digital OA as a 1 off print?

[Bronty]

I don't have a problem with digital art and 1/1 hard copies to put in a portfolio or hang on a wall. Or 1/100, 1/1000 for that matter.

 

Yeah but will you pay OA prices for a 1/100 print? Why would you, why would anyone? There's 99 other copies. Taking that piece of logic a little further, why would you pay OA prices for a 1/1 print when there's a risk of 99 more copies down the road indistinguishable from the first? (whether next week, next year, or 30 years from now). The artist or faker wouldn't even have to go through the exercise/effort/time of drawing/inking them - just load up the paper and hit print. No sore hands, no excruciating boredom of redoing the same image 100 times.

 

Maybe you'd pay 90% for a 1/1 because you feel the risk is small. I'd pay 10% for a 1/1 because I'm uncomfortable with the risk, period. It would be interesting to see where the market would settle.

[Dark Prime 0]

I don't have a problem with digital art and 1/1 hard copies to put in a portfolio or hang on a wall. Or 1/100, 1/1000 for that matter.

 

Yeah but will you pay OA prices for a 1/100 print? Why would you, why would anyone? There's 99 other copies. Taking that piece of logic a little further, why would you pay OA prices for a 1/1 print when there's a risk of 99 more copies down the road indistinguishable from the first? (whether next week, next year, or 30 years from now). The artist or faker wouldn't even have to go through the exercise/effort/time of drawing/inking them - just load up the paper and hit print. No sore hands, no excruciating boredom of redoing the same image 100 times.

 

Maybe you'd pay 90% for a 1/1 because you feel the risk is small. I'd pay 10% for a 1/1 because I'm uncomfortable with the risk, period. It would be interesting to see where the market would settle.

so how much would you pay for a cry for dawn 1, or goobly gook 1, 2 or cerbrus 1 (betting not 10%), all have knock offs and unless you know what to look for, you could very easily be paying for something worth $0. do you buy these books even though it's known that there are fakes out there and they can be easily recopied. out of the ones i mentioned the goobly gooks would be the easiest to reproduce, dawn 3 horror con comes to mind as well.......your trusting the dealer not to lie to you (and there are dealers out there who would and will)

 

OA would be no less easy to reproduce, find it on an auction house where a hi res pic is, take said pic to be printed, and oh look i have a convincing copy of said art, all OA is in question unless your buying it strait from the artist.......though if in hand you can't tell the difference between an original and a photocopy then your blind

 

but for a 1 off it's a little harder as the only check is the artist sig/writeing, which you should be able to tell if it's real (from a pen) or is it a photocopy too......i do agree with the seal of some kind on the paper like from a notery

[Bronty]

I'm not someone who sticks his head in the sand and refuses to pay for anything that could potentially be faked - that would amount to never buying anything! But we are not just talking about fakes here - also authorized reproductions. That, IMO, would be worse than fakes. And all we have there so far is the honor system. Anyways I think I will bow out of this discussion as 1/1 prints aren't for me.

[Dr. Balls]

I don't have a problem with digital art and 1/1 hard copies to put in a portfolio or hang on a wall. Or 1/100, 1/1000 for that matter.

 

Yeah but will you pay OA prices for a 1/100 print? Why would you, why would anyone? There's 99 other copies. Taking that piece of logic a little further, why would you pay OA prices for a 1/1 print when there's a risk of 99 more copies down the road indistinguishable from the first? (whether next week, next year, or 30 years from now). The artist or faker wouldn't even have to go through the exercise/effort/time of drawing/inking them - just load up the paper and hit print. No sore hands, no excruciating boredom of redoing the same image 100 times.

 

Maybe you'd pay 90% for a 1/1 because you feel the risk is small. I'd pay 10% for a 1/1 because I'm uncomfortable with the risk, period. It would be interesting to see where the market would settle.

so how much would you pay for a cry for dawn 1, or goobly gook 1, 2 or cerbrus 1 (betting not 10%), all have knock offs and unless you know what to look for, you could very easily be paying for something worth $0. do you buy these books even though it's known that there are fakes out there and they can be easily recopied. out of the ones i mentioned the goobly gooks would be the easiest to reproduce, dawn 3 horror con comes to mind as well.......your trusting the dealer not to lie to you (and there are dealers out there who would and will)

 

OA would be no less easy to reproduce, find it on an auction house where a hi res pic is, take said pic to be printed, and oh look i have a convincing copy of said art, all OA is in question unless your buying it strait from the artist.......though if in hand you can't tell the difference between an original and a photocopy then your blind

 

but for a 1 off it's a little harder as the only check is the artist sig/writeing, which you should be able to tell if it's real (from a pen) or is it a photocopy too......i do agree with the seal of some kind on the paper like from a notery

 

A lot of that responsibility falls to the artist to understand that fakes can easily be made, and to take preventative measures to ensure that - down the line - copies can be distinguished from the real thing. Either by way of putting something on the print, producing it a certain way or simply by educating the public.

 

You bring a good point with the photocopied HorrorCon #3. I actually bought two copies in order to figure out what made them similar and legitimate. They would have been easy to copy and pass off to fans, but I attempted to show people what made them similar and what to look for so they wouldn't buy something thinking it was legit, only to find out later it was a fake - because sometimes the dealer isn't at fault, he could have bought it under the pretense it was real - the goal is to build or recognize deterrents in the work that minimize counterfeting. Some people are okay with this information being publicized, and as we saw last week: some are not.

 

It comes down to knowledge. Fakes can be made, but only sold to people who are not educated with what they are buying - it's like anything. Fake comics, fake Coach purses or fake Rolexes - all get bought by people who are *not* familiar with the originals, and that will always be a problem.

[Captain Canuck]

The proper way to prevent fakes or ensure the piece is what it is, is to employ the same techniques that professional artists use on their prints. Different types of paper, ink and so on. Hanna and Barberra used ink with their DNA in it to ensure the arts authenticity. This all sounds expensive, but if a bunch artists use the same service/printing house, costs can be kept down and authenticity enforced. Otherwise you end up with the same situation with those Kane Batman DaVinci prints where there are 20 different versions, confusion and so on, which drives down the cost.

[vodou]

I don't have a problem with digital art and 1/1 hard copies to put in a portfolio or hang on a wall. Or 1/100, 1/1000 for that matter.

 

Yeah but will you pay OA prices for a 1/100 print? Why would you, why would anyone? There's 99 other copies.

Yes I would. I would pay whatever the seller and I could both live with, assuming my general interest in the image to begin with. Price comps only becomes a consideration when the exact same image appears in two states at the same time. Like an original (vintage) and a recreation (modern) by the same artist/s. This scenario would not exist with digital art. There would only be one state, whether x1, x100, x1000. All same state. This assumes the number is known upfront. But any dishonesty on the part of the artist as to how many were/will be made...that's a consideration, and should be prosecutable as fraud.

[Garf]

Ask any artist, most (all?) will tell you that what they imagine in their head...the physical realization is a pale shade at best. Some pieces closer to "IT" than others, but still pale. So the struggle of the thing is to get what's in their head out to the world. There will be artists that feel they get closer (aka are more successful) using digital means.

 

That and they can put all their s*** in one bag and cart it around with them from place to place

 

 

 

I was speaking to a friend who creates digital art about this topic today and yes they love the results. He said when doing stuff on paper the idea usually has to be conceived first and the end goal much clearer before starting on the final piece. Whereas digital work can start with a watered down concept and develop more freely, sometimes even flowing into something entirely different from what was originally imagined. Layout, prelim, re-draft, final image all rolled up together into the same piece from start to finish. Just part of one person's take on it. I would hate to think anyone who enjoys someone's work will stop looking at it just because it is produced in a digital format. It's just as creative in both similar and different ways.

 

This thread could easily get stuck between you and a repeat of Bronty's Ruby Slipper argument... and I don't think that argument can be easily brushed aside.

 

What makes an Alan Moore hand typed manuscript more desirable than the published books (let's just assume they contain the exact same words for the sake of arguing that point)?

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=971187

 

Strip away the physical aspect and perhaps you are stripping away the richness and context of what you have. A guitar that Hendrix never played, a manuscript that Moore never typed, a print that never pencilled / inked / laid a brushstroke on. You can still play the guitar, you can still read the manuscript and you can still enjoy the print.

 

Ok ok... so maybe that option was never available right? Digital media is in most cases intended for comsumption on a device that reads the digital file. It's also inherantly available to the masses. Web based comics, music, games, movies... a strong association with the intended device and availability is built in. There's even a drive in a lot of these markets to build your collection online via a single marketplace and forget that you never truly own any of it.

 

Some web based comics out there are available in formats that scale up really nicely in glorious HD on a large screen bringing comics directly into your living room. If they are only expressed digitally then why not just appreciate it there in the format they were developed on and for? If there is no physical publication and there is nobody stood behind you twisting your arm forcing you to buy a print. What makes your collector brain tick to make that change feel necessary and what makes you think people will still be collecting that format (it could be dead before it gets out of the gate)?

 

Maybe it's very easy for my perception to get all bent out of shape by this having lived without it all being so ubiquitous for most of my life. A clear miss with me as a collector, maybe even with plenty of my generation but it's not for me to say. Still want a physical part of the process no matter how small.

[vodou]

good stuff Garf!

[Garf]

I'm not someone who sticks his head in the sand and refuses to pay for anything that could potentially be faked - that would amount to never buying anything! But we are not just talking about fakes here - also authorized reproductions. That, IMO, would be worse than fakes. And all we have there so far is the honor system. Anyways I think I will bow out of this discussion as 1/1 prints aren't for me.

 

Same. I can't say I don't own prints but I know myself well enough by now to know where my preferences lie. Here's one I got via a boardie, it's limited, it's numbered, it's remarked.... it's glorious!

 

Jeremy Bastian The Sacking of the Royal City of Cub

 

 

... and Bronty if you do ever get a 1/1 print and level the playing field let me know so I can get a print of the AF15 cover art to compete.

[Bronty]

that looks terrific! Wonderful detail

 

 

 

and as for the AF15 cover, well.............. you win

[Dr. Balls]

If they are only expressed digitally then why not just appreciate it there in the format they were developed on and for?

 

I think they are lot of people who enjoy it in the intended format. But there are collectors who want a "piece" of something they like, admire or enjoy. It's probably just the nature of collecting.

[AKA Rick]

Anyways I think I will bow out of this discussion as 1/1 prints aren't for me.

 

I'm in agreement, so if any digital 1/1 print was ever put up for auction, I'd refrain from bidding/participating as well. There's too much stuff I already like out there that takes higher priority to me knowing I can't buy/own everything anyway, so it's one less problem to deal with...

[MHoes]

Hrm. Not sure what to think of this: Steve McNiven is selling 'limited edition prints' of his digital artwork for 'Death of Wolverine'. Although I love McNiven's art, if I had enough money to spend I guess I would rather buy his full 'traditional' pencils of an older title, than any off these prints.

 

The Artist's Choice - Steve McNiven Original Artwork

[Rmfn33]

Its interesting because the inks were still done by hand.. Id be curious to see what people think of this "half" digital vs full digital

[MHoes]

So, what being sold here, is still a 'one of a kind', and not one digital print of many (although limited) ?

[Garf]

Hrm. Not sure what to think of this: Steve McNiven is selling 'limited edition prints' of his digital artwork for 'Death of Wolverine'. Although I love McNiven's art, if I had enough money to spend I guess I would rather buy his full 'traditional' pencils of an older title, than any off these prints.

 

The Artist's Choice - Steve McNiven Original Artwork

 

"This is combined with any pencil roughs from the page"

 

The pencil roughs I saw posted in other threads are pretty damn good

[Rmfn33]

So, what being sold here, is still a 'one of a kind', and not one digital print of many (although limited) ?

 

What i got out of it was that it is a one of a kind item from digital pencils that Jay physically inked on... now theoretically Steve could print the pencils again though just like any other digital artist.

[MHoes]

So, what being sold here, is still a 'one of a kind', and not one digital print of many (although limited) ?

 

What i got out of it was that it is a one of a kind item from digital pencils that Jay physically inked on... now theoretically Steve could print the pencils again though just like any other digital artist.

Okay. Then I guess I have sort of similar feelings about those, as I do about traditional pencils that are scanned and then printed out for the inker to work on physically. In both cases the inks are done traditionally, but the piece that is being inked is not the 'physical copy' that the penciller worked on. I would pay less for those than pieces were both the pencils and the inks were done traditionally by hand. Although Im sure others are more than willing to pay the same price for them.

[MHoes]

Hrm. Not sure what to think of this: Steve McNiven is selling 'limited edition prints' of his digital artwork for 'Death of Wolverine'. Although I love McNiven's art, if I had enough money to spend I guess I would rather buy his full 'traditional' pencils of an older title, than any off these prints.

 

The Artist's Choice - Steve McNiven Original Artwork

 

"This is combined with any pencil roughs from the page"

 

The pencil roughs I saw posted in other threads are pretty damn good

I saw one of those too, and they do indeed look good. And although the inclusion of those makes the digital pencils offer look more appealing, I still would hesitate to pay the same for them as I would for full traditional by hand pencils.

[mrblond4]

I would Commission a piece of digital art but I would never " buy " Digital artwork regardless of what It was used for..