UK Artist Accidentally Turns Avengers #1 Into Papier-Mâché

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
UK Artist Accidentally Turns Avengers #1 Into Papier-Mâché



Rare comics found in garbage and used as art could have been worth as much as £20,000.

Artist Andrew Vickers has managed to make the most expensive papier-mâché known to man, by accident. The sculptor found a ton of comics thrown away in a skip, thought that they'd make a great addition to his next piece Paperboy, and put his heart, soul, and - unbeknownst to him - about £20,000 (approximately $30,000) worth of rare comics into the piece. Among the fallen was a copy of Avengers #1, which has been known to go for as much as $250,000 in mint condition at auction; even in not-so-great shape, it still sells for tens of thousands. Of course, not-so-great kind of assumes you haven't coated it in glue and mulched it into a sculpture.

The loss was discovered by Steve Eyre, who owns a comic book shop. He spotted the Avengers #1 cover on Paperboy's inside leg. He owns a copy of that comic, worth over £10,000, and once he saw it in Paperboy he started looking for other tell-tale signs. He found the remains of six rare comics. "It would have been cheaper for Andrew to make this out of Italian marble," said Eyre, "because the raw materials that have gone in to it I could have sold for a lot more than he is going to sell this statue for."

Vickers, who doesn't care about money, is amused by the whole thing. He had no idea the stuff he found thrown out in the street was actually worth real money. "I really love the idea of me creating something out of such expensive things that's worth less," he said. "I think it's brilliant."

Source: Digital Spy [http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/comics/news/a496323/sheffield-artist-uses-gbp20000-of-rare-comics-for-papier-mache.html]


Permalink
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,785
0
0
I love it. The attitude of the artist is spot on as well.

Any images of this 'Paperboy' piece knocking around anywhere?

 

Eri

The Light of Dawn
Feb 21, 2009
3,626
0
0
When people do stuff like this, I just think, What a complete idiot. All you had to do was spend 5 seconds google searching before trashing something you had no idea what it was. And you'd have been richly rewarded for it. But no.

Idiot.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,682
3,592
118
Eri said:
When people do stuff like this, I just think, What a complete idiot. All you had to do was spend 5 seconds google searching before trashing something you had no idea what it was. And you'd have been richly rewarded for it. But no.

Idiot.
Sorta would've thought if people are throwing them all away, they aren't going to be worth much.

Now, the person doing the throwing away, OTOH...
 

omega 616

Elite Member
May 1, 2009
5,883
1
43
Bull fucking shit,
Karloff said:
"I really love the idea of me creating something out of such expensive things that's worth less," he said. "I think it's brilliant."
If he could rewind time he would, in heart beat!

The only reason he is saying this, is 'cos it's much better than ...


If you're an unheard of artist, I would follow the stereotype and say that you're broke ... so when you find out that you just lost out on the chance at £20,000 you say "I think it's brilliant"? Fuck off, I think even Bill gates would say "that kinda sucks".
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Karloff said:
"I really love the idea of me creating something out of such expensive things that's worth less," he said. "I think it's brilliant."
There's nothing "brilliant" about the idea. There's no valuable statement he was making with the concept, it was all an accident, and to be "amused" by the idea of turning such valuable and rare material into paper mache is... Guys, I don't like this guy.
 

squid5580

Elite Member
Feb 20, 2008
5,106
0
41
lacktheknack said:
Karloff said:
"I really love the idea of me creating something out of such expensive things that's worth less," he said. "I think it's brilliant."
There's nothing "brilliant" about the idea. There's no valuable statement he was making with the concept, it was all an accident, and to be "amused" by the idea of turning such valuable and rare material into paper mache is... Guys, I don't like this guy.
You and me both. He destroyed rare art to create a paper mache mannequin
 

synobal

New member
Jun 8, 2011
2,189
0
0
He had no idea the stuff he found thrown out in the street was actually worth real money. "I really love the idea of me creating something out of such expensive things that's worth less," he said. "I think it's brilliant."
Artists man, they are so weird. I bet he'd not be saying the same thing if he accidentally used some lost work of Goya, or say a Van Gogh or two, but just because it's comic books it's okay to destroy a rare work of art, Brilliant even!
 

