Is anyone here buying into monoprints 1 1

[Rick2you2]

On 6/3/2022 at 6:05 PM, Randall Dowling said:

I wouldn't collect these myself, but they're really no different than a photographer selling prints of their work.  And vintage photos do have collectible value (yes, I have purchased some of those).  I would think that the same rules would apply.  

But that isn’t digital. Digital results in perfect copies.

[Randall Dowling]

On 6/3/2022 at 5:08 PM, Rick2you2 said:

But that isn’t digital. Digital results in perfect copies.

I know photographers that would argue that with you but I'm not here for that.  For the average person, I think you're correct.

[Hockeyflow33]

On 6/3/2022 at 6:05 PM, Randall Dowling said:

I wouldn't collect these myself, but they're really no different than a photographer selling prints of their work.  And vintage photos do have collectible value (yes, I have purchased some of those).  I would think that the same rules would apply.  

For a photography comparison it would be like we all collected the negatives and someone was trying to sell us prints of the negative claiming it's the same thing

[MAR1979]

On 6/3/2022 at 6:09 PM, Randall Dowling said:

I know photographers that would argue that with you but I'm not here for that.  For the average person, I think you're correct.

If for example the the CRC32's , SHA-256 , SHA-512 (or MD5 assuming no funny biz) hashes of the files are the same, then files themselves are the same that is proven verifiable indisputable mathematical fact.  Where differences will occur is in the bringing the image contained in the file data to our human analog eyes.  That is dependent on hardware, hardware settings, printing methods and mechanisms right down the paper and exact type of toner, ink, etc used.   Even 2 comics printed from same press at nearly the same time have variances. However none of that changes that the Digital files are exactly the same.

 

 

Edited June 4, 2022 by MAR1979

[Will_K]

I'll just go back to a point that I made at the beginning of this topic.  Since the artist has to deliver a digital file to the publisher, that's at least one other party that has a copy of the file.  And then it has to be printed, that's another party.  And if they're all being responsible, it has to be backed up.  And if they're going to do reprints / TPBs / etc, it has to be archived.  For a really cool image, print off a couple for your friends. 

The only guarantee an artist can provide is that only they are allowed to stipulate that a print is "1 of 1"

There will be a new slogan "Monoprints... collect 'em all !!!"

[Rick2you2]

On 6/4/2022 at 7:32 PM, Will_K said:

I'll just go back to a point that I made at the beginning of this topic.  Since the artist has to deliver a digital file to the publisher, that's at least one other party that has a copy of the file.  And then it has to be printed, that's another party.  And if they're all being responsible, it has to be backed up.  And if they're going to do reprints / TPBs / etc, it has to be archived.  For a really cool image, print off a couple for your friends. 

The only guarantee an artist can provide is that only they are allowed to stipulate that a print is "1 of 1"

There will be a new slogan "Monoprints... collect 'em all !!!"

What would help, a little, is if the artist signed the back before a notary public swearing this was the only print to be made of the piece. At the very least, that would let you know who had the oldest copy, if another shows up, and it could make out a claim for false swearing against the artist (probably giving you a right of reimbursement under some potential legal theories). 

[vodou]

On 6/4/2022 at 7:32 PM, Will_K said:

Since the artist has to deliver a digital file to the publisher, that's at least one other party that has a copy of the file.  And then it has to be printed, that's another party.  And if they're all being responsible, it has to be backed up.  And if they're going to do reprints / TPBs / etc, it has to be archived.

All true. But does the artist work at greater than print resolution? That's likely, particularly if there's any vision toward future larger than a comic book output -banners, posters, etc. If so, the artist's "master" file is superior and all others are possibly/probably stepped down, and notably so, in quality. This is a nuanced argument here, but if this end of the hobby ever matures, the distinction would probably add/change value. Further, a consideration for digital artists that want to separate their product out from the rest - maybe put that higher resolution file to work by outputting in a manner that nobody else (publisher, printer) but you can do, higher resolution, larger than original (comic book) print size, etc. And then, not such a bad idea either...

On 6/5/2022 at 7:00 AM, Rick2you2 said:

What would help, a little, is if the artist signed the back before a notary public swearing this was the only print to be made of the piece. At the very least, that would let you know who had the oldest copy, if another shows up, and it could make out a claim for false swearing against the artist (probably giving you a right of reimbursement under some potential legal theories). 

