July Heritage Auction Sorta Shaping Up! 3 3

[Bronty]

Terrific Scott.   
 

Harry keep in mind that the only reason your unpublished alarming tales has value is because there was a published version.   If you make that a random Simon drawing with no published connection to anything on regular paper, it’s value is a fraction.    And even that fraction would largely derive from the fact that Simon was an artist with an important published body of work.    Liking and collecting unpublished versions of covers is great and you have a wonderful example there, but it’s never “only” about the art itself.

 

Edited July 18, 2020 by Bronty

[bluechip]

10 hours ago, hmendryk said:

While I can see how some (many?) collectors might feel this way, I hold a different position. While being published certainly adds value to a piece of comic book art, in the end for me it is about the art. That is what an artist puts down on the paper. Stats are no more original art than the published comic book. In my collection I have a unused cover art for Captain America #125 by Marie Severin and Frank Giacoia that I personally value much more than the published version because IMO it is a much better piece of art. I am not sure I would ever purchase a piece with a stat covering some original art, but if I did I would probably have the stats removed and put a mylar overlay so that I could see and admire the artist's original intention.

I bid against you on that one and lost.  This was drawn at a time of much historic upheaval, sort of like the world today.  And the reason it wasn't chosen for the published version is, if I have it right, that it was considered too effective in capturing the mood and the news of the day -- all things which, to me, make it more desirable than the final version.  Despite Marvel's fervent fan base among politically astute readers of the day, there are barely a handful of covers made during the 60s that give even give a hint, all these decades later,  that they were published in a time of cultural turbulence.    I don't know the exact number of "timely" Marvel covers but this one, if published would've made it what, five instead of four?     

And about whether it's a "published final" or not, that argument always sounds ironic to me because Comic art is NOT the finished art that was published, when it doesn't have the colors that it was published with.   

A comic art line drawing cover is, at most, a part of a process in creating the final art. 

If it's a vintage piece, created in the process of making an iconic work (or even just during an iconic run) consists partly of original art under a stat which tweaks the original a bit, then how can that not be far more desirable than a published piece (which, again, to remind us all -- is itself an incomplete version of the final cover) which has only a stat of the original art because the original was on a separate board that was tossed or lost.

That is so intuitive you would have to work very hard to find a person on the street who wouldn't think you're nuts if you suggested otherwise. 

Edited July 18, 2020 by bluechip

[hmendryk]

3 hours ago, Bronty said:

Terrific Scott.   
 

Harry keep in mind that the only reason your unpublished alarming tales has value is because there was a published version.   If you make that a random Simon drawing with no published connection to anything on regular paper, it’s value is a fraction.    And even that fraction would largely derive from the fact that Simon was an artist with an important published body of work.    Liking and collecting unpublished versions of covers is great and you have a wonderful example there, but it’s never “only” about the art itself.

 

If you are talking about value as in dollars, then of course you are right. But I have collected comic book art that was never intended to be published and while their financial value may not be that much, their personal value is still great. Today's comic original art market is driven by three traits (in descending order) nostalgia, collectability and aesthetics. If comic book art ever actually makes it into art museums like so many talk about, that order will be the exact opposite.

[tth2]

3 hours ago, hmendryk said:

Today's comic original art market is driven by three traits (in descending order) nostalgia, collectability and aesthetics. If comic book art ever actually makes it into art museums like so many talk about, that order will be the exact opposite.

Comic book art will never get into a museum purely because of aesthetics.  It's just not good enough as pure art.  Comic art can't hold a candle to the skill and artistry found in art produced by completely anonymous artists for advertisements, book covers and magazine illustrations. 

If comic book art ever gets into museums, it will be because of the cultural significance of the medium, in which case it will be all about whether the art was published or not, and the significance of the art within the context of the medium.   

[tth2]

On 7/18/2020 at 11:38 AM, bluechip said:

Many covers that sold in a form that was later altered before publication, and which did not sell for drastically lower prices.  I recall a Cap cover (103?) that recently sold and it's NOT the final, yet iirc it went well into six figures. 

