Retouched by an angel 1 1

[RBerman]

Comic book pages were often produced on tight deadlines, and authors sometimes took shortcuts that impacted the long-term appearance of the art. Bill Sienkiewicz was discussing today that he might use marker instead of india ink when time was short. What are your thoughts on having artists retouch their own work which has faded with time, like fixing faded blacks? Does the improved appearance diminish its value because it's "no longer original" even though it's being restored to something that looks like the original, by the same artist who originally did it?

[Dirtcheap31]

I would value the piece less as it is less original just like “conserving” a comic I am not for it… I know in high end art they restore but it’s mostly cleaning… 

[Rick2you2]

On 6/6/2023 at 4:23 PM, RBerman said:

Comic book pages were often produced on tight deadlines, and authors sometimes took shortcuts that impacted the long-term appearance of the art. Bill Sienkiewicz was discussing today that he might use marker instead of india ink when time was short. What are your thoughts on having artists retouch their own work which has faded with time, like fixing faded blacks? Does the improved appearance diminish its value because it's "no longer original" even though it's being restored to something that looks like the original, by the same artist who originally did it?

Everything is a function of degree. If there was a lot of faded black that was retouched, it might knock the value down (say, an arbitrary 10%) if done by a professional restorer. If it was by the original artist, the value should drop, but by less. If it is a valuable piece, collectors may not care. Also, I, personally, would care less if the restoration was for color. More so if inks, and more so if pencils.

[redrighthand]

On 6/6/2023 at 3:17 PM, Dirtcheap31 said:

I would value the piece less as it is less original just like “conserving” a comic I am not for it… I know in high end art they restore but it’s mostly cleaning… 

I think also, the difference between comic and fine art is that there's significant faction of collectors who are artifact collectors as much or more than they are art collectors. One wouldn't restore the Rosetta Stone, but you would (and have) restored The Last Supper.

Once it's been shot or scanned, it's frozen in time, even if it leads to the loss of the artwork. Someday, those marker pieces will be absolutely gone, but not during the owner's lifetime.

[KirbyCollector]

On 6/6/2023 at 4:23 PM, RBerman said:

What are your thoughts on having dealers retouch work which has faded with time, like fixing faded blacks?

Does this change make a difference? Two guys in LA would love to know.

[MAR1979]

On 6/6/2023 at 10:03 PM, KirbyCollector said:

Does this change make a difference? Two guys in LA would love to know.

Did you mean San Mateo? San Mateo County is east of San Jose and a bit south of San Francisco.

Edited June 7, 2023 by MAR1979

[RBerman]

On 6/6/2023 at 9:03 PM, KirbyCollector said:

Does this change make a difference? Two guys in LA would love to know.

I know you're being facetious... but yes, at least for me it makes a difference whether the artist is repairing damage done by time to his own work, or whether someone else is doing paste-ups onto the pages.

[KirbyCollector]

On 6/6/2023 at 10:30 PM, MAR1979 said:

Did you mean San Mateo? San Mateo County is east of San Jose and a bit south of San Francisco.

I stand corrected... associate them w/LA as they always sell there at shows

[The Voord]

On 6/6/2023 at 9:23 PM, RBerman said:

Comic book pages were often produced on tight deadlines, and authors sometimes took shortcuts that impacted the long-term appearance of the art. Bill Sienkiewicz was discussing today that he might use marker instead of india ink when time was short. What are your thoughts on having artists retouch their own work which has faded with time, like fixing faded blacks? Does the improved appearance diminish its value because it's "no longer original" even though it's being restored to something that looks like the original, by the same artist who originally did it?

Yes, when work like this is performed, it's no longer the original original . . . it becomes the altered original.  Personally, I'd likely shy away from from most things that have been changed at a later date, with the exception of clean-up, glue residue removal, deacidification, stat replacement and the like (that doesn't involve altering the actual drawings).

Edited June 7, 2023 by The Voord

[Ecclectica]

Difficult question...

If done really (really) carefully by a pro, I would say it's a good thing to have the art preserved. An interesting article about a common example : Gil Kane's own inks : http://artcomicenventa.blogspot.com/2022/10/restaurar-o-no-restaurar-esa-es-la.html (sorry, use Chrome integrated translator)

There are some lost causes, IMHO, though...

For example, I have told myself that, one day, I would redo my very own pencil & ink copy of this beauty...

(Alex Toth - "Hot Wheels" Monaco Grand Prix silent tale)

... as it is an almost lost treasure nowadays...

Edited June 7, 2023 by Ecclectica

[vodou]

Inks are subtly fluid, like a signature. Most guys can’t even reproduce trade dress by hand, without it looking like a sixth grader turned it in.…so major overall image affecting inks? GTFO. Pass.

