Can Someone Explain Production Art To Me? 1 1

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 8/5/2024 at 4:04 AM, Rick2you2 said:

I would consider that original art, like a recreation page, but published. 

Except for color guides, I don’t consider “production art” to be art. Unless the artist had a direct hand in the creation of the piece, it is just part of the printing process. So while it may curiosity value, I don’t place any real value on it.

I would agree that production art is not "art" but that's the term people use.  I would say the same about prints; they are also not art.  But people use that term.  As for value, anything that is vintage, rare and interesting can have value.  We value original art even when it doesn't have all the art (like none of the colors) and we value vintage comics printed from original comic art, so it's not surprising to me that an interesting vintage piece used to make that comic would also have some value. I was overly swayed by naysayers who said "they have no value" and sold some production covers etc, for what they said was already more than the pieces were worth, only to see them resell at auction for 6-10X more.  

Edited August 5 by BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES

[Rick2you2]

On 8/5/2024 at 7:02 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

I would agree that production art is not "art" but that's the term people use.  I would say the same about prints; they are also not art.  But people use that term.  As for value, anything that is vintage, rare and interesting can have value.  We value original art even when it doesn't have all the art (like none of the colors) and we value vintage comics printed from original comic art, so it's not surprising to me that an interesting vintage piece used to make that comic would also have some value. I was overly swayed by naysayers who said "they have no value" and sold some production covers etc, for what they said was already more than the pieces were worth, only to see them resell at auction for 6-10X more.  

I don’t agree. I think prints are art. They are an intentional, graphic representation of an image, mood, or thought, or a combination of them. They are not “original art”, as prints are not hand-made. I do consider color guides to be art, particularly as they are not necessarily the same as the final printed piece. As such, they represent the artist’s view of what the colors should be. And while production art may be collectible, that doesn’t make it art. Gems are not art, but they are certainly collectible. There is a wonderful collection of them at the Smithsonian. Old machinery is also collectible, such as old tractors, vintage appliances, old toasters, or typewriters, and they can still have artistic elements. But the pieces themselves are not intended as art. So by all means collect away, but I cannot accept the idea that “production art” is art.

Edited August 6 by Rick2you2

[MyNameIsLegion]

On 8/5/2024 at 7:24 PM, Rick2you2 said:

I don’t agree. I think prints are art. They are an intentional, graphic representation of an image, mood, or thought, or a combination of them. They are not “original art”, as prints are not hand-made. I do consider color guides to be art, particularly as they are not necessarily the same as the final printed piece. As such, they represent the artist’s view of what the colors should be. And while production art may be collectible, that doesn’t make it art. Gems are not art, but they are certainly collectible. There is a wonderful collection of them at the Smithsonian. Old machinery is also collectible, such as old tractors, vintage appliances, old toasters, or typewriters, and they can still have artistic elements. But the pieces themselves are not intended as art. So by all means collect away, but I cannot accept the idea that “production art” is art.

but if prints are art, it' stand to reason production art is also art- because the production art itself is a print, a prototype of the mass produced print, it is in many respect the "original" because matchprints color keys, chromalin, dyesubs, Fuji's, whatever the era "Press proof" was the target to which the press is adjusted to match. Nobody is looking at the original inked artwork, it's not even in the same state or country as the press. 

[Rick2you2]

On 8/6/2024 at 11:50 PM, MyNameIsLegion said:

but if prints are art, it' stand to reason production art is also art- because the production art itself is a print, a prototype of the mass produced print, it is in many respect the "original" because matchprints color keys, chromalin, dyesubs, Fuji's, whatever the era "Press proof" was the target to which the press is adjusted to match. Nobody is looking at the original inked artwork, it's not even in the same state or country as the press. 

This is my view, everyone can have their own.  
The print was intended by its creator to be art, and sold or distributed in that manner, either as fine art or commercial art. “Production art” is just the mechanism by which the art is generated or distributed. That is also why I consider color guides a close call. I have one from Showcase 80 in which Neal Adams is proposing various colors to be used, but, the printer did not entirely follow it. Since it reflects his judgement, I think it is just over the line. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with collecting that stuff, but it has to have been intended to be artistic—even photo’s can qualify, like those by Richard Avedon, but not just typical snapshots.

