Art question

[mrblond4]

I was looking at a cover piece and it was explained in the auction that the artist drew a large b/w image, then scanned it, printed a smaller version of this image then colored it. would this be considered " original art?" Is it a common practice? It doesn't sound like it to me in the purest form although I can see it could be called that. any input? Id hate to buy a cover then feel it was not the real thing.

[Guest Grails]

Yes, its still original art. I wouldn't mind as long as I own the original pencils and/or inks to accompany it.

[mrblond4]

Yes, its still original art. I wouldn't mind as long as I own the original pencils and/or inks to accompany it.

 

This is sort of what I was thinking, unfortunately, then pencils of the piece I was looking at were not for sale and that was a big turn off.

[AKA Rick]

By definition of "Art" that it is. By definition of "Original" yes, it is.

 

However, if you're buying it as an investment, and are planning on selling it, it's in my opinion a less desirable piece, comparable to taking a page out of a coloring book, and coloring it. Even if it's the original artist, and that artist is popular and highly regarded and/or unless accompanied by the original pencils there's a large population of art collectors who would pass on that opportunity.

 

There are many collectors who balk at "Inks over Bluelines" as well as "Color Guides" relegating them into a much inferrior almost disqualified category of original art and nothing short of actual pencils and/or ink touching the paper satisfies their qualification for what original is.

 

A lot of time price is a factor, so if you can get a piece for an affordable rate and you like it, forget about what the naysayers comment and buy what you like and enjoy.

[mrblond4]

In all honesty, I love the piece but I am also a bit anal about things so I know it would bug me that I didn't have the actual drawing as well.

Thank you for your input. I am still very new to the original art market and all I have is a few Greg Williams pin ups.

[groovyedwin]

I was looking at a cover piece and it was explained in the auction that the artist drew a large b/w image, then scanned it, printed a smaller version of this image then colored it. would this be considered " original art?" Is it a common practice? It doesn't sound like it to me in the purest form although I can see it could be called that. any input? Id hate to buy a cover then feel it was not the real thing.

 

These are referred to as a hand colored print. The b/w image is what I would consider the original art to the cover while the hand colored print is more akin to a color guide.

[Terry Doyle]

I was looking at a cover piece and it was explained in the auction that the artist drew a large b/w image, then scanned it, printed a smaller version of this image then colored it. would this be considered " original art?" Is it a common practice? It doesn't sound like it to me in the purest form although I can see it could be called that. any input? Id hate to buy a cover then feel it was not the real thing.

 

It's certainly a part of the production process, but for many of us (or, me, at least) a lot less desirable than the (separately existing) pen & ink illustration (from which the copy was made for coloring purposes).

 

The color's the real thing, but nothing else (if you see what I mean?).

[Speedy-D]

I wouldn't pay for it without the original pencils. Whoever's got them has the original art. This is the original colors, which doesn't much appeal to me.

 

Although, I suppose if the pencils are super rough, and all the work was done in the colors, I might change my tune.

[mrblond4]

Well, after all of your input reinforced my feeling, I decided not to buy it but instead found another around the same price. I sent a message to the owner asking about if it was done in a similar fashion, but if the size of the work is any indication, its all original.

Again, I thank all of you for your advice to this new collector.