If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSN)   Oh: artist uses old comics to create paper-mache superhero sculpture. D'oh: with a first edition "The Avengers" and other rare comics worth over $30,000   (now.msn.com) divider line 26
    More: Dumbass, papier mache  
•       •       •

8747 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Jul 2013 at 3:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-07-07 03:13:34 PM  
9 votes:
...or he used a worthless reproduction, and after cutting it up and soaking it in paste, hopes nobody will notice, but he will certainly enjoy the free publicity.
2013-07-07 02:09:48 PM  
4 votes:
This is a brilliant statement on the behalf of the artist on the subjectivity of nostalgia.  It's as if the artist is daring the viewer to ask themselves the question: What's more important?  Nostalgia in its purest, raw form, left untouched and unadulterated or the use of those memories to create something new and greater?  To the collector, the comics used were worth $30k because they represent a collectible keepsake from days gone by in the most original form possible.  To the artist, they were merely paper that fit his artistic vision and lent themselves to something that, in his mind, was of more value: the creation of his statue.   The piece forces us to ask ourselves if the comfort of the security blanket that is nostalgia is worth the value we ascribe to it or if we should cherish those memories but make new ones as well.

Or the artist had no idea what comics he had and just thought they were pretty enough to put on his statue.
2013-07-07 03:29:33 PM  
3 votes:
So if it's ok to trash someone else's art to make your own, we should let him make his next 'masterpiece' out of the Mona Lisa, John Lennon's handwritten lyrics, and the Constitution. It's fun to destroy something that's valuable to other people!
2013-07-07 04:28:21 PM  
2 votes:

FirstNationalBastard: eggrolls: So if it's ok to trash someone else's art to make your own, we should let him make his next 'masterpiece' out of the Mona Lisa, John Lennon's handwritten lyrics, and the Constitution. It's fun to destroy something that's valuable to other people!

What you're describing are rare, one of a kind objects.

Even assuming this was a first printing, this was a mass produced periodical that probably printed somewhere north of a million copies, with thousands still in existence, many of which are now locked in plastic so the greedy little collectors can look at them.

The material inside the covers is available in roughly a dozen formats, from cheap black and white reprints to digital to a high end hardcover, on nice paper.


There about 200 'original' copies of the 'Dunlap boradside' of the Declaration out there. Today, 26 are known to survive. Shakepeare's first folio was mass produced, at least 750 copies made, sold at a pound each. Just over 200 exist today. Time plus scarcity equals a million dollars for a Superman comic from 1938. Would you settle for a black and white copy of any of those on display in a museum?  If someone were to find a copy of 'Midnight in London', would it be irrelevant? After all, there were thousands of prints made. Once we reproduce it, we can just throw out the originals NASA did the same with the original moon landing films. No loss there, right?

History isn't just information. It's also the objects that came through history - the physical record of what has been. The idea of 'tactile memory' is important. You can look at a picture of the Hope Diamond. It's not the same as holding it, is it?
2013-07-07 04:28:13 PM  
2 votes:
Unless he used the original artwork, the only people who should be upset are collectors. Art and collecting have nothing in common. Art is about ideas. Collecting is about greed. Never judge art by its price.
2013-07-07 03:37:36 PM  
2 votes:

eggrolls: So if it's ok to trash someone else's art to make your own, we should let him make his next 'masterpiece' out of the Mona Lisa, John Lennon's handwritten lyrics, and the Constitution. It's fun to destroy something that's valuable to other people!


Not a very good correlation there skippy. Troll harder.
2013-07-07 03:35:50 PM  
2 votes:
Meh.

Never understood why folks would pay thousands for a comic book anyways.

Or a sports card.
2013-07-07 01:45:12 PM  
2 votes:

FirstNationalBastard: Second, it's better to see an old, valuable comic like this actually used for something as opposed to sealed in mylar, or worse, locked in a slab of lucite so that it will never be touched by air or human hands again, but will retain its "collectible value".



