Art Day - Gil Kane Spidey Restoration 0

[Panelfan1]

Recently had a piece of art restored by Robert Dennis. It was a big job and for what it's worth - I am very happy with the results.

the biggest question I had going into it was - should I remove the stat or not, given there was evidence of the art underneath. For those wondering, the stat was salvaged and could be put back at any time.

A stat of spidey was removed, and liquid paper gotten rid of to reveal original art by the artists. Looks like the changes were made to shrink Spidey down (the original art is clearly much bigger).

Now that the art is revealed - its clearly different from the published piece. good or bad - would love your opinions.

General toning and glue marks were also improved on. For anyone considering restoration work  - I highly recommend talking with Robert. He can be found on CAF.

I have just updated the CAF page, so feel free to comment HERE.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Panelfan1

[aokartman]

On 11/20/2018 at 10:54 PM, Panelfan1 said:

Recently had a piece of art restored by Robert Dennis. It was a big job and for what it's worth - I am very happy with the results.

the biggest question I had going into it was - should I remove the stat or not, given there was evidence of the art underneath. For those wondering, the stat was salvaged and could be put back at any time.

A stat of spidey was removed, and liquid paper gotten rid of to reveal original art by the artists. Looks like the changes were made to shrink Spidey down (the original art is clearly much bigger).

Now that the art is revealed - its clearly different from the published piece. good or bad - would love your opinions.

General toning and glue marks were also improved on. For anyone considering restoration work  - I highly recommend talking with Robert. He can be found on CAF.

I have just updated the CAF page, so feel free to comment HERE.

I would never have had the courage to do such extensive restoration given the uncertain climate among collectors about such activity.  This seems like a wonderful result, but I really don't have any objection to the original, either.

And, it looks like you lost some interesting hand written notes, including "shot", which indicates it was actually the original piece shot for publication.

It boils down to your taste, and it seems you're quite pleased, and I'm happy for you!

Best, David

Edited November 22, 2018 by aokartman
pic edited

[pemart1966]

Not under any circumstances would I have had the hand written notes removed.

[stinkininkin]

15 hours ago, Panelfan1 said:

Recently had a piece of art restored by Robert Dennis. It was a big job and for what it's worth - I am very happy with the results.

the biggest question I had going into it was - should I remove the stat or not, given there was evidence of the art underneath. For those wondering, the stat was salvaged and could be put back at any time.

A stat of spidey was removed, and liquid paper gotten rid of to reveal original art by the artists. Looks like the changes were made to shrink Spidey down (the original art is clearly much bigger).

Now that the art is revealed - its clearly different from the published piece. good or bad - would love your opinions.

General toning and glue marks were also improved on. For anyone considering restoration work  - I highly recommend talking with Robert. He can be found on CAF.

I have just updated the CAF page, so feel free to comment HERE.

I don't know if it was the "right" thing to do, but I sure like the restored version better.

[JadeGiant]

1 hour ago, stinkininkin said:

I don't know if it was the "right" thing to do, but I sure like the restored version better.

my immediate thoughts as well. 

 

Congrats - this is really nice

[stinkininkin]

52 minutes ago, JadeGiant said:

my immediate thoughts as well. 

 

Congrats - this is really nice

And that's even WITH some bad Spidey tangents and parts of his body cut off in the restored version.  But if I owned it, I would not want to always be looking at the original Spidey stat.  I'd want to be looking at the original art underneath, which is what this hobby is all about.

[Rick2you2]

5 hours ago, pemart1966 said:

Not under any circumstances would I have had the hand written notes removed.

It comes off in the cleaning process. I believe it was not avoidable.

[Panelfan1]

Love a the opinions.

Going into this - I knew there were risks and it was impossible to know the outcome ahead of time. To avoid contraversy, I could have hidden the original - and most wouldn't remember it. (I think the art used to belong to Doc Shaner?)  The point is - this is an interesting part of the hobby and I am happy to share the results for others considering getting restoration done.

Ultimately I wanted to see the art below the stat.  Some guy in an office decided to paste a stat over top of some nice art.  I imagine the artist may have been involved in the 'cover up'  but who knows?. Just the idea that Robert Dennis could remove liquid paper to reveal the art - its like archeology. In the end it's still very close to the printed version and it is the art that was used to print the comic. The art was mechanically modified for printing - but this is the actual art. The stat still exists - so when this art eventually goes to another collector one day in the far future - the option to cover the art will remain. In the mean time we can all see what the artist did left to his own devices.

