digital OA as a 1 off print?

[Dark Prime 0]

IMO skeptical as I might be it's simply the artist trying to get paid for originals without having to create them. They want or have to work in digital but also want to get paid for originals at the same time. No thanks. Why would I pay for originals that aren't originals?

you have a point......but if he does it all digitaly, even if he were to then draw it (double the work), it's still a copy of the original (if you look at it that way anyways), and the 2nd won't look excatly like the printed page as there will be small changes as he redraws it

 

i know the cover for the new batgirl costume change has no OA as he did it digitaly (i asked)

 

personaly i can see more artist going digital on their art as time goes on

[Dr. Balls]

Trouble is for a lot of modern series, this is going to be your only option if you want OA, and that's only going to increase as you see more artists start working digital.

 

Absolutely true. I think there's two ways to go: digital artists will figure out a way to sell "originals" to a new group of younger buyers will to adapt their belief to a new definition of "original" or they will just flat-out not be accepted, and collectors will figure out another way to get an artist's work.

 

Personally, I had problems with newer art not having word balloons - let alone digital formats, and it turned me off of modern OA collecting. I've got a few modern artists' work in my CAF, but they are commissioned pieces - so you may be right that commissions are the direction collectors go.

[theflashunc]

Trouble is for a lot of modern series, this is going to be your only option if you want OA, and that's only going to increase as you see more artists start working digital.

 

One notable example I can think of right now is The Fade Out, the new crime series from Brubaker and Phillips. Sean Phillips is working digital now, so there's no pages of the new series to speak of, unlike Criminal and their prior work together.

 

If you want something from the series that isn't the issue, well, I guess you're going the commission route?

 

 

I know what you mean but I personally consider that thinking to be backwards. If the work for a series is original then I don't want work from that series, period.

 

I think we might be ships passing in the night a bit, admittedly I clumsily worded my last post.

 

My point is that OA is increasingly going to be going the digital route as more artists transition to working digital, or start that way from scratch. Even artists who weren't working in digital as recently as a few years ago are moving to digital full-time. So the traditional 11x17 with pencils and india inks -- while not going away tomorrow -- isn't really the future or will become far more niche than it is today.

 

If you're a collector at all of modern stuff, there's going to need to be a calculus on price/want for this one-off prints of digital art, because it's not going away. How the media is being created is being changed fundamentally. The market will sort itself out, but that's going to come from individual collectors sorting out their comfort level with this "new" OA.

 

With The Fade Out, for example, a series I'm enjoying immensely so far, my choices for OA would either hope Sean does one of those one-off prints of each page. And I haven't quite squared how comfortable I am with it yet, but its something as someone who collects modern OA I'm going to have to deal with sooner rather than later.

[Dark Prime 0]

Trouble is for a lot of modern series, this is going to be your only option if you want OA, and that's only going to increase as you see more artists start working digital.

 

Absolutely true. I think there's two ways to go: digital artists will figure out a way to sell "originals" to a new group of younger buyers will to adapt their belief to a new definition of "original" or they will just flat-out not be accepted, and collectors will figure out another way to get an artist's work.

 

Personally, I had problems with newer art not having word balloons - let alone digital formats, and it turned me off of modern OA collecting. I've got a few modern artists' work in my CAF, but they are commissioned pieces - so you may be right that commissions are the direction collectors go.

idk balls, OA and OA of a printed page/cover are 2 different things, imo anyways

 

i have plenty of sketch cover OA (around to over 100), but only about 10 printed OA

 

while i love most of my sketch covers, there is (to me) something more to oweing a printed page/cover

[lurker]

Another question being what happens if anyone were to eventually publish an Artist Edition sort of book for an artist who only works in digital and previously sold one off prints of his pages?

 

Would printing these again ( even in a book ) mean that the print is no longer the only "original"? ( unless the "Artist Editions" were only allowed to use high res scans of the original print rather than the original digital files as the source? basically reprinting from a 2nd generation copy )

 

Anyway, I think there will be a market for one off prints if the artists abide to their word not to reprint ( though I'm afraid technology will most prob allow certain buyers to do pretty good copies themselves by scanning the one off print, cleaning it a bit and reprinting ), but i'd still imagine that one off prints will always sell for less than OA ( simply because they're less "interesting" to look at, and give no insight into how the work was created since you won't see paste ups, blue lines, pencils residues, white outs, etc ).

 

 

[Dr. Balls]

idk balls, OA and OA of a printed page/cover are 2 different things, imo anyways

 

i have plenty of sketch cover OA (around to over 100), but only about 10 printed OA

 

while i love most of my sketch covers, there is (to me) something more to oweing a printed page/cover

 

I would definitely agree. I love my commissioned pieces on their own, but I have OA that has seen print, and there's almost an ineffable quality to owning those. It's a bonafide part-of-the-process piece of history.

