Eric Seffinga

Looked through a bunch more of these covers today, and I gotta admit I am really digging this one by Stelfreeze. I'm not entirely surprised.

So when Batman is running around in the snow at wintertime (or mud, or dirt or whatever) he leaves Bat-prints, so they strike fear in to the hearts of the villains (or so they can figure out which way he went?) That reeks of ...

How to Paint the Gathering, the Magic Way! Who uses the Magic Method?

HAH!

There you go... some concensus!

Again, you're trying to pigeonhole me in a way that doesn't really fit. If it makes you feel better, I'm fine with that though. Sometimes I do like prelims more than published pages, and sometimes I like the published pages more. It depends on the artist, the work in question, etc. But I buy and like work based on whichever appeals to me. I don't tend to like commissions. I used to do a lot of that sort of thing, but it wasn't where my heart really lies. It might be helpful to see my CAF, if you've never looked. It's not even close to everything, but it's an example. Compared to what folks on CAF are into, I like the dark, offbeat and weird stuff. I've always said, I am an anomaly on this board compared to most. I've had a lot of hero stuff over the years. Some really neat stuff. A couple Kirby covers & some interiors, Neal Adams Brave & Bold Bats and Deadman pages, Alex Ross Marvels and Kingdom Come pages, etc. And I went through a period a decade and a half ago when I had a metric ton of themed commissions like Chris has. But I felt that urge and interest pass, and I eventually moved on. Over time I kepts the stuff that continued to fascinate me years later, and sold off a lot of stuff worth a WHOLE LOT more now than I ever sold it for. I'm good with that. I also still really really enjoy seeing those things and more. I ahve a pretty huge appreciation for most art. Even for things that don't personally appeal to me. Just don't feel the motivation to own them. A lot of stuff I'm perfectly happy looking at the printed books for instead. I'd bet most folks here couldn't be bothered to even look at my collection for more than a few minutes. I'm good with that too. I discover new amazing things in pieces I've owned for more than 2 decades all the time. http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryDetail.asp?GCat=7723 I'd say half my collection now is printed work, but printed in art monographs rather than comics and graphic novels. I grew up as an artist, and I've always approached work with an eye in that field. I never fit in as a straight ahead comic collector either, for what it's worth. I bought and read all my comics. Never cared for bags and boards, and wouldn't know what the hell a key is if it slapped me in the face. I'm in it for the stories, and to feel something or be inspired. not so much for the "collector" side of things. I would rather have a nifty Alex Toth, Jeff Jones or Frazetta pencil prelim drawing than an finished McFarlane "key" cover. Simply because the McFarlane doesn't do it for me aesthetically and the Toth piece likely would. If it had to be Spiderman, give me Moebius' poster art. And from the flipside, I'd rather have a great finished and published Walt Kelly Pogo strip over a highly detailed Jim Lee Batman prelim, or something of that sort. Though the street values on those are probably a lot closer together. For me it's all by gut reaction, instinct and interest. And for the sake of argument, I might very well actually prefer a commission of EWJ over one of those published box art pieces. I bet Felix Fine Art could arrange for a pretty incredible James Harren piece if I was so inclined. I know he could totally bring it. But would I like that more than what I have from Doug TenNapel? Hard to say. In my house the walls are to the point that I won't buy a piece unless I love it enough to knock something else off the wall. I know, it's crazy to folks with portfolios full of work (and I used to do that too), but it's my way now. Anyway, I'm done talking about what motivates me. I've done my best to explain it. People that know me generally get it. I'm sure most collectors think of me as a wingnut. It's all good. I know who I am and how I fit into things, and how I don't. My apologies to anyone that read all that. And for dragging the thread down in whatever this is. Back to Magic cards... I think George Pratt's Fatal Blow is pretty great. I had to look that one up. I knew he had one I really liked back then. It's super dynamic, and effective. There are a lot of heavily rendered Magic cards I don't like nearly as much. So there! Heh.

Hah. Right?!?