Wrong.

Do you think it would be totally cool if I used a Babe Ruth baseball card to light a cigar?
2013-07-07 12:48:45 PM  
2 votes:
"Dumbass"?

More like "Hero".

First off, the comics were already thrown away, so they were going to be destroyed, anyway.

Second, it's better to see an old, valuable comic like this actually used for something as opposed to sealed in mylar, or worse, locked in a slab of lucite so that it will never be touched by air or human hands again, but will retain its "collectible value".
2013-07-07 08:38:58 PM  
1 votes:

eggrolls: timujin: eggrolls: neither Lennon's notebook scribbles or DaVicni's work had much relevance or value in their own time frame.

whointhewhatnow?

Face it, Lennon's notebook was NOT a valued commodity until after the Beatles hit it big. DaVinci was hired for his work as an artist, but was still only paid a reasonable scale for a very talented artist of his era. It was only after these men became more famous that Jesus (thank you John) that every thing they ever touched became worth more than gold.


Both men gained their fame during their "own time frame," so your initial statement is incorrect or, at the least, very poorly put.  Secondly, you apparently know nothing about da Vinci's career.
2013-07-07 04:58:54 PM  
1 votes:
In this thread:

Hoarders argue what they do is good for humanity.
2013-07-07 04:48:18 PM  
1 votes:

FirstNationalBastard: Even assuming this was a first printing, this was a mass produced periodical that probably printed somewhere north of a million copies, with thousands still in existence, many of which are now locked in plastic so the greedy little collectors can look at them.


I was watching an antiques show and someone had the Corgi James Bond Lotus Esprit from The Spy Who Loved Me that I had. It was all "thankfully it was kept in a box" or it wouldn't be worth as much.

And I was like, no, that was built for children to play with. Mine was played with until the wheel broke and then put in a bin.

I feel the same about comics, and in fact, I think comics have stopped being what they were. As a kid, you could go into a news shop and next to the papers would be the comics. They would be bought by kids, read and disposed of. Today, they seem to be sold in comic shops, where they are sold like fine old art prints to people in their 20s and upwards.
2013-07-07 04:36:58 PM  
1 votes:

Great_Milenko: eggrolls: So if it's ok to trash someone else's art to make your own, we should let him make his next 'masterpiece' out of the Mona Lisa, John Lennon's handwritten lyrics, and the Constitution. It's fun to destroy something that's valuable to other people!

Yes, because a comic book has the same cultural significance as any of these things...


The Constitution clearly had immediate value and significance, but neither Lennon's notebook scribbles or DaVicni's work had much relevance or value in their own time frame. Cultural significance comes later. Often much later. If anybody knew what that would be when it happened, we'd still have copies of Shakespeare's 'Love's Labor Won' and 'Cardenio'.
2013-07-07 04:36:18 PM  
1 votes:

Glitchwerks: Tony_Pepperoni: Sgt Otter: ...or he used a worthless reproduction, and after cutting it up and soaking it in paste, hopes nobody will notice, but he will certainly enjoy the free publicity.

^THIS^

Hopefully that's the case, but I'm reminded of the guy who bought one of Senna's F1 cars and then made it into a sculpture based on airfix model kits.

The car should have been left alone and placed in a museum.


I heard that there are top men working on it right now.

Ultimately, I suppose, the fact that people will pay lots of money for things that have little material value is a central tenet of capitalism. That is to say, there's a lot of people with more money than sense.

The K Foundation Burn a Million Quid: is it art, or stupidity?
2013-07-07 04:07:48 PM  
1 votes:

Tony_Pepperoni: Sgt Otter: ...or he used a worthless reproduction, and after cutting it up and soaking it in paste, hopes nobody will notice, but he will certainly enjoy the free publicity.

^THIS^


According to the sourced link in that piece the artist says he found the comics in the trash and didn't go out and spend a shiat ton of money of them so yeah, I'm calling shenanigans on this too.

