The McSpidey DPS Rankings... 0

[ESeffinga]

I actually agree with ALL of what you say, by and large. Especially on your assessment of fine art as it relates to this. Kitsch is a big thing at auction houses now. As someone that has bought and sold a few bits of fine art over the last couple decades, and even though don’t see me as having considered it, I’m aware. It might even be worse in that realm really. 

Especially at this time with people taking selfies of themselves with “famous” artists & works in museums and at auctions. Meh.
 

Somehow I think you misunderstand me and I don’t plan to dig in much further into the topic. I think we bore in waaaay deeper than anyone else here cares.

I will just add that “subjective” is a term very often used as a convenient stand in for ignorance, where art is concerned. Not talking about “value” in money, talking about quality of the work.  I am not talking about the empirical, but it is akin to debating the theory of evolution with a creationist. (And I’m not saying either of us are these) just a reference to the circular nature of the discussion. No one ends up happy, I suspect.

 

Especially the folks on the board who bother to slog through it all.

I’d love to hash this out with you one day, at a show maybe where we can chat and not try reading things between lines, etc. Would be fun. We agree far more than you seem to think, though we value different things to differing degrees, with some overlap of appreciation.
 

Like all appreciators and sometime collectors of anything, I imagine.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by ESeffinga

[Rick2you2]

On 12/1/2020 at 11:03 AM, Bronty said:

Its a fallacy to equate quality of art (if such a thing can even be measured) with the price of art.   The two often have nothing to do with each other.    It doesn't need to be great art to have a great price tag.

I completely agree, particularly in this instance. For example, I am a big fan of Tom Mandrake, in general, and his work on the Spectre in particular. Not only does he have the technical skills to draw a really spooky piece that is so in tune with the character, but he is wonderful at page layouts and panel compositions, interjecting design elements which move the story along without screaming “look at me” unless called for by the content. But then, when I look at the price of some of his work, and compare it to this, the relative lack of value just screams out. 

I think this is also a long term problem which will interfere with the hobby gaining broader acceptance outside our little world. An outsider who understands really good art will be left scratching his/her head at this type of difference, and decide their ignorance doesn’t justify a few hundred thousand dollars. Multiply that by potential buyers, and a breakout into the rest of the art world will be limited to trophy hunters and potential investors. 
 

[Bronty]

I agree except that I don’t view it as a problem.   They’ve got their sport and we’ve got ours.     We can enjoy them separately. 

[Rick2you2]

14 hours ago, Bronty said:

I agree except that I don’t view it as a problem.   They’ve got their sport and we’ve got ours.     We can enjoy them separately. 

That’s true for me. But for people who want the hobby to be viewed more like fine art, snob appeal, it will be. And, if comics lose their appeal, it will hurt OA values without new buying blood.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Rick2you2

[Bronty]

10 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

That’s true for me. But for people who want the hobby to be viewed more like fine art, snob appeal, it will be. And, if comics loose their appeal, it will hurt OA values without new buying blood.

Agreed.   But I think hoping for fine art to pick up the comics torch is really a lost cause (except perhaps in the case of people like Crumb etc).   
 

Ie hoping for fine art money to swoop in is not understanding what fine art money likes 

Edited December 3, 2020 by Bronty