Is this a bad idea? 3 3

[Michael Browning]

On 9/8/2017 at 8:34 AM, vodou said:

Yes. I captured all the details from everything I've bought and likewise the (much) fewer times I've sold. Browning has inspired me though, now everything that goes out the door will have the guy before me added (by me), myself, and the guy after me added to (as a courtesy, I'm all about customer service!) I wanna do my part

You misattribute a quote to me. I don't care who owned it before me or who owns its after me. In my opinion, what the OP is proposing is one of the dumbest things I've seen written on here.

[Skizz]

Fine arts doesn't have much context; so it knowing who the previous owners were helps to give it some. Comic art doesn't need that as it already have context from the issue, page number, storyline, graphic novel etc. I'd imagine most collectors of comic art couldn't care less about who the past owners were. I know I don't. 

Edited September 10, 2017 by Skizz

[Mr. Machismo]

Few things:

To those saying it doesn't devalue art, that's completely subjective. While it may not devalue it to you, the moment it negatively impacts just ONE potential buyer's opinion of that art, it has been devalued. I would not purchase a piece of art if it had a list of collectors' names written on the back. So, objectively, any art I'd be inclined to buy which has these inscriptions would thus be devalued. 

Writing your name on the art implies you intend on letting the piece go, even if it means holding on to it until death. So, why not respect the next owner's potential dislike for such a practice? At the very least, disclose this. You are altering the original state or the artwork, by the hand of someone not involved in the artwork. Forgoing disclosure is essentially vandilism of the future owner's piece. To me, this is disrespectful of the art, the artist(s), and the future owner(s).

There's so many non-altering alternatives to justify doing it.

People will absolutely use incorrect pens when marking, leading to bleeding, yellowing, etc.

I'm particular about the condition of my artwork. It stuns me that some people whip art out of their portfolio, toss it around and handle it without paying any mind. That makes me cringe, and the amount of art I've received packaged in nothing but thin cardboard, loose in a box, whatever, and most all of these from "experienced" dealers and reps, is again disrespectful to the art, IMO. With all this talk of comic art being considered fine art, I think there's an onus on us as caretakers of the art to treat it as such, and that means respecting the original condition both while in our possession and in transit.

My two cents. To each his own, and if you want to write all over your art, go for it, but I for one ain't buying it (unless it's Nic Cage, obviously.)

 

[comicwiz]

My general rule on discussions/debates like this is usually to avoid them. They happen almost daily in the SW collecting category. As well intentioned and thoughtful as people might be, the Godwin Law comparison to such discussions is that it almost always ends with someone having to post that people should be able to do what they want with their collections. It does really depend on the context, and that's why I'm posting on this topic.

Yes, there definitely are OA pages/covers where someone pencilled in a price in the 80's or 90's, and it can be a cool conversation point until some annoying bugger comes along, asks to see the page, notices the price on the back, and thinks they should offer you that number because a dime more and your a scalper in their eyes. Not a fan of pencilling in a price, but that's my opinion.

My opinion extends to this - if you have to ask, it's probably not going to be well received.

And for those who feel back of page, out of sight and no harm, I've been fortunate to own several pages with amazing character sketches, studies and pencilled work that I sometimes appreciate as much, maybe even more than the final inked work on the front. The idea of anyone writing their name on such a page baffles me.

Anyone writing on the back should also consider these are as much an historical record of the production process as they are an aesthetic or collectible object, and your name being added to it has zero significance to the historical or provenancial chain.

If people think it's going too far to say your defacing the work, then I'll tell you that the value of it starts to align very closely to a sentimental one that is akin to having a creator/entertainer/artists personalize their signature. It might seem cool to you to see your name on it, but very likely not to anyone else.

Edited September 11, 2017 by comicwiz

[vodou]

5 hours ago, comicwiz said:

... it almost always ends with someone having to post that people should be able to do what they want with their collections.

