Is it sacrilegious? 2 2

[delekkerste]

And at the threat of beating the dead equine, I just want to point out again, that the reason modern art is so seemingly plentiful is that it's modern. And back in the 70s when that art was modern, it too was plentiful Sold by the stack full, and out of trunks, etc. Hand colored by kids, or poorly trimmed/framed and otherwise with, by it's owners.

 

Even so, there is still waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more art being produced now than back then. How many publishers did we have back in the '70s? How many titles did they publish? It's no different from anything else. Back in the '70s, you could count all the major beer brands, soda brands, chip brands, hamburger brands, television networks, comic book publishers, etc. on one hand. There is simply MOAR of everything now - improvements in technology and communications, coupled with easy money and globalization, pretty much spurred exponential growth of competitors in just about every category, and comics are no exception. There is unquestionably more art being produced now than there is demand for it.

 

 

I know the arguments of 'compressed" vs "uncompressed" and the arguments of vintage art's superiority (despite the fact that there is schlocky and filler in EVERY era of comic creation.

 

People have got to stop conflating formats with content. As per the long discussion in another recent thread, I am fully on board with the thesis that much of the content coming out now and since 2001 has been some of THE BEST ever produced. Not everything, mind you, and the fact that there is such an enormous amount of content being produced does mean that the amount of schlock being produced these days is also at/near all-time highs.

 

However, I don't see how anyone can seriously argue that the FORMAT of today's OA is anything but demonstrably inferior to that of old:

 

- there is simply less going on per page due to decompressed storytelling

- no lettering and the absence of context, made worse by, again, decompressed storytelling

- often digital inks along with digital letters.

- sometimes smaller boards are used

- sometimes on two boards

 

I mean, to prove my point, if you did any of this to vintage art, would it be better or worse? Worse, obviously. Or, conversely, if Modern OA was all created in the traditional way, would it be more or less desirable? More, obviously. That's not to say that people can't and don't love it anyway, but even Felix will concede that of course it would be great if everything was on one board like it used to be.

 

Content, of course, is the great equalizer. I own at least a couple dozen pieces of Modern OA. Do I wish that it had lettering, dressing, inks on board, etc.? Yes, for every piece. But, did I think the quality of the content made up for the lack of what's missing? Yes, for every piece. Format <> content

[delekkerste]

I feel like you are pushing the 'modern art is garbage' agenda more than anything.

 

I'm a big fan of Modern content; not a big fan of the modern OA format. If anyone got "modern art is garbage" out of my posts, they must not be reading them very carefully.

 

Also, regardless of anything else, the fact is that there is an enormous supply/demand imbalance when it come to Modern OA which hurts its collectibility and financial value. I'm sure they've made some great looking baseball card sets over the past 25 years too, but, if supply swamps demand by many-fold, it doesn't make them very valuable or collectible. No one would put any 1952 Topps cards in the spokes of a bicycle nowadays, but 2016 Topps cards...knock yourself out. Similarly, getting Barry Smith to ink his Conan #19 pages now would be a big no-no, but Jae Lee (who, again, is an excellent comic book artist that I regard very highly) inking one of his Batman/Superman pages after the fact...not even Jae Lee shares the outrage of some here.

 

I blame Malvin for all of this.

[Nexus]

Felix, it's not just that there's SO MUCH new art being created these days. Even accounting for digital, it's a staggering amount. It's also that, pre-1996, vintage books had readerships that were multiples (often many multiples) of today's (talking about per book/title). And, add to that all the people who read this material after the publication date - it's literally an order of magnitude higher than the number of eyeballs that will read any given issue of most current titles.

 

Add again to that the fact that storytelling was not decompressed, and the delineation between storylines very distinct. There's a reason why people remember pretty much every cover of X-Men or Spider-Man from the old days but would struggle to place associate particular images from those titles over the past 15 years with specific issues or even storylines. Or, even to recall particular images in the first place.

