Looking for some OA advice/opinions

[HCE]

Here's a hypothetical question for you:

 

You buy an OA comic book cover. It's an acrylic painting of a single figure on a white background/canvas. The published cover adds the title of the book above the figure (a small part of the title is overlapped by the figure so that the figure's head is in front of it), but there are no other changes, it features the same white background.

 

After you buy the piece, the artist offers to paint the title as it appears on the published book, adding it to the original painting.

 

What would you do? Would you add the title or not?

[alxjhnsn]

I would not. I like it as it was used.

 

On the other hand, I would be tempted to have an overlay created so that I could see it with or without the trade dress. I did that with an Archie cover that I bought. You can see both with and without by clicking the image.

 

[Eric Seffinga]

I'm one of those that sees myself as temporary caretaker of the art I own. I will kick the bucket eventually, and I do like to think some day someone else will want it. So I certainly would never change the art as published to achieve some personal satisfaction. No more than I'd have the original artist paint my wife and myself in the black space, and fill in the background to look like our living room. An extreme analogy, but the sentiment is the same.

 

I see altering the original after the fact as "damage". The same way I see Oliffe coloring those old Wolverine Mini pages that he did, or when an artist personalizes a page in the middle of a panel or cover. Just not something I'm into at all.

 

I have in the past had overlays made that float over artwork in a frame. Specifically word balloons that don't appear on painted originals. Pieces by McKean, Kent Williams, Alex Ross' Kingdom Come, etc.

 

But I don't do that any more either. I quickly realized that the overlays cast shadows, and when the work fades over the decades (and they do all fade no matter the storage method, unless never ever taken out of a blacked out archival photo box), it fades less under those bubbles/overlays. So if the overlay is not displayed with it, there could be "shadow spots" in the color, where it has faded less.

 

But that's just me...

[chrisco37]

Nope. Wouldn't add the title/alter the original.

 

If you "must" do something, the overlay is the better idea.

[Peter G]

No way !!!!!!

[malvin]

I generally would not alter published art unless its for restoration of damage

 

Malvin

[theflashunc]

Overlay, a thousand times overlay.

[vodou]

After you buy the piece, the artist offers to paint the title as it appears on the published book, adding it to the original painting.

 

What would you do? Would you add the title or not?

Without naming names or pointing fingers, I'm going to tell you that not every painter is a good letterer. Not every penciller or inker either. CAF is full of awful faux trade dress on commissions and digital age art. It's gross, but since we only ever say nice things to people or stay quiet...nobody says a thing.

 

A letterer used to the tools of that trade is good at that, but maybe not with different tools and materials? Can the artist achieve the same color now and over time as the paint "ages" to match the published cover, to remain cohesive with the rest of the cover that was already painted (and unless it's out of the tube raw, no two palette mixes will ever be exactly the same). These are all the reasons why you shouldn't do it, even if the artist assures you that he knows what he's doing, it's his career, etc. They all say that, and most want it to be true, but it is not. One "it" is done, it's done and no matter what there's no going back. Especially at the risk of screwing up the original published painting portion too!

 

Take the piece as it is and live with it as is. If you can't do that, don't buy it.

[AKA Rick]

If you plan to keep it, want to frame it, and never ever have the intention of selling it, but love the piece and the deal-breaker to you is that missing title, then, "go for it" it's yours, but know doing it, you're altering the piece, so that's in a "restoration" category where it becomes tainted to many collectors. But as the owner of the art who laid out $ for the purchase, it's yours to do what you want with it, criticism aside.

 

Since it's painted, it sounds more difficult to do what others do with flat pencil/ink pieces using acetate overlays for aesthetics, unfortunately. But, if it is by the same and original artist, an alteration like you're mentioning is debatable as to being an improvement or detriment.

 

Related to your question, there's a few artists out there who pencil covers lightly then digitally color and refine them, so the original art looks faint. I've had artists I've purchased art from in that fashion tell me they'd like to go over that original artwork with greater detail to end up looking more like the published piece, so that includes putting the pencil over the faint lines for definition as well as shading for tones.

 

It's the original artist and does get the piece looking just like the published end results (after all, most of the work is altered by the coloring process) and turns what looks like a prelim / layout but is the original piece into a better looking piece, still original.

