ESeffinga

Yup. Looks like it was painted on a blue line board. It’s like blue line inks, but in this case, painted blue line for colors. Look up who the colorist on the cover is and there you go. That’s who did that bit. Somewhere out there is the inked art too.

In my experience the migration of solvents isn’t super fast. Generally the kind of stuff you see over a decade rather than a few years. And the weird solvent staining is the kind of thing you see more readily in bright daylight. I suspect many people wouldn’t notice it right away. I should look and see if I still have any of the same old marker stuff in a portfolio somewhere. It might be interesting as a reference for the topic.

Pictures would help, but if you have a hand colored painting with a clear acetate overlay with the line art on it, then it’s probably a work from the late 80s to late 90s period. Before that time and the birth of the prestige format comic paper, print quality was too rough and lousy to reproduce painted comics properly. After that period; the need for shooting the art went away as the line would would be digitally applied over the painting, after being scanned. As to what it is, more than likely the art was drawn, inked and then someone possibly listed as the colorist in the book, or even the artist themselves depending on the project, painted the piece, with the intention of the ink work laying over the top of it. Different people had different methods for this. But the final product was intended to have the acetate laid over too and then the whole thing photographed for use as the printed piece. Whether for a cover or an interior page. The colors having been printed directly from the art you have. Sometimes colored light boxes over the pencils. Sometimes colored on a blue line of the art. Then the ink art overlay was applied on top for reproduction. - This is different from the much more common color guide, where the colorist would take a reduced xerox copy of the inked page and apply dyes to the art and then mark that up with the actual color codes for the printer to go by. And then there is the thing that very rarely exists, and that people all the type put up faked versions of which is actual printed acetate color plates. Real acetate plates would be a registered set of 4. One in Cyan, one in Magenta, one in Yellow and one in Black. Each one has only the part of the color spectrum it takes to make up the mix of colors in the printed page. They are small, line the size of the comic. A printable size on your average household printer, and most of those can print on clear sheets, so enterprising comes artists love to fake them. Most do it wrong and do not print separations though, which is the first clue. All overlaid on each other they kind of look like something. Most of the real stuff doesn’t survive because it’s really just a byproduct of printing, and the materials it is printed on were never designed to be archival. It was designed to be run and thrown away. I wouldn’t want it near any of my art if I was interested in having any of the real separation plates. The chemicals on that stuff are not ideal. And as it relates to art, IMO it’s a more visually appealing version of having the typewriter ribbon off the typewriter that a given writer used to type the -script for the book. Or having his ink cartridge from his desktop printer. Or maybe less cool version of having a metal printers plate. Those are rare too, mostly because they’d get melted down and recycled into new plates, from what I have heard. - But if it is hand painted, or painted with an airbrush, it was colors by someone that were shot on camera and used to print directly from those colors. So the closest thing to color original art you get for some books. Examples of creators that have done work like that would be Lynn Varley for Frank Miller. Laura Allred has done a lot of pieces like that for Mike Allred. Mark Wheatley did some work like that for Marc Hempel. I’m sure there are many dozens of collaborators who’ve done work that way.

For those without memories of the 90s Original Art scene, there once was a time when Comic Art was sold in some niche brick and mortar art galleries. As I recall Mitch with Graphic Collectibles had one on NYC for a bit. 4 Color Galleries in NYC sold me some stuff incredible painted color pieces before they closed up shop. Bought art from McKean there. My Alex Ross Kingdom Come art came from them. My cover to From Hell was bought there, etc. Scott Eder was still running one up until COVID erupted. It used to be in Brooklyn, and then moved to Jersey last I checked. https://www.manacontemporary.com/editorial/scott-eder-gallery/ There used to be one in Georgetown in D.C. that did comic art and cartoon cels for a while. Now they weren’t super elitist suit and tie minimalist snobby affairs. They were sort of like any other local art gallery selling whatever local painterly talent they managed to represent, plus whatever other stock they could get their hands on. Just with a comic book angle. Most of them had “shows” where they would feature a certain release, or artist’s body of work. Much of it contemporary rather than vintage works. So that scene isn’t quite so incongruous as it might seem to modern eyes.

Apparently nothing, as it has been re-listed for sale. And for anyone new to the comic OA section of eBay and collecting in general that happens to be reading this... if you are not already familiar with comic production processes, stay away from this until you are 150% more familiar. The bulk of this separation/overlay stuff on eBay is totally made at home garbage, preying in an audience that just doesn’t know. And the bulk of the real stuff is mere curiosity trinkets. Very little of the real production material has much if any worth. There is the slimmest chance this is some kind of watercolor airbrush under painting with one of those black line transparencies under it. But who can tell, as there are no actual photos of the layers, and zip for worthwhile description. Both of which leaves me seeing the usual red flags.

