Derivative Artists

[Artemaria]

Does anyone have any strong feelings about derivative artists? By that phrase I mean someone whose style borrows heavily from someone else.

 

Probably the best example is Brian Bolland & Ethan Van Sciver. Very similar styles, although in my mind Bolland remains the master.

 

Other examples include Paul Neary, Alan Davis and Brian Hitch, all of whom draw similarly.

 

Another example is John Byrne and Tom Grummett. If you look at them, you can see that Grummett's work (which I actually like, and I may be the only one) is kind of like a poor man's John Byrne. It would be interesting to see Austin ink Grummett to see what it would look like.

 

The way I look at things, I'd like to get a nice Bolland piece, but the prices are rather prohibitive unless you don't buy too much else that year. But Van Sciver's stuff is still sort of reasonably priced (although those prices too are going up as he is becoming a "hot" artist - nearly $1K for a non-splash panel page seems high to me). However, I just view Van Sciver as a Bolland derivative and it is kind of hard for me to plunk down good money for a derivative (even though I am a big fan of Van Sciver's work -- especially on Green Lantern).

 

My question is whether people, or the market, views derivative artists in a different way than the source artists, and values the work of derivative artists accordingly?

 

Anyone's thoughts would be appreciated.

 

- A

[chrisco37]

I've always thought Eduardo Risso was Miller-esque in his use of shadows.

 

 

 

[comix4fun]

There are those that are derivative, without a doubt.

 

However, even the best artists have been "influenced" by other artists that came before them. Most of the the best artists can identify 4-5 artists that inspired them, influenced them, spurred them into becoming an artist. That influence shines through in their work...some more than others.

 

The best of them take that influence and turn it into something their own.

 

C

[Stronguy]

Hitch used to be a derivative of Alan Davis.

Windsor-Smith and Sienkiewicz used to be Kirby derivatives.

[chrisco37]

Stewart Sayger is very "Sienkiewicz-y".

[Stronguy]

Stewart Sayger is very "Sienkiewicz-y".

 

Absolutely -- he told me he almost passed out when Sienkiewicz said he actually knew who he was.

[Artemaria]

While its true that Windsor Smith and even Steranko started with a heavy Kirby influence, I don't think they ended up that way, which is why the market treats their art as their own, because that's where it ended up.

 

Sinkiewicz, however, I always thought was more of a Neal Adams derivative, especially on Moon Knight. But he too became more of his own stylist, and if his work resembles anyone's I would put it towards the painter Leroy Nieman or, more abstractly, Jackson Pollack.

 

My question was whether there is a market appreciation of the art of a person who is a derivative and never changes their style.

 

Another example is Tom Grindberg, who is another Neal Adams derivative. Does the value of Grindberg's art appreciate like that of Adams? I'm thinking not.

[Jesusjon]

Shane Davis/Jim Lee, and Mitch Breitweiser/John Cassaday just to add a couple more examples that spring to my mind.

 

To your question, the effect on price I've seen is that several of these new artists are charging higher than normal prices for their work than I feel they would be if they weren't being compared to someone else.

 

Truthfully, you would expect much much lower prices for a good long while until these new guys were established. However, this modern art price explosion seems to get someone "hot" right away, especially if they have a popular "style".

 

Just my .02

[Stronguy]

Sinkiewicz, however, I always thought was more of a Neal Adams derivative, especially on Moon Knight. But he too became more of his own stylist, and if his work resembles anyone's I would put it towards the painter Leroy Nieman or, more abstractly, Jackson Pollack.

 

In the beginning Sienkiewicz was doing Kirby. I know this b/c when I asked him about this piece he said, "Oh yeah, I was ripping off Kirby back then." Of course his style changed to what we all know now as did Windsor-Smith. But back in the day they were both copying Kirby.

[Stronguy]

I guess another on would be Jim Aparo and Neal Adams.

[Enforcer]

Another example is Tom Grindberg, who is another Neal Adams derivative. Does the value of Grindberg's art appreciate like that of Adams? I'm thinking not.

 

In my humble opinion Tom Grindberg isn't fit to be mentioned in the same sentence as Neal Adams. Behold the Grindberg example below and compare it with Neal Adams in Thor #181 and see for yourself. I'm not one to normally criticize art since beauty is in the eye of the beholder (and the fact that I have no artistic talent), but Grindberg absolutely butchered Thor in my opinion. Thor looks like a block of cheese with a cape and check out the 64 pack abs on Drax.

 

 

[matewan1990]

At that point, though, Grindberg was ripping off Mignola. Back when he first started, you couldn't hardly tell his stuff from Neal Adams'.

There are plenty of artists whose styles are similar to popular artists.

Michael Golden had a definite Berni Wrightson feel to his art when he first started.

Vic Bridges, now there was a Byrne clone.