 

My point being, a lot more people, both contemporaneously and ex post facto, remember so much of that older art, not just the storylines and specific issues, but specific pages and even as granular as specific panels. And that's why you don't futz around with vintage art (one of the reasons, anyway). Can you honestly say that's the case with Modern OA? I've read literally DOZENS of modern books over the past couple of months and my image recall/association/retention is almost nil. It's just a very different product/experience than reading comic books of old. And of course no one approves of undisclosed restoration and alteration of vintage art. That goes without saying.

 

With most Modern books, you're lucky if 50,000 pairs of eyeballs lay eyes on it and if 1 or 2 people are interested in the art. For most of the Big Two titles, my guess is that the modal number of people actively seeking art from newly published issues is ZERO. Obviously that doesn't encompass all Modern titles, and we both agree that the best Modern titles are published by independents and repped by Felix Comic Art. No one is going to argue that Scott Pilgrim and Paper Girls and Manhattan Projects don't have a rabid group of fans who want a piece of the art. But, how many people are clamoring for art from the dozens of Marvel titles that come out every month?

 

Right, and this is why the nature of contemporary comics reading has more to do with the future collectibility/value of modern OA, than the actual physical object itself.

 

The reason people remember images from the old days, is because we all saw them when we were kids, during a time when there was less entertainment to compete for our attention, so they're burned into our memories. If you flip-flopped modern comics and vintage comics, and the stories/art that are being published today were instead published in the '70s, and vice-versa, I'm sure the "new" art would be well-remembered, and the "old" art being published today would be similarly handicapped by all the other modern media that divides our attention.

 

I also believe that reading comics digitally is a fundamentally different experience than reading on paper. Starting off with accessibility. There's no waiting or anticipation. Just click and read. The work and time that went into collecting in the past just made me appreciate the books more. Reading comics digitally just feels like any other online content consumption-- less substantial, fleeting, remote. I just don't connect with the digital material the way I would with the paper equivalent. I savor books; I have less patience with whatever I'm viewing online. Even if objectively, the newer online work is better.

 

Online content practically encourages short attention spans. So, I think this will impact how much readers will come to desire the OA. The fact that it's blue line pencils or whatever, is going to be a much smaller consideration (if at all).

[delekkerste]

Right, and this is why the nature of contemporary comics reading has more to do with the future collectibility/value of modern OA, than the actual physical object itself.

 

The reason people remember images from the old days, is because we all saw them when we were kids, during a time when there was less entertainment to compete for our attention, so they're burned into our memories. If you flip-flopped modern comics and vintage comics, and the stories/art that are being published today were instead published in the '70s, and vice-versa, I'm sure the "new" art would be well-remembered, and the "old" art being published today would be similarly handicapped by all the other modern media that divides our attention.

 

I think if you flip-flopped modern and vintage comics, the "new" art would be better-remembered than it is nowadays, though not as well remembered as the vintage art actually is now. I think the old compressed format lent itself to being easier to remember and to associate visually. On the other hand, I certainly find that newer comics are easier to read - I can easily blow through a whole 6-issue storyline in an hour while my son naps. Which speaks to your next point...

 

 

I also believe that reading comics digitally is a fundamentally different experience than reading on paper. Starting off with accessibility. There's no waiting or anticipation. Just click and read. The work and time that went into collecting in the past just made me appreciate the books more. Reading comics digitally just feels like any other online content consumption-- less substantial, fleeting, remote. I just don't connect with the digital material the way I would with the paper equivalent. I savor books; I have less patience with whatever I'm viewing online. Even if objectively, the newer online work is better.

 

Online content practically encourages short attention spans. So, I think this will impact how much readers will come to desire the OA. The fact that it's blue line pencils or whatever, is going to be a much smaller consideration (if at all).

 

I totally agree with you on this. It's probably not even just the digital consumption phenomenon - I think it may be the binge-consuming practice in general. Even reading a TPB in one sitting does not lend itself towards the same level of involvement and anticipation that people got when they read floppies on a monthly basis.

