Is anyone here buying into monoprints 1 1

[Sean I]

Looks like the oft-cited concern has happened after a fashion.  Dauterman just tweeted that he has 11"17" prints available of some of his costume covers for $35.  These are in color, the black and white 11x17 monoprints sold for between $1,000 and $1,500.  Is this the first example of a monoprint artist breaking ranks and selling 'variant' prints of something that was previously a monoprint?

[Dirtcheap31]

Yeah I will never buy these but I am also the person who does not buy NFTs for the same reason 

[Twanj]

On 5/31/2023 at 12:18 PM, Sean- said:

Looks like the oft-cited concern has happened after a fashion.  Dauterman just tweeted that he has 11"17" prints available of some of his costume covers for $35.  These are in color, the black and white 11x17 monoprints sold for between $1,000 and $1,500.  Is this the first example of a monoprint artist breaking ranks and selling 'variant' prints of something that was previously a monoprint?

I'm not 100% but I think this is how he's been for a number of years. A while ago I was looking at his Thor stuff, and if you check out his online store he has either the colored print or the monoprint for some images.

I don't see an issue as they're clearly labeled "Artist's Proof 1/1" - my issue is with monoprints that aren't labeled and that causes problems.

[Rick2you2]

On 5/31/2023 at 12:18 PM, Sean- said:

Looks like the oft-cited concern has happened after a fashion.  Dauterman just tweeted that he has 11"17" prints available of some of his costume covers for $35.  These are in color, the black and white 11x17 monoprints sold for between $1,000 and $1,500.  Is this the first example of a monoprint artist breaking ranks and selling 'variant' prints of something that was previously a monoprint?

Artists almost always have had the right to sell copies of their originals, even the old pen and ink varieties, unless performed under a work for hire agreement. Neal Adams did it for years at shows. 

[Sean I]

Twanj, sorry, if this has been his usual practice I wasn't aware.  I just saw the tweet today and noticed that the images in the prints he was announcing had all been sold earlier as mono prints.  When really the exclusivity is the only angle to use to justify $1,500 I have to say I do think it devalues the, for lack of a better word, "original" print.  I feel the implication is typically "this is the only one there will be" so thought I'd share for others.

Rick, that's very interesting!  He was ever the entrepreneur!  

[Will_K]

1 of 1 of many .

[Twanj]

On 5/31/2023 at 1:32 PM, Sean- said:

Twanj, sorry, if this has been his usual practice I wasn't aware.  I just saw the tweet today and noticed that the images in the prints he was announcing had all been sold earlier as mono prints.  When really the exclusivity is the only angle to use to justify $1,500 I have to say I do think it devalues the, for lack of a better word, "original" print.  I feel the implication is typically "this is the only one there will be" so thought I'd share for others.

Rick, that's very interesting!  He was ever the entrepreneur!  

B-b-b-but the print is in color! And the "original art" is in black and white (mostly).

I could be wrong. He may have started this recently.

[Wyndchill]

Not for me, thanks all the same.

[Dr. Balls]

On 5/31/2023 at 10:18 AM, Sean- said:

Looks like the oft-cited concern has happened after a fashion.  Dauterman just tweeted that he has 11"17" prints available of some of his costume covers for $35.  These are in color, the black and white 11x17 monoprints sold for between $1,000 and $1,500.  Is this the first example of a monoprint artist breaking ranks and selling 'variant' prints of something that was previously a monoprint?

Probably not the first example, but it’s only a matter of time before one of these examples takes hold and really gives the monoprint trend a black eye.

They are littered all throughout CAF (along with color guides), I imagine in a year or so it’ll be like wading through EBay to find art there. 

[RBerman]

I mean, every published comic book is a print of the original art. But not an 11x17 black and white print without word balloons.

[Dr. Balls]

On 5/31/2023 at 11:17 AM, Rick2you2 said:

Artists almost always have had the right to sell copies of their originals, even the old pen and ink varieties, unless performed under a work for hire agreement. Neal Adams did it for years at shows. 

Very true, but guys like Neal Adams and Jim Steranko never fleeced cash-fisted fanboys out of their money to the tune of $1500 for a photocopy on card stock.

[redrighthand]

I almost feel like monoprint collecting shouldn't even be discussed in original art circles. it's a completely different hobby, though adjacent.

This isn't significantly different (to me) from what goes on in fine art circles. Prints are made, each run has it's characteristics, some go up some don't. Yeah, there's a run of color prints for cheap, but there's only one b/w (presumably using better materials - i don't care enough to find out). That's the uniqueness to hang the collectible on - might not be much, but hey, some people have managed to fetishize the barcodes on bronze age comics, so...

In terms of scaling between fine art collecting and comic art collecting, the big problem is the pricing doesn't scale. Monoprints are frequently overpriced, and that's what will kill monoprint collecting while it's still young.

My opinion is likely irrelevant, I'm too snooty for prints.

[alxjhnsn]

If I want a color print of a comic page, I'll buy the comic.

[Dr. Balls]

On 5/31/2023 at 7:23 PM, redrighthand said:

I almost feel like monoprint collecting shouldn't even be discussed in original art circles. it's a completely different hobby, though adjacent.

