It’s been about a week since the close of the May Heritage Comics Art Auction and the dust is settling on another set of controversial results. The topic has been talked out on various list and message boards and collectors have moved on to the next spectacle. The rest of the comics world remains largely oblivious to these very insular and obsessive goings on. I present the following news brief as a kind of time capsule and, as with many such things, perhaps it will be looked upon with mirth and a sense of irony in years to come.
Two covers in particular set tongues wagging at this auction. The first was the cover art to Miracleman #15 which sold for $53,775 (with commission).
There are some readers who see Miracleman as one of Alan Moore’s most distinguished works, a crowning achievement in that landscape of brutality which Moore has since largely renounced. Others might conceivably see it as an unreadable exercise in verbosity and reptilian instincts. The art, as we all know, is from the highly regarded hand of John Totleben. His work on non-Moore titles sell for a fraction of these prices. This pertains to the well know synergism between writer, artist and history. The series as a whole is linked to that bright shining moment of hope and inevitable collapse that occurred during the 80s; a period which created a fanbase which is getting older and more affluent even as I write these words.
The theories and opinions surrounding the unexpectedly high price can be viewed at length on this message board discussion and they can be narrowed down to two broad groups. Firstly, a genuine and, presumably, highly motivated bidder and, secondly, a purchase by the auction house (or connected parties). The latter theory has been proposed by the collector Felix Lu (known for his forthright opinions) but disputed by Hari Naidu, a prominent collector of Miracleman art.
The second possibility relates to the suggestion that the high price was met in order to fulfill a price guarantee by the auction house (a common practice during the explosion of contemporary art prices seen over the last decade or so). The cover was part of a large consignment of Miracleman pages all of which were auctioned without reserve save for this cover. It has been theorized that the other pages were sold as such because of a prior guarantee that the cover would meet its high reserve.
Notably, no one is arguing about the actual quality of the Miracleman cover which is an excellent example of Totleben’s meticulous style which in this instance takes on the quality of an engraving. It sits right at the edge of good taste and has none of the camp posturing that makes a Jack Davis EC decapitation cover so much more acceptable.
This is in stark contrast to the arguments directed at the other cover of this tale, Frank Miller’s art for Daredevil #188 which sold for $101, 575.
One can see how Miller’s art here might be viewed as an evolutionary step towards the blocky, high contrast chiaroscuro of Sin City, a style of art which can be seen in the work of some twentieth century comics masters (see below). The hero is somewhat flatly drawn compared to the work of Miller’s progenitor’s; the anatomy imperfect, perhaps purposefully so as the artist searches for that element of exaggeration which will soon find fruition in the pages of The Dark Knight Returns. There are a number of people who find this to be among Miller’s finest Daredevil covers. One such person is the noted comics inker and original art collector, Scott Williams, who states:
“I think this cover is TERRIFIC. I mean, a superb cover from such an influential and important run of Daredevil, and I would LOVE to add this to my collection. I think it went for well over what I would have guessed (75k), but THIS type of art is exactly the type of art that I am not surprised by when it goes for an aggressive number. I think a lot of art is WAY overpriced, but this old time collector sees the logic in overpaying for THIS cover a lot more than a lot of other stuff I see for sale.”
Williams is the owner of a Miller Daredevil cover and has been collecting Miller art for decades. His opinion on this subject does carry weight but I beg to differ nonetheless. There’s nothing especially distinctive about this cover if one takes in the entire history of the form and genre. By no stretch of the imagination is this an iconic cover, nor is it among the most important Daredevil images ever created. The subject matter is tolerable but connected to forgettable material. Even so, the final dollar amount is certainly not beyond comprehension particularly when the price difference between a copy of Action #1 with a CGC grade of 8.0 and another graded 8.5 is half a million dollars. This kind of madness is infectious.
In fact all such aesthetic considerations are of secondary importance when it comes down to the final price achieved at such auctions. Much more important are the elements of availability (many of the key Daredevil Elektra covers are in the hands of well-heeled collectors), greed and nostalgia. It is impossible to quantify the latter aspect for it is as inexplicable and irresistible as sexual attraction. If Miller was the god of your youth and Daredevil #188 one of the first comics you ever read during the thwarted superhero renaissance of the 80s, then the final bill could be met with equanimity.
Here are a few other views for the time capsule. Firstly, I solicited painter and HU columnist, Domingos, for his views on the Daredevil cover (I asked him to disregard content in his comments):
“Frank Miller isn’t a great visual artist by any standard. His domain of anatomy is far from perfect; his use of dramatic shading (as we could unfortunately see in his awful Spirit film adaptation) just turns his drawings into something like photo negatives to me. If you want to see the same effect well done go look at the true masters: Noel Sickles, Milton Caniff, Alex Toth, Alberto Breccia. Plus: he may be responsible for the worst inking ever: the slashed school (I invented the name just now). I say this because we can see a little “slashing” on DD’s arm and leg. This effect was first used in Ronin methinks and “perfected” by all those Image guys (Liefeld especially). “Slashing,” dramatic shading: it’s all part of the same glorification of violence. You asked me to forget content and I did, but as you can see form and content can’t be separated.”