[Bronty]

I feel like you are pushing the 'modern art is garbage' agenda more than anything.

 

I'm a big fan of Modern content; not a big fan of the modern OA format. If anyone got "modern art is garbage" out of my posts, they must not be reading them very carefully.

 

The main thrust of your posts seems to be this piece isn't worth anyone's time and could never become collectible/valuable so who cares what he does with it. Please explain what part of that I have 'wrong'.

 

I mean... on some level I agree that it may not become valuable, but on another level... you never know. I never thought new mutants 98 would be worth 1000 dollars or so, either.

[delekkerste]

The main thrust of your posts seems to be this piece isn't worth anyone's time and could never become collectible/valuable so who cares what he does with it. Please explain what part of that I have 'wrong'.

 

Uh, maybe the part where I said that it's an improvement? That it looks more presentable and more distinctive than all the other pencil-only Jae Lee pieces? That it might, like those colored SSOC pages, actually be more desirable now than before?

 

There is no logical connection to be drawn to a comparison with NM 98. That issue had a ton of first appearances, was drawn by one of the hottest artists of the era, and was selling many multiples even at the time of however many copies Bats/Supes is moving these days. It has compressed storytelling, letters on board, and any page from that issue is immediate recognizable as part of that first Deadpool, Domino, etc. appearance issue. Sure, no one knew that the book was going to be worth a grand in 9.8 or that the art would be much more valuable still, but what earthly reason is there to believe that a Bats/Supes book (or the art from it), drawn by a veteran artist like Jae Lee, has any chance of breaking out from the pack in this day and age? New characters? Nope. New team-up? Nope. New artist? Nope. Hundreds of pages out there from the series? Yep. More than 60 available right now for relatively peanuts at AlbertMoy.com? Yep.

[Bronty]

The main thrust of your posts seems to be this piece isn't worth anyone's time and could never become collectible/valuable so who cares what he does with it. Please explain what part of that I have 'wrong'.

 

Uh, maybe the part where I said that it's an improvement? That it looks more presentable and more distinctive than all the other pencil-only Jae Lee pieces? That it might, like those colored SSOC pages, actually be more desirable now than before?

 

There is no logical connection to be drawn to a comparison with NM 98. That issue had a ton of first appearances, was drawn by one of the hottest artists of the era, and was selling many multiples even at the time of however many copies Bats/Supes is moving these days. It has compressed storytelling, letters on board, and any page from that issue is immediate recognizable as part of that first Deadpool, Domino, etc. appearance issue. Sure, no one knew that the book was going to be worth a grand in 9.8 or that the art would be much more valuable still, but what earthly reason is there to believe that a Bats/Supes book (or the art from it), drawn by a veteran artist like Jae Lee, has any chance of breaking out from the pack in this day and age? New characters? Nope. New team-up? Nope. New artist? Nope. Hundreds of pages out there from the series? Yep. More than 60 available right now for relatively peanuts at AlbertMoy.com? Yep.

 

Tell me again about decompressed storytelling? I wasn't reading closely enough the first eight times.

 

[delekkerste]

Tell me again about decompressed storytelling? I wasn't reading closely enough the first eight times.

 

 

Even more than decompressed storytelling, the main thrust is the sheer disparity in supply and demand for new OA. Like so many things, maybe '70s OA was plentiful at the time, but it was not just because there was a lot being created, but also because few thought it would ever be worth anything. Once you reach the tipping point of something being recognized as potentially valuable, that's the kiss of death - just look at (then-contemporary) baseball cards and comic books for proof of that. Probably applies to the vast majority of contemporary fine art as well, and to most new OA IMO.