My opinion is likely irrelevant, I'm too snooty for prints.

Not irrelevant - it's important for people to at least voice it so there isn't some silent majority out there quietly accepting the monoprint concept as being held in a similar regard as original art. I am not a fan, either - and I've rambled on about it in a previous post because I have experience in trying to figure out how to market digital artwork in a way that creates the illusion of value.

Monoprints and color guides should not be in the same pool as original art, as they are technically "production" pieces, created from the art (digital or otherwise) and are a tangible representation of the original - but still, not the original.

The artists using digital are making the effort to market around the shortcomings of their medium with monoprints, but the exorbitant pricing is really coming off poorly in my opinion. (Paraphrasing here) Charging $1500+ for a print, then a while later coming back and doing another one - but in color - seems to violate the original idea of the first print, and depending on who you ask: might seem unethical.

[MAR1979]

My answer to topic question is no,no,no,No,NO

[Brian Peck]

On 6/1/2023 at 7:10 AM, Dr. Balls said:

Not irrelevant - it's important for people to at least voice it so there isn't some silent majority out there quietly accepting the monoprint concept as being held in a similar regard as original art. I am not a fan, either - and I've rambled on about it in a previous post because I have experience in trying to figure out how to market digital artwork in a way that creates the illusion of value.

Monoprints and color guides should not be in the same pool as original art, as they are technically "production" pieces, created from the art (digital or otherwise) and are a tangible representation of the original - but still, not the original.

The artists using digital are making the effort to market around the shortcomings of their medium with monoprints, but the exorbitant pricing is really coming off poorly in my opinion. (Paraphrasing here) Charging $1500+ for a print, then a while later coming back and doing another one - but in color - seems to violate the original idea of the first print, and depending on who you ask: might seem unethical.

When they do that its just a scam, and the smuck who paid $1500 realizes he has been conned.

[MAR1979]

On 5/31/2023 at 12:18 PM, Sean- said:

Looks like the oft-cited concern has happened after a fashion.  Dauterman just tweeted that he has 11"17" prints available of some of his costume covers for $35.  These are in color, the black and white 11x17 monoprints sold for between $1,000 and $1,500.  Is this the first example of a monoprint artist breaking ranks and selling 'variant' prints of something that was previously a monoprint?

IMHO at $35 is still $30 more than they are worth

[Matches_Malone]

On 6/1/2023 at 10:10 AM, Dr. Balls said:

Monoprints and color guides should not be in the same pool as original art

Im 100% with you. Monoprints and color guides should not be considered the same as traditional original art, which is why they sell for far less.

But Out of curiosity...how do you define an original digital photograph print? Is it original? Is it a print? Or an original print?

If prints that were produced by the artist of his/her digital original comic art are considered reproduction pieces and not original, why aren’t prints from digital photographs considered reproductions as well? But yet, they are considered original, with a pretty hefty price tag, I may add, when they come from the photographer itself. 

Edited June 1, 2023 by Matches_Malone

[Dr. Balls]

On 6/1/2023 at 1:09 PM, Matches_Malone said:

Im 100% with you. Monoprints and color guides should not be considered the same as traditional original art, which is why they sell for far less.

But Out of curiosity...how do you define an original digital photograph print? Is it original? Is it a print? Or an original print?

If prints that were produced by the artist of his/her digital original comic art are considered reproduction pieces and not original, why aren’t prints from digital photographs considered reproductions as well? But yet, they are considered original, with a pretty hefty price tag, I may add, when they come from the photographer itself. 

In my opinion, there is also no such thing as a 'original digital photograph'. It's still a reproduction from the original format it was taken from.

Even going back to old school photography, the film negative is technically the "original" as that is the medium that captured the image. You then make a "print" (which is what it was always referred to as) from the negative, and you can do limited editions, etc. It's been a long time since I collected photo prints, but I recall that what made them valuable is their vintage and the materials that were used (silver gelatin, etc) to make them, or the edition size - or if the photographer made them him/herself.

There is no original in "digital" anything, and there never will be - that's a tough swallow for a lot of digital artists. The very nature of digital ensures that a tangible original will never exist. At some point, I'm sure they will figure out how to sell razor-thin screens that showcase the "original" artwork - but that's pretty much the only goal they can possibly achieve for it, and even then - your original ceases to exist as soon as you unplug the screen, queuing up the whole 'Schrodinger's Cat" argument of whether the "original" exists if you can't see it.

[redrighthand]

On 6/1/2023 at 7:10 AM, Dr. Balls said:

 

Monoprints and color guides should not be in the same pool as original art, as they are technically "production" pieces, created from the art (digital or otherwise) and are a tangible representation of the original - but still, not the original.

 

I wouldn't lump monos and color guides together as I wouldn't call a monoprint a production piece. it played no part in production. A color guide is at least a legit artifact from the production process. which is where it derives most of it's value. A monoprint could be made years after the comic has been printed (as seen with Mister Miracle for instance). An actual artist's proof would be closer to a production artifact (note that in this hobby, i think the term artist's proof is often used improperly).