 

[Rick2you2]

On 6/5/2022 at 8:41 AM, vodou said:

All true. But does the artist work at greater than print resolution? That's likely, particularly if there's any vision toward future larger than a comic book output -banners, posters, etc. If so, the artist's "master" file is superior and all others are possibly/probably stepped down, and notably so, in quality. This is a nuanced argument here, but if this end of the hobby ever matures, the distinction would probably add/change value. Further, a consideration for digital artists that want to separate their product out from the rest - maybe put that higher resolution file to work by outputting in a manner that nobody else (publisher, printer) but you can do, higher resolution, larger than original (comic book) print size, etc. And then, not such a bad idea either...

 

It wouldn’t be hard to create an “industry-standard” Acknowledgement and Representation which the artist would sign and have notarized. The Acknowledgement should, however, protect the artist’s copyright of his basic image for other forms of reprinting. For example, the Acknowledgement could state the attached image is the only “Artist’s Monoprint” copy of the original work, but the artist reserves the right to make other copies, so long as they are identified and.distinguished from the “Artist’s Monoprint”. That way, for example, the artist could freely sell an artists’ edition of his work without fear of violating the Acknowledgement and Representation.

[BCarter27]

I think going forward, the NFT will be the primary product for the digital artist and the monoprint will be the physical freebie thrown in.

And I'm not trying to start a whole thing about NFTs, but rather point out the above discussion is exactly the pain point NFTs are trying to solve in the digital art community... Just sub out the words contract, acknowledgement, COA, title, stamp, or watermark for NFT or blockchain contract and the traditional collecting community will have a better understanding of what these newfangled things are actually for.

The infuriating thing will be when the initial collector resells the piece and doesn't ship the freebie monoprint. Well, guess what... at that point he just owns a less-valuable "one of many" print. The NFT owner can ask the artist for permission to strike another monoprint from the source file on ipfs (and the new collector will likely pay for the printing, because why would the artist do so.) And that new monoprint could be 40 ft tall or whatever since it just belongs to the new collector. The NFT is the equivalent of a title to a car. And if you sell a car without a title (for example, if the first collector tried to sell the orphaned first monoprint), then the market doesn't see it as legitimate and prices it down accordingly.

 

[New School Fool]

On 6/4/2022 at 12:56 PM, Hockeyflow33 said:

For a photography comparison it would be like we all collected the negatives and someone was trying to sell us prints of the negative claiming it's the same thing

Not really sure that's a good analogy, seeing as digital photos do exist, and sell. Not sure I've seen any rep claiming a monoprint is Original Art. In fact the name monoprint actually states it isnt....

There's clearly no love for monoprints here, which is cool. But there also seems to be a great deal of misinformation in this forum. I think the biggest mistake is assuming monoprints are a substitute for Original Art. They aren't and contrary to popular belief, I've yet to see any artist or rep claim that they are. Completely different mediums that shouldn't be so closely compared imho. They both depict comic art and that's it.

Some collectors would like a digital artists work on paper. A medium the artwork doesn't actually exist in, so having one 'print out' of the artwork with a signed and dated COA stating it's the first negates any remorse one would feel if there ever were subsequent 'printings'...

Totally appreciate that more traditional OA collectors have their preferences. Full discloser, my collection is currently 80% OA and 20% monoprints. I personally collect the artwork and not the medium. I realised this when I bought a bunch of artist editions and saw a lot of high res scans of OA in those books that had recently sold at auction. I would be totally bummed if any OA I bought was in those books, much in the same way most of you would be bummed if a monoprint you bought was reprinted.

[RBerman]

On 6/5/2022 at 3:57 PM, New School Fool said:

Not really sure that's a good analogy, seeing as digital photos do exist, and sell. Not sure I've seen any rep claiming a monoprint is Original Art. In fact the name monoprint actually states it isnt....

There's clearly no love for monoprints here, which is cool. But there also seems to be a great deal of misinformation in this forum. I think the biggest mistake is assuming monoprints are a substitute for Original Art. They aren't and contrary to popular belief, I've yet to see any artist or rep claim that they are. Completely different mediums that shouldn't be so closely compared imho. They both depict comic art and that's it.

Some collectors would like a digital artists work on paper. A medium the artwork doesn't actually exist in, so having one 'print out' of the artwork with a signed and dated COA stating it's the first negates any remorse one would feel if there ever were subsequent 'printings'...

