On a day when Jasper Johns' Flag painting sold at Christie’s for a hefty $28.6 million dollars, a story appeared on Bleeding Cool Comic News about a 1941 Joe Simon and Jack Kirby Captain America page that had been re-listed on eBay after its previous buyer had failed to come through on the $38,000 winning bid. A few days later, the page sold for $20,601, a figure that amounts to 1388 times less than the cost of the Johns oil painting. Given the opportunity to choose between a single Jasper Johns Flag painting or 1388 pages of high quality golden age comic art, one imagines even the most seasoned collector would deliberate—if only for a moment—over which of the two lots they might prefer. And though the works are of a vastly different kind and purpose, it seems a worthwhile inquiry into what makes their cultural and financial valuations so disparate. The Johns Flag painting, of course, is iconic, a staple image in the Pop Art chapter of most art history textbooks, while the Joe Simon-Jack Kirby page, though respected, has a fame and appreciation limited to a much narrower audience of comic historians and aficionados. But are their current values justified, or are these the early signs of a larger disequilibrium, one which may eventually balance out in favor of an increase in the prices for original comic art? 

Commentary on Wikipedia states that one of the great achievements of the painting is that it desaturates the flag, as a symbol, of its iconic power, "a visual object, divorced from its symbolic connotations and reduced to something in-itself." But this interpretation runs counter to our experience, as the image of the flag as an icon is the first point of reference from which we begin to relate to the painting, and to suggest that somehow the omnipresent American flag at it's core somehow no longer signifies itself, though conceivable, is a stretch. Rather, placing the American flag as the sole subject of a painting in the context of the visual arts tradition, with all its hyper-dense, multilayered connotations, is the truly revolutionary act.  How do we reinterpret the flag when we consider it as a visual art object with all of the analytical tools that this rich tradition has provided over the centuries?  At its most subversive, this most common of all images is seen from a new perspective, enriched within a new context unlike any other from which we had previously come to associate with it, and, in the process, dangerously, the artwork alters the meaning we attribute to the icon itself.

The Captain America page is another beast entirely.  The intact original artwork of page 8 of Captain America #6 from 1941, created some 15 years before the Johns painting, depicts an action packed scene of Captain America and his sidekick Bucky fighting a series of anonymous Japanese villains under the dark specter of World War II. Drawn in pencil and ink on white paper, the page is thought to have been produced by legendary comics duo Joe Simon and Jack Kirby, creators of Captain America and, later on, the Boy Commandos, which at their zenith sold over a million copies an issue (to put that in perspective, X-Men sold about 250,000 copies when they dominated the market in the 1980s, and, today, a comic that sells 40,000 copies is considered a major success).  Though the authorship of the page has been called into question, it seems unlikely anyone other than Joe Simon and Jack Kirby were responsible for its creation, considering the unusually high quality of the art, especially when one observes the hands, boots and draped clothing, which all have a trademark bulky Kirby-esque look and feel.   

The page is divided into two main sequences, the top half focused on Bucky battling a villain, while Captain America dominates the bottom half in a separate fight scene. The drama begins on an action packed note, Bucky dodging a flying axe, convincingly depicted as fast, heavy and damaging, the speed lines covering the young hero's eyes almost as they blaze past our own. The comic panel curves outwards behind him, as if to emphasize the force of the axe hitting the wall, while the villain, hunched over as Bucky draws him closer by the shirt, directs a knife towards the young hero's head, adding further emphasis to the focal point of the drama. Bucky's body, forced backwards in the same direction as the axe, is thrown beyond the confines of the panel, adding further drama and impact to the scene.  Bucky yells “WOW!” in classic comic fashion, triggering the viewer's own reaction to the fast paced action. In the next panel, Bucky retaliates by stealing the villain’s sword and punching him in the same motion, shouting “GIVE ME THAT SWORD!” The action is surrounded by shadowy cross-hatching inside the panel's edges that creates both focus and atmosphere, a trick commonly used in graphic design to this day but which can also be traced back to Renaissance oil painting.  

