Artists Gone Digital: No More "Hand-Drawn" OA From These Pros...

[glenbru]

This doesn't strike me as the the death of the original art market...simply the end of the NEW original art market. The stuff I collect will still be there. Jack Kirby's not making any new art as far as I know.

[Brian Peck]

Glen,

But it stops new people from collecting comic art. Most people including me starting collecting what they were reading at the time (for me it was 1986) then later started collecting earlier and earlier OA. If all the artwork goes digital you won't have new collectors since what they read won't have any physical original art.

It will start to kill off the oa market.

[Weird Paper]

All your art is worthless. Send it to me.

[glenbru]

I'm not sure that you're right about that, Brian. People will still be reading the old stuff-- new readers discovering the stuff that came before either in book form or on a digital device. The OA that exists just becomes a rarer commodity. It will still be collectible. How much does the hobby have to grow anyway? The good stuff is already too expensive for most collectors.

[Dr. Balls]

I have some digital art in my collection, and I consider it the same as I do any other pages or covers in my collection. Is it exactly the same as a penciled, blue-line inked, or penciled/inked page? Yeah, because it's just another form of original comic art. It's the original artwork, not a reproduction. The fact that the image is a print doesn't matter. My digital cover piece is the original, one-of-a-kind, cover of Green Lantern: Emerald Warrior published by DC. It's the variant cover, and it's no different than the cover of any other comic. It's THE cover, and it's the original work.

 

I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people that would agree with this statement. It sounds very much like a piece of self-rationalisation justifying a purchase.

 

A print is not original art, it is a copy of the the art. You can self-rationalise all you want, but that is the cold hard fact.

 

Collect what you like by all means, but trying to convince yourself and the masses, that a phisical print of a digital piece of art is the original?

 

Not to sound like a self-professed expert here - but I have sold "original" digital art before - but it was over 15 years ago, when there really wasn't much definition of how digital artwork would be managed.

 

I would create a piece of work, print one piece and destroy the file. Thereby creating an "original". Or so I figured.

 

As I got older and realized that even by destroying the file and doing one solitary print, it was in fact, still a print. At that point, I abandoned any and all ideas that there can ever be an "original" piece of digital art.

 

The only way a true digital piece could probably fit the definition of "original" is to create the artwork on a digital apparatus and never actually conduct a "save" - thereby keeping it in limbo where it shares the same dangers as a real original: being erased, damaged, deleted, etc. You sell the apparatus with the artwork on it to someone and that is how you have a true digital "original". (but even then, therein lies the problem of printing - you can print an unsaved document).

 

And that sounds pretty stupid actually - and, mind you, I was a proponent of legitimizing digital art for a decade before most digital artists ever picked up a Wacom tablet. So I'm not trying to poo-poo the idea at all. This was my bread and butter for a long, long time - but in the quest of legitimacy, there also needs to be some standards and understanding in the medium. The "original" debate is long and ongoing - that's for sure.

 

[Pete Marino]

IMO, the only way to make original digital art, would be to have 1 USB key per image you create, and then save every file related to that image to that key only, and sell that to the person. And lock the key down somehow so the file can never be copied or something.

 

Although I feel old for saying this, that may be the way it goes, I know a lot of the younger people that work for me don't ever want to physically own anything.

 

Also, I am sure software helps the artist out with various parts of the image, so although it's still art obviously, it's not the same as something hand drawn on paper.

[AKA Rick]

I believe by definition within the hobby, digital art will never be considered the same as pencil/ink original art.

 

It's like restaurants that sell that seafood blend called Immitation Krab, versus the real Crab... it's not the same, never will be the same, and isn't of the same quality by the standards of the majority. Yes, there's a few who prefer the immitation krab over real crab, but to the masses, real crab commands a higher price and greater culinary respect.

 

It's like in the music CD original soundtrack hobby. The discs that are worth the most money are the ones that are 1) authentic; 2) known limited edition; and 3) a physical disc that has been professionally pressed. Not: A) Digital Files; B) Burned copies on CD-R's; or C) Unauthorized releases (i.e. bootlegs).

 

So, as collectors and collections goes, digital art is fine for the same people who probably enjoy lithographs, gliclees, posters, and prints. It's fun and entertaining to collect, but for those who are hybrid collector/investors that have a certain focus of their portfolio increasing in value, I doubt if the digial art option is one many would sink their money into, where that same money could be put into far more stable investments, including what's soon to be considered retro/vintage artwork in pencil/ink.

