ESeffinga

Most of it. The only walls in my home without art on them are in the 2 small bathrooms with showers in them, for obvious archival reasons, and the kitchen walls covered by cabinets. There is original art everywhere. I have spent the last 12 years hyper-curating the work that my wife and I have accumulated. I began the process of totally repainting the interior of the house in 2008, with an eye on making it a cohesive whole, with rooms that act as individual galleries, but all interact well together as the whole thing is viewed. Granted, only a portion of the collection is comic art, but many of the paintings are by people who were once part of comics, made comics, or have been inspired by comics in some way. And most importantly, it doesn’t feel like a teenager/man-child’s bedroom. Or look like a cold modernist art gallery. It is our home, that presents art in a simple concise manner. Frames are all necessary variations on black frame, white mat variety. The pieces are presented as art and not kitsch. And there is enough variety that there’s usually something for everyone in the house. It may not be the typical suburban home with an abstract painting over the sofa that matches the drapes, but it feels homey to us. Even in its occasional idiosyncrasies. I remember the days of having 80% of the work in portfolios. In fact, my collection was VERY different then. It was when we started framing more and living with the art on the walls that 2 distinct things happened to the collection. 1.We quickly realized that we liked a lot of what was in the portfolios, but we didn’t love that work so much that we wanted to see it in a frame. 2. Living with the work we did love so much as to want to frame it, was life altering it great. Seriously so. Inspiring. Downright gleefully so. Despite what was suggested elsewhere recently, not only have we not tired of it. It’s grown even more precious to us. Sure there have been a few pieces over that 12 years that have eventually gone away and been replaced by something else. But that happens soooooo much less now. And I get goosebumps when I walk around and just soak it all in. No matter where I go in the house there is something inspiring. Right this very minute, in front of me is a large oil painting by Kent Williams that I have owned and had hanging on my wall for at least 22 years now. I wouldn’t trade it away for anything. I love this view. For me, it sure as s#it beats those years of looking at a wall, and every once in a while going to the closet shelf so I could get out a portfolio and flip through some pages, to get enjoyment from what I have. For me, the joy of art isn’t the owning of a thing. It’s the interaction between my eyes and my brain, and my heart, and that often unquantifiable feeling I get when looking at it. The best pieces keep giving and giving, and the more years I get with them, the more time I experience them, the more their worth has been in my life. -e.

I meant to add, that little table cost me maybe $150? I think it was less. Spook cabinets much less in demand than other flat files.

I’m assuming you are using the archival Conservation Crescent matboard option from that site? The first matboard option they list isn’t going to be acid free, and will likely cause issues down the line.

