Pre-Heat Speculation Thread - Get it before it gets HOT 9 9

[JTLarsen]

6 hours ago, Mapleleafvann said:

Hard to argue with this point and it is one of the reasons why I was so late to the Frison camp.  I was intrigued with #20, very interested with #23 and amazed with #25.  A lot of the other covers don't hold the same interest for me.  I have found however, that the more I look at certain books, the more they grow on me.  Books such as #7 and even #15 continue to grow on me....I wonder if other covers will also convert over into this category for me. 

Exactly what happened with me (including 27!) Same thing is how I started with Bolland and Hughes covers...BEFORE they blew up!

[Hey Kids, Comics!]

So why doesn't Dodson get the love that other "pinup" artists get? He draws great girls and has been working on female led titles for years. Could that be the problem? Just too much of him out there?

[Hey Kids, Comics!]

Frison is REALLY hit or miss with me, much more so than Hughes/Bolland/Dodson/Artgerm/etc. She also doesn't have a lot of work on what I'd consider mainstream titles, which I think could limit her potential of really breaking out as a huge star.

[Mapleleafvann]

1 hour ago, JTLarsen said:

Exactly what happened with me (including 27!) Same thing is how I started with Bolland and Hughes covers...BEFORE they blew up!

I hope these have the same path....I personally have a pretty good feeling about the future value of these books.  I continue to search them out on a regular basis!

[Mapleleafvann]

12 minutes ago, Hey Kids, Comics! said:

So why doesn't Dodson get the love that other "pinup" artists get? He draws great girls and has been working on female led titles for years. Could that be the problem? Just too much of him out there?

I really don't know....I love Dodson's work.  I picked up a bunch of those Astonishing X-Men #1 1:10 that were just released as I thought the cover art was just great.  

[Mapleleafvann]

3 minutes ago, Hey Kids, Comics! said:

Frison is REALLY hit or miss with me, much more so than Hughes/Bolland/Dodson/Artgerm/etc. She also doesn't have a lot of work on what I'd consider mainstream titles, which I think could limit her potential of really breaking out as a huge star.

I can see your point about hit or miss and that's what kept me away from jumping in right away.  For some reason, her WW covers just "speak" to me....

[darkstar]

15 hours ago, JTLarsen said:

 Iconic covers but with a recognizable, distinct style. 

The word iconic has lost all meaning in regards to comic book cover art with how often it is applied to modern comics. Just the latest marketing buzzword to push books. 

[bcphillips119]

I've always liked Frison's art.  It's different than most because I believe she uses water colors.  I had a Batman sketch from her a few years back when I was into sketch covers and have since sold it.  Her Spider-Gwen #1 variant is one of my favorites!

Edited July 31, 2017 by bcphillips119

[JTLarsen]

4 hours ago, darkstar said:

The word iconic has lost all meaning in regards to comic book cover art with how often it is applied to modern comics. Just the latest marketing buzzword to push books. 

Sorry you feel that way. I used it with the same meaning it's always had.

[JTLarsen]

5 hours ago, Mapleleafvann said:

I really don't know....I love Dodson's work.  I picked up a bunch of those Astonishing X-Men #1 1:10 that were just released as I thought the cover art was just great.  

I enjoy Dodson a lot, too. But I don't think he's distinct enough to break out. At least not yet.

[ygogolak]

2 hours ago, bcphillips119 said:

I've always liked Frison's art.  It's different than most because I believe she uses water colors.  I had a Batman sketch from her a few years back when I was into sketch covers and have since sold it.  Her Spider-Gwen #1 variant is one of my favorites!

She colors digitally.

[F For Fake]

I pick up all WW books, so I have all of the Frison's, and agree, they're really nice. Could see them getting some traction, but I won't be selling mine.

[ygogolak]

32 minutes ago, F For Fake said:

I pick up all WW books, so I have all of the Frison's, and agree, they're really nice. Could see them getting some traction, but I won't be selling mine.

They already are. https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&_nkw=wonder woman frison&_dcat=32768&rt=nc&_mPrRngCbx=1&_udlo=10&_udhi

[bcphillips119]

2 hours ago, ygogolak said:

She colors digitally.