 

That's not to slam the talents of those drawing nowadays, as there's certainly a lot of great talent out there. But, aside from a few old hands like Jim Lee, or those making a name for themselves in indie/creator-owned projects that blow up in popularity, there's just so much new art being produced that is just not going to have the inherent collectibility that the OA to material that reached greater numbers in the past did.

[SquareChaos]

Tell me again about decompressed storytelling? I wasn't reading closely enough the first eight times.

 

 

Even more than decompressed storytelling, the main thrust is the sheer disparity in supply and demand for new OA. Like so many things, maybe '70s OA was plentiful at the time, but it was not just because there was a lot being created, but also because few thought it would ever be worth anything. Once you reach the tipping point of something being recognized as potentially valuable, that's the kiss of death - just look at (then-contemporary) baseball cards and comic books for proof of that. Probably applies to the vast majority of contemporary fine art as well, and to most new OA IMO.

 

That's not to slam the talents of those drawing nowadays, as there's certainly a lot of great talent out there. But, aside from a few old hands like Jim Lee, or those making a name for themselves in indie/creator-owned projects that blow up in popularity, there's just so much new art being produced that is just not going to have the inherent collectibility that the OA to material that reached greater numbers in the past did.

 

Just because a piece of original art isn't as desirable or valuable as another doesn't directly imply that it's OK to modify or destroy it from any perspective other than dollars and cents.

 

As I said earlier... it seems to come down to whether people respect the modern art medium as a whole. If you respect it, you view the page like any other original that probably shouldn't be modified if it can be avoided. If you don't... who cares, there are literally thousands of others.

[Bronty]

Tell me again about decompressed storytelling? I wasn't reading closely enough the first eight times.

 

 

Even more than decompressed storytelling, the main thrust is the sheer disparity in supply and demand for new OA. Like so many things, maybe '70s OA was plentiful at the time, but it was not just because there was a lot being created, but also because few thought it would ever be worth anything. Once you reach the tipping point of something being recognized as potentially valuable, that's the kiss of death - just look at (then-contemporary) baseball cards and comic books for proof of that. Probably applies to the vast majority of contemporary fine art as well, and to most new OA IMO.

 

That's not to slam the talents of those drawing nowadays, as there's certainly a lot of great talent out there. But, aside from a few old hands like Jim Lee, or those making a name for themselves in indie/creator-owned projects that blow up in popularity, there's just so much new art being produced that is just not going to have the inherent collectibility that the OA to material that reached greater numbers in the past did.

 

Just because a piece of original art isn't as desirable or valuable as another doesn't directly imply that it's OK to modify or destroy it from any perspective other than dollars and cents.

 

As I said earlier... it seems to come down to whether people respect the modern art medium as a whole. If you respect it, you view the page like any other original that probably shouldn't be modified if it can be avoided. If you don't... who cares, there are literally thousands of others.

 

Well said

[delekkerste]

Just because a piece of original art isn't as desirable or valuable as another doesn't directly imply that it's OK to modify or destroy it from any perspective other than dollars and cents.

 

As I said earlier... it seems to come down to whether people respect the modern art medium as a whole. If you respect it, you view the page like any other original that probably shouldn't be modified if it can be avoided. If you don't... who cares, there are literally thousands of others.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that there is an absolute rule on what can and can't/shouldn't be modified or else be disrespecting the art. Of course you wouldn't lop any pieces off the Mona Lisa, but if your 6-year old draws a picture that doesn't quite fit in a frame, who cares if you lop off a 2" strip of white space so that it does. Surely there is room for judgment, with value/scarcity being just a couple of the considerations.

 

If Jae Lee himself was happy about it, I don't see how this doesn't respect the art. And what about artists who take it upon themselves to modify their originals (Frazetta did it quite a bit)?

[SquareChaos]

Just because a piece of original art isn't as desirable or valuable as another doesn't directly imply that it's OK to modify or destroy it from any perspective other than dollars and cents.