I think Starlin has a lot of Gil Kane in his early art.

Windsor Smith was definitely doing the Kirby thing early on, but I just don't see Kirby in anything Sienkiewicz has EVER done.

And count me in the group that loves Grummett's work. I think his style is like something born from a union between Byrne and Buscema ... John, that is.

Mike B.

[Enforcer]

At that point, though, Grindberg was ripping off Mignola. Back when he first started, you couldn't hardly tell his stuff from Neal Adams'.

 

Well I must admit that the only Grindberg art that I am familiar with is the art I saw in Thor. It just isn't my cup of tea. I guess there are those that like that style, but I prefer more of a somewhat realistic style myself. Just my

 

Enforcer

[delekkerste]

Stewart Sayger is very "Sienkiewicz-y".

 

Absolutely -- he told me he almost passed out when Sienkiewicz said he actually knew who he was.

 

When I told him a couple of years ago that I saw his style as Bill Sienkiewicz meets Esteban Maroto, he acknowledged the Maroto/Warren stable of artists influence and pretty much disavowed any similarity with Sienkiewicz.

[Nexus]

All artists have their idols and it's often easy to spot the influences/inspirations in their work. For example, I see a little Dave Stevens and Kevin Maguire in Adam Hughes' early stuff. These days, though, Hughes is pretty much doing his own thing. And that makes his work much more interesting to me.

 

Terry Dodson, on the other hand, is blatantly aping AH's style. To my eye, anyhow. We'll see if he progresses beyond that. In the meantime, I just see it as a cheap imitation and don't have much interest in it.

 

Just my 2 cents....

[vodou]

Ron Frenz was doing what I call "clean" Kirby in the early 90s on Thor and later on Capt. America Vol.3 #24 (Absorbing Man ish). Haven't looked him up lately, so not sure if that's still the case.

[Artemaria]

All artists have their idols and it's often easy to spot the influences/inspirations in their work. For example, I see a little Dave Stevens and Kevin Maguire in Adam Hughes' early stuff. These days, though, Hughes is pretty much doing his own thing. And that makes his work much more interesting to me.

 

Terry Dodson, on the other hand, is blatantly aping AH's style. To my eye, anyhow. We'll see if he progresses beyond that. In the meantime, I just see it as a cheap imitation and don't have much interest in it.

 

Just my 2 cents....

 

It's true that everyone has influences, just look at any story by any comic artist working today and they'll tell you that they were influenced by Kirby, even though you could look at their work and never think "Kirby."

 

My question is more about how and when does the market value the derivative artist differently than the original artist? In the case of Van Sciver and Bolland, the market seems to still attribute greater value to Bolland's work. Although Van Sciver seems to be catching up.

 

But when you get to AH and Dodson (I think Dodson has his own style which is close to, but somewhat different than that of AH!, but I'll use this example) the market seems to value both of their works somewhat more similarly. AH! covers go for $3 to $5K (with the best fetching more) and Dodson's covers seem to go from $2 to $4K (again with the best fetching more) that's real close valuations for an original and derivative artist.

 

Another example is Byrne & Adams. Byrne has said up and down that Adams is was and always will be one of his, if not the, main influence. However, now we see Byrne's work going for much much more than Adams' work of comparable quality and character content.

 

I'm just curious if anyone has any insight as to for whom this happens and why this happens.

 

Thanks again to everyone for their great posts.

 

- A

[Mighty Hal]

What about an artist like Mike Hoffman? For years, he and others (such as Don Marquez) presented a Frazetta-lite version of anything they drew. Yet their stuff still sells -- and, if there's a cute girl in the picture, can sell for several hundred dollars.

 

But have they created a market for their own talents...and should there be a market for artists that so clearly ape one of the masters?

[invisibleghosts]

How about the Jones, Pratt, Williams, etc connection.

 

 

[Artemaria]

But have they created a market for their own talents...and should there be a market for artists that so clearly ape one of the masters?

 

That is a great question.

 

I would probably answer this question no, because I think that everyone should try to be as original as possible, and there are plenty of modern artists with their own original styles - see: J. Scott Cambpell, Jim Lee, Miller, Sinkiewicz, Art Adams, AH, Finch, Bolland, Golden, to name a few.

 

But the market has already come up with its answer, which is yes, a market does exist. If the stuff sells, even for a couple of hundred for a Hoffman vs. a couple of grand for a Frazetta, that's a market, and it exists. Personally, I think Hoffman is a hack and Frazetta is a genius.

 

But it is likely that I never will own a Frazetta. So, if I come off my high horse principles, I might say, well this Hoffman looks like a Frazetta I like, so I'll get this because there is no Frazetta in my future and the signatures even look alike! I'm assuming many people do that because Hoffman sells his stuff. So a market exists.

 

But should a market exist? That is a great question.