• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SHE-HULK # 1 COVER ART -- RUINED ?

Started by krazykat-migration,

100 posts in this topic

TLC55555

TLC55555

Posted
Posted
AGREED! My heart just broke when I saw this. He has been trying to sell it for some time, unsucessfully!

 

When he pulls his head out, and the price gets down to $350 I may buy... but don't quote me. DF p.s. I'm actively looking for black and white Ms. Marvel covers if anyone has one for sale. Will gladly pay 3 to 5k for the right one!!

 

Here you are.

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=57025&GSub=7752

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=73114&GSub=5952

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SignatureSelect

SignatureSelect

Posted
Posted

well I did some research and those pieces of art aren't ruined infact Tracy heft can remove the color from the art almost entirely. The price is somewhat expensive but if color on the art is that much of a problem for you the price shouldn't matter. contact Eclipse paper convervation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Apotheosis

Apotheosis

Posted
Posted
And as I NOTED yes,..a owner has the legal right to do with their property as they desire,....but ethically it is wrong to desecrate an artists art.

 

I find this idea interesting as the original artist drew the piece with the intentions that it would be viewed in color on a comic book. It was never intended to be black and white. One of the reasons it didn't leave the penciller colorized is because most of them weren't/aren't good enough to do it. I'm betting the artist wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

So when you say "there's nothing wrong with it [mutilation]",..I have to disagree,..and I view Delicatessen's "thoughts" on the matter similarly.

 

That's because you're a purist. For some of us coloring isn't mutilation. I realize you think the rest of us are wrong because we don't spend the hundreds of thousands on it that you do, but it doesn't make out opinion less valid. Get over yourself.

 

Questions of RIGHT AND WRONG,..are at root an analsyis of what one OUGHT TO DO !!!!

 

No... it's about the rights of the OWNER. If I want to paint my house black then that's my right. The builder never meant it to be black and it sure as hell lowers the value of my house, but it's still my right. Ownership gives you freedom. Some people do dumb things with freedom.

 

ONE OUGHT NOT MUTILATE AN ARTISTS ART,...IT IS WRONG !

 

Yes... you said this already. Saying it again doesn't make it gain in credibility.

 

 

As for your other ramblings about our hating triming and pressing (among other things) is because it is generally done to deceive a potential buyer into thinking that it is in a higher grade. It's done for monetary profit. Colorizing OA doesn't have this effect so it's not the same thing.

 

All that said... I would never colorize OA. I like the black and white. I do, however, want some color versions of stuff I have because it WOULD make it more presentable. I'm also a big fan of having the black and white original next to a color copy thumbsup2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
krazykat-migration

krazykat-migration

Posted
  • Author
Posted
And as I NOTED yes,..a owner has the legal right to do with their property as they desire,....but ethically it is wrong to desecrate an artists art.

 

I find this idea interesting as the original artist drew the piece with the intentions that it would be viewed in color on a comic book. It was never intended to be black and white. One of the reasons it didn't leave the penciller colorized is because most of them weren't/aren't good enough to do it. I'm betting the artist wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

So when you say "there's nothing wrong with it [mutilation]",..I have to disagree,..and I view Delicatessen's "thoughts" on the matter similarly.

 

That's because you're a purist. For some of us coloring isn't mutilation. I realize you think the rest of us are wrong because we don't spend the hundreds of thousands on it that you do, but it doesn't make out opinion less valid. Get over yourself.

 

Questions of RIGHT AND WRONG,..are at root an analsyis of what one OUGHT TO DO !!!!

 

No... it's about the rights of the OWNER. If I want to paint my house black then that's my right. The builder never meant it to be black and it sure as hell lowers the value of my house, but it's still my right. Ownership gives you freedom. Some people do dumb things with freedom.

 

ONE OUGHT NOT MUTILATE AN ARTISTS ART,...IT IS WRONG !

 

Yes... you said this already. Saying it again doesn't make it gain in credibility.