 

I do like they are very different. On one hand, a commissioned piece allows the artist to work (relatively) unconstrained and see the raw talent come through. In production art, you see the artist at work in his profession, creating work that tells a story that viewers are familiar with.

 

I love my Buscema pages. I'll never own a big Buscema commission or pinup, but at least I have a piece of his history. I love my Bisley and Mayo commissioned pieces (not commissioned by me), I'll probably never own one of their pages - but I do like that I've got some of their original work. I try to go after whichever piece is going to fulfill my collecting goals for the artist - sometimes it's an original page, sometimes it's a commission.

 

Commissions are less expensive and more accessible, and you're definitely right - two very different things.

[vodou]

This is an interesting topic, and I'm glad it hasn't devolved into simply "it's not art". I don't have the answer, does anybody? It may be this thing is a personal choice during the transition phase (we're there now), until all comic/illustration is developed partially/wholly digitally. Then the market will find a way to accept or reject each new iteration until something works. And more or less sticks. Vintage aside, there won't be any contemporary alternatives (or at least not in sufficient quantity to satisfy general demand).

 

For sure expect artists to continue to develop their art and try to find a market for it. Just like you keep going to work every morning, for otherwise...how to eat? For fans (collectors?) having the mass-produced version won't be enough, so there should always be 'some' demand for a more limited version, if not 'unique'. Sometimes the market will lead the artists, and sometimes the other way around. One thing that strikes me is the difficulty of using our comfortable OA terms to describe this 'stuff'. Probably new terms are needed instead. Isn't it a struggle to try calling it OA when we keep looking to photography, printmaking, (and I'd argue video/digital art) to get a grip on it?

 

What we collect, what we're used to collecting, this stuff isn't. But that doesn't mean it's not collectible, it's not art...it just means that the (present) words are clumsy, ill-fitting, and maybe we're not the right collectors for it? As for prices...extrapolating from, or applying a formula against, old-school OA (for lack of a better reference)...has no particular bearing. If it's 'new' art, with potentially a new audience (demand base) to come, then expect too a new price to follow. Probably 'whatever the market will bear'

[Dr. Balls]

This is an interesting topic, and I'm glad it hasn't devolved into simply "it's not art".

 

+1

 

The digital discussion is important, especially for the points you made: it's not going anywhere. Someone is going to come up with a marketable way digital OA is accepted by collectors - I'm sure of it.

[Pete Marino]

I always thought one of the more clever ways to deal with this are the 1/1 recreations that Felix is having Nick D do for East of West.

 

Maybe the future is combining that with a 1/1 print?

 

Either way, I thought that was a cool solution in an all digital world.

[rotembk]

What some fine art illustrators do is create a print that is then hand embellished so as to create a true original piece (see, for example, Tom Bagshaw's work, he offers both originals and limited prints), however, this clearly won't work in the comic book world where deviation from the published work would reduce value rather than increase it.

 

I think I've less of a problem with an artist who pencils digitally and then inks the printed blue lines, assuming that the inked version is the published version. This raises the same question as where due to time constraints a penciller scans the work and emails it to the inker who inks the printed blue lines; which do you prefer, the pencils, which didn't see actual print, or the inks that have no real pencil-lead beneath them?

 

One compromise that can work for some comic book artists is to create the interiors digitally but pencil/ink the cover the old fashioned way, so as to have some original art they can sell (I expect Felix can chime in on this point).

[Garf]

I cetainly can't say it's not art but for me it's a step in the wrong direction. It's heading away from being part of the process and moving towards being a wholly manufactured collectible. OA pages are what they are... limited prints are limited solely for the purpose of making more money.

 

The artist still pours hours of their time and talent into it, a digital painting can still have a hundred thousand brushstrokes... but even at the simplest levels part of the process is automated, dictated by an algorithm. How can anyone be able to tell how much work and reworking is done by the computer program? Maybe it's also partly this that I reject on a subconcious level seeing as I am ok with the fine art prints in my living room. Anything that can be automated in any way to help meet deadlines is eventually going to be increasingly adopted and developed by people producing stuff to for the purpose of selling to the masses, meaning less and less input is required by hand. We already have machines making music and writing website articles, why not drawing comics? I'm not saying that's going to happen any time soon, but it's certainly doable. Maybe I am wrong but I don't believe there is the same imaginary artistic barriers you see elsewhere of having "sold out" to hold comic publishers back. Maybe a hard working artist could be encouraged by a little automation that allows them to work on maybe two or three titles at the same time when before that wasn't possible?