To be fair to Bronty, I think that is probably the crux of what he is talking about. I really don’t know much about Magic, other than friends and some coworkers being into it for ages. Me calling it cardboard crack, and laughing as they would take runs from work on their lunch break every week to hit one of the shops in the area to buy booster packs, etc. And I loved looking at the cards, for the art. Hahaha. I was like the proverbial guy who liked reading Playboy for the articles. Hahaha. And I was seeing some familiar names from the comic art world in there, which filed my interest in seeing the cards. George Pratt did some. Jon Muth did some. R.K. Post did a few. Doug Gregory Alexander did one of my Deadman commissions for me way back when. Etc. So it was interesting for me to see those cards at that point and time. I think what Bronty is saying at least as far as Magic goes, that art has homogenized. And there is something to be said for that. Using the music analogy again, It’s not unlike the punk rock DIY era of bands just going for it. And once there is money in the thing and the super pro musicians show up, and there is middle management and investors and mess, the bands get too polished. It’s all too same/same corporate and that raw energy is lost. Less risks taken. Etc. I was coming at it from a comic standpoint, but just to educate myself, I’ve dug in just a little and looked at some of the more recent Magic card art offerings, and there really isn’t a huge swing in style or quality there anymore. Everyone is super good at their jobs, the art is printed so small, that seeing the character that may or may not be inherent in the originals is difficult in that art reduction has a tendency to tighten things up and make them look more polished and highly rendered. This robbing the pieces of some of that energy character and spirit. Plus it’s hard to be a snarling upstart, when your work is so technically advanced. He can correct me if I misunderstood. Like I said, trying to learn. Looking through the sea of fantasy art in 2020, I can certainly see where one would yearn for a level of that more “pure” innocence from an early work. Not unlike that of a child’s drawing exuding 1000% more joy and raw expression in the act of drawing than 100 pro works can ever provide. Magic has a name to protect, and they are less inclined to bring in someone as graphically different to what has become their house style like Jeffery Allen Love would be, when they have so many people painting (especially digitally) in such a polished similar vein. In some respects it seems a bit like the tiger eating its own tail. Or the stylistic copy of a copy of a copy that so often happens in art. The thing has consumed itself, with everyone looking at the art that is published and tailoring and refining their style to fit into what has become that editorial mold. So less like pulling art from someone like George Pratt (I remember his card art having a wonderful rougher primitive quality to them), and more leaning to someone like Doug Gregory, who always had a level of polish to his work. The content and stylization of which was always cool. But if everyone adopts a very similar work approach, the individualism gets lost in the mix? Thats enough, art-speak OT discussion from me. Back to auction talk.

Big Two spandex books maybe? Certainly not for everything as a blanket statement. Not by a long shot. Plenty of books taking plenty of risks. Printing processes and capabilities far exceeed what was reproducible in the old books. If anything there is sooooo much more variety now. In quality of work as well as production of that work. Just like in the old days when the radio dominated people's music experience, you had to dig for the alternative stuff. And were rewarded for it. Just my .02¢

I think you might be selling some of the new guys too short. There's certainly a ton of poo, like movies and music and any other creative endeavor. The more popular it is, the more folks try and get in on it. And the higher the quantity of people, the greater the volume of doo doo to be waded through. But I see a ton of talent out there. Some of it well known. Some of it I rarely see much of a mention about it. Alas, to pick on Gene again, a lot of this goes back to something he has harped on before. The subdivision and volume of culture and content. In the past when we had 5 TV channels, 2 major comic companies, and a handful of record companies, there were generations of us largely listening to the same things. our interests as a society had a ton of crossover. And without that now, it really is easy for great work to get lost in the din. I'd also argue that some of what made certain properties great was the idea behind them, more than the visual representation they put forward. Especially since so many were started in basements and small operations of a few friends at the beginning. No money to pay artists, or even an immature belief that their work was good enough for a final product.

That’s really all I wanted to know. The significance. There had to be something to it, or it wouldn’t be what it is. Like very early comic and D&D art, before someone realized that comics/games had real worth and started putting trained artists to work on it. Most of the art at the beginning is hot garbage, but there are many people willing to spend crazy $ on straight up amateur drawings if they have enough fond memories of the product it was used for, creating that supply/demand spark. Historic value. I’m learning. It’s not for me, but it’s certainly fascinating to see. On some level it’s like the commercial art version of Piero Manzoni. Someone had to be first. And the work sells, so... Although I dunno that many are nostalgic for Manzoni? Maybe Gene?

