Is anyone here buying into monoprints 1 1

[Panelfan1]

Saw this tonight on comiccon art and was curious how everyone else felt about it. This is for Mikel Janin Batman covers/art.

 

under the topic of 'original' art covers - they are selling one of a kind prints.

you can see it all HERE

the description reads:

While Mikel occassionally draws select pieces by hand whenever time allows, the vast majority of his work is digital.  As a result, his original interior artwork offered here consists of a unique original print of the final production file for each published page.  The artwork is annotated by hand, and is signed & numbered ("1/1") by Mikel along the bottom edge and accompanied by our Certificate of Authenticity.  In addition, Mikel's digital covers are available as a large format (18 x 24) full color fine art giclee print suitable for framing.  Cover monoprints are also signed and numbered ("1/1"), and issued with accompanying dual-signed COA.

 

 

 

[Will_K]

I saw the same thing.  It's priced at $1,000.

In general, if it wasn't limited, you could get a random signed print at a convention for $20 - $30 (and 2 for $50).  Some artists (e.g. Adam Hughes) have sold limited signed/numbered prints of some of their covers.

Some artists work digitally, sell a monoprint and delete the file.  But if the art gets published (not necessarily the art in question), there could be any number of bootleg prints or copies of the digital file.  Does anyone know if publishers and printers have protections against unauthorized prints or copying of digital files??  After all, wasn't one of the reasons original art was chopped up was to prevent bootlegs ?

So you're basically being asked to pay a LOT for a signature and "1/1" on the print.

If I paid even $100 for a "1 of 1" print and saw someone selling an unnumbered/unsigned print of the same thing, that would really suck.

[aokartman]

44 minutes ago, Panelfan1 said:

Saw this tonight on comiccon art and was curious how everyone else felt about it. This is for Mikel Janin Batman covers/art.

 

under the topic of 'original' art covers - they are selling one of a kind prints.

you can see it all HERE

the description reads:

While Mikel occassionally draws select pieces by hand whenever time allows, the vast majority of his work is digital.  As a result, his original interior artwork offered here consists of a unique original print of the final production file for each published page.  The artwork is annotated by hand, and is signed & numbered ("1/1") by Mikel along the bottom edge and accompanied by our Certificate of Authenticity.  In addition, Mikel's digital covers are available as a large format (18 x 24) full color fine art giclee print suitable for framing.  Cover monoprints are also signed and numbered ("1/1"), and issued with accompanying dual-signed COA.

 

 

 

There is the possibility of future editions, so really you are just buying an early print, and an autograph.  David

[Brian Peck]

Its NOT original or art, just just a bloody print. You have no way of knowing if the artists is only making one print or 100. Just another print from an artist. Absolutely no interest at all.

[ESeffinga]

This is one of those instances where the Comic OA community hasn't quite "matured" to the level of the "Fine Art" community. It's one of those scenarios that has played out in the fine art community over decades, but even there still has a whiff of the wild west about it.

Expensive prints are not a new thing at all in relation to art. The real industry of making art prints sprang up in the 80s, as printing methods grew increasingly capable of reproducing artwork. In the old days you had to pony up for an offset press run, which was incredibly pricey. Prints had to be purchased in the thousands to make the prints affordable. Or you were limited to silkscreened hand pulled runs of minimal numbers. The costs of which also made them expensive options. And that's before the artist even gets a taste of profit.

In the 90s, as large scale scanners and digital printing allowed artists a new revenue stream with reduced production runs. Printing "Giclees" (inkjet prints with UV resistant inks) on paper and canvas became a thing. As the print quality improved and the machines became more affordable, more and more independent artists were able to put their work out into the word as "limited" editions. Generally hand signed. Sometimes remarqued (for a few hundred more) Artist Proofs, etc. Artists were able to not just make a work, but by selling editions, often times sell the prints collectively for well above the price of producing the original. Think Scott Gustafson and Thomas Kinkade as examples. The net result was that by the early 2000s this $200-1200 per print market (largely supported by the framing industry) ended up glutting themselves incredibly. So many options. Too much competition. This market still exists, but like a lot of manufactured collectibles, it was unsustainable in the form of it's heyday.