 

 

As for your other ramblings about our hating triming and pressing (among other things) is because it is generally done to deceive a potential buyer into thinking that it is in a higher grade. It's done for monetary profit. Colorizing OA doesn't have this effect so it's not the same thing.

 

All that said... I would never colorize OA. I like the black and white. I do, however, want some color versions of stuff I have because it WOULD make it more presentable. I'm also a big fan of having the black and white original next to a color copy thumbsup2.gif

 

I was going to respond to this but,...I cant be bothered with rude unintelligent people.

 

PS - If you lack an epistemological understanding of moral and aesthetic law, as you apparently do, its best to say nothing. Any Jack or Jill can have a brain-fart and express notions with little saliency.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Solar

Solar

Posted
Posted
And as I NOTED yes,..a owner has the legal right to do with their property as they desire,....but ethically it is wrong to desecrate an artists art.

 

I find this idea interesting as the original artist drew the piece with the intentions that it would be viewed in color on a comic book. It was never intended to be black and white. One of the reasons it didn't leave the penciller colorized is because most of them weren't/aren't good enough to do it. I'm betting the artist wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

So when you say "there's nothing wrong with it [mutilation]",..I have to disagree,..and I view Delicatessen's "thoughts" on the matter similarly.

 

That's because you're a purist. For some of us coloring isn't mutilation. I realize you think the rest of us are wrong because we don't spend the hundreds of thousands on it that you do, but it doesn't make out opinion less valid. Get over yourself.

 

Questions of RIGHT AND WRONG,..are at root an analsyis of what one OUGHT TO DO !!!!

 

No... it's about the rights of the OWNER. If I want to paint my house black then that's my right. The builder never meant it to be black and it sure as hell lowers the value of my house, but it's still my right. Ownership gives you freedom. Some people do dumb things with freedom.

 

ONE OUGHT NOT MUTILATE AN ARTISTS ART,...IT IS WRONG !

 

Yes... you said this already. Saying it again doesn't make it gain in credibility.

 

 

As for your other ramblings about our hating triming and pressing (among other things) is because it is generally done to deceive a potential buyer into thinking that it is in a higher grade. It's done for monetary profit. Colorizing OA doesn't have this effect so it's not the same thing.

 

All that said... I would never colorize OA. I like the black and white. I do, however, want some color versions of stuff I have because it WOULD make it more presentable. I'm also a big fan of having the black and white original next to a color copy thumbsup2.gif

 

Well said thumbsup2.gif This would have been very close to my response if I hadn't decided it was pointless to continue discussion with KK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
heartened

heartened

Posted
Posted

No... it's about the rights of the OWNER. If I want to paint my house black then that's my right. The builder never meant it to be black and it sure as hell lowers the value of my house, but it's still my right. Ownership gives you freedom. Some people do dumb things with freedom.

 

 

Hi. I agree with much of what you said, but I do have a little problem with this one. I think there's a big difference between owning a house and owning a piece of art. There's an ethical responsibility to keep art in its true form. While it's generally accepted that you can renovate your house, most people don't renovate art. As an extreme example, what if you purchased one of the original Bible's, or a really famous piece of art like the Mona Lisa. Sure, you technically could do with it what you want, including rip it to shreds, but I'm sure you might feel some obligation to protect it in its original state. And, of course, many would be upset if you didn't. Do they have a right to be upset? Well, not technically (since you own it), but I think you can understand why they might be. On a much lesser scale, many feel the ownership of original comic art confers this same sort of obligation.

 

Of course, most people didn't feel this way in the 80s when coloring original art was in fashion, but as we as a community have gained an appreciation for the B/W art, these originals have garnered respect as a true American art form (how many truly American art-forms are there, actually?), and as such deserve some protection.

 

Just my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Apotheosis

Apotheosis

Posted
Posted
I was going to respond to this but,...I cant be bothered with rude unintelligent people.

 

PS - If you lack an epistemological understanding of moral and aesthetic law, as you apparently do, its best to say nothing.