I'll start off by saying, if these were comic pages, or pretty much any kind of art other than what they are specifically, I wouldn't suggest this method of storage for anybody. File this one under a specific solution to a specific need. I've had an art collecting issue that has bugged me for quite some time. My wife and I have had a personal a frame it/hang it or we don't keep it policy in place for the last decade or so, regarding art. I've explained my thinking on the subject in the past, but suffice it to say, it's just how I've personally chosen to curate my collection, and it generally works for me. My one conundrum is drawings, and collages by one specific artist. I have many of them. A lot of them I buy. A few of them have been gifts. The artist in question is Phil Hale, as I'm sure comes as zero surprise to any that have seen my CAF gallery. The issues have been plentiful. Obviously I'm not selling off gifts given to me by my friend. I also don't want to unload what are some terrific gems of linework. And yet it would be impossible to have the wall space to keep it all out. Especially with walls as tightly curated and covered as my own. Additionally, the pieces are all different sizes. Big, small, some aren't even rectangles, much less a standardized size. And presenting them and storing them in a simple portfolio in the closet feels anathema to my current standing on the art I own. So what to do, what to do? For a long time I'd thought about getting a flat file and refurbishing it to make it into a coffee table for the living room. But the issue is they are just too large to feel right in the space. Way overkill for my needs. So a couple years ago I started casually looking for other answers. I looked into type/letterpress cabinets. Industrial & small shop cabinets. Especially with an eye towards antique storage cabinets and flat file type things, just smaller. Discovered that with the industrialization of manufacturing came a whole host of these kinds of store displays and cabinetry. Mostly in the period from the mid 1800s into the early 1900s. And that's what I'd ultimately set my mind on finding. Just the right thing at the right size to house the drawings and photo collages I have. And so last fall, I eventually came across a Victorian era spool cabinet. These were displays and furniture, created to hold thread for sewing. Some spool cabinets were made for stores, to hold product for sale, often branded with the name of the product stenciled onto the wood. Others were furniture designed for home sewing use. The piece I have is the latter, but it is very similar to the former in construction. Mine is a small mahogany "table", about 30" across, and 21" deep, and 30" tall. No frills, but good solid wood. When I purchased the table in November, it had a piece of green felt inlaid in the top. It was obvious that this was a replacement for the original top inlay. Those were often leather, but would dry out and crack/split, so felt was an easy substitute. I've seen this a lot in "antique" furniture repair from the 1960s onward. The drawers were all raw wood, with little strips of wood tacked into them to hold spools in rows. I did the work over the break between Christmas and New Year. I first removed the spool strips, so I had good clean square drawers. I re-glued a couple of the ones that felt a little loose from old dried out glue seams. Once the thing was in good working order I turned my attention to the interior. My first consideration was that the cabinet is wood. Sure it's over 140 years old, so much of the wood sap/acid has catalyzed over that time period. But still, it's paper I'd be sticking in there. I did quite a bit of research on how to minimize issues, and ultimately decided on lining the cabinet with archival Japanese book binding fabric. I cut strips of aluminum to match every side and bottom of every drawer. This thing was hand made, so none of the sizes were exactly identical. Once I had a good lining base for every drawer, I coated it with acid free book binding paste, and adhered the book fabric to it. Then I glued that down to the wood drawer using acid free glue (not unlike good old Elmers). Then in went each side, and then the front and back liner for each drawer. One at a time. And then I did the inside of the top, which hinges, not unlike an old school desk. I lined the bottom and sides, and also the underside of the top, though that last bit was purely decorative. In the top, where there was originally the felt, I stripped the inlay area back, and replaced it with a very thin goat leather, which was glued down in it's place. It looks like it was always there. Fits like a glove. And so now I have this lovely odd bit of small furniture in my living room. Like an unassuming side table or something. But the drawers slide out and look luxurious. Inside, I have sorted and arranged stacks of my Hale drawings. Many of them are on paper from the same Victorian era as this table is from. Phil lives in London, and he loves the old decaying vibe of the paper, and the history and character it imparts on the pieces he draws onto it. The drawings are really not intended to last forever as permanent things. Like a lot of art, they are in many ways, a byproduct of process. And yet they also have their purpose, and continued purpose after the original is served. not unlike the table they are now housed in. I could have bought acid free archival photo storage boxes. And put in rice paper slipsheets. And wear gloves when I carefully took the archival boxes out of the closet, to review what was in them. But this option feels so much more in the spirit of the work. I've been living with it since January and love that people can visit, and look through the pieces. And it is a table on which I keep a linen bound scrapbook type book, with even more of the types of pieces in the cabinet. And it can be experienced. And lived with. And shuffled around. And I don't have to go dig it all out. It has it's own home. The top section can easily house pieces as large as 18" x 27". All 4 of the drawers are about 12" x 18" give or take. It did interest me that it could have held comic art very easily. Though there are more safe and practical ways to do that, as I said at the beginning.

Sounds to me like someone framing the wrong pieces.

I skimmed the proceedings. Everything I found in my searches of the names of the usual suspects I’m interested in was work that’s been available for a while.

If the postman seems a little nervous of you... greeting him at the door with what in essence is a scalpel might have something to do with it.

Still read (consume) comics. Don’t “collect” comics anymore. I’m digital only, unless the book really strikes a chord, and then I may pick up a hardcover copy for the shelf, when possible. Those are pretty rare though.

In this one instance that 0 feedback bidder could very well be from a very well-heeled collector that happens to be “slumming” on eBay. Think of the Choe like Jim Lee getting Andy Warhol to do a Batman. Way way back when, David started out as a wannabe comic artist. More like the Comix guys than your run of the mill DC/Marvel sort. But that said, he was/is a huge comics nerd. A friend of mine who happens to be a colorist for Marvel now, introduced me to Dave at a Small Press Expo here in DC a bit over 20 years ago. Dave was there with his comic Slow Jams. Contrary to popular myth, he didn’t give them away. Anyhow, to keep this all related, Dave set up to do a commission each for my friend and I, for the princely sum of $100. I got my usual Deadman. My friend got his usual Batgirl. Dave has free reign. Both are still on CAF. I sold mine just before Dave became super famous for the Facebook deal. I was simply offing all my old DM commissions, and had moved on. Rico still has his Batgirl. Both were through Dave’s super sardonic lens. The Deadman mentioned Johnny Depp. Not because he looks like him, but because a move of the same name had just come out with Depp. He was likely disappointed. Heh. The Batgirl is more hilarious. Babs after Killing Joke. Everyone that saw it at the time was like, “that’s f’ed up”. 100% Choe. https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=375067 https://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=202770

