get some tongues wagging...

[pemart1966]

Honestly, if i was going to get a Ditko Spiderman page, and someone INCLUDING Ditko had colored it out of boredom....yeah it would kind of ruin it for me.

 

This splash page was created as a black and white piece of production art, the coloring was added years later at a show as a way to kill time. Nothing sacred about that at all, looks good with it removed.

 

Returning it to its original design, is perfect. Good job.

 

 

It's all in the eye of the beholder - I thought that it was OK

[JadeGiant]

This is one of those “no wrong answer” discussions in my perspective. Personally, I would prefer the page back to the black and white but I don’t see anything wrong with the person who wants to keep the entire history of the piece intact. As someone else said, each to their own.

 

Is this discussion akin to the Star Wars debate on the modifications made by Lucas to the original trilogy? Changes made by the original artist (Lucas) nut many years later?

 

[Terry Doyle]

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about here and over on Comic Art list about the "desecration" of this piece.

 

So what if the original artist hand coloured it and not the original "colourist"? It was the original artist! Someone who was directly involved in the creation of the piece in the first place.

 

I don't see owners rushing out to have their hand coloured Hogarth Tarzans un-coloured; nor their hand coloured Gasoline Alley Sundays - these pieces can and do in fact bring premiums.

 

If Steve Ditko hand coloured one of his Spider-Man covers neatly would the consensus be that he had "ruined" it?

 

I'm inclined to believe that most collectors would want the 'original art', as opposed to the 'altered original artwork'. Collectors tend to be purists.

 

So, going by your suggested scenario, if Ditko had hand-coloured a Spidey cover I'd just say he'd altered it - not ruined it.

 

Personally, I'd prefer to own b&w artworks to remain the way they were originally created.

 

 

[pemart1966]

This is one of those “no wrong answer” discussions in my perspective. Personally, I would prefer the page back to the black and white but I don’t see anything wrong with the person who wants to keep the entire history of the piece intact. As someone else said, each to their own.

 

Is this discussion akin to the Star Wars debate on the modifications made by Lucas to the original trilogy? Changes made by the original artist (Lucas) nut many years later?

 

The Lucas scenario was alteration - akin to an artist going in post facto and adding/altering details; figures; facial expressions etc etc - way beyond colouring.

 

 

[drdroom]

Harry Tuthill hand-colored several years worth of Bungle family Sunday strips, apparently just because he enjoyed it, and they are beautiful, sensitively done. That color seems like a clear plus to me. On the other hand, Burne Hogarth did garish coloring on his Tarzan graphic novel pages, detracting from the fine qualities of the black & white line art. I wouldn't be interested in one of those. I think Saviuk's coloring on the page in question was ugly, but then I don't like the drawing much either, so it's kind of a wash for me on that one.

 

Original printing condition is a value but not the ultimate one for me. For example, I recently had an original stat removed that was causing browning to the page and covering up a sliver of the original drawing. For me, the best, most authentic version of the artwork isn't necessarily the exact production version.