 

But for the majority of those who collect pencil/ink, the majority of whom already balk at inked over blueline pieces, I have doubt of hobby acceptance of digital artwork replacing pencil/ink artwork in both consumption and what collectors would be willing to pay (demand/supply = valuation).

 

What this might do is drive up the prices for artwork by those artists who used to be pencil/ink who are now transitioning over to digital, like Brian Bolland artwork.

 

I wonder as I'd posed the question before, will these artists become so used to the digital format, when it comes time to do commissions, they don't remember how to properly use a pencil and ink? So, is this also the potential demise of the commissioned work as well? I could see digital artwork working better for commissions than published art, especially if it moves towards non-licnesed characters, so in fact the artist then surrenders publishing rights to the rendering for the buyer to use as they please. It would only work with "random sexy girl in a bikini" more so than "wonder woman" where licensing becomes an issue of course.

 

 

[Pete Marino]

Rick,

for my wedding we had a couple of caricature artists doing pictures of the guest through the reception. And one of the guys we looked at did everything digital, with his tablet, and then printed it out on his inkjet. The wife and I passed because we felt like it wasn't the real experience as well.

 

Also, he did have "drop in" backgrounds for his pictures. Are we going to see that in comics as well soon? have some 3d artist create a real render of Metropolis and then just draw the characters into the buildings / city?

 

From a continuity standpoint that would be amazing, but it changes what OA is, and how comics are done.

 

But I can see commissions going that way as well.

[Dr. Balls]

I wonder as I'd posed the question before, will these artists become so used to the digital format, when it comes time to do commissions, they don't remember how to properly use a pencil and ink? So, is this also the potential demise of the commissioned work as well? I could see digital artwork working better for commissions than published art, especially if it moves towards non-licnesed characters, so in fact the artist then surrenders publishing rights to the rendering for the buyer to use as they please. It would only work with "random sexy girl in a bikini" more so than "wonder woman" where licensing becomes an issue of course.

 

I can't speak for others, but there was definitely a re-learning curve for me to handle pen/ink as I did 15 years ago. My graphite style that I had in college and the few years after is practically gone.

 

But I will say that without much practice in traditional art - I did find that in some way, my style had evolved in my brain without ever really cultivating it. When I set out to revisit traditional illustration - I had a much better grasp on my art than I did when I engulfed myself in the digital medium 15 years earlier.

 

I don't put myself in the same league as Brian Bolland, so I would have to say that even working in digital - they are still going to retain their exceptional skills even if they don't practice it. As for commissions, I'm sure they will look at that as another way of generating revenue while being challenged in the medium that was their bread and butter.

[jick]

OK, I'm really curious about this, can you link me to websites of these dealer and reps of original digital art?

 

Malvin

 

I know Alex Sinclair has a page in deviantart and he sells "1 of 1" prints of his coloring work, his most popular being his collaborations with Jim Lee and David Finch.

[The Troll King]

Digital original art sounds the same as "Original Reproduction" or "Vintage Reproduction"

[AKA Rick]

This is a great example of probable valuation where all are "one of a kind" items of "original art" if let's say a cover piece done by Jim Lee pencils, Scott Williams inks, and Alex Sinclair colors were for sale, I think the prices would be broken down something like this like this:

 

Jim Lee original pencils = $10,000

 

Scott Williams original inks over blueline = $500 to maybe $2,000

 

Alex Sinclair original digital color 1 of 1 print out = $200 to maybe $500

 

So, again, although digital one of a kind art may be 1of 1, there's probably less people who are willing to pay even close to the same price for digital artwork as they would for penciled/inked artwork.

 

Great for collectors (as prices inherently will be lower for digital than original) who are flat out just fans, but probably bad purchase choices for investors or those who have valuation as part of their motives for collecting.

 

Malvin

 

I know Alex Sinclair has a page in deviantart and he sells "1 of 1" prints of his coloring work, his most popular being his collaborations with Jim Lee and David Finch.

[Royd]

Hey Pete,

 

That's already happening as I've personally seen the 3D program used by the artist to create the background city scenes into which he dropped his pencil images of the characters. There were pages with just the character images while the rest was digital backgrounds - this was for a published Marvel book. Best,

 

Royd

 

 

Also, he did have "drop in" backgrounds for his pictures. Are we going to see that in comics as well soon? have some 3d artist create a real render of Metropolis and then just draw the characters into the buildings / city?