They absolutely will take your money for the high value of insurance. They won’t pay a claim if you file it though. The cap is what they will pay out For art, if you file a claim. They will tell you to read the fine print on what you purchased. So there’s that. I’ve lost count of the number of wood art crates I’ve unpacked over the years. But it’s been a few. I do remember the first one felt pretty surreal. Now, it’s just part of getting art in.

My thought as well. Besides, he’d have so much more money for manufactured collectibles by not buying OA. Printing out Heritage scans and framing for your collection room is a great way to display the source material, without having to spend for it. And dare I say, most folks that get the OA bug Tend to put their money, time and focus into it, vs all the doodads and trinkets he is showing off. If he sold the bulk of that stuff, he’d have $ and space for a pretty respectable collection of OA.

Vodou, angling for more friends.

Me as well. We may joke about things like "opportunities" or making the best of the situation. The truth is, the longer this goes on, more and more will experience this thing for themselves, and much closer to home than some random numbers on whatever news they read.

Jim Lee publishes pages just went up 10%

Depending on organization and method, I think a virtual comic con is a grand thought. Given that they’ve been happening in a disorganized way every year, since the beginning of the internet, a genuine organized version would be fascinating.

You just noticed? I’m wearing the same shoes, so... I don’t judge.

Kent Williams Foul Weather Mask 40” x 40” oil on canvas

Ah, so it’s not comic art. I think most of us were assuming it was, given the venue here and where it was taken from. I certainly made assumptions to that effect. Wiki says Sunbow productions and Marvel Studios produced the original show. No idea who owns the property now, other than Hasbro, and since they give them credit throughout, that might be good enough for them. Certainly the animation team never gets credit in these situations, which is a shame. As to the use of your photo of the cel setup, yeah. I dunno. I still fall on the fence with it. It’s certainly your shot. They should have absolutely contacted you up front for usage. And in point of fact, they might have gotten a higher res image out of you, unless what is up on CAF was super high res, and done a credit for you in exchange. That’s (un)common courtesy. In any rate, if you wanted to send them an email letting them know you know, and angling for a photo credit after the fact, why not? I very sincerely doubt you’ll see any monetary compensation. You’d have to sue for it, and that’s gonna all go to the lawyer and then some. Tout it on CAF, animation forums and the Brony board or wherever if you like. I would think that if it was a screen used cel in the original show, that gives it way more star power (value) than that it appeared for a couple seconds on a throwaway nostalgia trip show after the fact. I dunno anyone will ever be nostalgic for a nostalgia show. I also doubt the show runners are swimming in cash, or getting bank from Netflix for the programming. I think it’s filler fare. Just my .02€

Eventually. Will it look the same? That’s the question.