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 8/7/2024 at 3:44 PM, Rick2you2 said:

This is my view, everyone can have their own.  
The print was intended by its creator to be art, and sold or distributed in that manner, either as fine art or commercial art. “Production art” is just the mechanism by which the art is generated or distributed. That is also why I consider color guides a close call. I have one from Showcase 80 in which Neal Adams is proposing various colors to be used, but, the printer did not entirely follow it. Since it reflects his judgement, I think it is just over the line. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with collecting that stuff, but it has to have been intended to be artistic—even photo’s can qualify, like those by Richard Avedon, but not just typical snapshots.

If it's all about whether the piece was created to be sold and distributed in the manner created, then, by that logic all comic original art would also not qualify to be called art

[MyNameIsLegion]

On 8/7/2024 at 7:31 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

If it's all about whether the piece was created to be sold and distributed in the manner created, then, by that logic all comic original art would also not qualify to be called art

yup, ALL original art that was scanned or shot in the creation of a comic is "production art" along with the color guide, paste-up, stats, velox, mechanical art. color targets and press sheet. We've got you boxed in @Rick2you2 You've got a giant collection of Phantom Stranger Print Production Materials. 

[Rick2you2]

On 8/7/2024 at 8:31 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

If it's all about whether the piece was created to be sold and distributed in the manner created, then, by that logic all comic original art would also not qualify to be called art

 

On 8/8/2024 at 6:09 AM, MyNameIsLegion said:

yup, ALL original art that was scanned or shot in the creation of a comic is "production art" along with the color guide, paste-up, stats, velox, mechanical art. color targets and press sheet. We've got you boxed in @Rick2you2 You've got a giant collection of Phantom Stranger Print Production Materials. 

 

On 8/7/2024 at 8:31 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

If it's all about whether the piece was created to be sold and distributed in the manner created, then, by that logic all comic original art would also not qualify to be called art

No, because the intent of the creator, the artist, was to create art. Someone running a page on a photocopier is not producing art, they are copying it. That is the critical distinction, just like the covers of the Saturday Evening Post or the illustrator on a can of Bumble Bee Tuna. I saw a person inking the top of a tree stump to make an impression of its image. He did it to show how nature is artful. What he did was art. If a scientist did it to record the tree’s growth, that is not art. Just a scientific measurement.

 

Edited August 8 by Rick2you2

[MyNameIsLegion]

On 8/8/2024 at 5:51 AM, Rick2you2 said:

 

 

No, because the intent of the creator, the artist, was to create art. Someone running a page on a photocopier is not producing art, they are copying it. That is the critical distinction, just like the covers of the Saturday Evening Post or the illustrator on a can of Bumble Bee Tuna. I saw a person inking the top of a tree stump to make an impression of its image. He did it to show how nature is artful. What he did was art. If a scientist did it to record the tree’s growth, that is not art. Just a scientific measurement.

Curt Swan never thought what he was doing was "art" he was drawing a comic book from a script for 8 year olds to read.  By your definition, an inked blue line or light boxed inked page is not art.  Vince Colleta wasn't trying to produce art, he was trying to get the job out the door.  Same with the can of Bumble Bee tuna. All commercial art, which all comics fall under if they are work for hire are commercial art.  The artist, the writer, the copy editor, the pressman, the distributor, the salesman were all part of the production process to generate a product. If it's purely the intent of the person that "makes' something, then I can pee in the snow and call it art.  IF the Scientist inking the tree to measure it's growth shows it to his wife, and she thinks it's cool, and hangs it up in a frame is it now art? Is it the creator or the eye of the beholder that is the arbiter of what is or isn't art? 

[Rick2you2]

On 8/8/2024 at 7:07 AM, MyNameIsLegion said:

Curt Swan never thought what he was doing was "art" he was drawing a comic book from a script for 8 year olds to read.  By your definition, an inked blue line or light boxed inked page is not art.  Vince Colleta wasn't trying to produce art, he was trying to get the job out the door.  Same with the can of Bumble Bee tuna. All commercial art, which all comics fall under if they are work for hire are commercial art.  The artist, the writer, the copy editor, the pressman, the distributor, the salesman were all part of the production process to generate a product. If it's purely the intent of the person that "makes' something, then I can pee in the snow and call it art.  IF the Scientist inking the tree to measure it's growth shows it to his wife, and she thinks it's cool, and hangs it up in a frame is it now art? Is it the creator or the eye of the beholder that is the arbiter of what is or isn't art? 

If you look up a typical definition of art, it is “the expression of ideas and emotions through a physical medium…”, which popped up under Google in “Art-Definition Meanings and Synonyms”. So yes, what Curt Swan was doing was making art.

