Terry Doyle

I'll let you guys fight (well only Bronty it seems?) amongst yourselves, just wanted to peel this out. It's my big problem with this current MTG movement (vs. the older amateur hour stuff that's big bucks now). Anyway you cut it...it's D&D, no matter how well painted, how majestic in scope and drama. It's magic, dwarves, ogres, all that. And primarily posed like those gazillion OHOTMU illos from the eighties. Little to no narrative, all D&D all day long. I can't get past that (as a D&D is for dorks sort) and so the art, nice as it is, does not land in my collection. But Frazetta, Boris and Ken Kelly do. Less D&D, maybe?? So who knows, right? As far as I'm concerned, there's no fight here, just an exchange of opinions. It's all good and I find interest in most opinions being expressed. Your take on the MTG movement could equally apply to other stuff within the OA realm enthused about here, on CGC Forums.

(thumbs u

Thumbs up. Just being pedantic, here, y'know?

Demon With A Glass Hand Just in today . . . two more pages from the Marshall Rogers graphic novel adaptation of Harlan Ellison's famous Outer Limits teleplay: http://www.comicartfans.com/galleryroom.asp?gsub=164167 Included in this gallery are a selection of photographs myself and Lloyd Braddy took whilst visiting the Bradbury Building (where Demon was filmed) during my recent trip to Los Angeles. Big, big thanks to Felix Lu!

(thumbs u

I like. (thumbs u

btw, it may have been tongue in cheek but there was an element of 'the new art is so much better, look at the awesome newer art I have' as an undertone . . . That's your perception, Dan, not my intention.

It was a tongue-in cheek response.

Here's the original pencil prelim for Volkan Baga's 'Korozda Gorgon' (I own the finished painting, but sadly not the prelim). If memory serves me right, the prelim went for about $200 (I may be wrong)?

A 3 - 4 hours job?

Volkan Baga posted the following on his FB page, so I thought it might be of interest to replicate here: "Recently I was asked what sort of time-scale is involved with creating a MTG painting from start to finish. I thought it might be of general interest. Here is my answer: Creating art is different to lots of other professions where you can measure the effective working time in hours. E.g. a production line is running constantly and the handling/working must take place continuously. The period of time the machine is running is more likely the effective working time. You’re able to stop the time. Everyone can imagine this right away. It’s a bit different with my job. When I say that I work all day, it does not mean that I continuously swing the brush for 8 hours. While I indeed actually do paint most of the time, there are also moments in which I only stare at the painting for a while to make decisions how to proceed. There are moments when I sit down and respond to emails. There are small breaks in which I brew some tea, or feed the cat or pet him. There are moments in which I have a creative down and look for inspiration in books. There are moments where I think about options and ideas on the art. All this is part of my working day. And I see it as full time as I realize that the art absorbs the whole day, either mentally and physically. I usually start in the early morning with answering emails. Then I go over to my painting/sketch and work until dinner. Sometimes I add another hour after dinner to finish up some details and clean my brushes. I work from Monday to Saturday. On Sundays I take off, except when I'm a bit behind with my schedule. Some situations make me to work through the night. I always work on only one painting. I paint with fast drying mediums and also rarely in layers, so there is no need to fill in some time with other work while the paint is drying. Once a painting is done, I start with the next one. Multitasking does not work with me. For ideas, thumbnails, sketches, board preparation and collecting reference I usually need 1-2 days. For the paint job itself I need something between 5 to 25 days in the way of working as described above. The time depends on the complexity and size of the painting. More complex images with many characters and elaborate background need more time than simple compositions with a single character with a plain background. On average, however, it takes 8-13 days for the paint job. The max of 25 days are very rare. My Elspeth painting took that long. But that was also because of re-painting and revising some areas till I was completely satisfied with the result. You can’t really compare artists and their working hours. We all have different techniques, muses and grades of abstraction and detail. I might be on the slow side in comparison to other professionals. Actually when I mentioned my time-scale to a gallery owner in CA, she was very surprised how fast I work compared to the artists she represents. It’s all relative and individual. In the end, it all comes down to the impact of the piece. Art could not really be measured by the hours you put in. Moebius or Picasso had done mind blowing simple line drawings in just a few minutes, while other artists might had invested months on a piece that looked average in the end. Nevertheless, I do have to make a price tag. I don’t calculate it by hours. In most cases it’s an emotional and personal price. Some pieces are personally hard to let go, and that makes me to add the emotional let-off bonus. This is how I work right now. Things always change in time...."

