vodou

1988 Donruss Gregg Jefferies http://blog.squeezeplaycards.com/?p=6

Correct. I can't get past the context. Too heavy-handed (for me) to ignore. Which is why the argument of comic art ending up in permanent museum collections alongside other Post-WWII Art, when the majority of gatekeepers/tastemakers are not rabid comic book collectors...doesn't hold water

Did we really need to draw the teenage Carrie with nipples? It bugs me when artists do this for no good reason Artists known for their sexy women are going to (tend to) draw all women sexy. Even chubbies and non-humanoid aliens. And so? Much larger debate for other forums (fer sure), but until the post-WWII era, this idea of post-menses 'underage' didn't really exist. Presently it's just an arbitrary number chosen, a legal line in the sand, not as if there's some sort of magic that happens physically/mentally at age 16, 17, 18...the year the 'magic' happens all depending on which state you're in?? Not making any sort of argument on that subject here, just that it's not as big a deal to everyone as some folks might assume. We all know the average age that female menses begins...that is the real physical change signalling -at a minimum- physical maturity. The rest just follows. And before we bash up Biz too hard, maybe...somebody should mention to the parents of all those teens at the mall...they'd be doing their daughters a favor if they dressed them 'up' as much as even Carrie. Most wear much less. And tighter too. No matter what any of us thinks, the culture seems to be moving younger and younger, sexier and sexier, with little regard for the legalities (that aren't moving) or the fact that it seems people have very different opinions when it's their daughter on displays vs. "teenagers". Ya know? At least she isn't facing the other way I think the issue is more that Carrie Kelley is a very non-sexualized 13 year old in DKR. That's kind of rare in comics and it kinda takes away from the character to give her D-cups. Not that I care. For all I know, he could be drawing the character as she appears in DKIII. But I doubt it. Yes that is actually the issue for me. Not discounting the comments about kids at the mall (no arguments on your point), just seems like this is a sexualization of something for no reason - there are plenty of female characters who have this built in - can't you just leave it for those? Why do we have to draw nipples on a kid to draw attention to a story/character which is already good and getting massive attention? We can see the smallest ab muscles in Batman, but of course not his nipples. Just makes me annoyed I think because the hobby already has so much of that - where is the need or even desire to extend it here? Seems lazy and selfish in a way. I hear you. And I think we go back to the first sentence I wrote - show me the Biz female that doesn't have prominent nipples. Cripes - would it be a Biz if it didn't? Would we call it a possible fake twenty years from now, the same way some of us joke that anything showing a foot is a fake Liefeld?

Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe.

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?

Did we really need to draw the teenage Carrie with nipples? It bugs me when artists do this for no good reason Artists known for their sexy women are going to (tend to) draw all women sexy. Even chubbies and non-humanoid aliens. And so? Much larger debate for other forums (fer sure), but until the post-WWII era, this idea of post-menses 'underage' didn't really exist. Presently it's just an arbitrary number chosen, a legal line in the sand, not as if there's some sort of magic that happens physically/mentally at age 16, 17, 18...the year the 'magic' happens all depending on which state you're in?? Not making any sort of argument on that subject here, just that it's not as big a deal to everyone as some folks might assume. We all know the average age that female menses begins...that is the real physical change signalling -at a minimum- physical maturity. The rest just follows. And before we bash up Biz too hard, maybe...somebody should mention to the parents of all those teens at the mall...they'd be doing their daughters a favor if they dressed them 'up' as much as even Carrie. Most wear much less. And tighter too. No matter what any of us thinks, the culture seems to be moving younger and younger, sexier and sexier, with little regard for the legalities (that aren't moving) or the fact that it seems people have very different opinions when it's their daughter on displays vs. "teenagers". Ya know? At least she isn't facing the other way

Corning the market and owning the lion's share if not having exclusivity to everything is one way to control the value/pricing I guess... Corners always collapse under their own weight. It's BSD 101 right there.

Terry that's a real answer from Volkan. Absolutely artists (at least 'real' artists, not dudes that couldn't make it somewhere else and 'fell into' art through some basic above average ability to ape reality with a pencil/brush) live and breathe the art world and their work. There is no clocking off for the day or vacations (even on vacations artists are thinking art, visiting art, seeing 'art' in the most mundane of circumstances). Life is art. I would expect the majority of his time is spent working up those highly detailed pencil/tonal pieces in preparation. Transferring that to the final support and fleshing it out is largely workmanlike labor, excepting whatever ingenious nuances he comes up with in the moment and applies (maybe not Volkan?, not all artists, but certainly some). Thanks for sharing here, and encouraging Volkan to explain (if it was your question/s that did that).

Gee whiz. I can't help but feel these are the highest prices they will ever sell for. But that's stupid thinking, I know.

You mean it's too bad people favor short term over long term goals? Tell that to human nature .

I'd float it in a simple light colored wood frame. Black 'shrinks' the art and distracts.