In the following row, Bucky returns the villain's sword, throwing it across the three panels in an amazing depiction of energy that fully persuades the reader of the absolute force of the throw, splitting the wall and pinning the villain to the wall.  Bucky yells, “BOYS WHO THROW HATCHETS GET IN TROUBLE!” suggesting to the reader that Bucky is the ‘boy’ he is referencing, followed by “SO I’LL HAVE TO KEEP YOU OUT OF MISCHIEF!”, creating a humorous reversal of the boy-hero Bucky calling the grown Japanese men 'boys'.  The last panel depicts a racially stereotyped Japanese character with what looks like mock Japanese text, so unthinkable in today's climate of political correctness that it borders on being classic, misguided as the generalizations may be. Like the first panel, all the characters break out of the frames which contain them, adding dynamism to each of the panels and to the page as a whole.

The bottom half of the page continues the same breathtaking pace as Captain America rolls into the panel fighting two villains simultaneously, while the omniscient narrator interjects, “Meanwhile THE SHADOW OF DEATH HOVERS OVER CAPTAIN AMERICA --”.  In the following circular panel, a villain plunges a sword into Captain America’s shield, which “SAVES CAP FROM BEING BEHEADED!” while the hero simultaneously restrains another villain under his weight.  Outstretched, Cap strikes back in the following row, laying a massive, defeating blow into the chest of his opponent, while yelling in pure pop, 1940s American English, “HERE! TRY SOME OF MY BRAND”.  The final panel transitions through an electrical divider, heightening the intensity of the scene, zooming in on Captain America's head and fist as he declares, “AND NOW MISTER FANG, I’M READY FOR YOU!”, a well crafted, though somewhat racist pun, combining the sound of a traditional Japanese name with the insidious sounding animalistic incisor tooth.

Despite these impressive accomplishments, many good reasons justify the higher market valuation for Johns' Flag painting. Unquestionably, it has more poetic depth than the Captain America fight scene. Johns was making far reaching speculations on identity, patriotism, the mass media, and the consumer society and, perhaps most importantly, he was the first to isolate the mass media icon as a subject for contemplation, which was highly influential on the Pop art movement that followed, which, in turn, had a transformative effect on the culture. In this respect, the painting can be legitimately considered a landmark in the history of art, as well as human thought as a whole. 

Johns' Flag also has a title, distinguishing it from the comic page in the sense that the painting is a self-conscious presentation of a unified artwork, while the comic page is a fragment of a larger work (the full comic book) and therefore lacks the unified cohesion of the painting. Were the comparison with a comic cover rather than an inside page, however, this distinction would be much less pronounced. 

Interestingly, many of the themes obtained in the painting are present in the Captain America page, though they are brought up in a more accidental manner, not because the comic artists wished to convey profound sentiments on the topics, but rather because they were immersed in them. One could say with a fair degree of certainty that Simon and Kirby were not attempting some "meta" statement on the subject matter of America and its role as an icon in the depths of our unconscious minds. Nevertheless, an accidental poetry remains in the comic page of the kind we might find in the hieroglyphs in the tomb of Ramses II. In a parallel fashion, these artworks were not created by individuals questioning the myths of their day, but were rather enforcing them using art as a form of nationalistic propaganda. Do we consider ancient egyptian tomb paintings any less works of art as a result? Were the comic page exhibited among the paintings we traditionally view in the art gallery, I suspect it would retain an unusual popularity among the crowds, and not simply because it's easier to consume, which it is, but for it's masterful display of sequential art. Seen outside of our cultural biases, comic artists also share many of the challenges of Italian medieval and renaissance painters, who were often charged with the task of portraying multi-sequenced religious narratives.

As far as the comic page's incompleteness is concerned, do we consider fragments of ancient art, such as the Victory of Samothrace, any less of an art object because a part of it is missing? Further, were the paintings in the caves of Lascaux ever given titles by their creators? It appears that many of our assumptions about what constitutes an art object is defined by gallery-centric notions, while the ultimate test of an artwork's value is whether it is returned to, for its own sake, over the course of time. Does it continue to communicate something unique to which we can relate over the ages? As we move into the future and increase our distance with the 20th century, it's possible that comic art will become more closely associated with the fine art of the century as the cultural biases towards comics fade, and a newer, anthropological perspective takes shape. 

As archeological artifacts demonstrate, the financial value of a work is commiserate with its esteem in the culture, regardless of whether it was intended as art for art's sake. In this regard, it's easy to imagine original comic art, especially covers, commanding much greater prices in the near future, as the inherent beauty of these pieces becomes increasingly recognized. Renowned TIME magazine art critic Robert Hughes once called underground cartoonist Robert Crumb, "the American Breughel", yet his works, among the most expensive of original comic art, still sell for a fraction of much less important pieces classified as 'fine art'. So there is a bias, but one which is becoming increasingly undermined as an upward trend towards higher prices takes hold. The cover of Mr. Natural #1, for example, sold in 2007 for a record price of $100,000, which, if "cultural importance" is our gauge, is very cheap.  In one image, Mr. Natural evokes the entire hippy counterculture revolution; ironically, it's difficult to think of a painting in the visual arts that captured the hippie ethos as effectively. In a sense, it's perfectly reasonable to see it best represented in the form of comic art, rather than an oil painting.

