UK Artist Accidentally Turns Avengers #1 Into Papier-Mâché

[lacktheknack]

But both of those concepts are entirely foreign to internet-dwellers, so I'm not sure why I expect people to consider them.

You should probably calm down on the elitism.

Are you seriously saying that me complaining that people are unable to use two very simple communication techniques is "elitist"?

WHAT THE HELL?

Besides that, doesn't "elitist" imply that I'm in a group that does something "better" than everyone and I want to keep it that way? Wouldn't that imply that I want people to continue ignoring tactful options and contextual cues? Because believe me, I don't. I wish EVERYONE would be this way, and not for my own personal gratification either. I wish people would start addressing context tactfully so that we can actually communicate without getting in stupid snags like this one.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Oops. Oh well. I'm more interested in the person that threw them away. This guy at least had a use for them, but what type of mind set do you need to have to throw those comics away in the trash? I would think most people would at least try to sell them first, or check to see if they were worth money.

 

[Mr. Q]

I'm sorry but I can't find the levity of this situation. In my world, destroying a comic book, especially a rare and valuable one, is a serious crime punishable by death! That's up there with defacing the Mona Lisa or any other classic work of art.

Except there's only one copy of the Mona Lisa and there are loads of copies of comic books. Even Avengers #1 (the comic in question here) still has a number of other mint copies in existence.

Relax.

I know but couldn't this artist butcher a comic no one would miss, like Rob Liefeld's Youngblood or any of his other god awful 90s comics like Newman of Prophet? I'd call it "Bad Art Given Form" where the paper mache would have oversize proportions and massive rows of teeth in its cavernous mouth.

 

[A Weakgeek]

That's what an artist has to say about destroying a work of art? "Brilliant"?

A massproduced comic book is about as much "art" as one of those postcards with mona lisa that you can buy from a museum souvenir shop. Sure, if it was the original piece the artist made which was used to make the prints Id understand the reaction, but thats not the case here.

Just because a massproduced copy of something becomes rare, doesn't mean it gains artistic merit.

 

[Baldry]

...I'm just...I wish I could find first issues of classic comics lying around. Also as if he didn't even check it, this hurts the comic fan in me.

 

[Doom972]

That's what an artist has to say about destroying a work of art? "Brilliant"?

A massproduced comic book is about as much "art" as one of those postcards with mona lisa that you can buy from a museum souvenir shop. Sure, if it was the original piece the artist made which was used to make the prints Id understand the reaction, but thats not the case here.

Just because a massproduced copy of something becomes rare, doesn't mean it gains artistic merit.

It was mass-produced, but most copies were destroyed or left in a bad condition. Very few copies in mint condition exist. I don't know which sort of art form you personally value, so take this generic response:

I hope that [insert a masterpiece of favorite art-form here] gets destroyed in order to make [product that can be made by using the material said masterpiece is mostly made from].

 

[Baldry]

That's what an artist has to say about destroying a work of art? "Brilliant"?

A massproduced comic book is about as much "art" as one of those postcards with mona lisa that you can buy from a museum souvenir shop. Sure, if it was the original piece the artist made which was used to make the prints Id understand the reaction, but thats not the case here.

Just because a massproduced copy of something becomes rare, doesn't mean it gains artistic merit.

By that logic games and books and a lot of things can't be art because they're mass produced.

 

[A Weakgeek]

That's what an artist has to say about destroying a work of art? "Brilliant"?

A massproduced comic book is about as much "art" as one of those postcards with mona lisa that you can buy from a museum souvenir shop. Sure, if it was the original piece the artist made which was used to make the prints Id understand the reaction, but thats not the case here.

Just because a massproduced copy of something becomes rare, doesn't mean it gains artistic merit.

It was mass-produced, but most copies were destroyed or left in a bad condition. Very few copies in mint condition exist. I don't know which sort of art form you personally value, so take this generic response:

I hope that [insert a masterpiece of favorite art-form here] gets destroyed in order to make [product that can be made by using the material said masterpiece is mostly made from].

I get that you like comics, as a guy who likes to draw them, I totally get that.