I'll tell you Terry, I do not know the truth of Volkan, but a fair number of artists exaggerate the time involved as it perpetuates the myth of the starving artist (or in 2015 - at least the 'makes less than the rest of us' myth). When I write this...I'm hoping you'll take my word for it that I've been intimately involved in the studio practices of several notable artists and they all exaggerate. One fellow, a very nice guy 'n all that, intentionally dogs his sketch list at shows to help justify the higher price. He intentionally engages fans, other artists around him, puts lunch ahead of sketching, etc, all to draw out the "experience" for the fans. The same is true of a different artist that works in oils, a fellow I've sat on his side of the table at cons with. He just makes up whatever answer he thinks the fan looks like he wants to hear. And for the ladies, being a player, he tends to respond with something like..."yes, it's true...I can go all night (wink, wink), if that's what it takes to get the job done". The point is these are not (often) real answers. There's a Sergio Aragones story out there, that Mark Evanier has repeated several times over the years, too on this subject, you may be familiar with it? Artists, in my experience do not spend a lot of time working out their hourly wage, we non-artists do (to their annoyance). Back to Volkan...how many pieces is he working at the same time? Is that 10-15 days of straight 'work' eight hour days, all on that piece? Or is it (more likely) he finishes two to three pieces a month, this includes dry time, so while one is drying, he's working on another one? If you asked, he probably would dodge the question, most artists do not like being judged on time but on the actual piece in question. The finished work itself. And I think that's correct. We're not paying (as art directors, as editors, as collectors) by the hour but by the piece. It's piece work. So why should we care if it takes three hours or thirty? Either it's good (or good enough) for the price. Or it's not. But because we have to ask (I don't, but it seems most do) they give us the answer we 'need' to hear (to jusify the prices?) Surely some tell the truth, what do I know...except that I know specifically of at least six (off the top of my head) that lie their @sses off or change the subject to get away from it. (All this is more for painters than b/w comic book guys, the panel work...that does take real time and I don't think there is much, if any, exaggeration in that.)

Ya'll are geekin' hard now on MTG. In case you weren't aware .

I'd say he's smoked. The statute of limitations would be per Washington state law where the alleged crimes were committed. And that's a grey area, because if the art was legally sold, then Tedin is only "out" the then-cash, that's what was stolen. Not the art. And that's definitely small money, typically limitation is five years or less on that sort of small crime. So present value, or any other value is immaterial. Even though John Byrne vehemently disagrees None of this absolves the moral crime, just talking about the letter of the law legal end. No different than when Neal Adams went bonkers a few years ago and scared the majority of his best pieces right back into darkness. Didn't help that Mitch specifically remembered selling some of them for Neal (and paying him too), so Neal's memory was far from absolute. These deals always stink up the place...and we like the guys that create the art we love, so it's lousy but I can name an easy Top Ten of Lousy that's happened to me in my life too, so it is the human condition also...

I can't find the more detailed article, sorry. I know I read a fleshed out version years ago, but I just can't find it. If you really wanted more info the place to go would be MTG Librarities. Sloooow forum though. We're talking post the question and check back in two weeks "WIZARDS GALLERY, owned by MARC RIECK" good enough, thanks

Cool. Glad you put a name to it. Ya never know who you'll run into and wish you'd run away from. Another to add to The List

Heh heh. "Whopping." . (and YES I know it's all relative, as most MTG are like 8x10 or smaller GAH!!)

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. Bronty if you were posting all those Magic articles on my behalf...thanks! but sorry!! (I already read them via the link). By full story, I meant the one about the dealer disappearing with a lot of the art. Ya know..the crime one, that's what I'm into...Law 'n Order

Interesting highlights. Is there a more fleshed out version of the story I can read? As to the other poster re: special effects and ability to create same in the physical space...I'd argue it (anything) can be done...but whether the young kids have the skill, talent, patience to learn...a whole 'nother thing. Those that do take that route may find their artistic experience that much richer (like learning classical approaches to music, though your passion/intention is power chord heavy metal). There is definitely, absolutely a big difference between working digitally and doing the same physically. Typically a physical painter can more easily transition to digital than the other way around. Dry times, thinner, extenders, etc, working wet-in-wet, so many other things in the real world that require a knowledge of how your media and support interact to fully realize the potential of physical art. But if $15k numbers are floating around in enough quantity, I'm sure some will give it a go...that's good money in a world (USA) where the average household (two earners) income is only $50k!

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? I know you're referring specifically to MTG artists, but extending to all artists...I'd say only if there is a perception that doing so would yield more return (not just monetarily but career/portfolio-wise) long-term by working slower with dry times and all the hassles of physical media (shooting them, etc). I don't know what the current deadline pressure is (if any) but we all know the Frazetta story about the oil on board that 'cracked' as Frank was attempting to speed the drying process...in his oven. This one is in Doc Dave's Profiles auction A younger artist making his bones may care a lot more about turnarounds and building out his resume as fast as possible, pleasing the most people possible across the industry(ies?), and catch up with making great money selling physicals later?

Right. Eating $10 to return it is small money in the face of $180 or whatever you almost lost (and having something you'd end up embarrassed of -and hate- later as you mature as a collector).

Make sure you neg him, but do it honestly only with facts. If you go super mean or opinionated he'll get eBay to remove it and so what's the point. Right now he's only got two negs; not nearly enough for the volume of "product" he's pushing.

I personally prefer the holograms .

Nice Scorpion page!

Poor guy. I do wonder why he's selling so quickly. Do you suppose he suspects/knows it's a fake? Somebody should tell him he has a six month kickback protection with PayPal, even though eBay only gives you 45 days