Actually it does, as he was (presumably) in essence making a copy for something he does not own the copyright to. i.e. the artwork in question. So technically, he made an illegal copy, and they pilfered it. Personally, I think this is a legal Ouroboros, and as I said before, be careful of what you wish for. I always find it fascinating when people that buy a piece of work feel that they are somehow entitled to ownership beyond just that of the physical object, which I imagine is all that was purchased here. Did Netflix do a shady thing? For sure. Should they be reprimanded? Yeah, why not. Easiest thing would be court of public opinion. Post what they did on social media, and let them reap what they’ve seen. Chopping off the OPs watermark is a jerk move. That said, I can’t repeat this strongly enough. Taking what I presume was a picture of a piece of work with no indication of the photographer’s involvement, and only showing the work of the actual artist, with a ghosted name added in the margin is at best a copy of that artist’s work. I don’t get to throw the page on a xerox machine, and then claim the xerox is my art, then copy that in perpetuity to make comics simply because I pushed the copy button. If I was to sign that xerox, and then claim authorship of the work, the folks on this board would have me up on a pike for being a fraudster. But then that’s what folks are digitally instigating here right? The OP should claim the image as his because he scanned it? If the photo in question is of the OPs home, with art framed on a wall, then that is one thing. If it’s in a portfolio, or something else about it is more than a mere copy of the original, also something else. Simply making the original art digital, via camera vs scanner isn’t going to be sufficient grounds for it to be transformative, and thus the work of the OP, any more than my hitting the button on the copier would be. Even Richard Prince at least enlarged the Instagram posts before putting them on the gallery wall. He had a (horrible) argument of saying the work was transformative. As I understand it, the aggrieved party here, if there is one, should be the artist/publisher. Were I them, I’d seek to find out how my art came to be used inappropriately. I’d start with Netflix and work backward from there. If I was the OP, If anything, I’d at least hesitate a bit before kicking that particular nest. I’m no lawyer, but as somone who follows IP rights as closely as I am able for work reasons, and an over abundance of interest as an art fan, and amateur art law “fan”, I don’t see where the OP did anything but put his watermark over the artist’s work. Is that enough “transformative” in the digital age? Hell if I know. But I don’t think so. Honestly, maybe I’m totally wrong, but I personally never would think it was mine to claim damages for. If anything, I’d be more fired up about the actual artists being compensated, rather than thinking of myself. Reminds me of the guy that was thinking about suing for damages cause a piece of art he paid for was used for a print. Don’t care if it was commissioned, unless he had unique narrative input, which he didn’t. Just a series of other people’s IP and other artists’ actual artwork, that was then copied by an unscrupulous dealer. Did the situation stink? For sure. Did the OP of that thread have real claim for damages? Not in my mind. Or here either. A lot of folks think because they bought a physical work, they are involved in other avenues of ownership, and that just boggles my mind. Such as it is. -e.

It’s different if you are taking a composed photo. That is of your own making. It’s a different thing to take a shot of someone’s art, and then hold your hand out to get paid. In general at least. They didn’t use his photo because he took it, or how artfully it was shot. They used the photo because of what it was of. If someone owes anyone, they owe the artist/publisher, depending on who’s work it actually is.

Without specific details it’s hard to say exactly the right course. There is a somewhat tangentially related lawsuit out there in the world, between some street artists and Mercedes, last I read. I say tangentially because in that case Mercedes is claiming that since they took theit photo from a public street, the art in the photo is essentially theirs to use. The artists claim is that Mercedes was clearly using their art in the background to add street creed in their ad campaign, and that they were neither consulted or paid. I bring it up because if you were to claim ownership of the photo, the actual artist/publisher could claim ultimate ownership of the image. Your taking of the photo wouldn’t hold a lot of water. Personally, I’m with R2Y on this one. Let it be, and crow about it on CAF in the description. You’ll get a lot more good out of it than chasing Netflix down a legal rabbit hole. And you might not like where it goes.

I wanna see em in full. It was a dong move on his part, (so much pun) but for an outsider it does make for an entertaining tale. I had so many artists burn me over the years on commissions, but it was back when they were still quite cheap. So I count myself lucky it was never to this degree. I can say that when it was still quite “new” I was seething about those commissions. But over time I’ve come to laugh at the ridiculousness of it all. Hopefully some day you will look at them without the shame or irritation, and they’ll be something to just chuckle over.

For what it’s worth, there are a great many artists that feel this way. When one is young, and learning, the goal is to be able to draw what you see effectively. From some people, this encompasses their entire career, and they never grow beyond this. But for some artists, they have put in so much time, and have such a mastery of their technique and visual acuity, that the drawing, painting, etc are simply the means to an end. Nuts and bolts. The real work for them becomes the thought that goes into the work, the developing of the kernel of an idea, and plotting out the direction the final piece, or show will take. Of course most of them still leave a certain element of chance in the execution of the final pieces, or continue to hone and refine them as they go. But the real chore, is in that initial period. Once they crack that, they pull on the overalls and execute. They can often see the prelims in the way that comic art collectors see the pencils. The more desirable of their efforts, and where the real magic is. Of course, they are still beholden to the market. And the market wants bragging rights on the final, by and large. So the market dictates what it does, and some artists just keep their prelims, and early studies. Or sell them as a means of not ending up buried under a lifetime’s worth of work. There is a world of difference between a thumbnail, a rough pencil study. A tight drawing, etc. and the price reflects this generally. I have always treated it as a case by case basis, in my own internal sliding scale. Or someone slaps trade dress on it, and it’s an “unused cover”. Heh.