Totally appreciate that more traditional OA collectors have their preferences. Full discloser, my collection is currently 80% OA and 20% monoprints. I personally collect the artwork and not the medium. I realised this when I bought a bunch of artist editions and saw a lot of high res scans of OA in those books that had recently sold at auction. I would be totally bummed if any OA I bought was in those books, much in the same way most of you would be bummed if a monoprint you bought was reprinted.

The thing is, those artist edition books were scanned with permission of those who owned those original art pages. There seems to be consensus that this does not devalue the original page; perhaps the opposite. Does the same hold true with monoprints, which are not the "original art" in that same sense in the first place? I guess we'll see where the market is in ten years.;

[New School Fool]

On 6/8/2022 at 2:22 AM, RBerman said:

The thing is, those artist edition books were scanned with permission of those who owned those original art pages. There seems to be consensus that this does not devalue the original page; perhaps the opposite. Does the same hold true with monoprints, which are not the "original art" in that same sense in the first place? I guess we'll see where the market is in ten years.;

You raise a good point. But what about future earning potential for pieces contained within Artists Editions? I personally wouldn't bid on any pieces contained in those books knowing I can enjoy the art at a fraction of the price.  

As for the future market...in some ways it doesn't matter (for me). I'm not naïve enough to have bought my monoprints thinking they will accrue value over the years. They are killer pieces of art and I'm very happy with my purchases, even more so because they are generally cheaper than OA. That feeling won't change if they're ever rendered worthless. If they do become valuable, then hey! That's a bonus!

The market is also a funny one, as in the contemporary art world it's not uncommon for an artist to release print runs of 10, 20, 50 or even 500...and then even artist's proofs on top of those. The price of the original run is never affected. Often prices shoot up overnight.  I really do think monoprints are a cross hobby phenomenon and shouldn't be regarded in the same way as Original Art is.

[RBerman]

On 6/8/2022 at 5:28 AM, New School Fool said:

You raise a good point. But what about future earning potential for pieces contained within Artists Editions? I personally wouldn't bid on any pieces contained in those books knowing I can enjoy the art at a fraction of the price.  

It's too early to tell. My guess is that the artist's editions are too minor a matter to impact the market. If anything they might instill a hunger in some to own the physical art therein depicted. But then there may be others who, as you say, just want to see the original art, and the Artist Edition scratches that itch. For that matter, what about CAF? It's an "artist edition" of every page on the site, available to the whole world at any time. Yet many people here and elsewhere (myself included) do not think it devalues the art they post there. Half the joy of being a hobbyist is to share the pleasure with like-minded folk. The model train enthusiasts of my small town actually rent space at a local mall and have their trains set up there for the public to enjoy, and as a meeting hall for their club.

[MAR1979]

I feel for most "vintage" OCA collectors Artists Editions scratch itch for merely for items that are unattainable due to value or being locked in a collection.

I'd love to have a piece in an Artists Edition - way cool cred for collectors braging rights

Edited June 8, 2022 by MAR1979

[Rick2you2]

On 6/5/2022 at 4:57 PM, New School Fool said:

Not really sure that's a good analogy, seeing as digital photos do exist, and sell. Not sure I've seen any rep claiming a monoprint is Original Art. In fact the name monoprint actually states it isnt....

There's clearly no love for monoprints here, which is cool. But there also seems to be a great deal of misinformation in this forum. I think the biggest mistake is assuming monoprints are a substitute for Original Art. They aren't and contrary to popular belief, I've yet to see any artist or rep claim that they are. Completely different mediums that shouldn't be so closely compared imho. They both depict comic art and that's it.

Some collectors would like a digital artists work on paper. A medium the artwork doesn't actually exist in, so having one 'print out' of the artwork with a signed and dated COA stating it's the first negates any remorse one would feel if there ever were subsequent 'printings'...

Totally appreciate that more traditional OA collectors have their preferences. Full discloser, my collection is currently 80% OA and 20% monoprints. I personally collect the artwork and not the medium. I realised this when I bought a bunch of artist editions and saw a lot of high res scans of OA in those books that had recently sold at auction. I would be totally bummed if any OA I bought was in those books, much in the same way most of you would be bummed if a monoprint you bought was reprinted.

Actually, some sellers prefer to gloss over the originality issue by calling them artist’s proofs, almost like they are lithographs, and in this hobby/business that’s where I think they should eventually be positioned.