 

In the true fine art market, you have examples such as fine art photography. Which has for many decades, been sold via editions. Many photographers will do "runs" of prints based of a particular image. Often 1/5, 1/10, 1/20. Sometimes based on original size. so 1/1 at 30x40, 1/5 20x24, 1/20 at 11x14. As the edition sells out, the prices go up. So if print 1 of 5 is $2000, print 5 might be $3000, or whatever.

The reason it's been so sustainable is that over time it was developed into a rigid structure. Usually by the photographers themselves. So ALL editions and pricing structure of an image are announced at the beginning. And the numbers are accurate and locked in stone. They have to be. There have been instances of artists making limited runs, but then going back on their Limitedness by announcing a second run or slipping out extras on the side as additional "AP" editions or whatever. Those artists found their prices plummet because their word couldn't be trusted and the exclusivity was shown to be false.

This correlates directly to this idea that because an original is digital (or a photographic negative, or an Andy Warhol screen), you can print endless lossless copies of it is true, however, if you do, expect yourself to be unable to sell your work within short order. Would-be buyers ultimately won't stand for it.

The bottom fell out of the Salvador Dalí market when it was revealed that he had made a deal with a print shop where he signed reams of press paper before anything had ever been printed on it, and then the press folks just printed up "limited" number prints and issued them into the world. So a runthat was 1/100 might have 10 times as may actually in existence. No one that trades on issuing anything as a numbered edition will survive being outed if they don't stick to their numbering system.

What really rubs me extra raw in the OPs text is that if I'm reading the artist's description/explanation properly, they are saying that they will make a 1/1 print of the color cover. BUT, they will also print those covers oversize and sell them as well. So in effect, it's not 1/1 at all. It's only 1/1 at whatever size they deem the "original" size is for the artwork. That is a failure in thinking on the artist's part. It undermines their own efforts to make exclusivity a value added part of their cover prints, if it's really just down to size. And I don't see mention of the enlarged covers being limited at all.

 

None of this isn't to say there isn't a major mental hurdle for existing and veteran OA collectors. The question is will generations coming up will have the same hurdle? In so many kids lives, they've never used a land line, or a postage stamp. In another thread on here someone just wrote about how some folks saw OA from the Walking Dead and didn't realize what it was. If a person growing up now does fall in love with comics, but is only used to buying them digitally, will that same hurdle be in their minds as it is ours? Will they even think of it in the same way?

 

I bought a piece of art from Ray Caesar. Not a comic artist. All his work is digital. Always has been. Always will be. I like some of his imagery quite a bit, and at one point I finally forced myself to buy one of his prints. It was something like $2500 at the beginning of the edition. The last few were at least another $1K+ what I paid for it. It's since sold out. No idea what the aftermarket is like on his work. I've honestly never seen one pop up for sle before, other than through one of his galleries (he has 1 gallery that he deals with in the U.S., 1 in Europe and Asia), but ultimately I didn't buy it for resale. Not sure there would be any. I bought it for the sake of wanting to have the piece in the house.

Could be that is a direction the OA market splinters off into. It's a road I've been on almost my whole life, though I know it's not one that a lot of other OA collectors have been able to stay on exclusively, as the big-two men in tights art market has spiraled ever higher. I get that, and maybe that market operates differently in the long term.

Personally, I DO see the Caesar piece differently than other "originals" in my collection. I see it as a pricey print. But it's a cool image. I'm good with that. And if he ever did do physical original art, I think it'd far outstrip my ability to pay for it. His 1/1 prints regularly sell via his reps in the $12-20K range. For a print.

I'm cool with having the one glorified poster on my wall. All the rest of the walls I reserve for originals. Our walls filled up way too fast to have lesser originals on them, much less having prints cluttering them up.

And this all dovetails into "factory" made art ala Warhol, then Koons, now Murakami and Hurst. It's orignal in that someone's hand made it. But not "the" artist.
And that cycles around back to Rembrandt, and the pieces attributed to Rembrandt vs. ones attributed to his school, etc.

Just some thoughts...

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by ESeffinga

[MIL0S]

Whatever floats your boat, but as others have chimed in absolutely not for me, not at that price. 

[ESeffinga]

Oh, and a thought that didn't make it in above...

Gene's listed a bunch of reasons in the past while the comic market may never see another Miller, McFarlane, Lee level superstar artist that puts out a book that represents a certain zeitgeist across the entire market. 

But if someone in the future does become THE guy that the whole industry looks up to, and changes comics again in some substantial way that reverberates through generations afterward (even if its through a single story like the Master Race comic we've been chatting about), but this hypothetical artist's work is only ever all digital. You don't think people will want to own it?