Hmm... the sketch cover she did for me was water color.

[ygogolak]

4 minutes ago, bcphillips119 said:

Hmm... the sketch cover she did for me was water color.

Most artists are digital now.

For most covers I create, I do about 50/50 traditional/digital. Once I finish up the linework (graphite on Bristol), I print it out on grey paper and do a tonal drawing with copic marker, graphite, and white chalk. I prefer to do as much as possible of my rendering by hand. It’s more fun to me than digital rendering…and more intuitive for some reason. Once I finish that, I lay them together in photoshop and color it digitally.

http://www.multiversitycomics.com/interviews/artist-august-jenny-frison-interview/

[IndyKMB]

19 hours ago, Brock said:

For my money , Joshua Middleton is putting out more consistently strong work, and will likely break out first.

100% agree with this.  I've been loving his work on the Rebirth Aquaman covers.  His stuff is simply amazing.

[darkstar]

6 hours ago, JTLarsen said:

Sorry you feel that way. I used it with the same meaning it's always had.

Not really, no. You labeled a comic book cover for an issue that was released about a month ago to be iconic. Unless the work being called iconic represents or captures a significant moment in time then you kind of need the passage of time to occur for the iconic thing to influence and inspire; to actually demonstrate an impact that would be attributed to something that is iconic. The word isn't a simple substitute for something that one finds to be visually interesting or appealing.

[fastballspecial]

5 hours ago, ygogolak said:

5 hours ago, bcphillips119 said:

Hmm... the sketch cover she did for me was water color.

Most artists are digital now.

For most covers I create, I do about 50/50 traditional/digital. Once I finish up the linework (graphite on Bristol), I print it out on grey paper and do a tonal drawing with copic marker, graphite, and white chalk. I prefer to do as much as possible of my rendering by hand. It’s more fun to me than digital rendering…and more intuitive for some reason. Once I finish that, I lay them together in photoshop and color it digitally.

http://www.multiversitycomics.com/interviews/artist-august-jenny-frison-interview/

Man do I love when you hear a true artist. Just to hear an artist say "fun" is so refreshing. When is the last time anyone has heard that.

I understand digital is faster, but do they realize how much money they pass up in OA. Or can digital bring you enough cash by going faster? Tough call
as an artist I would think. I still think the OA in the long run wins.

 

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by fastballspecial

[JTLarsen]

2 hours ago, darkstar said:

Not really, no. You labeled a comic book cover for an issue that was released about a month ago to be iconic. Unless the work being called iconic represents or captures a significant moment in time then you kind of need the passage of time to occur for the iconic thing to influence and inspire; to actually demonstrate an impact that would be attributed to something that is iconic. The word isn't a simple substitute for something that one finds to be visually interesting or appealing.

That's not what iconic means. It doesn't mean it has to demonstrate impact. And I didn't use it as a substitute for something that one finds to be visually interesting or appealing. Go look up iconic in the dictionary. That's what I meant.

[darkstar]

23 minutes ago, JTLarsen said:

That's not what iconic means. It doesn't mean it has to demonstrate impact. And I didn't use it as a substitute for something that one finds to be visually interesting or appealing. Go look up iconic in the dictionary. That's what I meant.

Yes, that is exactly what it means. Unless you were referring to Wonder Woman as being iconic (she is), which you weren't. You called the cover itself iconic. It isn't. Is it idolized or revered? It doesn't reflect or embody a significant event or moment in time, like a famous photograph,nor has it been around long enough to become iconic through its impact on it's field/industry or society. You need time to pass for works of art to become iconic, so that they have the opportunity to influence others, be copied, be swiped, and to serve as an indicator of a significant development or breakthrough in the medium. For example, ASM 300 is an iconic cover due to its composition, execution, the artist that created it, and the measurable impact it has had on other noteworthy creators in the field and the works they have produced. 

Definition of iconic

1. 1:  of, relating to, or having the characteristics of an icon

2. 2a :  widely recognized and well-established an iconic brand nameb :  widely known and acknowledged especially for distinctive excellence