Ever see a giant wrap by Christo? That is art. If done by a tree service, that is not art. So yes, you can pee in the snow and call it art—if you were intending to express an idea or emotion. Much like anti-war protesters engaged in symbolic speech when they would burn an American flag—they didn’t do it to stay warm. As for what the scientist’s wife hangs on a wall, her view on whether she thinks of it as the expression of her husband’s ideas and emotion is secondary to his purpose, but still valuable to understanding his intent,IMO. 

[MyNameIsLegion]

On 8/8/2024 at 6:48 AM, Rick2you2 said:

If you look up a typical definition of art, it is “the expression of ideas and emotions through a physical medium…”, which popped up under Google in “Art-Definition Meanings and Synonyms”. So yes, what Curt Swan was doing was making art.

Ever see a giant wrap by Christo? That is art. If done by a tree service, that is not art. So yes, you can pee in the snow and call it art—if you were intending to express an idea or emotion. Much like anti-war protesters engaged in symbolic speech when they would burn an American flag—they didn’t do it to stay warm. As for what the scientist’s wife hangs on a wall, her view on whether she thinks of it as the expression of her husband’s ideas and emotion is secondary to his purpose, but still valuable to understanding his intent,IMO. 

yeah that doesn't age well.  Plenty of digital artists and musicians for the last 25 years.

IMO most of what has been done by Christo is one of the largest scale frauds every committed. And it's killed people. But there are far too many people, with and without money who enjoy the idea they know what art is.  The emperors clothes and all that...

lemme drop this here though, as it seems appropriate to the conversation: (I don't necessarily like or agree with this nepo-baby, but I think he makes some valid points in this video that trickle down to comics and comic art collecting in the future)

 

Edited August 8 by MyNameIsLegion

[Rick2you2]

On 8/8/2024 at 8:39 AM, MyNameIsLegion said:

yeah that doesn't age well.  Plenty of digital artists and musicians for the last 25 years.

IMO most of what has been done by Christo is one of the largest scale frauds every committed. And it's killed people. But there are far too many people, with and without money who enjoy the idea they know what art is.  The emperors clothes and all that...

lemme drop this here though, as it seems appropriate to the conversation: (I don't necessarily like or agree with this nepo-baby, but I think he makes some valid points in this video that trickle down to comics and comic art collecting in the future)

 

In this context, digital art is still a physical medium. Someone still has to draw it (or use AI to steal it), and the image appears on their screen or drawing pad in the form of pixels. It is then conveyed for printing, or showing on other screens. What would not qualify is someone who just thinks about a picture but does not convert it to physical form. 

Let me add that I like Christo, and actually have one of his litho’s. Several years ago he “wrapped” Central Park in NYC, and I went with my family to see it. It was light-hearted fun, like good art can be. Lots of modern artists’ works trigger more of an emotional response than a consciously thought through one, such as Rothko, and a personal favorite, Mondrian, whose ability to create balance through contrasting shape sizes, lines and colors is like looking at a Swiss watch from the inside.

But getting back to the subject at hand, “production art” should really be called “materials used to produce or reproduce art”, because that is what it is. Grammar can really matter, and if misused, can lead to strange results. Many years ago, I was speaking to a woman who was in a group called “Professional Women in Construction”. I pointed out to her that the group should be called Female Professionals in Construction, because to my way of thinking, a professional woman is someone who accepts money for being a woman. I then offered an example of a woman who gets paid for being a woman. She was not amused.

[BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES]

On 8/8/2024 at 3:51 AM, Rick2you2 said:

 

 

No, because the intent of the creator, the artist, was to create art. Someone running a page on a photocopier is not producing art, they are copying it. That is the critical distinction, just like the covers of the Saturday Evening Post or the illustrator on a can of Bumble Bee Tuna. I saw a person inking the top of a tree stump to make an impression of its image. He did it to show how nature is artful. What he did was art. If a scientist did it to record the tree’s growth, that is not art. Just a scientific measurement.

 

That first part is inconsistent with the view that "production art" is not art but "prints" are.  The second part about science is off-point.     

Until very recently, artists who created line drawings for comic covers intended for them to be completed by others into final form and reproduced. They were not intended to be, and weren't regarded as, pieces of art to be displayed in their unfinished form.  

(btw, this whole convo is becoming a prime example of a "talking with a guy who won't let you agree with him".  I tried to agree with you that production art is not really art, and did not expect a detour that prints are Art and the production art is a effectively a science project.  But if we must go down that road I will argue that sometimes, a science project is a work of art, too)

 

Also muddying the waters of the (production art is not art but prints are) argument is that many production art pieces contain touch-ups by the artist (or art director), or were assembled on the page with multiple stats (the way collages are created).  In some cases the production pieces were subsequently signed by the author(s).