Yes, because that's the only version of Cap 103 that exists.  If there were two versions, one that was identical to the published version and the other that's the version that sold, the one that's identical to the published version would be more valuable.  

One could also argue that if the existing version were identical to the actual published version, it would be even more valuable.  Of course, there's no way I can prove that, but I believe that the market did apply a discount to the art because it wasn't the final published version.

[tth2]

On 7/18/2020 at 11:38 AM, bluechip said:

We also know that published covers with major areas being stats sell for less than those with all original art, and we also know that such covers DO sell for more when there is actual art underneath and the stat which made up the published version was simply shifted a bit or enlarged a bit, or whatever.     

You misunderstand me.  I'm not saying that the only thing that matters is that the OA matches up to the published version.  Collectors do value the "original" element of the art and value a published version based on 100% hand-drawn art over a published version made up of stats.

Even covers with stats can still go for a lot of money.  The cover of ASM 300 was heavily made up of stats, if I recall, and still broke six figures.  If there was some original McFarlane art underneath, I'm sure it would have gone for more.  But neither would go for as much as if the entire cover was original hand-drawn art.     

[Rick2you2]

6 hours ago, tth2 said:

Comic book art will never get into a museum purely because of aesthetics.  It's just not good enough as pure art.  Comic art can't hold a candle to the skill and artistry found in art produced by completely anonymous artists for advertisements, book covers and magazine illustrations. 

If comic book art ever gets into museums, it will be because of the cultural significance of the medium, in which case it will be all about whether the art was published or not, and the significance of the art within the context of the medium.   

Regarding those anonymous artists you mentioned, any number of them have also done art for ad’s, magazines, etc., including Adams and Chaykin, to name a few of my favorites. You will also find comic artists’ fine art in some museums or exhibits. The problem you seem to be having is with the subject and form of their artwork, which somehow allows Norman Rockwell’s Saturday Evening Post covers to gain entry, despite their cheesy subject matters, yet excludes Captain America?

Some people don’t care for black and white line art. My other half feels the same, preferring things that are in color and painted, even if not so hot. But to say it lacks aesthetics is wrong.

 

[Bronty]

7 hours ago, tth2 said:

Comic book art will never get into a museum purely because of aesthetics.  It's just not good enough as pure art.  Comic art can't hold a candle to the skill and artistry found in art produced by completely anonymous artists for advertisements, book covers and magazine illustrations. 

If comic book art ever gets into museums, it will be because of the cultural significance of the medium, in which case it will be all about whether the art was published or not, and the significance of the art within the context of the medium.   

Agree.   Let’s put the shoe on the other foot for a second to make a point.    Do we expect Lichtenstein, Mel Ramos, etc (visual artists who used comic book subject matter) to become accepted by our little circle and considered great comic book artists one day?    Seems ridiculous doesn’t it.   

Edited July 19, 2020 by Bronty

[Rick2you2]

9 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Agree.   Let’s put the shoe on the other foot for a second to make a point.    Do we expect Lichtenstein, Mel Ramos, etc (visual artists who used comic book subject matter) to become accepted by our little circle and considered great comic book artists one day?    Seems ridiculous doesn’t it.   

Aesthetics are partly, if not mostly, a function of culture. I don’t see too many fans of calligraphy here, as compared to Chinese calligraphy. 
Where I do have a problem is with price being so dependent on nostalgia, or even subject matter (e.g, Batman v. Metamorpho page). 

Lichtenstein recognized the cultural import and impact of comics to make very good art. It works because critics played along. They can do it here, too.

[hmendryk]

7 hours ago, tth2 said:

Comic book art will never get into a museum purely because of aesthetics.  It's just not good enough as pure art.  Comic art can't hold a candle to the skill and artistry found in art produced by completely anonymous artists for advertisements, book covers and magazine illustrations. 