 

The only other place I can think of where the dominant collectible art formats are prints or "making of" hardcovers is videogaming and that doesn't sell too well. Even arguably one of the most revered titles ever with a ton of hard to get sigs was well withing everyone's grasp

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/SIGNED-Half-Life-2-Raising-the-Bar-A-COLLECTORS-ITEM-/111412445125

 

If you moved away from that and perhaps got original concept art then that would be different. Pretty much like say the difference between production used storyboards and the original hand drawn storyboard art, which is clear and massive in those existing markets. I don't think it matters how limited signatures or prints are you won't see an acceptable market develop where the next greatest thing in comics can sell prints at the same prices top tier OA pages go for. Never going to happen. Digital art as a collectible is kill, and more likely to hemorrage collectors away from new art and back into printed comics which may eventually become less mass produced in that format and the new vinyl... or perhaps commissions will become the new grail.

 

Still there must be a market for it with enough people buying "production art" on eBay. I don't believe that prints will ever be the pinnacle of this hobby, just another market that is changing for better or for worse.

 

Looking at it from a slightly different angle people may also believe that digital art is something everyone can have a decent crack at and not offer it the same level of respect. That might be misguided or arrogant but then I have seen people who can't draw well by hand knock out 3D models and play with rendering in their spare time and achieve brilliant results. Results where they could apply any number of filters to make it looked sketched, inked, cartoon like... and people are only going to become more tech savvy if the tablet becomes the new paper.

 

 

(ok... that was rambling on and taking it too far, but surely now a tradition in these parts)

[vodou]

Garf most of what you wrote, I'm seeing, assumes higher artistic (and/or collector) value for hands-on vs. digital manipulation. I'm not willing to concede that. Different, yes. Better, no. Or rather...not particularly.

[Bronty]

Well, I am trying to picture all this and I think an example helps. Walking Dead is pretty recent. Let's say it was already all digital, and so the walking dead #1 cover "art" was a 1/1 print, and you had some way of verifying your copy was the real one, and that it was impossible or illegal to produce copies.

 

Would the 1/1 cover print have value? Well, I think the answer is clearly yes and clearly quite a bit of value. It would be a rare WD collectible and there would be more demand than suppy. Would it be worth as much as the hand drawn art? Impossible to say, but maybe. At that level you're really paying for bragging rights at the end of the day (and before anyone jumps in to say that they love the art and that's what they are paying for, blah blah consider why you don't just collect photocopies or Arist's Editions then and be done with it).

 

On a personal level though its something I reject entirely. I wouldn't buy a 1/1 print (unless heavily discounted) in the same way that I can't imagine, were I a fine art collector, collecting video installations as opposed to actual tangible paintings or sculpture. If we assume away the risk of duplicates being made, etc, I'm not sure if I have or can articulate particularly good reasons for rejecting 1/1 prints, but I do.

 

I suppose that for me it has something to do with the fact that we imbue the artifact used in a creation with a little bit of the magic of the project. Dorothy's red shoes from the Wizard of Oz for example. Who the hell wants vintage red shoes? Well if they are from a landmark movie and worn by the actress onscreen I do.

 

A 1/1 print feels like putting the horse after the cart. Instead of the artifact being imbued with the magic of the creative moment - so to speak - it has instead been created after the fact not with the purpose of creating art but with the purpose of creating a rarity. Intent matters, at least to me.

 

If they took a pair of red shoes and put them on the actress that played Dorothy three months or even three days after the movie was made and told her she could never wear red shoes again for the rest of her life, well, I don't particularly want those. Unless heavily discounted.

 

I find that the more you have to explain a collectible, the less widespread acceptance the market gives it. First appearance of batman, rarest US coin in the world, best painting of landmark artist. Those are all easy to understand.

 

1/1 print created from a digital file which was then destroyed and the artist promises he won't make copies. Ehhh. Tougher sell.

 

[desertdogg2006]

iam sorry ill never buy a one of one digital print of any art work. and iam an artist. it just take all the fun out of knowing you have an artist work in your hands. and a print is just something to make for the masses. that you can sell cheap. I have works that most likely will just go to my family. but I will make prints to sell cheap just to make money. or just sell the original if it something I really don't care for.

 

I don't see the original art market being effected by this as they are a lot of art still being done the traditional way. if a new artist only want to work in digital and I like his work then I may just go for a commission that way I know iam get pure art from them not just a print of something he did. it,s just how I feel but to each his own.

[Bronty]

it just take all the fun out of knowing you have an artist work in your hands.

 

On a base level, I agree. Its just not as fun knowing the guy printed it off his laptop as opposed to knowing the guy sweated over that tangible piece of art.

[Garf]

Garf most of what you wrote, I'm seeing, assumes higher artistic (and/or collector) value for hands-on vs. digital manipulation. I'm not willing to concede that. Different, yes. Better, no. Or rather...not particularly.

 

Perhaps, but apply that to published comic art and then any unique collectible end product derived purely from digital work is simply not part of the tangible process for me. It just feels mechanically recovered by comparison, an afterthought. My viewpoint is obviously influenced by the majority of what I love having been hand drawn and being able to own some small part of the process.Take away that purchase option then sure I would consider prints more often but nowhere near at the same price points. I guess that may answer the original question in this thread (at least from my point of view).