In modern comic art - computers are used to modify art - so the practice of restoration will likely remain for vintage art.

More comments/ideas regarding restoration welcome

 

 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Panelfan1

[batman_fan]

I think the work looks great and exposing the original intent by the artist is cool.  

Just as a side note, my grail of grails is Daredevil 33.  I was contacted by the person that owns it.  They aren't ready to part with it at this point (and I likely could afford it with prices going like they are). but he told me Daredevil is all stats but the original is under that stats.  For it they took the original made an enlarged copy and used that for the published cover.  I would be hard pressed not to do what you did.

[aokartman]

I am on board with the interest in the original art underneath production stats.  And, I wonder about the durability of digital files that record the actual final production art (before restoration).

Nothing is forever, and there are some trade offs.  David

 

 

[Panelfan1]

55 minutes ago, aokartman said:

I am on board with the interest in the original art underneath production stats.  And, I wonder about the durability of digital files that record the actual final production art (before restoration).

Nothing is forever, and there are some trade offs.  David

 

Ut 

I guess if you are worried about digital files you can print out copies and stash them somewhere (possibly with the original art). But realistically - the digital info is likely to outlast the art.

[ESeffinga]

In this case it works out. What I always wonder is what one does when they hear there is drawing under the stat, the stat is removed and the drawn by underneath is not attractive? A wonky hand or foot. Body head way out of proportion. Expression drastically diffferent. Etc. 

Stat goes back on? Leave it and live with it?

I’m curious, because time and again people go on about how published art is king. And how frequently sales realized come down to the nostalgia for the printed comic, the IPand published image frequently over even the artist involved. But here folks seem to prefer the original linework to the actual published product. 

Obviously it helps in this case that it was a relatively simple shrink job on the figure, and the OA under it was just as clean.

But originality comes in many forms here. The artist’s hand is revealed, but the originality of the published art as printed is now compromised. 

I’m torn because I believe in preservation to keep works from slipping to a point of deterioration. And I too love to see an artist’s hand at work. And in the case of the big 2, editorial decisions were not always done with the artist’s consent or participation.

And yet once this is done, the lost margin notes are gone forever. The stat can be glued back on, but not by the individual that put it there and the folks that shot the actual cover that ended up on the stands. There is some destruction that has gone on with the restoration. Sacrificing one for another.

I get it. I’m just not sure 100% how I’d feel about it if it were me doing it. What if it were a historically important key/cover? What if the margin notes were something about the art or the issue that might be of historical significance? 

All hypothetical questions. In this case, I suppose I’d be fine with it. But then I can see instances where I’d be very against it as well. 

Such a hard call.

From a future buyer’s standpoint, while some would be turned off. I imagine just as many would find this even more appealing, and the potential for buyer impact could go either way. If there are dozens of would be buyers, I suspect it would do well. If it’s just a couple guys into a piece and either is turned off, the sale price could hurt.

All that aside, it definitely looks more appealing after the cleanup. Dennis does good work.

Edited November 22, 2018 by ESeffinga

[Rick2you2]

1 hour ago, ESeffinga said:

In this case it works out. What I always wonder is what one does when they hear there is drawing under the stat, the stat is removed and the drawn by underneath is not attractive? A wonky hand or foot. Body head way out of proportion. Expression drastically diffferent. Etc. 

Stat goes back on? Leave it and live with it?

I’m curious, because time and again people go on about how published art is king. And how frequently sales realized come down to the nostalgia for the printed comic, the IPand published image frequently over even the artist involved. But here folks seem to prefer the original linework to the actual published product. 

Obviously it helps in this case that it was a relatively simple shrink job on the figure, and the OA under it was just as clean.

But originality comes in many forms here. The artist’s hand is revealed, but the originality of the published art as printed is now compromised. 

I’m torn because I believe in preservation to keep works from slipping to a point of deterioration. And I too love to see an artist’s hand at work. And in the case of the big 2, editorial decisions were not always done with the artist’s consent or participation.

And yet once this is done, the lost margin notes are gone forever. The stat can be glued back on, but not by the individual that put it there and the folks that shot the actual cover that ended up on the stands. There is some destruction that has gone on with the restoration. Sacrificing one for another.

I get it. I’m just not sure 100% how I’d feel about it if it were me doing it. What if it were a historically important key/cover? What if the margin notes were something about the art or the issue that might be of historical significance? 

All hypothetical questions. In this case, I suppose I’d be fine with it. But then I can see instances where I’d be very against it as well. 

Such a hard call.