But how is a copy of avengers #1 printed in the 80s/90s more valuable (not counting money/collectors sense) than a reprint today? The artist had exactly as much to do with the creation of both. (That is to say, he made the original, sent it to the publisher and they made thousands upon thousands of copies)

That's what an artist has to say about destroying a work of art? "Brilliant"?

A massproduced comic book is about as much "art" as one of those postcards with mona lisa that you can buy from a museum souvenir shop. Sure, if it was the original piece the artist made which was used to make the prints Id understand the reaction, but thats not the case here.

Just because a massproduced copy of something becomes rare, doesn't mean it gains artistic merit.

By that logic games and books and a lot of things can't be art because they're mass produced.

I'm not arguing comics, or more specifically here, Avengers #1 isnt art. What Im saying is, that no art was destroyed here. But a copy of one. The world will never run out of Avengers #1's because there are reprints upon reprints upon reprints. Same goes with games. The thing is, none of these copies are worth more than one another artistically, regardless what decade they were copied on.

 

[Varya]

I've always quite liked the idea of making art out of valuable things, (like that guy who photographed himself destroying a Ming-vase) so I like the thought of a comic-sculpture made out of some of the rarest comics. Sure, it's a loss for the collectors out there, but it's not like it was the last known issue. I feel it embodies a lot of metaphors about rebirth, the nature of art and creation, the difference in the eyes of the beholder and frankly it's just kind of cool. Had I done this and noticed beforehand what the comics were worth, I'd probably not have done it, but once it's done, no regrets, and the sculpture is better for it.

 

[shemoanscazrex3]

I like how everyone is chastising what this guy has done as if its flat our wrong. Money's importance is subjective and everyone doesn't only care about acquiring it. I think you guys are a little hurt you didn't find the comic to make money from it.

 

[Riobux]

But both of those concepts are entirely foreign to internet-dwellers, so I'm not sure why I expect people to consider them.

You should probably calm down on the elitism.

Are you seriously saying that me complaining that people are unable to use two very simple communication techniques is "elitist"?

WHAT THE HELL?

Besides that, doesn't "elitist" imply that I'm in a group that does something "better" than everyone and I want to keep it that way? Wouldn't that imply that I want people to continue ignoring tactful options and contextual cues? Because believe me, I don't. I wish EVERYONE would be this way, and not for my own personal gratification either. I wish people would start addressing context tactfully so that we can actually communicate without getting in stupid snags like this one.

"(of a person or class of persons) considered superior by others or by themselves, as in intellect, talent, power, wealth, or position in society" - Dictionary.com [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Elitist?s=t]

Game. Set. Match.

 

[Dfskelleton]

I would probably laugh if I did something like that, too. Not really because it's funny, but because it's bitterly ironic enough to be humorous. It's good that he's taking it lightly, as opposed to getting really upset that he could've made a lot more money off of it.

 

[DirtGreezer]

Well, too bad, I guess.
Things happen and I would probably laugh a good chunk as well.

 

[Doom972]

That's what an artist has to say about destroying a work of art? "Brilliant"?

A massproduced comic book is about as much "art" as one of those postcards with mona lisa that you can buy from a museum souvenir shop. Sure, if it was the original piece the artist made which was used to make the prints Id understand the reaction, but thats not the case here.

Just because a massproduced copy of something becomes rare, doesn't mean it gains artistic merit.

It was mass-produced, but most copies were destroyed or left in a bad condition. Very few copies in mint condition exist. I don't know which sort of art form you personally value, so take this generic response:

I hope that [insert a masterpiece of favorite art-form here] gets destroyed in order to make [product that can be made by using the material said masterpiece is mostly made from].

I get that you like comics, as a guy who likes to draw them, I totally get that.

But how is a copy of avengers #1 printed in the 80s/90s more valuable (not counting money/collectors sense) than a reprint today? The artist had exactly as much to do with the creation of both. (That is to say, he made the original, sent it to the publisher and they made thousands upon thousands of copies)

Not counting money/collector's sense? Why not? Other than that, there's the sentimental value which many would have for it. It could've given one more person a chance to get his hand on a mint condition copy.