 

I won't place the same monetary value on a collectible but it doesn't mean my response or emotional attachment to the published work is necessarily any less.

[Garf]

Well, I am trying to picture all this and I think an example helps. Walking Dead is pretty recent. Let's say it was already all digital, and so the walking dead #1 cover "art" was a 1/1 print, and you had some way of verifying your copy was the real one, and that it was impossible or illegal to produce copies.

 

Would the 1/1 cover print have value? Well, I think the answer is clearly yes and clearly quite a bit of value. It would be a rare WD collectible and there would be more demand than suppy. Would it be worth as much as the hand drawn art? Impossible to say, but maybe. At that level you're really paying for bragging rights at the end of the day (and before anyone jumps in to say that they love the art and that's what they are paying for, blah blah consider why you don't just collect photocopies or Arist's Editions then and be done with it).

 

On a personal level though its something I reject entirely. I wouldn't buy a 1/1 print (unless heavily discounted) in the same way that I can't imagine, were I a fine art collector, collecting video installations as opposed to actual tangible paintings or sculpture. If we assume away the risk of duplicates being made, etc, I'm not sure if I have or can articulate particularly good reasons for rejecting 1/1 prints, but I do.

 

 

I suppose that for me it has something to do with the fact that we imbue the artifact used in a creation with a little bit of the magic of the project. Dorothy's red shoes from the Wizard of Oz for example. Who the hell wants vintage red shoes? Well if they are from a landmark movie and worn by the actress onscreen I do.

 

A 1/1 print feels like putting the cart after the horse. Instead of the artifact being imbued with the magic of the creative moment - so to speak - it has instead been created after the fact not with the purpose of creating art but with the purpose of creating a rarity. Intent matters, at least to me.

 

If they took a pair of red shoes and put them on the actress that played Dorothy three months or even three days after the movie was made and told her she could never wear red shoes again for the rest of her life, well, I don't particularly want those. Unless heavily discounted.

 

I find that the more you have to explain a collectible, the less widespread acceptance the market gives it. First appearance of batman, rarest US coin in the world, best painting of landmark artist. Those are all easy to understand.

 

1/1 print created from a digital file which was then destroyed and the artist promises he won't make copies. Ehhh. Tougher sell.

 

Nicely put.

 

Would an artist necessarily have that much control if the work they had done wasn't on a creator owned title?

[Solar]

I always thought one of the more clever ways to deal with this are the 1/1 recreations that Felix is having Nick D do for East of West.

 

Maybe the future is combining that with a 1/1 print?

 

Either way, I thought that was a cool solution in an all digital world.

 

+1

[Dark Prime 0]

i understand what your all saying, but it's also comeing off (to me) almost like your saying that just bc it was done on a PC that the artist didn't put time into it, like the PC did all the work

 

while as i said i'm on the fence about getting 1 offs......this is the only viable way to get digital peices of OA comic art

 

honestly i can see the hobby coming to the point of 1 offs being a very real thing and possibly accepted part, the reason is as time goes on and more new artist come into the industry they (most likely) will be drawing on their PC, hell the blue line for inking and the original pencials was already brought up.......to me it looks like there are 2 peices of OA (the original, and the original inked). just as i have 1 peice that is penciles, and the rest are all inked over the penciles. i have seen an artist selling them this way too, 1200 for both and he was very into selling them as a pair but was willing if you wanted to sell each for 600 a peice

 

for commision peices vs published pages/covers.......they are different

 

personaly i don't buy OA bc of the artist name, i buy what catches my eye on the art. someone had a jim lee page for sale (cheep imo) of the origin of cyborg in the new 52 (him playing football). would i love a jim lee peice, yes, but i would rather it be a peice i liked then just bc he drew it. oweing the art bc the artist drew it means nothing if you don't like the image on it

[Nexus]

I always thought one of the more clever ways to deal with this are the 1/1 recreations that Felix is having Nick D do for East of West.

 

Maybe the future is combining that with a 1/1 print?

 

Either way, I thought that was a cool solution in an all digital world.

 

Thanks, Pete. The hobby/market evolves and adapts. It always has. Time will tell just how well the hobby accepts what I'm doing with Nick, but for now, we have a long waiting list of collectors who want some physical art of their own from the series. Pretty amazing given that this is all fairly new, and collectors are generally resistant to change.

 

I suspected we were ahead of the curve when we started doing this; now I'm certain of it, as other artists/reps are adopting the model. Which is great...so long as everyone is aware that the key to all this is that the art is drawn on paper one time only.

 

Enjoying this discussion, I've forwarded a link to this thread to a few artists who have been on the fence.