For the uninitiated, what are we looking at here (besides a painting that looks straight out of Jr High art class of course)? Im assuming some form of Magic card or something, but no copy up at that Heritage link. From an early set I presume, since so much of the art in later sets is so much more accomplished. Dumb old guys wanna know.

I think the term you are looking for is enabler. 😂 Happy Birthday Ankur. 🎈

It's not just the time it takes to go back and erase and redraw. Erasing can destroy the surface of the paper. Just ask an inker like Scott how erasing effects the smoothness (or tooth) of a paper finish and how that effects ink going down. Same goes with correction fluids or using white gouache, etc. They'll take the ink different than a fresh sheet. Depending on an inker's line, and how delicate the work at hand is, it can make a pretty big difference in how the final product comes out. Not having to contend with surface imperfections is probably a godsend for many. Especially when it means not having to deal with a heavy handed penciller who erases too much, and doubly so when that penciller is yourself.

And not all markers fade the same. Some just get a bit lighter gray. Some go purple. Some red or brown, etc. Everything dye based fades. It just does. Dyes are not 100% light fast. My wife did archival framing for almost a decade. We saw what real museum glass does and does not do. They like to tell people how it blocks 90whatever percent of UV and how it will protect the work, etc. But it isn’t foolproof. It isn’t perfectly secure. I don’t mean just keeping a dye based piece out of direct light. I mean out of any room that gets any kind of sun. Keep those pieces in darker hallways, rooms without windows. Make sure you only use LED bulbs around them, etc. If you have your museum glass piece in a dark hall, lit only by a single bulb, and that bulb happens to be fluorescent or incandescent, you might as well hang it in your window. As has been pointed out, fading differs. Both in speed and in intensity. The most insidious bit is it’s generally so slow, you don’t see the change day to day. But someone else that goes years without seeing it and then sees it again can. But here’s the part where I get a little controversial. I’m of the opinion that if the piece is protected as well as possible, and you love to see it and enjoy seeing it every day... and especially commissions or sketches... frame it. Let it fade slowly over time. But enjoy it. Getting daily enjoyment from those things IMO outstrips their historic value 9 times out of 10. Work done for publication is a little trickier moral dilemma. And a chunk of why I don’t own published marker work. I do have published water color pieces. Framed in museum glass, and most of these are hanging in my basement in rooms that see little filtered sun. My whole house was converted to LED bulbs a few years back. My last bit on markers, but Alex mentioned keeping them in the dark. The worst thing about them in my experience is the solvents they use as a vehicle for the dye. It is inherent in how they operate as a medium. Older markers are worse than new ones, but those solvents migrate and break down. Some will bleed out from under colors, causing the edges to look blurry, or ghosted. It leaving a light colored halo like a faint yellow on the edge of dark shapes. And they will migrate, as I mentioned before. Keep them away from everything. If marker sits directly on anything, like in a portfolio, being transported, stacked etc. Those solvents just go. I had a couple freebie marker drawings done by creators I didn’t really know. I Put them into a portfolio. About 5 years later, I needed room, so I tossed them into a single sleeve in that portfolio to save some space. About 20 years later I was cleaning stuff out of this portfolio and stumbled across the drawings. Pulled them out and was going to toss them in the trash. I noticed something weird though. I saw the drawing that was on top had transferred on the bottom piece. The bottom piece had a near perfect copy of the top drawing, but not in ink. In a very light yellow stain. It was the solvent that had leeched from one paper to the other. Then I noticed something else strange. That same yellow stain could be seen in the “acid free” Mylar sleeve. It had leeched into and discolored that as well. And the kicker was these weren’t some random markers the artists had used. I use to carry very specific acid free Bristol boards and expensive archival ink pens and permanent markers from Japan with me to shows for drawings and commissions I might get. These artists used my materials. And they failed. I had seen the old stuff go kablooie before, but not any of the modern technically advanced archival pens. That was when I first realized it was universal. All those companies like to use those words, but everything fades. Even some pigment based art materials fade. Certain colors especially. Irregardless... just be aware. That is the whole thing, IMO. Go in eyes open. Know what can happen, and be happy if it doesn’t, or just be happy if you don’t notice. Whichever. P.s. Museum glass and some of the UV glass really does help slow down fading. My point in bringing it up is to make sure people realize it dulls the effects, it does not stop it. There isn’t any stopping it. And not just UV light (which is for sure the worst) but any light has an effect. But it’s a heck of a lot better than nothing.