 

As I said earlier... it seems to come down to whether people respect the modern art medium as a whole. If you respect it, you view the page like any other original that probably shouldn't be modified if it can be avoided. If you don't... who cares, there are literally thousands of others.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that there is an absolute rule on what can and can't/shouldn't be modified or else be disrespecting the art. Of course you wouldn't lop any pieces off the Mona Lisa, but if your 6-year old draws a picture that doesn't quite fit in a frame, who cares if you lop off a 2" strip of white space so that it does. Surely there is room for judgment, with value/scarcity being just a couple of the considerations.

 

If Jae Lee himself was happy about it, I don't see how this doesn't respect the art. And what about artists who take it upon themselves to modify their originals (Frazetta did it quite a bit)?

 

I don't disagree with the owner's choice - I feel the owner can do whatever they'd like. For instance, in those "stewards / owners of art" thread I fall heavily on to the side of owners. Still, there is some aspect of stewardship involved.

 

At the end of the discussion though... I'd be happy to own the piece as is right now, but I'd be happier to own the original pencils and a light box version of the inks to display side by side

[vodou]

...but I'd be happier to own the original pencils and a light box version of the inks to display side by side

Actually, show of hands, who doesn't prefer this? That's the real question. OP said doing so would have cost twice as much, twice as much as what? Twice the commission cost (why?) or the same price as paid for the pencil piece, to be paid again for the ink piece? Is this because Jae believes the owner would have "two" pieces of art instead of "one"? Because I'm thinking...roughly the same amount of work, maybe even less as no erasure needed. Right?

[Bronty]

artists who take it upon themselves to modify their originals (Frazetta did it quite a bit)?

 

he did, and obviously its easier to accept than an alteration by another hand, but I think if you took a poll amongst collectors they'd largely wish he'd just left his originals alone. Don't you? I don't think 70 year old frank should be changing art 40 year old frank published. We can debate why or why not but I think the majority cringe at the thought of him monkeying around with his old work.

 

At the end of the day, this is a pressing thread Do you want it to look as good as it can, or do you want it in its original condition. I'll take the original condition, personally.

[comix4fun]

Just because a piece of original art isn't as desirable or valuable as another doesn't directly imply that it's OK to modify or destroy it from any perspective other than dollars and cents.

 

As I said earlier... it seems to come down to whether people respect the modern art medium as a whole. If you respect it, you view the page like any other original that probably shouldn't be modified if it can be avoided. If you don't... who cares, there are literally thousands of others.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that there is an absolute rule on what can and can't/shouldn't be modified or else be disrespecting the art. Of course you wouldn't lop any pieces off the Mona Lisa, but if your 6-year old draws a picture that doesn't quite fit in a frame, who cares if you lop off a 2" strip of white space so that it does. Surely there is room for judgment, with value/scarcity being just a couple of the considerations.

 

If Jae Lee himself was happy about it, I don't see how this doesn't respect the art. And what about artists who take it upon themselves to modify their originals (Frazetta did it quite a bit)?

 

 

Yeah, Frazetta altered (improved, modified, yada yada) several of his paintings...even some really iconic ones.

 

I can't believe this thread is still running.

 

The piece in question was never published as "shot directly from pencils" and it was never intended as such. It was intended to be inked whether digitally or traditionally. That's the only format that the public ever saw this piece. The roughness of the pencils filling in the broad "black" sections attests to that. Jae went beyond the normal "X" notation that usually fills these large black spaces, probably to make the piece seem more "finished" so it doesn't match the published piece in that way.

 

The capper on the whole topic, to me anyway, is that the artist that created the original is the one who added the inks to complete the page so that it most closely approximates the final published image.

 

This is a long LONG LOOOOOOOONG shot from "destruction".

 

[vodou]

Since the whole "modern art ain't all that" has come up again, can somebody educate me re: Peter Panzerfaust? I somehow totally missed that oa debacle (I gather from comments, not that I know anything!) Looked it up on Amazon, er...big deal? (not to my eyes!)

