Are recreations becoming more acceptable?

[jjonahjameson1]

I am not a big fish in the OA pond, but I have noticed I'm becoming increasingly priced out of the market for certain artists' work I used to collect. There's also a few artists I'd like to own one decent example representation of their work, but as prices continue to rise, I'm being forced to become much more selective.

 

When I first started collecting OA a dozen years ago, I would have never entertained the thought of seeking out/owning recreations, but given the aforementioned factors, I'm warming up to it.

 

Just wondering about other people's thoughts on the matter of warming up to/owning OA recreations?

[Weird Paper]

Personally, there's no interest on my part. There are so many nice actual pieces of original comic art out there at every price point, that I don't see the point. A recreation is a manufactured collectible, and those don't appeal to me, personally. That said, I considered buying a Brunner recreation of the Howard the Duck 1 cover, years ago, but ended up passing. Later, I was glad I did, since there are apparently a number of them.

[ashrael]

Personally I am only really interested in exact recreations by the original artist, and only then when it is a classic (and expensive) page or cover.

[theflashunc]

Personally, there's no interest on my part. There are so many nice actual pieces of original comic art out there at every price point, that I don't see the point. A recreation is a manufactured collectible, and those don't appeal to me, personally. That said, I considered buying a Brunner recreation of the Howard the Duck 1 cover, years ago, but ended up passing. Later, I was glad I did, since there are apparently a number of them.

 

+1.

 

I think even if an artist is theoretically priced out of your budget/market, there are still options. If I wanted to own, say, a Kirby page. Well, I could never afford an FF splash page.

 

But a nifty Kamandi panel page? Or some of his pre-superhero work? That starts to become a bit more approachable imo.

 

 

[suspense39]

Like weird paper said, there's too much great real art out there to care about reproductions for me.

[Pete Marino]

I am not a big fish in the OA pond, but I have noticed I'm becoming increasingly priced out of the market for certain artists' work I used to collect. There's also a few artists I'd like to own one decent example representation of their work, but as prices continue to rise, I'm being forced to become much more selective.

 

When I first started collecting OA a dozen years ago, I would have never entertained the thought of seeking out/owning recreations, but given the aforementioned factors, I'm warming up to it.

 

Just wondering about other people's thoughts on the matter of warming up to/owning OA recreations?

 

It depends on your goal.

 

1- to make you happy - Only you can answer this one

2- resale in the future - I'd say is unlikely to recoup your costs. esp if you are getting the original artist to do it for you

3- impress your friends - it depends on your friends

 

I also have noticed a good deal of re-creations popping up of late. Personally, I'd rather go down a peg in quality / content and get an original from that artist than get a recreation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[comix4fun]

If you have a recreation made there are some rules that I think should be followed:

 

1) Only by the artist that created the original image

 

2) Only if it's at a price you don't mind eating and not trying to make your cash back.

 

 

That being said. I have a couple of recreations in my collection. One was a cover by a rock star artist from the Bronze/Copper age. I was beaten on the bidding for the original cover art, but before the artist sent the art to the new owner he offered to do a recreation for me, directly off of the original piece, for roughly 2.5% of what the original has just sold.

 

It is the only recreation ever made lightboxed directly from the original and, given that the original is with someone else now, the last one created that way.

 

To me, it was a nice souvenir of the one that got away at a price that was far easier to handle than the original.

[chromium]

Recreations don't really do it for me either..about ten years ago I bought a recreation of the cover of Xmen #145...done by the original artist Dave Cockrum. It was a beautiful piece and still one of my all-time favorite Bronze-age covers...but every time I looked at it, I thought "this isn't the real thing" and I ended up selling it about a year after I got it.

[Doc McCoy]

I am not a big fish in the OA pond, but I have noticed I'm becoming increasingly priced out of the market for certain artists' work I used to collect. There's also a few artists I'd like to own one decent example representation of their work, but as prices continue to rise, I'm being forced to become much more selective.

 

When I first started collecting OA a dozen years ago, I would have never entertained the thought of seeking out/owning recreations, but given the aforementioned factors, I'm warming up to it.

 

Just wondering about other people's thoughts on the matter of warming up to/owning OA recreations?

 

It depends on your goal.

 

1- to make you happy - Only you can answer this one

2- resale in the future - I'd say is unlikely to recoup your costs. esp if you are getting the original artist to do it for you

3- impress your friends - it depends on your friends

 

I also have noticed a good deal of re-creations popping up of late. Personally, I'd rather go down a peg in quality / content and get an original from that artist than get a recreation.

 

I agree, if it makes you happy and satisfies your needs as a collector, then go for it.

 

I have two pieces that are based on former works, one done by our own Artboy99, which was a straight recreation of a Gil Kane cover that I love, but would probably never be able to afford at this time:

 

 

The second piece wasn't so much of a recreation as it was a re-imagining of Paul Smith's classic cover to Uncanny X-Men #167 that Chris Ivy did for me. I wanted a piece that reflected the current events in the X-books and that cover was a great inspiration:

 

I was thrilled with both, but probably wouldn't do a straight recreation again. I had a lot more fun coming up with the elements for the re-imagining and so did Chris, because the issue brought back some great memories for him as well.

[Ferran Delgado]

For me, one of the most interesting parts of the recreations is to play "What if". Like the site "Whatifkirby.com" does. An example: How a particular page would look if it was not "embellished/erased" by Colletta. The samples embellished by Sinnott, McLeod or Royer are simply stunning.

