery "art for art's sake" work by somebody unpublished and not caring to be published?

My answer: Yes. Hundreds of pieces.

Yours?

[First Upgrade]

Meanwhile, back at the NEW Heritage Auctions offices...

[Michael Browning]

On 6/25/2020 at 5:26 AM, Rick2you2 said:

First, they were NOT well paid and market conditions at the time did not give him any choices: my way or the highway. Besides, Marvel hired him to do art for specific comics, and is undoubtedly free to republish the pages he did for their intended use as part of post- 1975 contracts. But It remains his creative work, so Kirby should have the right to make some money off it for other uses if he were alive.

Yeah, you must live by the mantra “don’t confuse me with the facts because I’ve already made up my mind.”

Yes, they were well paid.

And how much more money does the Kirby heirs need? I mean, didn’t Jack settle his lawsuit and get a lot of money, and then the heirs have sued how many times to get more cash from Marvel? 

I do not believe Jack was living hand-to-mouth and having to exist on commodity foods and the local soup kitchen, living in Thousand Oaks, California, the way you might imagine.

Like one former Marvel writer from the old Bullpen days told me a few years ago when I interviewed him, the artists, writers and editors were paid very well and they all knew what the deal was. It was up to them whether or not they saved and invested that money so they could enjoy retirement; if they didn’t, that was on them. It wasn’t like they were working for minimum wage at the local burger joint.

Maybe Marvel does pay the Kirby heirs a fees when they use Jack’s work. Who knows? You’re taking up a cause and have no idea if Marvel sent them a check or not.

[ESeffinga]

10 hours ago, vodou said:

And now I'm going to challenge @ESeffinga a bit.

Eric, I'm not familiar with the full extent of your collection but judging by what you've discussed here and share on CAF...I know you appreciate a wide range of Art but...have you ever put 'real' money out for, 'collected' and hung, something that moved you to that point that is not even tangentially related to the "company" comic/fantasy/illustration genre? (Here I am intentionally eliminating the entire ASFA roster of 'gallery works' by ex-Vertigo artists.) I mean I define that as by artists that have not and were not ever associated with product marketing images and do not pay homage to or work "in the style of" that sort of material or an artists that has worked that way?

Too long-winded. Boiled down: own any gallery "art for art's sake" work by somebody unpublished and not caring to be published?

My answer: Yes. Hundreds of pieces.

Yours?

Yes. I only post the illustration/tangential stuff on CAF, because... comic art and tangential. I know a couple folks that post straight up gallery art on CAF, but I've tried to keep things sort of on-topic. Kinda like here. Even as I drift further away.

I'll leave it at that. We can have a deeper conversation outside this thread if you like, but I fear it's been way over-derailed. And I need to be away from the web for a bit I think. I've let myself get too sucked in. Who gives a what I think, when they come to this thread? This thread is supposed to be about those auction pieces. I think we should let it go back to that task. And I could do with not typing mini-bios for a bit. I didn't set out to do that. Apologies all.

[exitmusicblue]

17 hours ago, First Upgrade said:

Meanwhile, back at the NEW Heritage Auctions offices...

A cross between the Corinthian and Darth Vader... terrifying...

Edited June 26, 2020 by exitmusicblue

[vodou]

4 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

Yes. I only post the illustration/tangential stuff on CAF, because... comic art and tangential. I know a couple folks that post straight up gallery art on CAF, but I've tried to keep things sort of on-topic. Kinda like here. Even as I drift further away.

I'll leave it at that. We can have a deeper conversation outside this thread if you like, but I fear it's been way over-derailed. And I need to be away from the web for a bit I think. I've let myself get too sucked in. Who gives a what I think, when they come to this thread? This thread is supposed to be about those auction pieces. I think we should let it go back to that task. And I could do with not typing mini-bios for a bit. I didn't set out to do that. Apologies all.

Good enough that your collection/collecting interests are wider than I'm aware; I didn't want to assume but did wonder. This thread, any thread under "original comic art" sub-heading...I think that sort of conversation is not so OT to apologize for, especially when Dave McKean's mixed-media-installation-whatevers "at auction" are brought up.

Feel free to PM further on this or any subject when you're good being back on the web. Bronty is a swell fellow that happens to draw a real hard line in the sand that context is everything in art. I disagree. And he disagrees with me and that's probably where it will stand, but his comments to you aren't nearly as personal as they might have felt...unless you two know (and dislike) each other a lot better IRL than it appears to the rest of us.

[Rick2you2]

6 hours ago, Michael Browning said:

Yeah, you must live by the mantra “don’t confuse me with the facts because I’ve already made up my mind.”

Yes, they were well paid.

And how much more money does the Kirby heirs need? I mean, didn’t Jack settle his lawsuit and get a lot of money, and then the heirs have sued how many times to get more cash from Marvel? 

I do not believe Jack was living hand-to-mouth and having to exist on commodity foods and the local soup kitchen, living in Thousand Oaks, California, the way you might imagine.