If comic book art ever gets into museums, it will be because of the cultural significance of the medium, in which case it will be all about whether the art was published or not, and the significance of the art within the context of the medium.   

Here we will have to agree to disagree. It was the aesthetics that brought me back into comics and comic art. While the commercial art you list is certainly more photogenic it generally lacks aesthetic qualities (at least for me). Technical realism is just not that appealing to me. This is true even with some comic book artists, for example Alex Ross. It is the aesthetics that predominate in art museums, with the cultural aspects taking a distinctly second place in importance. The Mona Lisa is not important because of what it reveals about the life in Renaissance Italy, but because of its aesthetics. And before you point out the technical perfection in the Mona Lisa, I would also point out that artists like Van Gogh, Jackson Pollack and others are also coveted by art museums who are not realistic artists.

[Bronty]

16 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Where I do have a problem is with price being so dependent on nostalgia, or even subject matter (e.g, Batman v. Metamorpho page). 

That’s what illustration is all about.   As Westform once said on these boards, it’s not fine art, it’s better!  Celebrate it.   But let’s not confuse an appreciation for the skill of certain comic book artists and the nature of the medium.    The nature of the medium is that pictures are created to Help sell a product .    Illustration.     The product is always going to be the first consideration because it literally shapes the creation of the art.   In the case of comic books it’s why the art is small and black and white etc etc.   Popeyes motto “I yam what I yam” is good to remember here!   The art is what it is and we should enjoy it for what it is, it’s often wonderful!   But it can’t be dissociated from it’s purpose when it’s purpose shaped the very way it looks!   Can’t ask a fish to be a chicken!

Edited July 19, 2020 by Bronty

[ShallowDan]

1 hour ago, Rick2you2 said:

The problem you seem to be having is with the subject and form of their artwork, which somehow allows Norman Rockwell’s Saturday Evening Post covers to gain entry, despite their cheesy subject matters, yet excludes Captain America?

Some people don’t care for black and white line art. My other half feels the same, preferring things that are in color and painted, even if not so hot. But to say it lacks aesthetics is wrong.

 

There are two problems which I think will always be at play here.  First, the spandex-clad superhero stuff is going to have a bit of a tougher time gaining acceptance as something worth considering/evaluating on it's own merits, due to it's origins as entertainment for children.

But also, with comics being an ongoing medium, it rarely gets the benefit of perspective and renewed interest/respect that can come with the separation of time from when something was originally created.  Rockwell and Leyendecker stopped creating Saturday Evening Post covers, the magazine itself ceased to be a weekly publication in the 60s, then years later their work began to be reconsidered.  Classic pin-up art had a similar rise/fall, then reconsideration.  Captain America, Superman, Batman, etc. have been around and in continuous publication for 80 years now.

As a mental experiment, I can imagine an alternate universe where the comic industry completely collapses in the late 60s or early 70s, all the publishers go under and nothing rises from the ashes.  In that sort of scenario, I could imagine there being more serious study/appreciate of the comics medium.  In my mind, this is part of the reason that EC art is more likely to be taken seriously (with it also having the benefit of being non-superhero material).

  

[vodou]

17 hours ago, Bronty said:

Harry keep in mind that the only reason your unpublished alarming tales has value is because there was a published version.   If you make that a random Simon drawing with no published connection to anything on regular paper, it’s value is a fraction.    And even that fraction would largely derive from the fact that Simon was an artist with an important published body of work.    Liking and collecting unpublished versions of covers is great and you have a wonderful example there, but it’s never “only” about the art itself.

Ouch.

[Bronty]

2 minutes ago, vodou said:

Ouch.

Well, nothing exists in a vacuum right.   Gallery art doesn’t exist in a vacuum either.   A radical work from 75 years ago is often milquetoast today for example.   What was fresh is now tired.   That’s not purely about the art either it’s also about its relationship to what came before and after. 