Sure, I'm attracted to those images that strike an emotional and aesthetic chord with me. I'm probably an anomaly amongst those collectors of MTG art who have strong nostalgic ties with actually having played the game. Here, rarity of the published cards (and their playing strengths within the game) is likely to manifest itself into pushing-up demand/prices for the original hard-to-find key artworks that (as images) would otherwise do absolutely nothing for me.

I certainly wouldn't doubt that many artists do indeed exaggerate their production times. Good call, Vodou. Don't really imagine that Volkan's time-scales (his words, not mine) involve full 8 hour working days. The likelihood, as has been subsequently suggested, is that other works are being juggled in the schedule (assuming other paying gigs are on hand to keep the artist busy). Yeah, absolutely right, Dan. As long as the piece looks good, it's irrelevant how many man hours went into the work.

Link to Steve Belledin's blog which provides a fascinating insight into his creative processes: http://stevenbelledin.blogspot.co.uk/

Might be preferable to geeking-out over macho men in long underwear?

I take it by your last sentence that you're referring to digital artists "(churning out art) in a manner of hours or couple of days"? I sometimes correspond with German artist Volkan Baga, who contributes (traditional) oil paintings to MTG. Out of curiosity, I asked Volkan earlier about the time-scales involved in producing his work. Here's the response I received (which might be of interest as an insight): "Hi Terry, . . . there are pieces that I’ve spent around a week, but also pieces that took me 4 weeks to finish. But my average ones take me around 10-15 days."

agree totally, would also note re special effects that the Ajani art linked above seems to be using a lighting effect around the face similar to what you would see digitally. i.e. almost seems like the art did exactly what we are talking about on that piece. On the Original Magic Art web-site, they regularly showcase latest works. Sometimes I could swear that I'm looking at traditionally painted artworks, only to learn (as a footnote to the image) that the art was created digitally. Steve Belledin has an on-line blog presence in which he outlines his creation processes (well worth checking-out, fascinating stuff). Steve paints traditionally, but creates digitally-produced prelims.

That's the kind of incentive I had in mind. If there's good money to be made on resale of physical OA, why not give it a try?

'Tarzan at the Earth's Core,' 1962, 18" x 11". I remember that one being offered in Russ Cochran's Comic Art Auction # 56, December 2, 1998. I guess Doc Dave was the buyer directly from Russ? Russ explained: " . . . The painting was completely finished and ready to sign when Frazetta decided that he could make the paint dry faster if he placed it in a warm oven. Not only did the paint dry faster, the illustration board developed a curl. In an attempt to straighten it by flexing the board backwards, a crack developed in the illustration board which runs horizontally through Tarzan's armpit and his right knee. He hurriedly painted a second version of the painting to send to Ace for their cover. He mounted the original painting on Masonite and touched up the crack himself, also adding colour to the sky area. He signed the painting at lower right and gave it to his friend Vern Coriell."

Yeah, a lot of the art nowadays is created digitally (though enough traditional painters to keep OA collectors happy). Wonder if the strong sales results for physical OA will entice the digital guys to make the move back?

Awesome, thanks!

Fascinating, thanks for posting. I got into the MTG art a few years ago, not having played the game (so no nostalgia involved). Just like the art (which is a refreshing change of pace for me)..

Pretty sure this is one of two pages I used to own. Far as I'm aware it was published in Italy (yes, in English), much later than the 1960s. Artist is Alberto Giolitti.

Night-vision goggles are the way of the future for OA collectors! No worries about harmful UV lighting effects . . . just display your art in a totally blacked-out room! Photo shows a collector of G.I. Joe art admiring his collection . . .

Nice page, though the frame's looking a bit worse for wear . . .