 

Would most of you (peers on this msg board) want to just keep the original simple version, take the artist up on refining it, or pass completely?

[alxjhnsn]

I'd leave it alone or commission a recreation.

[Eric Seffinga]

I'd leave it alone or commission a recreation.

 

^ That.

[Bronty]

Aka rick, Id give you the same answer you gave. If you never ever plan on selling it then fine. Otherwise you're putting lipstick on a pig and pass completely..

[HCE]

Thanks for the opinions.

 

Just to make things a bit less hypothetical in order to address some things brought up in your replies:

 

I intend to frame the painting. I don't intend to sell it. Someone brought up age and I can say that it's a very recent painting and while the cover of the comic book has been revealed online, the actual comic book won't be published until probably November. The painting is 24x24 so a fair bit larger than a comic book.

 

Maybe I didn't make this part clear enough in the OP, but it was not my idea to add the title. The artist offered to do so after I'd committed to buying the piece. Obviously, if this had been a painting with a background that filled the entire canvas and the title was put on top of that, it wouldn't even be a consideration to add it to the painting. The artist probably offered since it's just a figure on a white canvas and there is "empty space" to add such a title.

 

I was leaning towards not adding the title, but was enough on the fence to get some outside opinions and maybe reveal some pros and cons I hadn't considered. I think it's fair to say I'm being pulled off the fence in the same direction I was thinking of stepping down, though.

[delekkerste]

I definitely would not have any alterations made to the original painting. But, I would also not put any overlays on it either. I think adding "trade dress" generally improves the look of published B&W line art, but, every time I've seen it done to painted comic art, it just cheapens the art for me - maybe because paintings generally stand alone pretty well as "art", whereas adding overlays to a painting takes it out of that realm and make it look like some kind of craft project or something.

[Bronty]

Yeah I hear ya. A painting shouldn't have a plastic surface. To be honest I don't like overlays on b&w comic art either. It looks good on the scan one posts to CAF (or the auction listing... cough ....cough) but in person it looks questionable

[James J]

Keep it original IMO......also it's not unheard of to see a cover used later down the road on something else.I would much rather see the art and the published art under the same glass then to alter the art to fit the published art.

[Bronty]

True but all you need to repurpose the art is a high quality scan - which the artist probably already has

[delekkerste]

Keep it original IMO......also it's not unheard of to see a cover used later down the road on something else.I would much rather see the art and the published art under the same glass then to alter the art to fit the published art.

 

I'm also not a big fan of framing the art and the published art under the same glass. Like putting overlays on a painting, I just think it makes the art look cheap/cheesy, like something you'd buy from one of those stores in the mall that sells autographs framed under glass alongside a photo or poster/mini-poster or record album cover or other "published" material (here's an example on Amazon).

[Bronty]

Only $1,495

 

I think with comic art the size differential between published art and OA is so slight that it does look silly framed together. (look, twins! )

 

That being said if I had a 30" painting that was used as the art on a say a 5" CD jewel case (say, my favorite band), then the published art is unobstrusive enough to frame with (or without).

 

Those little brass plaques definitely make me gag but if some large OA (say 24" and up is framed with or without small published art (say 7" and down), who cares. I mean who are we trying to impress? Any "layman" looking at the art is going to think its silly and cheesy with or without published art in the frame so it just becomes a matter of personal choice

 

[Bronty]

Only $1,495

 

I think with comic art the size differential between published art and OA is so slight that it does look silly framed together. (look, twins! )

 

That being said if I had a 30" painting that was used as the art on a say a 5" CD jewel case (say, my favorite band), then the published art is unobstrusive enough to frame with (or without).

 

Those little brass plaques definitely make me gag but if some large OA (say 24" and up is framed with or without small published art (say 7" and down), who cares. I mean who are we trying to impress? Any "layman" looking at the art is going to think its silly and cheesy with or without published art in the frame so it just becomes a matter of personal choice

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that IMO if you put the published art in the frame it has to be really, really small relative to the OA in order to not take the focus away from where it should be, the OA.

 

So I mainly agree with you but I can also see situations where its OK or even nice to have it in there. (But those situations will pretty much be outside of comic art.)