I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm as disinterested in the artists print market as any of the rest of you (with my one exception), and I get your thought process. I'm just trying to show another side of things as I've seen it unfold over the last few decades in other parts of the art collecting sphere. There are national galleries holding art photographs by artists that would trounce all but the highest priced comic OA in public auctions. How many of these galleries have comic art in their collections and take it seriously? Some photos are expensive for historical significance (Billy the Kid tintype) but many are very recent captures. Some even digitally. Others with negatives that could be reproduced if the artist were willing. They aren't for the reasons listed above.

Again, it's not my thing, but I'm not sticking my head in the sand and saying nope either. Just observing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs

[hmendryk]

At the risk of sounding like I am nit picking, I would suggest that the term monoprint not be used for this so as to avoid confusion. In the art world 1/1 prints would be called a (very) limited edition. On the other hand a monoprint is a print made by painting the inks directly on the printing block. When printed you get a single print. The artist could re-ink the block but he will never get another print identical to the first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoprinting

[ESeffinga]

I've always known those as Monotypes. The Wiki entry you posted says they are the same thing.
I learn something new every day, but when I saw the title of the thread, I can say that's what I thought this would be about.

George Pratt loves Monotypes. Kent Williams was into them for a time early in his art career.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotyping

[vodou]

There so many cool produced-by-hand prints (monos or editions) out there...folks around here are overlooking that completely because of the generally narrow focus of an OA sub-board on a comic books (and speculative bent, what with the CGC aspect, at that) board. Seffinga and Mendryk are of other sandboxes out there, it doesn't cost anybody but a bit of time to Google Image around some of these terms and check out cool stuff you would never otherwise bump into (or find on a narrowly focus BB!) I highly suggets having some art fun every day, doesn't always have to be comic art

I mean...is this one Scott Hampton, Ashley Wood or...

Degas

[Mr. Machismo]

Not original art, a print. In my opinion, a waste of money, but to each his own. Outside of discussions like this, posts about these prints do not belong in this forum or on CAF as it is an entirely different hobby.

There’s some people on CAF who post prints, people don’t realize, and they get flooded with comments about what a great piece it is. Lol. 

[comix4fun]

10 hours ago, Panelfan1 said:

Saw this tonight on comiccon art and was curious how everyone else felt about it. This is for Mikel Janin Batman covers/art.

 

under the topic of 'original' art covers - they are selling one of a kind prints.

you can see it all HERE

the description reads:

While Mikel occassionally draws select pieces by hand whenever time allows, the vast majority of his work is digital.  As a result, his original interior artwork offered here consists of a unique original print of the final production file for each published page.  The artwork is annotated by hand, and is signed & numbered ("1/1") by Mikel along the bottom edge and accompanied by our Certificate of Authenticity.  In addition, Mikel's digital covers are available as a large format (18 x 24) full color fine art giclee print suitable for framing.  Cover monoprints are also signed and numbered ("1/1"), and issued with accompanying dual-signed COA.

 

 

 

 

Nope....

People have been trying to hawk this stuff since digital art creation was invented. 

No way. No how. No Thanks. 

As a print, maybe. As a replacement for original art? Nope. 

Edited November 2, 2018 by comix4fun

[BCarter27]

Reps need to be telling their artists to do their covers and splashes traditionally if they want the big art sales.

[aokartman]

Digital artists might do better selling limited hard copy production rights, but without violating any agreements in the production process of the actual book.  Difficult to monetize as "original art". 

Hopefully, even this extreme limitation doesn't amount to a contract, copyright, or trademark violation on a technicality.  David

[PhilipB2k17]

14 hours ago, Panelfan1 said:

Saw this tonight on comiccon art and was curious how everyone else felt about it. This is for Mikel Janin Batman covers/art.

 

under the topic of 'original' art covers - they are selling one of a kind prints.

you can see it all HERE

the description reads:

While Mikel occassionally draws select pieces by hand whenever time allows, the vast majority of his work is digital.  As a result, his original interior artwork offered here consists of a unique original print of the final production file for each published page.  The artwork is annotated by hand, and is signed & numbered ("1/1") by Mikel along the bottom edge and accompanied by our Certificate of Authenticity.  In addition, Mikel's digital covers are available as a large format (18 x 24) full color fine art giclee print suitable for framing.  Cover monoprints are also signed and numbered ("1/1"), and issued with accompanying dual-signed COA.