From a future buyer’s standpoint, while some would be turned off. I imagine just as many would find this even more appealing, and the potential for buyer impact could go either way. If there are dozens of would be buyers, I suspect it would do well. If it’s just a couple guys into a piece and either is turned off, the sale price could hurt.

All that aside, it definitely looks more appealing after the cleanup. Dennis does good work.

You can always make a digitial copy of the original and save the stat for future generations. If someone wants to partly "unrestore" it, which I think is nutty, they could.

Is this a hobby about art or the comic production process? Unless it is the latter, I would almost always go with the former. A good restorer tries to leave as much original material as possible. That's good enough for me.

[aokartman]

Rick said "If someone wants to partly "unrestore" it, which I think is nutty, they could."

I agree, and at that point you might as well choose to do a straight-up recreation because the piece would have been so transformed from the original state.

Alternatively, or tangentially, perhaps the OP should consider restoring the border notes since the decision has already been made to transform the original published state.  It would improve the presentation (for me).  Again, all opinion, which is what OP seems to be seeking.

David

[Bronty]

On 11/22/2018 at 5:36 AM, ESeffinga said:

 

I’m curious, because time and again people go on about how published art is king. And how frequently sales realized come down to the nostalgia for the printed comic, the IPand published image frequently over even the artist involved. But here folks seem to prefer the original linework to the actual published product. 

The published thing is about one thing - value.   Because even if you recreate it, it’s not the real McCoy.    Whether the real McCoy is inconsequentially different than the printed page is of no concern.   They are all hugely different than the printed page in many ways - size, color etc.    

Its about having the one, the covenant, the grail... not about whether it’s a perfect match to what’s printed.

you pose an interesting question about ‘what if’ the art underneath is horrible, but I can’t say I recall a situation like that?   If worst came to worst I’m sure the restorer could just put the stat back if that’s what someone wanted.   But it would have to be pretty darn ugly underneath

Edited November 23, 2018 by Bronty

[vodou]

On 11/22/2018 at 5:36 AM, ESeffinga said:

In this case it works out. What I always wonder is what one does when they hear there is drawing under the stat, the stat is removed and the drawn by underneath is not attractive? A wonky hand or foot. Body head way out of proportion. Expression drastically diffferent. Etc. 

Stat goes back on? Leave it and live with it?

I’m curious, because time and again people go on about how published art is king. And how frequently sales realized come down to the nostalgia for the printed comic, the IPand published image frequently over even the artist involved. But here folks seem to prefer the original linework to the actual published product. 

Obviously it helps in this case that it was a relatively simple shrink job on the figure, and the OA under it was just as clean.

But originality comes in many forms here. The artist’s hand is revealed, but the originality of the published art as printed is now compromised. 

I’m torn because I believe in preservation to keep works from slipping to a point of deterioration. And I too love to see an artist’s hand at work. And in the case of the big 2, editorial decisions were not always done with the artist’s consent or participation.

And yet once this is done, the lost margin notes are gone forever. The stat can be glued back on, but not by the individual that put it there and the folks that shot the actual cover that ended up on the stands. There is some destruction that has gone on with the restoration. Sacrificing one for another.

I get it. I’m just not sure 100% how I’d feel about it if it were me doing it. What if it were a historically important key/cover? What if the margin notes were something about the art or the issue that might be of historical significance? 

All hypothetical questions. In this case, I suppose I’d be fine with it. But then I can see instances where I’d be very against it as well. 

Such a hard call.

From a future buyer’s standpoint, while some would be turned off. I imagine just as many would find this even more appealing, and the potential for buyer impact could go either way. If there are dozens of would be buyers, I suspect it would do well. If it’s just a couple guys into a piece and either is turned off, the sale price could hurt.

All that aside, it definitely looks more appealing after the cleanup. Dennis does good work.

 

47 minutes ago, Bronty said:

The published thing is about one thing - value.   Because even if you recreate it, it’s not the real McCoy.    Whether the real McCoy is inconsequentially different than the printed page is of no concern.   They are all hugely different than the printed page in many ways - size, color etc.    