Agree that's (emphasis mine above) a thread kill, whether the thread was worthy of debate or not, as the statement is a given in a property-rights rich environment. Not sure we're in that environment though. There is hardly consensus among even just comic art collectors, not to mention all art collectors, as to exactly what one does and does not own by purchasing an artwork. Most of us probably assume we're buying all rights except reproduction (fair use exception aside) and previously copyrighted and trademarked aspects. But the argument is made all the time that we, the so-called owners, are actually only caretakers...which implies no rights except to enjoy visually 'in hand' and a capital gain (or loss) when re-sold. These pleasures being offset by the cost of caretaking (which I think is pass it on to the next guy in the same condition you received it in - whatever that exactly means!) That's the carrot. What's the stick if one isn't a 'good' (?!) caretaker, either intentionally or accidentally.

[romitaman]

again..... I personally see no problem writing on back of the art in pencil i own  if i so choose..... i don't write on art in general ever, but i could care less what anyone in the hobby thinks of what i do with my art i own.......that's my choice and no one else's.  if people are that loony tune and anal then you should all be flogged if you EVER EVER had an artist sign a page of art as their signature was never on the art originally and...... "YOU" DEFACED THAT PUBLISHED ART PAGE BY DOING SO...EVEN IF THE ARTIST SIGNED IT OUTSIDE THE BORDERS.....as again...YOU JUST DEFACED THAT ART PAGE!!! The art does NOT NEED A SIGNATURE BY THE ARTIST ON IT IF WE ALL KNOW WHO DREW IT! ........ how many "DE-FILERS" (is that a word) do we have on this list now???  i'm one...as i had john Romita sign every twice up ASM page I own a couple years ago. (outside the art  borders of course)

Edited September 12, 2017 by romitaman

[pemart1966]

I have no problem with an artist signing a piece of art...as long as it's outside of the original art area i.e. somewhere in the border area.  The art is not ruined in any way and if future caretakers don't like the signature then they can either not look at it or matt the art.  

I had Stan Lee sign a few pages of vintage Marvel art decades ago but I had him do it in the margins.  I don't consider that "defiling" in the least - now had it been in a panel, well that's a whole different kettle of fish.  In fact, with VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS (Ditko, Frazetta, Sprang...), I would most likely not buy the page just due to the signature placement in a panel.

People allow creators to defile comics all of the time by getting creators to place obtrusive signatures all over the cover .  Let's not have that stupidity creep into the original art field.

[SquareChaos]

I recently had an artist sign a page and he put it inside the border of his art. I'm not bothered by it. He asked me if I wanted him to sign it and I said sure. I'd picked up two pages from him, and the first I watched him sign outside of the border, the second, for whatever reason, went in the lower left hand corner - just inside of the border. I may or may not have said anything if I'd been watching him more closely (if I recall I'd been asked a question by someone as he was doing it, so I'd turned away), but as I think about it now... he created the page, I have no problem with where he decided to sign it, it doesn't interfere with the image.

If anyone ever questioned it upon seeing the page I'd tell them to take it up with the guy who originally created it - his opinion trumps anything they might have to say about it in my book.  It is a weird situation, I admit that it would bother me a great deal if the signature was from any other person.

 

[zhamlau]

I love having a penciler/inker/writer sign on the bottom margin outside of the published image among the editor notes. Its a work of art usually between 3 artists (the pencils, the inks, the words). Hell I'd love to have a letterer sign it if possible.  It was a collaborative effort between those 3-4 people to create that B/W page. They each had direct input on what was drawn on that page, defining one layer of it each. You should be proud of that, you should sign something like that hence i like doing that.

If you own a piece of art, honestly, i cant imagine an issue with writing in small pencil the price on the back or a name. I don't know if I would do it since there are easier ways to keep notes but damn on no level can i see how it possibly cheapens or devalues the art.  Front of the piece, yeah maybe not I get that because the front image is really defined by the creators and you likely werent one of them...but back why the heck not? Anyway, rant over.