I'm not even that much of a comic reader (I have a few, and I read a few more I borrowed from friends), and I know that it doesn't affect anything (except maybe the prices of the rest of the copies). It's just the guy's attitude towards it.

 

[lacktheknack]

But both of those concepts are entirely foreign to internet-dwellers, so I'm not sure why I expect people to consider them.

You should probably calm down on the elitism.

Are you seriously saying that me complaining that people are unable to use two very simple communication techniques is "elitist"?

WHAT THE HELL?

Besides that, doesn't "elitist" imply that I'm in a group that does something "better" than everyone and I want to keep it that way? Wouldn't that imply that I want people to continue ignoring tactful options and contextual cues? Because believe me, I don't. I wish EVERYONE would be this way, and not for my own personal gratification either. I wish people would start addressing context tactfully so that we can actually communicate without getting in stupid snags like this one.

"(of a person or class of persons) considered superior by others or by themselves, as in intellect, talent, power, wealth, or position in society" - Dictionary.com [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Elitist?s=t]

Game. Set. Match.

Well, by that definition, then no. No, I will not tone down the elitism until people start communicating effectively.

It's an absolute disgrace if we're going to say that being able to minimize unpleasantness (tact) and being able to appropriately respond to things (context) is somehow now the domain of "the elite", and you know that. Why did you even bring it up in the first place? I can't help but notice that you left the rest of my post alone when you spiralled off in the "elitist" direction, so this just looks like a smokescreen to save face. I'm not buying it now. Defend your position WITHOUT ad hominem, or not at all.

 

[TheEvilCheese]

Wow, that's some... remarkably hostile and hypocritical responses guys.

Heh, amusing thread.

Paper mache? Art? Hah! Clearly children's toys! People making are just big children, I mean I did that when I was twelve.

Video Games? Children's toys? Hah! Clearly it's art! Sure, children play them as well but there's also adults playing them and mature games attempting to make a statement.

As for him being an idiot, you do realize those comics were in the trash right? He didn't waste anything. At the very least we have a paper maché statue now, as worthless as you guys may think it is (please, do think on how 'valuable' many people would find those very old games you still keep around). If he hadn't come along there'd be nothing at all. Those comics would have been burned along with the other paper trash if this guy hadn't made them into paper mache.

And I agree, that's brilliant. It's a wondrous world where someone puts 20.000 pounds of valuable goods in the trash and instead of it getting processed like the rest of the waste it somehow gets picked up and turned into a statue.

You know what? If I could afford it, I'd buy that statue. That statue is freaking brilliant. I want it. It's more artistic than pieces in a museum without the artist even realizing it, can you think of any better commentary on our society and the things we throw away? Bloody brilliant.

So much of this. So much. I don't understand the levels of hypocrisy people can go to without realising it.

And I think it's pretty cool. Sure, the form of the statue may not be to your liking, but as both a commentary on the value we assign to things of no intrinsic significance and an example of beautiful irony. Not to mention how the comics were effectively removed from circulation already when they were binned and were never going to be worth anything because they would have been destroyed anyway.

What this man has done is use the word brilliant in a way that has managed to actually insult people. I like him.

Hell, if there was actual intent or even malice behind what he did I might understand some of the responses, but there very clearly wasn't.

 

[AngelOfBlueRoses]

I like how most people are blaming the guy when he only found them in the trash. They were going to go to the dump anyways. At least he gave a use out of them. But since the guy who actually threw them away isn't mentioned, most of you have no other target than the paper mache guy who's only crime is being ignorant of the same knowledge that you comic book fans are privy to.

Let's face it, comic books as a medium have never been the most popular and when they were, it was only during the speculators boom - so at its peak, it had false popularity. I'm not going to blame the guy for being ignorant of one of the lesser known mediums out there, especially since said comics were going to rot in the dump anyways. Nor am I going to blame the guy for laughing it off either. Here's a bit of news, people; that's just how some people cope with problems.

Ya'll need to grow up.