 

 

  

 

 

Edited August 8 by BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES

[Rick2you2]

On 8/8/2024 at 1:59 PM, BLUECHIPCOLLECTIBLES said:

That first part is inconsistent with the view that "production art" is not art but "prints" are.  The second part about science is off-point.     

Until very recently, artists who created line drawings for comic covers intended for them to be completed by others into final form and reproduced. They were not intended to be, and weren't regarded as, pieces of art to be displayed in their unfinished form.  

(btw, this whole convo is becoming a prime example of a "talking with a guy who won't let you agree with him".  I tried to agree with you that production art is not really art, and did not expect a detour that prints are Art and the production art is a effectively a science project.  But if we must go down that road I will argue that sometimes, a science project is a work of art, too)

 

Also muddying the waters of the (production art is not art but prints are) argument is that many production art pieces contain touch-ups by the artist (or art director), or were assembled on the page with multiple stats (the way collages are created).  In some cases the production pieces were subsequently signed by the author(s).

 

 

  

 

 

I think I understand your point, but you are more focused on the manner in which the art is captured than the part that I consider to be art. I regard the artistic aspect to be the creative impulse then fixed in some form of medium, either analog or digital. The “production” aspect adds nothing to the art itself, but usually just renders it reproducible even if it captures a likeness of the art, like a photocopy. It isn’t independently “artistic”. A print is just a way of distributing the art, but a deliberate one. As for touchups and the like, I would put them in the same category as an editor’s notes on a manuscript. They may have collectible interest, but the “art” is what the artist intended. All in all, that is why I put color guides on the cusp of being art, are they independently “artful” or like editor’s notes?
By the way, what is “art” has been a subject of innumerable discussions by lots of smart people. I don’t claim to have a monopoly on brains. 

 

[r100comics]

On 8/4/2024 at 3:04 AM, Terry E. Gibbs said:

Very, true. I am a flash collector, not an art collector, or comic collector, as I am into both, plus cosplay, and although I have other stuff .. it is around 95% Flash. After eight years of chasing every Infantino Flash page out there, I have only seen a couple of colour guides (although one was for almost a complete comic). I have only seen two auctions for them. As I love the comics they are from, they are extremely enjoyable. The colours are brighter, richer, and show shading by the colourist lost in production. The stuff however rarely ever shows up.

I literally sold an Infantino Flash color guide page a few days ago on ebay !

[r100comics]

On 8/3/2024 at 1:19 PM, Michael Browning said:

I recently bought a stack of art from an estate sale at a hoarder's house and there were six large boxes of albums full of leadpink fakes, weighing over 200 pounds in total. The deceased had bought over 1,000 pieces of "production art" that were all fake. It had to be in the high thousands of dollars what he'd paid. I wish I'd taken a photo or a video of the photo albums filled with the leadpink forgeries. The house was so hot and the smell was horrendous and I just wanted to get the real original art and get out. It was unbelievable and sad, because the guy had 18 pieces of real original art, so he knew what OA is, and then so many albums full of the fake production pieces. Under the trash and junk were 100 long boxes of comics that I did not buy because another guy was purchasing those.

The deceased also had random porn that he'd printed off from the internet and kept in photo albums, too, along with five full dumpsters of trash that the movers took out of the house. The house looked like a toxic waste dump.

There is very little surviving, real production art that exists from comics from the time period where production art was a real thing. After computers started being used, there isn't much real production art.

Real production art consists of silverprints, color guides, color separations, mechanical covers and pages (because there are a few mechanical pages out there when corrections had to be made) and cover proofs. There are also a few blue line galleys out there from the old Gold Key/Whitman line of comics. I used to own one of the blue line galleys for an issue of Turok that was never published.

Funny to see this thread resurrected after all these years but sad to hear about this gentleman.

Leadpink is still going strong so I wonder how many others there are in a similar position. I can only hope he was buying them as decorative pieces only and enjoyed them for what they are and not as genuine production art.

 

 

 

[Dr. Balls]

I hate to be the hippie in the room, but isn't art in the eye of the beholder? Can a burger be art? For the cook or the consumer - it can be, because that particular burger has a visual appeal that goes beyond the simple value of sustenance. A print can be art, simply because the viewer gains some enjoyment from the artist's assemblage of visual elements that goes beyond a physical definition.