Seems you misunderstood my statement. That's what I get for being brief and trying to keep the thread on topic. Gotta love the internet... You said the work being published is key. I disagree that it is key to my own preference in EWJ art. I like Doug's work (EWJ and otherwise) because I think it contains much of what the over rendered stuff I've seen (much of it) doesn't. And there are tons of guys that have done EWJ work in some capacity or other. Some good. Some pretty great. From working on the games, promo images, the toy line, clothing, etc. You indicated that he is more a "creative guy" and the best was created by others. I disagree. That's perfectly ok. We all like what we like. We haven't all seen the same things. That's good too. Variety and all that. There is a lively loose line quality present in Doug's designs and development work. The humor and gags are certainly present in many of the published pieces, but I quite like the loose unrefined quality when applied to the character. I personally tend to like that more, irregardless of whether you or anyone else have seen that work, published or not. Hence my throwaway line about not collecting based on what's known or popular. That's not the basis of my art interests. It's the art. I like what kicks me in the gut. That I have a visceral attraction to, or that really drives my brain. Sometimes it's work that's hard to like, or that takes some mental unpacking and living with it. Not all of it, or even most of it has been seen by the populace at large. I also have and love work that's been used all over the place and is very widely known. The source and it's dissemination as pop culture, fine art or otherwise doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I don't like art for the name of the artist attached, or the brand, or how popular it is, or even in most cases for any nostalgic ties to it. I like a piece of art or an artist because I like the art and it elicits a response from me. Pretty simple. It's not a judgement against you or anyone else, or what anyone has or hasn't seen, or their personal tastes. To me it's not key to my being drawn to it. I am merely expressing my own opinion based on what I have seen and hence like/love/prefer. Some artists or styles or pieces I like go against the norm. I'm used to that. Hopefully that accounts for all my statements so far, and we can move along? Wasn't aware that art discussion was a fight. I didn't even bring a pen.

Key to who? Not to me. I collect what I like, not what's known or popular. Pretty much my thing.

Not published work, anyway... Fair points all around. As for MTG, it was never my thing. I had a few close friends that were HUGE into playing, collecting, deck building, etc. I saw all their cards. It be came a ritual. I got to see anything new they picked up, cause I liked to see the art. Turned me on to some new names, and I got to hook them up with info on some of the others who came over from the comic side of things. It was good times and great memories. I used to call their obsession "cardboard crack". They went shopping for cards at least once a week, hitting different retailers, etc.

Oh, I know the difference. I bought some of Doug's art from him directly when I first met him out at SDCC back in the 90s. I actually tend to prefer his more organic work to the polished stuff, (in the way that folks might prefer Frazetta to Ken Kelly for instance) OK so that might be a huge stretch, but first thing that came to mind. You get the drift.... but that's for another thread. I was actually responding to phantalien's comments about the game and non-comic more than anything.

Doug TenNaple is a creative force, and a character, that is for sure!

You're a funny guy....

I saw this recent John Paul Leon commission today, and my first thought was I'd take it over any of the DK III covers I've seen so far. I daresay it was a lot cheaper than them all, as well.

Or if the store has a web presence, and people order them from the individual stores. Most artists posting about their variant are posting where it is to be available from. But as you say, the regular cover is going to be what is remembered if anything is.

Darwyn's Lantern is KEEN!

Well there's that... Personally I thought DKII was so horrible, I couldn't finish reading it. That alone would make me leery, and if I even saw one of these covers I might have been be interested in (nothing yet), it would probably put me off of wanting it anyway. Couple that with how many there are, and yeah, this whole manufactured event is of zero interest to me. I didn't get into the foil and glow in the dark nonsense in the 90s, and I'm not into it now. Give me something great to read. Wow me with content, not volume of creators you get to do your first issue. I'm all for artists getting paid to do cool work, and I get they are all fans of that original series. I am too. But this is not necessarily that. I couldn't throw an internet cat photo and not his a creator on Facebook who isn't debuting a new DKIII cover on Facebook. And getting paid to do what is essentially pro "fan art" is a win win for them, but not so much for the goofuses they are hoping to sell these too. Of course, if there was a piece of art that knocked me on my , and I just had to have forever and ever and price be damned, that could all go out the window. That is my only criteria for buying something these days. I just don't see any of these DK pieces striking me that hard. To me they are more in the realm of well done commissions. It's just instead of a fan commissioning them, it was DC. But I wouldn't think of them being published as equating more value at all in my mind. To me the factors are, Who did it? How badly do I want it? What's it worth to me? Is there something else I'd rather spend that same money on? Done! My .02¢

As much as I love Glenn's work on a lot of covers, if I was to pay out for a cover, it'd be for one of maybe 4 or 5 specific Hellblazer covers rather than something from Preacher.