 

Ok... I see where we're at. You have no concept of right and wrong because you can't even understand what rude is. I was extremely cordial in my first post. I never said that you were wrong. I just stated my ideas. If you are so insercure with you beloved OA that you can't even hear thoughts on it from other people then maybe it's best that you stop posting all together.

 

Any Jack or Jill can have a brain-fart and express notions with little saliency.

 

And any Jill can drop her pants and produce a child. Kind of explains how we get people like you. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
krazykat-migration

krazykat-migration

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Ok... I see where we're at. You have no concept of right and wrong because you can't even understand what rude is. I was extremely cordial in my first post.

 

GEE,..NOT ONLY WERE YOU CORDIAL,..YOU WERE EXTREMELY CORDIAL ? ? ?

 

I realize you think the rest of us are wrong because we don't spend the hundreds of thousands on it that you do, but it doesn't make out opinion less valid. Get over yourself.

 

Yes... you said this already. Saying it again doesn't make it gain in credibility.

 

As for your other ramblings about ....

 

Besides the fact that your arguments were such a poor response to my statements in that it clearly shows you lack the means to have a well-thought out debate (my main reason for my not replying to your drivil masking as analysis),....you WERE rude. So please,..spare me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Apotheosis

Apotheosis

Posted
Posted

And you are such a polite person. I don't know how you stand it.

 

I've tried not to get caught up in the venom other people spew at you because I thought that they weren't being fair. Now I know I was wrong.

 

Just go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
krazykat-migration

krazykat-migration

Posted
  • Author
Posted
And you are such a polite person. I don't know how you stand it.

 

I've tried not to get caught up in the venom other people spew at you because I thought that they weren't being fair. Now I know I was wrong.

 

Just go away.

 

So which is your argument ? You werent rude,..or you didnt know you were rude ?

 

If you didnt think people were being fair to me,..why would you in turn than write a rude response to me and than pretend you did no such thing ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

 

I am done communicating with you. I think this conversation speaks for itself as to your motivations for incitement.

 

KK

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nik

nik

Posted
Posted

KK would be a pretty good person if he would just be more honest. I enjoy seeing some of the OA he digs up and posts, along with new OA he sees for sale/auction. He is enthuastic about OA and thats all good also.

 

What I can do without is the constant trash talking about comics, whether slabbed/raw, and the "pretend" without any proof of what I have/had/owned/sold BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
krazykat-migration

krazykat-migration

Posted
  • Author
Posted
KK would be a pretty good person if he would just be more honest. I enjoy seeing some of the OA he digs up and posts, along with new OA he sees for sale/auction. He is enthuastic about OA and thats all good also.

 

What I can do without is the constant trash talking about comics, whether slabbed/raw, and the "pretend" without any proof of what I have/had/owned/sold BS.

 

 

Nikos,

 

I am done bashing comics. I think the hobby is silly but I have refrained from emphasizing that issue. That said, I do not believe I should be under any affirmative obligation to post my art,..I think I contribute to this board significantly,...and in my estimation there are alotta people that need to get out of their 3rd grade mentality,..if you dont like my personality,..well ignore me...but I aint changing for no one. And if you dont believe that I have the worlds best OA collection,...well than,..dont believe me. I am not forcing anyone to love me.

 

KK

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RDK

RDK

Posted
Posted

Sorry for bumping this old thread, but just found it and found it an interesting read.

 

One thing not mentioned (or known) is just when this (or any other covers/pages) were colored. I remember several cons in the late 70s-early 80s where pro-coloring of original art pages was fairly common. The pages were also dirt cheap at the time; often the colorist charged more for his work. I'm still kicking myself, 25 years later, for passing up a Perez Avengers cover for <$100. I had intended to get it colored at the time (possibly by Oliff in fact), but somebody bought the page out from under me.

 

In hindsight, of course, I find the very idea of coloring OA both objectionable and financially foolish. The value is significantly decreased, but at the time (25 years ago or so) the art itself wasn't all that valuable to begin with . Now it's a completely different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing