OA in pencil for sale of digitally-created cover...?

[Sideshow Bob]

So I asked an artist about a DC cover that had just been released, to see if the art was for sale. Alas, it was done digitally. Usually that is the end of the conversation in these modern times. However, he was going to do a original in pencil of the cover now that he was through the deadline. Would I be interested? And then he hit me with (what I think would be) full market price, with the assurance that he would be drawing only one of these.

 

So, how do you categorize this? A commission? A light-box recreation? The original cover?

 

And how do you price it?

 

I'd love to own it, but I try to limit my purchases to just published pieces, but is this a published piece?

 

Any thoughts would be helpful. I think the hobby has settled on a definition of inkers working off of digital blue-lines, and how to price that. This one has left me scratching my head.

 

-Bob

[mister_not_so_nice]

As you describe it I'd call it a commission or cover recreation.

 

If the artist had drawn it, scanned it in and finished digitally it would be a different story. Anything done AFTER publication can't be classified as the published art

[Eltanin]

I would personally consider this a recreation.

 

Not necessarily something I would overlook, especially if this is the only way to get an original from an artist who works in digital, but I wouldn't price it as much as an original which was part of the actual published piece creation process. Here, the pencil drawing is a byproduct. The published cover would be exactly the same, with or without these pencils.

[Pete Marino]

As you describe it I'd call it a commission or cover recreation.

 

If the artist had drawn it, scanned it in and finished digitally it would be a different story. Anything done AFTER publication can't be classified as the published art

 

Yup, this is how I see it as well.

 

I would expect he's free handing and not light-boxing, since it's already finished with digital inks, there wouldn't be much work for him to do if he just copied his finished product.

[Hekla]

I don't like the sound of this. Who is the artist?

[Mephisto]

From what you have said it doesn't sound like it's right for your collection, and in the end would pass. I would deem it not a published piece.

[Mighty Hal]

If the artist had drawn it, scanned it in and finished digitally it would be a different story. Anything done AFTER publication can't be classified as the published art

 

What he said. This doesn't mean you shouldn't buy it; it depends on how much you like that original cover. Just know you'd best love it because you may struggle to get your purchase price back if you ever have to resell it.

[alxjhnsn]

It's a cover recreation; I'd classify it for the comicart-l "Best of ..." voting as "Published/Unpublished Commission."

 

For value, like most commissions, it is probably worth less than you paid for it. As a new car loses value when you drive it off the lot so do commissions.

[AKA Rick]

It is a commission, cover recreation with an " * " disclosure to it that no original artwork exists beyond a digital file for the published final, but yours could be one of many done in the spirit of recreating that piece.

 

It has some collectible value of course, but there will be many naysayers who would pass on the piece, so at no given point should the proposed piece be marketed as being an published original art.

 

The assurance of only one being drawn by the artist is fine, but doesn't mean much. It's still not the published piece. Since it was disclosed it was done digitally, even if he light boxed it in pencil and when went over it with inks and it was an exact line for line rendering, it's still not the original by most collector's eyes from that technical standpoint. You can fool yourself or others into thinking and rationalizing that it is, but it really isn't, so if being published is very important to you, then pass.

 

If you're a fan, go for it. If he holds true to his word and doesn't recreate this piece ever again, you have something even more special.

 

If you're an opportunistic investor looking to get something to resell, think about it. It really depends on the title and the artist as well as the cost.

 

It does sound better than those artists who offer their digital artwork printed, signed and #'ed 1/1 for sale.

[Solar]

If it's guaranteed to be 1/1 and the published art was digital, then I'd consider it something more than a commission but something less than a published original. If it is the only original of the image, and it's an image that's important to you, then it's not like there's a better option.

 

I think pieces like this will eventually fall into their own category as the practice becomes more common and they'll be priced accordingly.

[NelsonAI]

There are never any guarantees ......

If an artist needs $, he'll crank out multiple recreations of his work.

 

As an example, the late Jim Mooney created an original Spidey / Goblin pin up to be used as a print he could sell at conventions. I bought the original from him off eBay years ago.

 

The print was extremely popular but fans kept asking for an original. So lo and behold, he started cranking out multiple recreations for sale. Some have even resold on various auction sites.

 

The piece that I have, despite being the original for the print, no longer feels unique. I knew it wasn't published but since he was making $ off the prints, I assumed (incorrectly), that Jim wasn't going to recreate the image again.

 

Rather than come up with a new drawing, I guess it was far easier for him to trace the image over and over again.

 

Luckily, I did not overpay for the art.

 

All the best.

Cheers!