[tth2]

3 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

Regarding those anonymous artists you mentioned, any number of them have also done art for ad’s, magazines, etc., including Adams and Chaykin, to name a few of my favorites. You will also find comic artists’ fine art in some museums or exhibits. The problem you seem to be having is with the subject and form of their artwork, which somehow allows Norman Rockwell’s Saturday Evening Post covers to gain entry, despite their cheesy subject matters, yet excludes Captain America?

Some people don’t care for black and white line art. My other half feels the same, preferring things that are in color and painted, even if not so hot. But to say it lacks aesthetics is wrong.

 

Where did you get the impression that I don't care for black and white line art?  Black and white line art can be great.  I just happen to think that none of the black and white line art used to create comics rises to that level.   

I also don't have any problem with the subject or form.  If some comic book art were rendered as well as a Norman Rockwell painting (or one of his B&W drawings), then perhaps it could be worthy of admission to a museum on its own merit, and not as part of a comic book art exhibit.  

[tth2]

2 hours ago, hmendryk said:

I would also point out that artists like Van Gogh, Jackson Pollack and others are also coveted by art museums who are not realistic artists.

I am literally the last person on earth who could be accused of rating art by how realistic it is.  Realism in art (including comic book art) is overrated.  

Edited July 19, 2020 by tth2

[vodou]

Just now, Bronty said:

Well, nothing exists in a vacuum right.   Gallery art doesn’t exist in a vacuum either.   A radical work from 75 years ago is often milquetoast today for example.   What was fresh is now tired.   That’s not purely about the art either it’s also about its relationship to what came before and after. 

Recent comments by all participants hearken back to the ages old debate of over two decades now (since the Christie's and Sotheby's, and earlier even Guernsey's, auctions slumming by running comics/comic art sales when fine art was in the dumpster for a decade): what is illustration Art? And is that (if we ever figure it out!), really just Art after all? Folks struggle with the first and get mired in the minutiae of that, thus rarely getting to get to second and the (my) conclusion: it's all art and that the contemporary view is always the most subjective versus (as mentioned) the long view back into history. Being Art does not require gallery/museum acceptance (and promotion). Nor does it have to look "like something" (well rendered) to get in the door and stay there.

I'm intentionally tossing comic (art) into the broad illustration bucket here, because it's really all the same: art created first to sell a product and second to...well, that's where you get into some debate and it's not useful to get hung up on minutiae but boiled down: some artists are Artists and create with the Art intention and others just hack it out to grab a paycheck, either because illustration is the fastest way to get there, or the only way if one is otherwise unemployable at the same income level. Let's not waste time on which is which, most of us know anyway and that's where we get those interesting debates about six figure Hulk end pages and how only nostalgia could make somebody or something valuable (where demand exceeds supply). Another fun one is how a superior example (using hobby aesthetics) will often sell for less if "published in a lesser title", such as "Web of..." versus "Amazing..."

If you can buy into the above, then it's all Art but some is good and some is bad, or some is better than others or...Sturgeon's Law. Comic, Sat Evening Post, Vargas pin-ups in Playboy, newspaper strips, home gaming box art, editorial and political cartoons, artist alley sketches, quickie caricatures for $25 in Vegas, all Art and all subject (imo, as everything is) to Sturgeon's Law. If you're still with me, then: all that museums/galleries represent are a certain widely-accepted and well-understood by most (even by those not interested in the arts) institutional perspective; they are taste-makers for an audience, with a (self-made) claim to authority on the subject. But they aren't the only taste-makers, and their authority only extends as far as people are still willing to accept it as such. Few "here" do, at least on the subject of: illustration art. And the criteria "they" judge works one against another (or entire categories one against another) are not the only rationally organized and defensible criteria out there. But guess what, neither are "ours" (The Hobby)!

Notice how I haven't mentioned money yet? That's a false narrative, that price, and price rate of change, determines value (culturally, aesthetically). It does not. Not in "our" world here, nor in so-called Fine Art. The examples are endless of the ignored (little/no demand) something/s 'magically' transforming into the darling (peak demand). And the out-sized rewards (money, fame) that thus accrue to those that got there first before the taste-markers told the crowd: it is Good. The object/s never changed, just the perception which is derived from the criteria popularized by a/the taste-makers.