 

 

 

I was literally just looking at the Janin art, and thinking the same thing. Absent an exclusivity contract, I’m not sure how you prevent him from selling more copies of it. 

Edited November 2, 2018 by PhilipB2k17

[PhilipB2k17]

7 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

Oh, and a thought that didn't make it in above...

Gene's listed a bunch of reasons in the past while the comic market may never see another Miller, McFarlane, Lee level superstar artist that puts out a book that represents a certain zeitgeist across the entire market. 

But if someone in the future does become THE guy that the whole industry looks up to, and changes comics again in some substantial way that reverberates through generations afterward (even if its through a single story like the Master Race comic we've been chatting about), but this hypothetical artist's work is only ever all digital. You don't think people will want to own it?

I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm as disinterested in the artists print market as any of the rest of you (with my one exception), and I get your thought process. I'm just trying to show another side of things as I've seen it unfold over the last few decades in other parts of the art collecting sphere. There are national galleries holding art photographs by artists that would trounce all but the highest priced comic OA in public auctions. How many of these galleries have comic art in their collections and take it seriously? Some photos are expensive for historical significance (Billy the Kid tintype) but many are very recent captures. Some even digitally. Others with negatives that could be reproduced if the artist were willing. They aren't for the reasons listed above.

Again, it's not my thing, but I'm not sticking my head in the sand and saying nope either. Just observing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs

If Fiona Staples sold an “Exclusive 1/1 print” of the cover to Saga #1, would you pay the requisite $10K+ she’d probably ask for it? 

I can get a fabulous modern pencil & ink Batman cover for less than that. 

Edited November 2, 2018 by PhilipB2k17

[PhilipB2k17]

Here’s how you could maybe pull this off. Make a special “production print” of the page, send a hard copy (not a digital version) off to the publisher (who then stamps it, dates it and puts the issue number, etc on it), and the publisher then sends it back to the artist after creating the print run from it. 

That is then the “original” production page used to publish the art. 

[vodou]

Interesting idea Philip, assuming the publisher would play along. I'm not on the inside of editorial/production so just guessing, but they all may now require digital file submission. Does anybody still "mail original art in"?

A deeper question is this: Big Two (and other publishers of corporate owned content) retain all the rights to this stuff except the original art, right? That's been settled since the mid-1970s or so under work-for-hire. But in the case of all digital original art, isn't the only right the artist has (to otherwise fully corporate owned characters, costumes, stories, etc) is the actual digital file itself? If that's the case then they can't (legally) make printouts from that file, without specific permission, any more than any of us can make photocopies of the art in our possession and sell those for $5/ea (or whatever). We all know that Big Two are generally not enforcing their rights here as artists produce and sell all sorts of copies of their (non digital) work in plain view at any old convention anywhere and online too. But not enforcing is not the same thing as being legal. And without that agreement in place, the consignor and auction house taking the listing are both in a legal gray area too...at best.

[Rick2you2]

57 minutes ago, vodou said:

Interesting idea Philip, assuming the publisher would play along. I'm not on the inside of editorial/production so just guessing, but they all may now require digital file submission. Does anybody still "mail original art in"?

A deeper question is this: Big Two (and other publishers of corporate owned content) retain all the rights to this stuff except the original art, right? That's been settled since the mid-1970s or so under work-for-hire. But in the case of all digital original art, isn't the only right the artist has (to otherwise fully corporate owned characters, costumes, stories, etc) is the actual digital file itself? If that's the case then they can't (legally) make printouts from that file, without specific permission, any more than any of us can make photocopies of the art in our possession and sell those for $5/ea (or whatever). We all know that Big Two are generally not enforcing their rights here as artists produce and sell all sorts of copies of their (non digital) work in plain view at any old convention anywhere and online too. But not enforcing is not the same thing as being legal. And without that agreement in place, the consignor and auction house taking the listing are both in a legal gray area too...at best.

Not exactly. The artist is selling the company the right to use his artistry for a story (and maybe other things) and reprints. The artist, however, owns the original artwork and can make copies of it as well unless the agreement with the artist restricts them (which it probably does). 

[Rick2you2]

I wouldn't buy a "monoprint" period. I consider it fundamentally untrustworthy.