A prominent art collector who goes under the moniker Comix4fun had this to say about the sale (reprinted with his permission):
“Compare the GORGEOUS Frazetta Warrior with Ball and Chain piece that DIDN’T Sell [since sold] at $150k…people ran it down, mocked it, and made fun of the “extra abs” as what stopped it from selling and made it a lesser piece. “Aesthetically” and from a design perspective that Frazetta is a gorgeous piece without a doubt, but it didn’t sell, so people sought a reason why and grabbed on to that reason as lynch pin and/or catalyst.
Now we have a DD cover that DID sell for 101k, and the flaws, problems, issues, and deficiencies don’t matter at all. It’s the aesthetics and design that win out. I just wonder, if the DD failed to sell at auction, would we’d all be talking about DD’s hands as well as (and more blatantly) Widow’s atrophied left hand as the reason the cover was subpar instead of being wonderfully designed?”
Long time comic art collector, Ruben Espinosa, is known to weigh in during such moments of irrational exuberance and does so once again with his Cassandra-like predictions about the Daredevil cover sale and the future of the hobby:
“That’s just downright retarded. I’m sure all the OA Market bulls will dismiss my comment but how about a reality check here? When I see auction results like this I see speculation, manipulation and business. That is not the kind of hobby I want to be a part of. I’ve seen it happen gradually over the last 7 or 8 years. For me, this is like watching a big slab fall off of my idea of a hobby that I’ve been watching crumble for some time.”
And, of course, no one will listen because this future is inescapable if not completely desirable to many collectors who imagine their Jim Lee covers fetching similar amounts once they’ve been allowed to age like fine wines. One can dream…
This future is irrelevant to those who value original art in a way which is distinct from their childhood reading habits. Those who realize that an appreciation of comics is not limited to issues surrounding draftsmanship, historical importance and vanity but also factors like content, narrative and form have less to “worry” about in such times. These values are of secondary importance in the premium market place and there will always be original art which engages and inspires at a fraction of the prices listed above.
***
In other news…probably the alternative comics art-related posting of the month (?year) on Comic Art Fans (CAF). This one belongs to Todd Hignite (of Comics Art and The Art of Jaime Hernandez). He really needs to spill the beans on how he managed to get his paws on this one:
Suat, I’m sure this is an exceptionally naive question, but does the artist get any significant portion of the money for this art or is it entirely owned by the publisher?
Not naive at all – it’s a really small hobby. I have no special knowledge in relation to the pieces above but I imagine that they were all initially sold by the artists themselves a number of years ago but for a fraction of the prices above. These are all secondary sales for previously artist-owned art.
There’s been an explosion in prices in the last few years which has barely been affected by the global recession. So it’s entirely possible that all the art (covers and interiors) for Miracleman #15 and Daredevil #188 were sold for less than the price of a cover today. The most glaring example of this would be Watchmen art where the cost of one page today could have been the artist’s salary for the entire issue (the same might apply to The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns).
Caro:
If the artist possesses the art and is the one selling it, he or she gets all the money, less the auction house’s commission. If the company owns the physical work (as opposed tot he copyright) and sells it, they get all the money (as Topps did when it sold its collection), unless they have made some prior agreement with the artist. The thing to remember is that selling a pgysical piece of art is not the same as selling the copyright or right of reproduction.
If a third party owner of the art sells art, he or she gets it all minus commission.
The artist nonetheless maintains some rights in the U.S. and other countries under a concept called droit moral. In the U.S., these rights are outlined in Visual Artist’s Rights Act of 1990.
As for the rest of the post–bleh! When you can get an exceptional Dick Tracy or Walt Kelly original for $1000, there is something perverse about Tottleben or Frank Miller’s work selling for so much.
In mainstream comics, historical tradition has been for “originals” to be given back to the artist after publishing. Then, the artist can supplement his or her income by selling original pieces if s/he wishes. This was part of the Kirby vs. Marvel controversy, as Marvel failed to return the vast majority of Kirby pages. Once these pages became worth something, Kirby really wanted them back–and eventually did receive some very small percentage of them. The remainder were “lost.”
I’m not sure if that “tradition” is still in place, but I’m guessing it is.
Thanks, all. I presume since the characters are owned by the publishers, the artists can’t continue to draw new original pieces with those characters to sell and supplement their income, right?
Is there a market at all for art by these (and similar) artists other than the originals of pages that have appeared in print, or is the desire entirely for the combination of character and artist?