I have two showers in my house that were tiled by two different people. One, a construction company, one from a contractor. The shower that the single contractor did is a "work of art", it's exactness, proportion, measuring, etc is thought-out and purposeful. The construction company's shower was simply slapped together - and the differences are significant. I look at my shower daily and admire the craftsmanship, and in my mind, I refer to it as art - not because he did such a good job with it, but because I feel a sense of appreciation for what he created.

I think most of us appreciate original art for it's exclusivity and rarity. The original art is the first piece in a long line of various artistic reproductions that in turn, give others that same sense of feeling and appreciation that we - as the original owners - enjoy, but we have the added benefit of pride in owning the original.

I'm not into prints that much because they don't give me the satisfaction I get from owning an original. Same with color guides or production art, but I have come to realize that it should be about the enjoyment. The "value" of those things is always a component, and for people who want a slice of a historic piece, but the original is out of the question - those products fit.

I think color guides and production pieces are art. There will always be a debate on the collectibility and value of it, but I think in the most basic terms, they fit into the art category.

[Rick2you2]

On 8/10/2024 at 11:41 AM, Dr. Balls said:

I hate to be the hippie in the room, but isn't art in the eye of the beholder? Can a burger be art? For the cook or the consumer - it can be, because that particular burger has a visual appeal that goes beyond the simple value of sustenance. A print can be art, simply because the viewer gains some enjoyment from the artist's assemblage of visual elements that goes beyond a physical definition.

I have two showers in my house that were tiled by two different people. One, a construction company, one from a contractor. The shower that the single contractor did is a "work of art", it's exactness, proportion, measuring, etc is thought-out and purposeful. The construction company's shower was simply slapped together - and the differences are significant. I look at my shower daily and admire the craftsmanship, and in my mind, I refer to it as art - not because he did such a good job with it, but because I feel a sense of appreciation for what he created.

I think most of us appreciate original art for it's exclusivity and rarity. The original art is the first piece in a long line of various artistic reproductions that in turn, give others that same sense of feeling and appreciation that we - as the original owners - enjoy, but we have the added benefit of pride in owning the original.

I'm not into prints that much because they don't give me the satisfaction I get from owning an original. Same with color guides or production art, but I have come to realize that it should be about the enjoyment. The "value" of those things is always a component, and for people who want a slice of a historic piece, but the original is out of the question - those products fit.

I think color guides and production pieces are art. There will always be a debate on the collectibility and value of it, but I think in the most basic terms, they fit into the art category.

I can’t agree that art is in the eye of the beholder, just the quality or value of art. By your analysis, a snowflake is art because of its crystalline structure. In fact, everything is art if someone considers it artful. That cheapens art into nothingness. A singer is an artist because of how he or she combines song and lyrics; his or her synthesis of the two is the art. Your showers were built by craftsmen; one was good and one, not so good. One apparently considered their work to represent what they thought a good tile job should look like, elevating the performance to art. The other did not. The reason would be that craftsmen are engaged in a form of artistic rendering, as compared to the laborer knocking up 2x4’s for the new wall. Same with the pottery maker. Or the designer of a plate—but not the manufacturer of the plate. None of this has anything to do with value, a piece of production “art” can be a collectible, and certainly more collectible than a photocopy of Snoopy. As for the burger, I think the closer analogy is to the “artist” who nailed a banana to a wall and exhibited it as art. The intent was to treat it as artistic, and let the viewer then make their own decision.

[Terry E. Gibbs]

On 8/10/2024 at 11:00 PM, r100comics said:

I literally sold an Infantino Flash color guide page a few days ago on ebay !

Yes but it was a 1990 color guide not an 70-80s one. 80s ones are far rarer. Also that colour guide is different from what the " original art", became as it had been changed with a transparency dropped in from earlier int he story. Still can't work out which I like best. So only example of what Carmine had intended and yep to me it is art. Hope you packed it well.

[Readcomix]

On 8/11/2024 at 8:11 AM, Rick2you2 said:

I think the closer analogy is to the “artist” who nailed a banana to a wall and exhibited it as art. The intent was to treat it as artistic, and let the viewer then make their own decision.

That guy plagiarized my work! In college, one of my roommates produced a very evenly golden piece of toast. I stopped him before he could eat it, several of us concurred it was the perfect piece of toast, and we nailed it to our apartment wall.

[fenip]

I recently bought a Chris Ware color guide. He didn't really enjoy the process of making them. In his own words "I spent a lot of money on zip-a-tone as well as on aspirin during these years and loathed every minute of it."

https://www.2dgalleries.com/art/chris-ware-jimmy-corrigan-blab-7-production-color-guide-224351