Digital OA may not be created on paper, but it is designed to be transferred to paper. People buy litho’s knowing they are not original. But, when they become numbered and signed they get more value than a simple unsigned or numbered litho. Even better if the Monoprint adopts that standard and the artist adds a remark. Then you’ll see a lot more love for it.

NFT’s are not a good substitute because they would generally involve the transfer of reproducible rights with the NFT, even if they don’t have to. That takes something of value from the artist which he still retains if he sells his pencilled and inked page. So, Neal Adams was allowed to sell prints of GL/GA covers because he still owned them.

[New School Fool]

@RBerman - you raise some very good points. Thank you.

On 6/8/2022 at 10:05 PM, Rick2you2 said:

But, when they become numbered and signed they get more value than a simple unsigned or numbered litho. Even better if the Monoprint adopts that standard and the artist adds a remark. Then you’ll see a lot more love for it.

All my monoprints have come with a signed COA and numbered 1/1.

I have seen now a few reps offering remarks of your choice with monoprint - Black Diamond Art for example.

Well, finally we have some conclusive market data of a monoprint sale on the secondary market. Art that isn't plain awful as in previous examples. A Jorge Jiménez monoprint sold at Heritage today. Jorge is the current artist on DC's Batman book. Batman is currently DC's top selling comic and Jorge is definitely one of DC's most talented artists. For this and various other reasons I liken him to Todd McFarlane of today. I personally had a similar feeling of awe after seeing Jorge's art as I did when I saw Todd's for the first time. It was Jorge's art that eventually convinced me to buy a monoprint, I just couldn't refuse. 

This result is interesting because a lot of Jorge's art is still available to purchase, so it was easy to compare if this went for enough money or not. I found a similar page on the reps site from an issue close to this one (a better page imho): 

http://www.comiconart.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=31846

There's probably a few other factors involved, but I think it's safe to say (at least in this example) that as long as the art on your monoprint doesn't absolutely suck, then it should at least retain it's value.

[Twanj]

There were 2 other recent ones I noticed, both Dauterman:

https://www.comiclink.com/auctions/item.asp?back=%2FAUCTIONS%2FSEARCH.ASP%3FFocusedOnly%3D1%26where%3Dauctions%26title%3Ddauterman%26ItemType%3DCA%23Item_1579743&id=1579743&itemType=1

Mighty Thor #4 cover for $280

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/russell-dauterman-mighty-thor-18-digital-art-printed-story-page-7-original-artist-proof-marvel-2017-/a/322223-47040.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

Russell Dauterman Mighty Thor #18 Digital Art Printed Story Page 7 Original Artist Proof (Marvel, 2017).... $204

[New School Fool]

On 6/9/2022 at 6:28 AM, Twanj said:

There were 2 other recent ones I noticed, both Dauterman:

Thanks, the seller obviously lost money in both of these examples. I'm personally not impressed with either piece, particularly the second but the cover should have gone for more.

Ironically, Dauterman's monoprints generally sell quite well. I'm not a fan myself but a lot of pieces on his site are sold out. Not to make an excuse but I think in these examples, the artwork is kinda sucky!

Edit: after looking through Dauterman's site, it seems the second example initially sold for $175 so the seller actually made money in that example - unbelievable!!

Edited June 9, 2022 by New School Fool
addition of Russell Dauterman original price

[Rick2you2]

On 6/9/2022 at 1:23 AM, New School Fool said:

@RBerman - you raise some very good points. Thank you.

All my monoprints have come with a signed COA and numbered 1/1.

I have seen now a few reps offering remarks of your choice with monoprint - Black Diamond Art for example.

A COA is standard, but really is not worth much. It contains no guarantee by the artist that it is not just the one and only but will stay that way. 

[Andahaion]

On 6/8/2022 at 4:47 PM, MAR1979 said:

I'd love to have a piece in an Artists Edition - way cool cred for collectors braging rights

This happened to me.  I was considering a Lee/Williams DPS a few years ago.  Really hemmed/hawed at the purchase for various reasons.  A Lee artists edition came out at about the same time and I saw the DPS was published inside.  That was encouraging, at least to me.  That fact, however, wasn't necessarily determinative in pushing me over the edge to decide to buy, but was a factor in deciding to make the purchase.  I now know that looking at the art in the artists edition wouldn't be good enough for me, wouldn't scratch that itch.  Not much beats actual, original art in my opinion.