Other sales of original comic art pages, almost exclusively covers, confirm the trend.  The cover to Daredevil #158 featuring the Black Widow by Frank Miller, from his celebrated run on Daredevil in the 1980s, recently secured $100,000 at auction. Even more impressive, an EC Comic cover by Frank Frazetta of Weird Science-Fantasy #29 (1955) sold in a private sale for $380,000, whileTodd McFarlane's sensational cover of Amazing Spider-man #328 sold for a record breaking $657,250 in 2012. Considering the sales of original copies of Action Comics #1 and Detective Comics #27 have topped $1 million at auction, it would seem the million dollar original comic art piece beckons.

For all the arguments in favor of an undervaluation of comic art, the fact of the matter is that artworks in the fine arts tradition are more culturally valued than comic art, and, most of the time, for good reason. But with the recent increase in the prices for fine art, alongside the heightened ambiguity in the inherent value of contemporary art, the disparity is becoming increasingly imbalanced. Yes, the Johns and Simon-Kirby works are of a different order and poetic magnitude, and to suggest that the Simon and Kirby page should be worth anything near as much would be absurd. However, what it does show is that original comic art, relative to the boom in the art market, is greatly undervalued. Ask yourself, would you rather own a Hirst or a Crumb? And in 200 years, who's work will be more valuable?  

"Be Bright", reads the mantra displayed on street cars and buses throughout the world this spring. And bright the world is. Neon orange dresses, saturated red jeans and bright blue shirts populate the urban landscape, implying, according to Robert Prechter's 1985 essay, "Popular Culture and the Stock Market", an underlying optimism in social mood. Expanding on George Taylor and Ralph Rotnem's famous 'hemline indicator'--that women's hemlines rise with stock prices--Prechter argues that fashion trends, along with popular music and political behavior, can be correlated to activity in the stock market, and, hence, be used to predict future moves.

Skirt heights rose to mini-skirt brevity in the 1920s and the 1960s, peaking with stock prices both times. Floor length fashions appeared in the 1930s and the 1970s (The Maxi), bottoming with stock prices. This is not likely a frivolous observation. In my judgement, it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that a rise in both hemlines and stock prices reflect a general increase in friskiness and daring among the population, and a decline in both, a decrease. Because skirt lengths have limits (the floor and the upper thigh, respectively), the reaching of a limit would imply that a maximum positive or negative mood had been achieved.

Similar changes appear in fashion colors. Bright colors are associated with market tops and dull dark colors with market bottoms. It is not coincidence, then, that, generally speaking, the smaller the skirt or the swimsuit, the brighter the color(s). Floor length fashions, in turn, are more often associated with dull dark colors such as brown black and grey.

In 2012, Business Insider created its own Hemline Indicator Index, through a "full analysis" of hemlines for New York Fashion Week, "measuring some 2,092 images from 25 designers, comparing year-on-year changes in the length of skirts and dresses." Fascinatingly, their results showed that hemlines had, in fact, been shortening, confirming—in this instance--Prechter's theory that bright colors and shorter hemlines coincide.

Further evidence for Prechter's thesis is provided by popular music, in which negative messages and feelings tend to correlate with a topping out and decline in the market.

The first #1 hit by the Rolling Stones appeared in June1965, the exact month of the low that preceded the final run to a new high in stocks... In 1966, The Rolling Stones suddenly outdid The Beatles in the number of Top Ten hits, with themes of drugs, mental breakdown, crying and death, with their final hit of the year coming in October. Look at the crash in stock prices from January to October 1966, and see how precisely it reflected the new mass mood. 

At the 2012 Grammy Awards, Adele, who sings melancholic songs of unrequited love and failed relationships, won six awards, a feat outdone only by Michael Jackson, who won eight in one year.