[SquareChaos]

Just because a piece of original art isn't as desirable or valuable as another doesn't directly imply that it's OK to modify or destroy it from any perspective other than dollars and cents.

 

As I said earlier... it seems to come down to whether people respect the modern art medium as a whole. If you respect it, you view the page like any other original that probably shouldn't be modified if it can be avoided. If you don't... who cares, there are literally thousands of others.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that there is an absolute rule on what can and can't/shouldn't be modified or else be disrespecting the art. Of course you wouldn't lop any pieces off the Mona Lisa, but if your 6-year old draws a picture that doesn't quite fit in a frame, who cares if you lop off a 2" strip of white space so that it does. Surely there is room for judgment, with value/scarcity being just a couple of the considerations.

 

If Jae Lee himself was happy about it, I don't see how this doesn't respect the art. And what about artists who take it upon themselves to modify their originals (Frazetta did it quite a bit)?

 

 

Yeah, Frazetta altered (improved, modified, yada yada) several of his paintings...even some really iconic ones.

 

I can't believe this thread is still running.

 

The piece in question was never published as "shot directly from pencils" and it was never intended as such. It was intended to be inked whether digitally or traditionally. That's the only format that the public ever saw this piece. The roughness of the pencils filling in the broad "black" sections attests to that. Jae went beyond the normal "X" notation that usually fills these large black spaces, probably to make the piece seem more "finished" so it doesn't match the published piece in that way.

 

The capper on the whole topic, to me anyway, is that the artist that created the original is the one who added the inks to complete the page so that it most closely approximates the final published image.

 

This is a long LONG LOOOOOOOONG shot from "destruction".

 

This is an interesting thread because it seems to bring out people's alternate theories about topics other than the one directly at hand.

 

I don't know why anyone would think it was ever intended to be published directly from pencils, this page looks pretty much like all of Jae's pencils - use of shading included, so I totally agree with you there, I'm not sure how that bit arose.

 

But the interesting thing is that some view the page as it originally existed as the only physical piece of art linked to the published page, and some view it as an intermediary piece, basically some sort of prelim. I find that really interesting.

[comix4fun]

Just because a piece of original art isn't as desirable or valuable as another doesn't directly imply that it's OK to modify or destroy it from any perspective other than dollars and cents.

 

As I said earlier... it seems to come down to whether people respect the modern art medium as a whole. If you respect it, you view the page like any other original that probably shouldn't be modified if it can be avoided. If you don't... who cares, there are literally thousands of others.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that there is an absolute rule on what can and can't/shouldn't be modified or else be disrespecting the art. Of course you wouldn't lop any pieces off the Mona Lisa, but if your 6-year old draws a picture that doesn't quite fit in a frame, who cares if you lop off a 2" strip of white space so that it does. Surely there is room for judgment, with value/scarcity being just a couple of the considerations.

 

If Jae Lee himself was happy about it, I don't see how this doesn't respect the art. And what about artists who take it upon themselves to modify their originals (Frazetta did it quite a bit)?

 

 

Yeah, Frazetta altered (improved, modified, yada yada) several of his paintings...even some really iconic ones.

 

I can't believe this thread is still running.

 

The piece in question was never published as "shot directly from pencils" and it was never intended as such. It was intended to be inked whether digitally or traditionally. That's the only format that the public ever saw this piece. The roughness of the pencils filling in the broad "black" sections attests to that. Jae went beyond the normal "X" notation that usually fills these large black spaces, probably to make the piece seem more "finished" so it doesn't match the published piece in that way.

 

The capper on the whole topic, to me anyway, is that the artist that created the original is the one who added the inks to complete the page so that it most closely approximates the final published image.

 

This is a long LONG LOOOOOOOONG shot from "destruction".

 

This is an interesting thread because it seems to bring out people's alternate theories about topics other than the one directly at hand.