 

The problem of this exercise is that it clashes with the not written rule that only an artist involved with the original piece should recreate it, even if it's not a line-by-line recreation.

 

The question would be, a recreation with a different style by another embellishment would harm the value of the original piece? I would understand this from exact recreations by different artists, but if it has another approach, would it affect the value of the source piece?

 

For me, the attractive of an exact recreation by one of the original artists is quite different from a "What if" piece. In the first case, you get the closest to the source by the original penciler or inker; and in the second case, you feed your curiosity or frustration, like in the case of art ruined by an awful inker.

 

The latter case is also a praise to the embellisher, because you want to know how the same piece would be handled by another inker, giving acknowledgement on how an inker can make the difference on the same drawing.

[comix4fun]

For me, one of the most interesting parts of the recreations is to play "What if". Like the site "Whatifkirby.com" does. An example: How a particular page would look if it was not "embellished/erased" by Colletta. The samples embellished by Sinnott, McLeod or Royer are simply stunning.

 

The problem of this exercise is that it clashes with the not written rule that only an artist involved with the original piece should recreate it, even if it's not a line-by-line recreation.

 

The question would be, a recreation with a different style by another embellishment would harm the value of the original piece? I would understand this from exact recreations by different artists, but if it has another approach, would it affect the value of the source piece?

 

For me, the attractive of an exact recreation by one of the original artists is quite different from a "What if" piece. In the first case, you get the closest to the source by the original penciler or inker; and in the second case, you feed your curiosity or frustration, like in the case of art ruined by an awful inker.

 

The latter case is also a praise to the embellisher, because you want to know how the same piece would be handled by another inker, giving acknowledgement on how an inker can make the difference on the same drawing.

 

 

That's a good point. I always distinguish the types of pieces you describe as "reinterpretations" instead of recreations, being that they are different than a line for line duplication.

[malvin]

I equate recreations with commissions, so for some artists where pages are impossible due to price or supply, then I would "downgrade" to commissions/sketch.

 

Malvin

[Doc McCoy]

I equate recreations with commissions, so for some artists where pages are impossible due to price or supply, then I would "downgrade" to commissions/sketch.

 

Malvin

 

Unless I'm misinterpreting what you just stated, I wouldn't necessarily refer to a commission as a "downgrade" in this day and age. There have been numerous occasions when I've passed on a commission because I can get a published page for the same cost or less.

[malvin]

It's a downgrade in terms of personal desire. My nostalgic connection is to the comic page. If the artists does only digital work, doesn't sell his art, or his art is too expensive, the next best thing for me is a commission.

 

Malvin

[jjonahjameson1]

It's a downgrade in terms of personal desire. My nostalgic connection is to the comic page. If the artists does only digital work, doesn't sell his art, or his art is too expensive, the next best thing for me is a commission.

 

Malvin

 

Ah, that's a great discussion point to illustrate my train of thought.

 

Let's assume I am a huge Romita Sr fan (OK, not really an assumption) and let's also assume ASM 100 is my favourite cover next to WW 199 (again, not an assumption) and I'd like to own the cover. In attempting to own it, I'll come across a few obstacles:

 

1. Does the artwork exist?

2. If so, where does it currently reside?

3. Is the owner willing to sell?

4. If so, can I afford it?

5. If I can't afford it, am I willing to settle for another Romita Sr Spidey cover that is available/affordable to me/owner is willing to sell?

6. If the answer to any of the above is no, and the creator is still alive, am I willing to contact him for a recreation of my favourite cover (various factors in play here, including whether the recreation will still satisfy my nostalia funnybone)

7. If yes, and the artist is willing to do it, and its affordable, then it would be the next best thing to owning the original published work.

 

Your mileage may vary, but even when cover recreations become too expensive, whenever I go to a major show I often see a lot of commission requests based on cover images the artist made famous (think Sienkiewicz and Elektra, Leonardi Cloak & Dagger, etc.) These are in a way single figure recreations of a cover image.

[Pete Marino]

As we are discussing, this auction just ended.

 

IMO a pretty nice price for a re-creation of GI Joe #1

 

$710.

 

And I know this is not the 1st one I've seen go up on ebay.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/HERB-TRIMPE-original-G-I-Joe-1-cover-recreation-/290979805318?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEWAX%3AIT&nma=true&si=Z9vSmZqHJR6dC2Lase%252BWR5j0Qb8%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

 

 

[malvin]

That's exactly my thoughts too, but you were able to articulate it better

 

First is the actual published page.

 

Then it's a substitute published page

 

Then it's a commission

 

Malvin

[drdroom]

DEATH to all exact recreations

[jick]

I am lukewarm to having other artists do exact recreations of work that is not their own. But I do think it is fun for them to recreate cover poses of iconic ones while changing the characters.

 

I don't mind an artist doing an exact recreation of his own work provided the original is no longer found. Otherrwise, I would prefer a re imagination be drawn. I find it weird to request the original artist do an exact recreation of work that another collector own. Or I find it odd also to have an artist do many exact recreations of the same thing.

 

I personally have drawn a number of line by line recreations but they are more for personal enjoyment and getting to learn the artist's style and works. Although a couple have asked me to draw stuff for them after seeing my work, I am not too fond of line by line stuff for commercial gain. I'm just an amateur recreational illustrator. http://www.comicartfans.com/galleryroom.asp?gsub=114039

[Dr. Balls]

With acess to a well-known artist to create a piece of art, I think it's actually kind of unfortunate for someone to take all that talent and channel it into something someone else already created.