JamesBr

New member
Nov 4, 2010
353
0
0
Yup, destroying a rare piece of art that is worth tens of thousands to create an ugly paper-mache doll worth......what? "Brilliant" indeed. As an artist I find this guy's attitude offensive.
 

rasta111

New member
Nov 11, 2009
214
0
0
It was never about money, when those comics were first printed, do you think anyone knew then what people call out this artist for apparently not realising now? The money was just a means to an end for them in order to create something that is as valued as it has become. Bravo. This here is why paper money can have so much more value in the first place.
 

Flatfrog

New member
Dec 29, 2010
885
0
0
squid5580 said:
lacktheknack said:
Karloff said:
"I really love the idea of me creating something out of such expensive things that's worth less," he said. "I think it's brilliant."
There's nothing "brilliant" about the idea. There's no valuable statement he was making with the concept, it was all an accident, and to be "amused" by the idea of turning such valuable and rare material into paper mache is... Guys, I don't like this guy.
You and me both. He destroyed rare art to create a paper mache mannequin
Avengers 1 - rare, yes. Art? Hmm. I don't think it's a particularly awe-inspiring artwork, is it? Some fairly routine Kirby stuff and a lame non-story - and it's not like the art's even been destroyed. I just looked it up right now and you can download it any time you like. It's the rarity and historical importance of the physical item that makes it valuable, not the artistic merit.
 

JamesBr

New member
Nov 4, 2010
353
0
0
rasta111 said:
It was never about money, when those comics were first printed, do you think anyone knew then what people call out this artist for apparently not realising now? The money was just a means to an end for them in order to create something that is as valued as it has become. Bravo. This here is why paper money can have so much more value in the first place.
This argument is meaningless. The value of art at its creation is irrelevant to its current value. A lot of the greatest pieces of art in history were made without money in mind, this doesn't diminish their current value. Van Gogh's last self-portrait was made as a birthday present for his mother, if it was destroyed to make an awful piece of art unintentionally, nobody would think it "brilliant".
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
Wait...

...

Hang on.

HANG THE FUCK ON.

You're telling me that that comic, Avengers #1, is worth $10,000+.

...

I used to own a copy when I was a kid. Got it with a bunch of others in a box of hand-me-down toys. Wasn't in mint condition or anything, but it was in one piece. Got thrown out years ago.

Unless it was a reprint or something. Fuck me, I hope it was a reprint.
 

Flatfrog

New member
Dec 29, 2010
885
0
0
JamesBr said:
rasta111 said:
It was never about money, when those comics were first printed, do you think anyone knew then what people call out this artist for apparently not realising now? The money was just a means to an end for them in order to create something that is as valued as it has become. Bravo. This here is why paper money can have so much more value in the first place.
This argument is meaningless. The value of art at its creation is irrelevant to its current value. A lot of the greatest pieces of art in history were made without money in mind, this doesn't diminish their current value. Van Gogh's last self-portrait was made as a birthday present for his mother, if it was destroyed to make an awful piece of art unintentionally, nobody would think it "brilliant".
Yeah, I still disagree with this. A comic is a printed work, not an original painting. If I destroyed a Van Gogh, it would be gone forever; even if it had been scanned to a high-res digital copy, the original brushwork would be lost. But destroying a printed item is not the same thing. I'd even argue that if every copy of the comic was gone, a high-res digital copy would be essentially the same as having the original. And hey, if Marvel kept hold of any of the original plates, they could run off a few more copies for luck.

I feel the same about books. Destroy a £100,000 first edition of Ulysses for all I care. It's the words that matter, not the pages.
 

Phrozenflame500

New member
Dec 26, 2012
1,080
0
0
Haha, that's funny. I feel bad for the artist for accidentally losing $20000, but atleast he thought it was pretty funny too.
 

Amaror

New member
Apr 15, 2011
1,509
0
0
lacktheknack said:
If you're an unheard of artist, I would follow the stereotype and say that you're broke ... so when you find out that you just lost out on the chance at £20,000 you say "I think it's brilliant"? Fuck off, I think even Bill gates would say "that kinda sucks".
Well on the flipside at least in nerd - news he won't be that unheard of anymore. Granted comic book nerds are probably not his main customer base .