And so, it would seem Prechter's cultural indicators of mass mood would argue that the market should be forming a top, particularly since the brightness in color appears to be at an extreme, often times reaching neon pitched saturation. So far, the chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Average appears to be bearing this out. The strong rally that started in January began to show signs of weakness in middle of March, when it reached a high of 13,252, and has since fallen 5.5% to 12,496 as of May 23. Should the market rollover in the coming months, one could only be impressed.

If there was any doubt that Drudge was considered respectable, the decision makers at the Financial Times have assuaged those concerns with their recently added category, "Featured on Drudge".  Good work, FT!

I came across Bruce Sterling's recent essay on the so-called "New Aesthetic", which was discussed at a panel at this year's SxSW. After reading some of the literature, as well as Sterling's essay on the subject, I was hard pressed to think of a single new idea I had encountered.

If I had to sum up the "New Aesthetic", it would go something like this: renditions of imagery using technological devices creates beautiful objects, which are relevant because they use a contemporary visual idiom. (I'm not even sure they're actually saying that much). If that is what they're trying to say, good for them -- we've been there for 15 years.

If there's more to this so-called "movement", please fill me in.

Damien Hirst is thought to be Charles Saatchi's greatest discovery, and a 25 year retrospective of his work will go on display at the Tate Modern, beginning on April 4. Nevertheless, in a recent interview with The Telegraph, Hirst comes off as defensive and even somewhat delusional as he compares himself to Michelangelo, which suggests the public may have a point when it lambasts the cynicism and lack of inspiration in his work. 

People don’t like contemporary art but all art starts life as contemporary - I can't really see a difference. Michelangelo was definitely getting that, everybody was getting it. I’m sure there were people in caves going, ‘I like your cave but I hate that crap you've got on the wall’

Hirst hazily continued:

I love it though when you get cab drivers coming up to you and they say, ‘What you do isn’t art, mate’. It's brilliant that you can have a really strong opinion. I had a passport where I wrote ‘artist’ under 'occupation' and I remember thinking, 'That's it, it’s proved!’

Read the full interview here.

Here's a video tour of the exhibit.

PC World is reporting that Apple has filed a patent for an app that makes 3D avatars. A second patent shows the app working on an iPad, suggesting that the technology may be fairly advanced in its development.

According to Patently Apple, who first reported the story, the technology could be used by artists as well as by law enforcement as a facial recognition device.

Read more here.

Call it the end of an era. After 244 years, the Encyclopaedia Britannica has canceled its print edition.  One can safely assume the decision was reached from a lack of demand for the weighty 32 volume series. According to the BBC, a digital version will be available online, which will be updated in real-time.

Smashing Pumpkins frontman Billy Corgan spoke out against younger musicians at SXSW in an interview with Billboard.  Refering to recent flavors of the months as "fresh strippers", Corgan lambasted millennials as having no artist core, while being primarily concerned by a need to become famous. "I was part of a generation that changed the world - and it was taken over by poseurs." Read it here.

Topps baseball card photographer Gregg Forwerck discusses the business of taking pictures of baseball players for the last 20 years.  Read more here.

Lego adds the Sydney Opera House to its increasingly popular Architecture series. The set contains 270 pieces and will retail for $49.99.  Visit Lego.com for more info.

The NY Times Arts Beat blog is reporting that German electronic pioneers Kraftwerk have agreed to play eight consecutive shows at the Museum of Modern Art in New York.  "Kraftwerk Retrospective" will take place from April 10 - April 17, featuring a different album each night.  Tickets go on sale February 22 at noon!

Thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request by Bloomberg News, the FBI has released 191 pages of records it kept on Apple co-founder, Steve Jobs. The documents didn't reflect that well on Jobs' character, describing him as "deceptive" and willing to "distort reality in order to achieve his goals." They also reference previous drug use and an extortion attempt on the Apple CEO back in 1985. Read more on Bloomberg.com.

Rumour has it that Paul Cezanne's Card Players recently traded hands for $250 million in a private sale. The price would more than double the previous record for Giacometti's Walking Man, which sold for $104.3 million at auction. Read more at the Art Market Monitor. 

India's 2nd Annual Comic Con will feature recluse artist Robert Crumb, famous for pioneering the underground comix movement in the 1960s. The show will take place from February 17-19 in Dilli Haat and New Dehli on the heels of Crumb's ill-fated visit to Sydney, Australia, which he canceled after receiving brutal criticism in the local media. Visit the website here. 

Dorothea Tanning, Surrealist painter and wife of Max Ernst, died at the age of 101 this week. An exhibition of her work is currently on display at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Read more at The New York Times.