Yeah, but at least he left a more accurate descriptor of what the seller's shoveling out there into the world, so others checking his feedback will see it. Better than nothing. I'd have contacted the seller and voiced my displeasure first. If he told me to pound sand, I'd have contacted eBay. I don't really think they'd do much without the proper communication, because eBay has long been more interested in making and keeping sales than accuracy in listings. Though if they are anything, they tend to be more on a buyer's side than a sellers, so some hope there. At any rate, if I contacted the guy and he fobbed me off, I'd hit him with the neg for sure. But I'd at least have given him a chance at a refund and saving his rep. Though in retrospect, that wouldn't have done as much for the greater good, as the Neutral and the note does others more service than if he'd sent the money back.

and beyond.

I've kind of been sitting in the back of the room following this guy's BS for a couple weeks now. Listening to the conversations here and on Comicart-L, etc. My .02¢... CLEARLY Wozniak is trying to obfuscate exactly what he is selling for financial gain. And the problem as I see it is terminology and semantics. Both for buyers and for eBay. So lets say you make a claim that the item is a "reproduction". Seller says it is not a reproduction (copy, print, etc) it is original inks on paper. He is in the right. But it's all in the terminology. And I doubt eBay has any interest in educating their people in the nuances of original comic art and what constitutes what, re what is "original". Especially when a decent portion of experienced collectors themselves don't do due diligence before buying that work. If I was making a claim and leaving negative feedback, I'd tell eBay the guy is making tracings of drawings (sending an example of one of the the original pieces Wozniak is lightboxing) and then listing his tracings as original because he put ink to paper. That isn't to denigrate the work of inkers by the by. I have the utmost respect for their contributions. Clearly for the Rom piece in the OP, Wozniak did more than just ink the pencils. But it is the passing off of the original penciller's participation by including their name in the sales pitch that tosses the whole thing into a morass of terminology. Not unlike the whole Mike Royer inks via lightbox being Kirby "originals" via that BS mess with Richard Rae. Same deal. But telling eBay that the dude is selling tracings of other artist's work and selling as if they were involved in what he is auctioning via their site should clear that vocabulary hurdle up for them at least. Whether they give a mess... who knows? -e.

Gorgeous!

Link no workey. I think you posted one from inside your password protected account. Need an outside link for us plebs!

Beautifully organized. Especially love the "flat" shelves for storing oversized books. Very nice indeed.

I almost always prefer white, or at least an off white mat when white is too stark on against aged or toned papers. But definitely that over any colored mat ever. I know it's a personal thing, so everyone has their tastes. Mine are to let the art speak for itself and not turn the mat and frame into furniture for the artwork. In my early collecting years I did the whole color coordinated thing. Had a lot of work framed that way. And when I started decorating my new house with it, I realized I hated it. IMO the colors in the work pop more and stand alone in a relatively simple setup, instead of blurring the line between what is the art and what is the frame, when color coordination becomes too overwhelming. I've seen (and owned) some beautifully executed framing jobs with Triple coordinated mats, ornate wood frames and matching filets, etc and so on. But get several in a room together and it is a visual mess (IMO). At the time my wife was an archival certified framer and managed a few frame shops for about 6 years. We had access to anything under the sun, and the first couple years we went all in. Until I realized what a mistake all that was. Ask for advice, and most framers steer you toward the most overdone treatments and making the frame into an art object that is an extension of the artwork. They exercise their creativity onto the object you are framing. I prefer to celebrate the artist that made the art. Not have someone else attempt to extend that art into a holder that goes on the wall. But when I use the same color frame and roughly the same mats on everything the focus immediately shifts to appreciating the art in each piece, rather than the whole of the object hanging on the wall. The frames aren't intended to be the show in our house. It is the art within. Which isn't to say the frames are devoid of personality. In my case I've gone with black frames. But not all the frames are the same shape, style or even finish. The frames have been chosen for the pieces that go in them, but seen lined along a wall, they carry a visual continuity that I feel let's the art do the talking far more than my frame as furniture versions ever did. And so there was a lot I framed twice. Pricey realization, but worth the change. Still have a couple of the old frames lingering that need changing, now that I think on it. Anyway, I dig the Bats and that the whole image pops. If you have 4 or 5 framed pieces in B&w and this is your only color one, it might seem a little anachronistic, but the alternative will be even more so unless he is hung in a whole separate space. If you keep him as is, and add other color pieces using your same basic framing formula he will eventually fit right in......but that's just me.