It’s not entirely true to say that they couldn’t draw the characters and sell those pieces. I’ve seen Johnny Ryan do a Spider-Man commissions for example, so I don’t see why other people couldn’t do the same. Technically it might be legally dicey, but practically it’s not something that anybody worries about all that much, I don’t think.
I think you’re right though that it wouldn’t sell for as much as artwork from the original comic, at least not in most cases.
Yeah, a lot of artists do commissions of Marvel / DC characters, and even re-creations of existing pages. Especially older artists, whose styles may be out of fashion with younger fans and editors and may not be getting steady work anymore (while older fans who grew up with them would appreciate and pay for such commissions…)
My understanding – which may be completely wrong – is that Marvel & DC do have a policy in place that forbids such trafficking in their IP, but they generally look the other way and allow it to go on. Partly so they can look like a corporate good guy and allow former freelancers to make some money; mostly to avoid the headaches of trying to police it full time. If someone made a six-figure income selling such art, they’d probably claim it was infringement, but I think the amounts of money involved are too small for them to bother with.
I also think they may have the language in place so they can bring the hammer down if someone does something pornographic or otherwise detrimental to their corporate image. Policing and enforcing that is probably pretty impossible, but at least publishers would have some boilerplate they could point to.
Apparently, there is some current concern among artists who do this kind of thing that Disney may prove to be a bigger pain in the ass than Marvel has traditionally been (now that Disney owns Marvel, of course). Where DC and Marvel traditionally look the other way when artists (re)create pieces with copyrighted characters, Disney has a history of litigiousness.
No evidence that this has happened yet (or will), but there has been some discussion of anxiety about the prospect.
Yeah, I’ve wondered about that myself.
Didn’t Carl Barks have to get some kind of special permission from Disney to do his Duck paintings? Those did become a full time and lucrative business concern once they got going (not so much early on, I don’t think; if Disney had known they would be down the road, they might not have allowed them…)
Regarding my speculation about the MIRACLEMAN #15 cover sale: MM art collectors have known that this piece was available the last couple of years from the owner. The asking price was around what it eventually sold for at auction. The general consensus during this time was that the price was ridiculous. There was random interest (and at least one cash/trade offer) but the fact remains, no one loved it enough to pay the price.
So when it showed up on Heritage with the $45K price tag (the ultimate sale price of $53K represents $45K plus the 19.5% buyer’s premium), very few thought it would sell. That there was ultimately ONE bid at $45K led me to theorize that perhaps the auction house placed that bid. That perhaps they guaranteed that sale price to the consignor to secure the rest of his considerable Totleben MM art collection to auction with no reserve.
This type of guarantee to land choice consignments is common with auction houses. A Heritage representative has since stated that the cover did sell to an outside bidder (for those who don’t know, Heritage will bid on their own auctions at their discretion…I have no further comment). So my theory has been debunked.
My main point, though, that collectors shouldn’t allow that one lone bidder, that one outlier sale, to drastically inflate their perception of fair market value for related art, stands. In that sense, whether it was Heritage or one private buyer who bought the cover, doesn’t matter. (I’m usually not this naive/idealistic.) I have no idea who got the cover, but my hunch is that it will turn out to be an established collector, and not new money.
(Some additional data for the time capsule: The DD #188 cover was originally sold by Graphic Collectibles in 1989 for $750 and resold via a Usenet posting (!) in 1993 for $900. The MM #15 cover was sold by Glenn Danzig in 1999/2000 for $600 and resold on Ebay in 2003 for $12K.)
I sold a full-page splash from Miller’s Dark Knight Returns several years back. Anybody have any idea how much it might sell for now? It was the upside-down Batman hanging from a helicopter. When I heard that the Daredevil page sold for 100K it made me wonder…
Eric: no that’s not the tradition. If the artist was working for hire the originals belonged to the syndicate and the publishers. It was an embarrassment to them because it occupied valuable storage space. A lot of OA was destroyed simply because of carelessness.
Kirby had to fight Marvel in order to receive his pages (but why him and not the writer?). I don’t remember what happened, but I suppose that Marvel feared the bad PR. Same thing with DC and Schuster and Siegel (no OA that I know of was involved in the latter case though).
I’m so grateful I hung on to my art, despite the $$$$$ temptations. If I sold it all I still couldn’t retire, and I look at 2 pages of Rorschach every morning I get up which cheers me up so much, especially in Winter. Of all the art I currently possess (currently, in the sense of, I won’t own anything once I’m wormfood) my several pages of Gene Colan, their monetary worth limited compared to Miller/Gibbons et al, are priceless. As a boy, there were few artists I loved more than Colan. He made my small world a better place and his Daredevls, Iron Men & Batmen hang as equals (at least) next to Rorschach. So, too, Swan & Kane. Thanks, guys – you did what you did to feed your kids, but you fed my dreams as well. Death has not rendered you as dust in the memories of those lives you touched.
MM #15 is not a decapitation cover. Common misconception.