Like one former Marvel writer from the old Bullpen days told me a few years ago when I interviewed him, the artists, writers and editors were paid very well and they all knew what the deal was. It was up to them whether or not they saved and invested that money so they could enjoy retirement; if they didn’t, that was on them. It wasn’t like they were working for minimum wage at the local burger joint.

Maybe Marvel does pay the Kirby heirs a fees when they use Jack’s work. Who knows? You’re taking up a cause and have no idea if Marvel sent them a check or not.

The “facts” as you put it, are a function of US Copyright law. When changing the law, Congress essentially decided that the old “work for hire” doctrine was unfair to artists and others who perform creative work. This isn’t a personal decision as to what you think is fair. It is a function of law. In Europe, my understanding is that artists in certain cases are entitled to even more, by getting paid something for the value of art after it changes hands at public sale. Think what that would do to this hobby.
As to the amount artists were paid being low, Neal Adams championed the rights of artists to get their art back even before the change to Copyright law, and he was supported by none other than Marvel’s old Editor in Chief, Jim Shooter. While Kirby sued and got money, what about all the other artists? In my view, the overall quality of comic art has increased since the change (yes, there were some excellent artists before then). Better pay generally results in better work.

Kirby was a workaholic. Read Evanier’s biography. Easy to take advantage of.

[glendgold]

41 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

The “facts” as you put it, are a function of US Copyright law. When changing the law, Congress essentially decided that the old “work for hire” doctrine was unfair to artists and others who perform creative work. This isn’t a personal decision as to what you think is fair. It is a function of law. In Europe, my understanding is that artists in certain cases are entitled to even more, by getting paid something for the value of art after it changes hands at public sale. Think what that would do to this hobby.
As to the amount artists were paid being low, Neal Adams championed the rights of artists to get their art back even before the change to Copyright law, and he was supported by none other than Marvel’s old Editor in Chief, Jim Shooter. While Kirby sued and got money, what about all the other artists? In my view, the overall quality of comic art has increased since the change (yes, there were some excellent artists before then). Better pay generally results in better work.

Kirby was a workaholic. Read Evanier’s biography. Easy to take advantage of.

It is amazing, though I guess unsurprising, that we haven't  moved one inch away from re-litigating what were essentially John Byrne vs. Frank Miller's positions in 1987.  Except now we're doing it  for some reason in a Heritage Auctions thread.

[Skizz]

2 hours ago, glendgold said:

It is amazing, though I guess unsurprising, that we haven't  moved one inch away from re-litigating what were essentially John Byrne vs. Frank Miller's positions in 1987.  Except now we're doing it  for some reason in a Heritage Auctions thread.

What was the Byrne v Miller 1987position? 

[glendgold]

Just now, Skizz said:

What was the Byrne v Miller 1987position? 

Summarized to the point of inaccuracy: JB: "If it's legal to murder you and the company murders you, it's your fault for working there" vs. FM: "even without specific regulations, corporations have moral responsibilities to their contractors/employees,"  each of which can be argued for...well, at least 33 years  now, I guess.

[Skizz]

10 minutes ago, glendgold said:

Summarized to the point of inaccuracy: JB: "If it's legal to murder you and the company murders you, it's your fault for working there" vs. FM: "even without specific regulations, corporations have moral responsibilities to their contractors/employees,"  each of which can be argued for...well, at least 33 years  now, I guess.

Ah right, the ‘is it moral just because it’s legal’ issue. Thanks Glen.

[Michael Browning]

4 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

The “facts” as you put it, are a function of US Copyright law. When changing the law, Congress essentially decided that the old “work for hire” doctrine was unfair to artists and others who perform creative work. This isn’t a personal decision as to what you think is fair. It is a function of law. In Europe, my understanding is that artists in certain cases are entitled to even more, by getting paid something for the value of art after it changes hands at public sale. Think what that would do to this hobby.
As to the amount artists were paid being low, Neal Adams championed the rights of artists to get their art back even before the change to Copyright law, and he was supported by none other than Marvel’s old Editor in Chief, Jim Shooter. While Kirby sued and got money, what about all the other artists? In my view, the overall quality of comic art has increased since the change (yes, there were some excellent artists before then). Better pay generally results in better work.

Kirby was a workaholic. Read Evanier’s biography. Easy to take advantage of.

Again, you’re taking up a cause where there might not be one. You don’t know what Kirby’s heirs have gotten paid - or are getting paid - but you want to take the up the fight to get them what you believe is rightfully theirs (I disagree) and that’s fine, but don’t try to throw copyright laws into your argument that it’s bad that Marvel is still using Kirby images after all these years - and all these lawsuits lawsuits - when you don’t have any idea if they’re getting paid or not.
You also swerve away from the Kirby argument to take up the fight for other artists and use Neal Adams as the patron saint of the poor, mistreated comic book artists and the moral standard in the comic book industry. Ha. That’s kind of funny and made me laugh.

You ain’t changing my mind, and I ain’t changing yours. That’s the one fact on which we both agree.