 

I don't know why anyone would think it was ever intended to be published directly from pencils, this page looks pretty much like all of Jae's pencils - use of shading included, so I totally agree with you there, I'm not sure how that bit arose.

 

But the interesting thing is that some view the page as it originally existed as the only physical piece of art linked to the published page, and some view it as an intermediary piece, basically some sort of prelim. I find that really interesting.

 

 

It's probably because many pieces of Modern art, and I believe some of Jae's covers, were shot direct from pencil. So, to me, there's a difference between altering a piece that was the full final version that saw print and one that underwent another step in the process of inking.

[SquareChaos]

Just because a piece of original art isn't as desirable or valuable as another doesn't directly imply that it's OK to modify or destroy it from any perspective other than dollars and cents.

 

As I said earlier... it seems to come down to whether people respect the modern art medium as a whole. If you respect it, you view the page like any other original that probably shouldn't be modified if it can be avoided. If you don't... who cares, there are literally thousands of others.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe that there is an absolute rule on what can and can't/shouldn't be modified or else be disrespecting the art. Of course you wouldn't lop any pieces off the Mona Lisa, but if your 6-year old draws a picture that doesn't quite fit in a frame, who cares if you lop off a 2" strip of white space so that it does. Surely there is room for judgment, with value/scarcity being just a couple of the considerations.

 

If Jae Lee himself was happy about it, I don't see how this doesn't respect the art. And what about artists who take it upon themselves to modify their originals (Frazetta did it quite a bit)?

 

 

Yeah, Frazetta altered (improved, modified, yada yada) several of his paintings...even some really iconic ones.

 

I can't believe this thread is still running.

 

The piece in question was never published as "shot directly from pencils" and it was never intended as such. It was intended to be inked whether digitally or traditionally. That's the only format that the public ever saw this piece. The roughness of the pencils filling in the broad "black" sections attests to that. Jae went beyond the normal "X" notation that usually fills these large black spaces, probably to make the piece seem more "finished" so it doesn't match the published piece in that way.

 

The capper on the whole topic, to me anyway, is that the artist that created the original is the one who added the inks to complete the page so that it most closely approximates the final published image.

 

This is a long LONG LOOOOOOOONG shot from "destruction".

 

This is an interesting thread because it seems to bring out people's alternate theories about topics other than the one directly at hand.

 

I don't know why anyone would think it was ever intended to be published directly from pencils, this page looks pretty much like all of Jae's pencils - use of shading included, so I totally agree with you there, I'm not sure how that bit arose.

 

But the interesting thing is that some view the page as it originally existed as the only physical piece of art linked to the published page, and some view it as an intermediary piece, basically some sort of prelim. I find that really interesting.

 

 

It's probably because many pieces of Modern art, and I believe some of Jae's covers, were shot direct from pencil. So, to me, there's a difference between altering a piece that was the full final version that saw print and one that underwent another step in the process of inking.

 

I might agree if there was any other physical piece that was closer to that published page, but in this instance... nope.

 

Interesting look at different peoples views on it regardless.

[Madman1138]

This topic brings BWS to mind for me, as he regularly "enhances the inks" on his pages after publication. I own an enhanced page like that and I know many people who also own some pages he has re-inked. I believe he does it so it makes the original art looks and presents better as a standalone piece, but it is sometimes dramatically changed from the published version. But I don't think anyone would argue that he ruined the pieces or made them less desirable.

 

So after listening to all the other arguments in this thread, I thought I'd see what opinions are on that. While BWS is the original penciller it was usually someone else who inked the pages in these instances. So probably due to time constraints, maybe BWS felt he had to compromise his vision a little to make the deadline and it bothered him enough to want to fix later.

 

So here's the rundown:

 

He wasn't the original inker but was the penciller. So it was his original "vision" for the art but he is changing the inkers contribution to the art.

The original art is changed from how it was published, sometimes drastically.

He is the primary artist though and not a collector, so is it okay when an artist does this themselves?

 

Thoughts?