Its about having the one, the covenant, the grail... not about whether it’s a perfect match to what’s printed.

you pose an interesting question about ‘what if’ the art underneath is horrible, but I can’t say I recall a situation like that?   If worst came to worst I’m sure the restorer could just put the stat back if that’s what someone wanted.   But it would have to be pretty darn ugly underneath

Which came first for people in this (original comic/illustration art) hobby: "art" or "product" appreciation? That's a great poll question, but I think we also already know the answer for close to 100% of people on this board..."product". This is another way of saying nostalgia or use, that's what drives growing demand for limited supply, that's what pushes generational "wants" higher. Duh. But this OA business is weird in the sense that while we (collectively) are drawn to the product (comic, magazine, pb we loved at a formative point in our lives), we're also then (secondarily) students of the artform of how that imagery came to be. So that in turn makes us "fans" of those artists (and we argue about some being "better" than others, so here nostalgia can be partially turned away but honestly...not much!), the Houses that produced those products, the teams that took the raw art and turned it into that product (in-House production but also the print and distribution folks) that eventually made it's way into our hands. All good. And I think that explains why we LOVE X-Men by Cockrum (let's say) over Gil Kane (depending on when one "discovered X-Men) but would prefer to see "what Dave did underneath that production-placed stat" too...and we're willing to do irreversible things to get there. Things like: removing whiteout and by lightening the yellowing removing production notes, signatures, etc which while all important are secondary to "the art"...which is secondary to "the product" except in the sense that AC/DC reminds us, "Who Made Who?" The answer to that, for all of us?, is: Dave made the X-Men that we love so much from our youth and we want to get as close to that as possible.

Back to the question underlined above...my answer is unlike most around here: "art" appreciation came first. And that's why I have a very hard time enjoying Trimpe new art days, even though I should (demographically), because the "art"...sheesh. Likewise, "early" Boris (1970s-very early 1980s): awesome. But mid-1980s onward...ugh. Nothing to do with "product", which demographically should drive my period of love "later" but no because art appreciation came first. For those like me it's often tough to play and even talk about the OA game because you risk stepping on a lot of toes and buying/selling things "contra" the herd and probably that costs ROI in the long run. But we are who we are too...and, for example, I just cannot get excited by Trimpe or almost all Sal Buscema (even his prime period on my favorite character/book Captain America) because it's mostly just bad art, or at best workmanlike production grind output, nothing terribly innovative or moving the "art" conversation forward in a sequential artform context. So I try to keep silent and not step on toes but I'm sure no matter what I do so anyway because we are all here to "talk" about that which we love and don't too, right?

[Bronty]

30 minutes ago, vodou said:

 

Likewise, "early" Boris (1970s-very early 1980s): awesome. But mid-1980s onward...ugh. 

I've made this argument before, but I think some of his stuff from 2000 onward is wonderful.   85-95 werent' great image wise for sure.  

[vodou]

6 minutes ago, Bronty said:

I've made this argument before, but I think some of his stuff from 2000 onward is wonderful.   85-95 werent' great image wise for sure.  

It probably is, I haven't looked. Share some images to makepoint?

[aokartman]

vodou said "Which came first for people in this (original comic/illustration art) hobby: "art" or "product" appreciation? That's a great poll question, but I think we also already know the answer for close to 100% of people on this board..."product". This is another way of saying nostalgia or use, that's what drives growing demand for limited supply, that's what pushes generational "wants" higher."

What came first for me was the childhood attraction to comic books, the product.   Then as a young adult, I was an aspiring artist.  This exposure to the fine art world eventually led me to reconsider comic books from that viewpoint.  But, I look at original comic art in the context which it was created.  Particularly, I find the collaborative aspect of comic book art, from the earliest layouts and scripts, steps in production, to the final product (the actual book) is most interesting to me, and sets it apart from some other fields of fine art.

So, I have mixed feelings about messing with found production art since, hey, you're messing with somebody's vision here.  But, it's not just somebody, it's somebodies (plural).

So, I understand the desire to uncover the artist's original intent prior to the edit.  But I'll lean toward caution when I try to restore anything, since there are some unforeseen results that could occur.  I'd rather not place myself, or a hired restorer, in the group of somebodies years or decades later.  David 

 

 

[vodou]

2 hours ago, aokartman said:

But, I look at original comic art in the context which it was created.  Particularly, I find the collaborative aspect of comic book art, from the earliest layouts and scripts, steps in production, to the final product (the actual book) is most interesting to me, and sets it apart from some other fields of fine art.

 

So, I have mixed feelings about messing with found production art since, hey, you're messing with somebody's vision here.  But, it's not just somebody, it's somebodies (plural).

So, I understand the desire to uncover the artist's original intent prior to the edit.  But I'll lean toward caution when I try to restore anything, since there are some unforeseen results that could occur.  I'd rather not place myself, or a hired restorer, in the group of somebodies years or decades later.  David

David, I pretty much agree...the final object at the end is The Art of all that contributed throughout the process to that point and messing with that in irreversible ways bothers me.