So what happens to so-called illustration art after the present taste-makers (comic book, gaming, etc "fans") have moved on (most likely to higher, or in the case of some dealers lower planes of existence)? There will be new taste-makers, when? that's an open question, and they will arrive at very likely a significantly different set of criteria to judge, to sort, the stuff: good from bad, according to Sturgeon's Law. Yes, there will always be a historical perspective to weigh everything against, but there will also always be the temptation, the drive to create new history by using new ways of seeing the same old "stuff". That right there is the attraction to a budding taste-maker to even bother: that they can explain "it" a little differently, enough so to create and take credit for causing a little or a lot of reevaluation by others, specialists and lookie-loos alike. If we don't accept, can't believe in that concept...well then, why bother ever writing a single vampire story after Bram Stoker's Dracula? Right? And the Old Testament, in reality, gave us numerous millennia now to "beat" The Ten Commandments and every sort of social morality play against them, and really has anything completely new happened since, ever, really? No. But a boatload of re-evaluation, re-contextualization sure has. And it feels fresh to each succeeding generation. So what? Well, otherwise, what is the basic 'gaming' trope: The Quest really but just another lame re-write of 40 years in the desert? Are we thus really going to dismiss Zelda and everything that followed (and the few, the mainframe quest games, that came before too) as just Cheap Rips of Moses in the Desert? See: no fun, dumb. Why? Because: new taste-makers, a very recent and modern rewrite and re-contextualization of Sturgeon's Law re: The Quest.

So all of this above to get to my point: where we (society) are today, is not where we'll be tomorrow (though in reality, present considerations may persist for the rest of our lifetimes). And where we are tomorrow, re: what is illustration Art?, will be determined by different criteria than we use today. We can debate what that will look like as much as we want, some of us may even get a part of it right (likely just by chance!) but...it will be what it will be and, if we're not going to be around to see it happen anyway...does it even really matter? I mean, aside from being a fun (at least to me, I don't get emotional about it as some might) thought experiment?

[The Voord]

On 7/18/2020 at 1:06 PM, hmendryk said:

Another example from my collection. I have an unused cover for Alarming Tales #3 by Jack Kirby. Joe Simon redid the whole thing to produced the published version. And by the way the original art for Joe's version has survived and is in some black hole collection. I can understand why Joe made the changes, the published version stood out better on the racks than Jack's would have. But am I the only collector that would prefer to have the Kirby version over the Simon one?

Used to own the unpublished Kirby version and preferred it to the published JS version

[Bronty]

1 hour ago, vodou said:

Recent comments by all participants hearken back to the ages old debate of over two decades now (since the Christie's and Sotheby's, and earlier even Guernsey's, auctions slumming by running comics/comic art sales when fine art was in the dumpster for a decade): what is illustration Art? And is that (if we ever figure it out!), really just Art after all? Folks struggle with the first and get mired in the minutiae of that, thus rarely getting to get to second and the (my) conclusion: it's all art and that the contemporary view is always the most subjective versus (as mentioned) the long view back into history. Being Art does not require gallery/museum acceptance (and promotion). Nor does it have to look "like something" (well rendered) to get in the door and stay there.

I'm intentionally tossing comic (art) into the broad illustration bucket here, because it's really all the same: art created first to sell a product and second to...well, that's where you get into some debate and it's not useful to get hung up on minutiae but boiled down: some artists are Artists and create with the Art intention and others just hack it out to grab a paycheck, either because illustration is the fastest way to get there, or the only way if one is otherwise unemployable at the same income level. Let's not waste time on which is which, most of us know anyway and that's where we get those interesting debates about six figure Hulk end pages and how only nostalgia could make somebody or something valuable (where demand exceeds supply). Another fun one is how a superior example (using hobby aesthetics) will often sell for less if "published in a lesser title", such as "Web of..." versus "Amazing..."