N.

 

[Bronty]

If it's guaranteed to be 1/1 and the published art was digital, then I'd consider it something more than a commission but something less than a published original. If it is the only original of the image, and it's an image that's important to you, then it's not like there's a better option.

 

I think pieces like this will eventually fall into their own category as the practice becomes more common and they'll be priced accordingly.

 

1/1 recreation IMO. This is just like the pencil recreations kirby did of the marvel SA covers for the sotheby's auctions, with the only twist being that its an immediate recreation as opposed to 30 years after the fact.

[Solar]

If it's guaranteed to be 1/1 and the published art was digital, then I'd consider it something more than a commission but something less than a published original. If it is the only original of the image, and it's an image that's important to you, then it's not like there's a better option.

 

I think pieces like this will eventually fall into their own category as the practice becomes more common and they'll be priced accordingly.

 

1/1 recreation IMO. This is just like the pencil recreations kirby did of the marvel SA covers for the sotheby's auctions, with the only twist being that its an immediate recreation as opposed to 30 years after the fact.

 

I'd say the lack of another original even possibly existing adds to the appeal of these digital pieces. It's not the second best physical piece of art - it's the only physical piece of art.

[Bronty]

If it's guaranteed to be 1/1 and the published art was digital, then I'd consider it something more than a commission but something less than a published original. If it is the only original of the image, and it's an image that's important to you, then it's not like there's a better option.

 

I think pieces like this will eventually fall into their own category as the practice becomes more common and they'll be priced accordingly.

 

1/1 recreation IMO. This is just like the pencil recreations kirby did of the marvel SA covers for the sotheby's auctions, with the only twist being that its an immediate recreation as opposed to 30 years after the fact.

 

I'd say the lack of another original even possibly existing adds to the appeal of these digital pieces. It's not the second best physical piece of art - it's the only physical piece of art.

 

same is true of those kirby covers...

 

I think it helps but if its not a published cover, its not a published cover IMO.

 

Others may disagree but personally I view this as a bit of a sideshow to the production process. Something that's not part of the production process and being artificially introduced in order to sell art. Hey I'd probably do the same thing if I were the artist, I don't blame the guy one bit. But if acting as a buyer that collects published covers, I'd have zero interest - lack of 'better options' (keeping the money comes to mind..) be damned....

[alxjhnsn]

I view it as just a commission. Thom Zahler of Love & Capes, does most of the book digitally. There is VERY little OA related to the book.

 

Knowing that I asked him to recreate my favorite cover. On this cover, our hero (Mark/Crusader) drops into a bar where he finds his fiance (Abby; normal girl) talking to his ex (Amazonia, think Wonder Woman).

 

He recreated it for me. Neither of us consider it to be anything more than a recreation. He will draw that same image for anyone that wants to pay his normal commission rate. I could sell it for something less than that rate.

 

I think your situation is very similar.

 

 

 

[Bird]

The smart ones will do the quick and/or tedious work on the computer and do the splash pages, covers, and significant story moments on paper. Some already do this, but I wonder why the OPs artist does not do so.

 

 

[alxjhnsn]

Thom works that way now.

[Eric Seffinga]

If you like the piece, sweet.

If you want it to be the published art, well, it ain't.

 

Doesn't necessarily diminish it as a visual piece, but does change the context in which it was created. Some folks need the context and others don't.

 

 

 

 

[theflashunc]

Recreation. Very cool recreation from a series with little OA associated with it. But a recreation nonetheless.

 

 

[Sideshow Bob]

Thanks everyone. There were some good cautionary tales here, in what is an evolving landscape.

 

I'll go back to the artist asking for commission rates (maybe a little more), which is the best I can do to protect my sanity and pocketbook. If the artist balks and there is someone else in the wings who wants to pay true OA rates, they can have it.

 

Occasionally, I deal with a couple Modern artists and dealers, and I've started to see digital-only artists begin to switch to traditional methods for at least the cover and a splash or two. Usually that's after they realize there is money they are leaving on the table.

 

I suppose we'll all have to start asking the question, "What came first, the digital file or the pencils?".

 

Thanks for all the responses. It makes me want to only buy Silver Age OA sometimes...

Bob

 

PS: If you really want to blow your mind trying to price out Modern OA, try these two:

 

A) Inks over blue lines, when the pencils/layouts are done digitally (ie unavailable for OA) by the same artist.

B) Pencils and inks done by same artist, but with the pencils (sometimes rough, sometimes tight) sold separately from inks done over his/her own printed blue lines on a separate page with the scanned penciled blue lines showing.