Laughing off the revelation, Mr Vickers said: "If somebody chucks things out in the skip they don't generally throw things out that are worth anything.

[unlikely] tag goes where?

Meanwhile some artist I've never heard of before and some comic shop I've never heard of get ink.

/I'm assuming "Skip" means "trash" here, I've never actually encountered that particular bit of Brit-speak  before.
//Hopefully some more UK conversant Farker can either confirm or deny this.
2013-07-07 03:59:54 PM  
1 votes:
Dear artist;  Your work of art will never be worth as much as the comics were.
2013-07-07 03:58:56 PM  
1 votes:
slumberpartymovies.files.wordpress.com
2013-07-07 03:56:05 PM  
1 votes:

eggrolls: So if it's ok to trash someone else's art to make your own, we should let him make his next 'masterpiece' out of the Mona Lisa, John Lennon's handwritten lyrics, and the Constitution. It's fun to destroy something that's valuable to other people!


What you're describing are rare, one of a kind objects.

Even assuming this was a first printing, this was a mass produced periodical that probably printed somewhere north of a million copies, with thousands still in existence, many of which are now locked in plastic so the greedy little collectors can look at them.

The material inside the covers is available in roughly a dozen formats, from cheap black and white reprints to digital to a high end hardcover, on nice paper.
2013-07-07 03:52:38 PM  
1 votes:
Did anyone even click the article? The sculpture itself is more of an abomination than Batman and Robin and the Fantastic Four movies combined.
2013-07-07 03:51:42 PM  
1 votes:
farm8.staticflickr.com
2013-07-07 03:45:52 PM  
1 votes:

The_Sponge: FirstNationalBastard: Second, it's better to see an old, valuable comic like this actually used for something as opposed to sealed in mylar, or worse, locked in a slab of lucite so that it will never be touched by air or human hands again, but will retain its "collectible value".


Wrong.

Do you think it would be totally cool if I used a Babe Ruth baseball card to light a cigar?


No, but if you lit a Babe Ruth card with cigar I'd applaud.
2013-07-07 03:42:11 PM  
1 votes:

The_Sponge: FirstNationalBastard: Second, it's better to see an old, valuable comic like this actually used for something as opposed to sealed in mylar, or worse, locked in a slab of lucite so that it will never be touched by air or human hands again, but will retain its "collectible value".


Wrong.

Do you think it would be totally cool if I used a Babe Ruth baseball card to light a cigar?


Apples/oranges.  It would be totally cool to turn that Babe Ruth baseball card into an origami baseball mitt.
2013-07-07 03:37:41 PM  
1 votes:

Sgt Otter: ...or he used a worthless reproduction, and after cutting it up and soaking it in paste, hopes nobody will notice, but he will certainly enjoy the free publicity.


^THIS^
2013-07-07 03:34:59 PM  
1 votes:
Worst Comic book store owner EVER.
2013-07-07 01:53:11 PM  
1 votes:

The_Sponge: FirstNationalBastard: Second, it's better to see an old, valuable comic like this actually used for something as opposed to sealed in mylar, or worse, locked in a slab of lucite so that it will never be touched by air or human hands again, but will retain its "collectible value".


Wrong.

Do you think it would be totally cool if I used a Babe Ruth baseball card to light a cigar?


Different things.

A baseball card is a collectable. It really has no purpose other than to sit there and look pretty.

A comic book was meant to be read (and tossed). And, at this point, if someone really wants to read the actual story, there are a dozen different ways to read it.

And, while I can see slabbing some older, rarer comics, jerkoffs are slabbing and marking up books that came out last week and will never be worth more than a quarter in our lifetimes, or our children's lifetimes.

Speculators and collectors ruined comic books, so yeah, I'm happy to see a "collectable" torn up and used to make "Art".

/and yes, I'd love to see someone use a Babe Ruth card to light a cigar.
2013-07-07 01:11:21 PM  
1 votes:
So?
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report