If you can buy into the above, then it's all Art but some is good and some is bad, or some is better than others or...Sturgeon's Law. Comic, Sat Evening Post, Vargas pin-ups in Playboy, newspaper strips, home gaming box art, editorial and political cartoons, artist alley sketches, quickie caricatures for $25 in Vegas, all Art and all subject (imo, as everything is) to Sturgeon's Law. If you're still with me, then: all that museums/galleries represent are a certain widely-accepted and well-understood by most (even by those not interested in the arts) institutional perspective; they are taste-makers for an audience, with a (self-made) claim to authority on the subject. But they aren't the only taste-makers, and their authority only extends as far as people are still willing to accept it as such. Few "here" do, at least on the subject of: illustration art. And the criteria "they" judge works one against another (or entire categories one against another) are not the only rationally organized and defensible criteria out there. But guess what, neither are "ours" (The Hobby)!

Notice how I haven't mentioned money yet? That's a false narrative, that price, and price rate of change, determines value (culturally, aesthetically). It does not. Not in "our" world here, nor in so-called Fine Art. The examples are endless of the ignored (little/no demand) something/s 'magically' transforming into the darling (peak demand). And the out-sized rewards (money, fame) that thus accrue to those that got there first before the taste-markers told the crowd: it is Good. The object/s never changed, just the perception which is derived from the criteria popularized by a/the taste-makers.

So what happens to so-called illustration art after the present taste-makers (comic book, gaming, etc "fans") have moved on (most likely to higher, or in the case of some dealers lower planes of existence)? There will be new taste-makers, when? that's an open question, and they will arrive at very likely a significantly different set of criteria to judge, to sort, the stuff: good from bad, according to Sturgeon's Law. Yes, there will always be a historical perspective to weigh everything against, but there will also always be the temptation, the drive to create new history by using new ways of seeing the same old "stuff". That right there is the attraction to a budding taste-maker to even bother: that they can explain "it" a little differently, enough so to create and take credit for causing a little or a lot of reevaluation by others, specialists and lookie-loos alike. If we don't accept, can't believe in that concept...well then, why bother ever writing a single vampire story after Bram Stoker's Dracula? Right? And the Old Testament, in reality, gave us numerous millennia now to "beat" The Ten Commandments and every sort of social morality play against them, and really has anything completely new happened since, ever, really? No. But a boatload of re-evaluation, re-contextualization sure has. And it feels fresh to each succeeding generation. So what? Well, otherwise, what is the basic 'gaming' trope: The Quest really but just another lame re-write of 40 years in the desert? Are we thus really going to dismiss Zelda and everything that followed (and the few, the mainframe quest games, that came before too) as just Cheap Rips of Moses in the Desert? See: no fun, dumb. Why? Because: new taste-makers, a very recent and modern rewrite and re-contextualization of Sturgeon's Law re: The Quest.

So all of this above to get to my point: where we (society) are today, is not where we'll be tomorrow (though in reality, present considerations may persist for the rest of our lifetimes). And where we are tomorrow, re: what is illustration Art?, will be determined by different criteria than we use today. We can debate what that will look like as much as we want, some of us may even get a part of it right (likely just by chance!) but...it will be what it will be and, if we're not going to be around to see it happen anyway...does it even really matter? I mean, aside from being a fun (at least to me, I don't get emotional about it as some might) thought experiment?

If we take the long view like that, I (think) I agree (hey it was a long post) with that.   In our lifetimes though....

[vodou]

14 minutes ago, Bronty said:

If we take the long view like that, I (think) I agree (hey it was a long post) with that.   In our lifetimes though....

Yep. What we've got today, imo, is what we've all got for at least the next 25 years.

The super youngsters just coming in, maybe they will cash out in their old age in a very different way than those before.

Maybe.

And, for their sake, hopefully they navigate the financial waters more nimbly than the rest of us that can buy/sell/collect/cashout based mostly on "hobby context" first, all else second.