Fixed that for you...

I’m not aware of any dye based pen/marker that is permanent. Fade resistant, sure. Permanent? Nah. Nothing like a pigment based ink like India, etc. Copics seem to be everyone’s favorite, art wise, and it says right in their site that they will fade with UV exposure. I’ve seen a number of companies using UV resistant dye based inks, but all do fade given enough time. What’s more, my issue with markers is also solvent issue as well as the fading. The solvents can and do often “migrate” given enough time. They can leach out of the paper onto anything around them, including plastics. I’ve personally experienced this from my own pieces that were “permanent”. But that’s just my observations. I’m sure some folks are living with marker art on their walls. I just wouldn’t do it personally, based on my personal experiences.

Maybe just really into Furry culture?

I think he means the trash can sitting next to the sofa. You can see what looks like the knot in the trash bag. And as far as the apartment goes, you cant tell from the pic exactly what that apartment looks like. It's a corner of 1 very minimalist room. The place could be a modernist palace. I mean look at that absolutely huge yellow abstract painting on the wall. I wouldn't be surprised it it was 7ft square +, based on it's placement over the side table. Huge ceilings. But hey, what do I know... please keep right on talking trash to the guy with the bajillion dollar collection. I'm sure he cares!

Mine is one of the very few pieces that I never bothered to frame, for this very issue. In fact most of the time I refuse to buy marker art for fade and the other issues tied to markers. But this was one of those situations where Timm only used markers for these pieces, and there's really no alternative. And in this case it was such a desire to have a fun Timm with these characters, that I overruled my no marker stance on this one piece. I ended u selling the other Timm pieces. I just didn't want a bunch of marker art.

Sooooo Soopy moves, Charlie falls down stairs. Snoopy has teleported to the top of the stairs?

My now wife, did one of the Silverfish pieces back when we were still dating. There was a collection of Literary based commissions (authors and subjects). Aunt May was already (Un)covered. ...shudder. There was the super heroines knocked out or passed out guy. The Julie Newmar guy. The superheroines in scuba gear guy. Enrico was getting Frank Zappa commissions. Once upon a time we all had our own theme commissions websites. All before there was a CAF.

Yeah, I don’t care one way or the other, really. I was just pointing out the board at large regularly discusses much more expensive works at roughly the same size all the time, and was a little surprised to see a couple Negative comments about its size. On a comic art board of all places. Struck me as ironic, is all.

Is it really small? I mean modern comic art board is usually 11”x17”, and most of it has a visual area of 10”x15”. So what, a comic cover can be a quarter mil and no one says boo about size, and this piece is 1/2” inch wider and 1/2” shorter, and for “near” 6 figures it’s too small? Meh. Is what it is. I have some Belial books on my shelf. Don’t think much of this, personally, but I don’t like most of the other 6-fig comic covers either. It’s all good.

Comics took decades to get to this point tho. Pokémon took what, an afternoon?

5 years ago... https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.artnet.com/market/tintin-breaks-1-million-at-sothebys-paris-349364/amp-page yeah, technically it’s a 2 page spread , but it’s just panels, it a splash... you get the gist.

Templesmith was never trying to be Bill S. He is miles short of that level of drawing craft, IMO. He did make a pretty good go at doing a more cartroony version of Ashley Wood circa 20-25 years ago, before he finally settled on his own iteration of that look. (Ashley wood grew massively in this same time, and his drawing skill set is incredible at times.) Ben’s work is heavily finished on the computer. Not just coloring, but tons of photoshop textures and grunge to add character and some sense of polish to his crusty line work. I’ve found him hit and miss. His originals range from pretty cool to exceedingly sparse and baring little resemblance to the published work. I generally find his original art looks bare and super simplified in not a very appealing way (to me). Often like the work of super talented kid right out of art school. Still pretty still and stilted, but with a unique sense of style. There have been some pieces that I liked the look of a lot, but then the bang for the buck part of my head kicks in and I realize there is a LOT of art I like better for the money. Hence why I’ve never owned any of his work. I haven’t seen anything new from him in the last 10 years or so, other than a piece he did for an art gallery show, that the gallery refused to hang and sent back to him, because it wasn’t of a professional quality to be hung with the rest of the work in that group show. Let that sink in....