[Andahaion]

On 6/6/2023 at 6:17 PM, Dirtcheap31 said:

I know in high end art they restore but it’s mostly cleaning

I'm a fine artist.  I'm not a conservator, but I am familiar enough to perhaps help provide some additional context here.  Yes, cleaning is certainly something that happens particularly with older work.  One has to be careful in the cleaning process because over aggressive cleaning with the use of various solvents can take original paint off of the ground (canvas, board, etc.).  But color retouching is something that's certainly available to damaged work also.  A good conservator will do everything in their power to preserve the paint laid down by the original artist.  What this generally means is that a quality color retouch will only replace paint where the actual losses have occurred.  Additionally, conservators can lay down what's referred to an isolation, or barrier layer over the original paint.  The conservator can then retouch over this isolation layer which in effect helps preserve the original paint laid down by the original artist (it is also easily reversible and hopefully poses minimum risk to the original paint layer).  Bad retouching results where the conservator uses an inappropriate amount of new paint directly over the artist's original pigments, often covering large swaths of the original image.  Then there are cases where the canvas is torn or has holes which need repairing.  Other "alterations" to old paintings can also include taking off and replacing the old varnish layer with a new varnish.  Relining, reinforcing, and various repairs to old/damaged canvases and structural supports such as wood panels.  I've seen some wood panels completely separated be joined back together with amazing results.  So, I guess my point is that there are a lot of conservation efforts that take off and put on various "things" to help preserve the art.  Lots of "mucking" around with the original, which to some degree takes the work further away, yet closer to the original.  

I am always torn with conservation in the context of comic OA.  One one hand, I see it as perfectly acceptable in order to preserve the art.  However, I am absolutely disgusted by amateurs, or dealers (you know who they are) who take action into their own hands to permanently deface the original in an attempt to make it appear as something it never was, or to appear in a light to make it more attractive to a buyer. 

Yet, on the other, I totally share sentiments expressed in this and other threads that even if the original artist retouched areas which may be at risk of losing their richness; that action somehow devalues or demotes the original to something other than the original.  It's funny how I'm fine with buying old, conserved paintings, but would likely not purchased conserved OA.  I think it may come down to if I know the conservator, and trust they acted in an ethical and responsible manner.  Not sure we have that option in OA as of yet.

[BCarter27]

On 6/7/2023 at 10:50 AM, Andahaion said:

conservators can lay down what's referred to an isolation, or barrier layer over the original paint.  The conservator can then retouch over this isolation layer which in effect helps preserve the original paint laid down by the original artist (it is also easily reversible and hopefully poses minimum risk to the original paint layer). 

I think this is the key point in regards to oil painting conservation/restoration. But with something as simple as an inked drawing, I feel the better route is to preserve the original and make a corrected print for presentation. The original artist's linework can be brought forth and not covered up.

I will say the original artist is likely not the best person to restore inks on a piece. It's just a different skill set.

[BCarter27]

Here are two terrible minutes in Photoshop just playing with overall levels. You can already see the original brushwork/marker strokes better. An actual skilled digital restorer could go further and mask out the faded lines and correct those back to full black (or whatever they were at time of publication) without sacrificing any of the original intent.

[MyNameIsLegion]

Umm. What you don’t know can’t hurt you, right???? Umm err. Why do you think so many things aren’t posted publicly? Those Gil Kane and Starlin pages are magically pristine when they do show up because they absolutely have been re-inked  by absolutely anyone that is competent and quiet. Re-inking has been happening for 20 years at least and everyone wants to know but not really. 

Edited June 7, 2023 by MyNameIsLegion

[grapeape]

On 6/7/2023 at 7:50 AM, Andahaion said:

 I am absolutely disgusted by amateurs, or dealers (you know who they are) who take action into their own hands to permanently deface the original 

Some guy somewhere: probably, allegedly said,

NO I DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE. BUT LET ME ASK MY BROTHER.

 

 

[grapeape]

On 6/7/2023 at 11:16 AM, MyNameIsLegion said:

Umm. What you don’t know can’t hurt you, right???? Umm err. Why do you think so many things aren’t posted publicly? Those Gil Kane and Starlin pages are magically pristine when they do show up because they absolutely have been re-inked  by absolutely anyone that is competent and quiet. Re-inking has been happening for 20 years at least and everyone wants to know but not really. 

"Money changes everything." She sang the song. We art collectors feel the pain. For many, it's not for the love of the art, it's just about the money.

 

 

[Ecclectica]

On 6/7/2023 at 4:50 PM, Andahaion said:

It's funny how I'm fine with buying old, conserved paintings, but would likely not purchased conserved OA.  I think it may come down to if I know the conservator, and trust they acted in an ethical and responsible manner.  Not sure we have that option in OA as of yet.

I think there are explanations for this. IMHO, one is probably the original comic art field is too young, and too small, compared to the paintings field. One century of life against many.

As it is still a young field, we don't see that we are... rich. Rich in thousands of pieces to potentially acquire. Too many pieces still in private hands, in (right or wrong) dealers hands and not in museums. Too many pieces on the market for many to change their opinion that some of the pieces, which are fading for example, can stay as there are, because, there are so many others pieces and so it's not important... The day when museums will have more OA, they will care because they already care about old papers. Would you be fine with a restoration work done for comic OA pieces by a museum, with the same care they already do for other restoration works ? Would that have credit ? I think it has already.

On 6/7/2023 at 6:56 PM, BCarter27 said:

But with something as simple as an inked drawing, I feel the better route is to preserve the original and make a corrected print for presentation. The original artist's linework can be brought forth and not covered up.

 

Preserve, but how ? Imagine that in one century, Alex Toth, for example, would be revered as a very important artist, a Picasso of his field. I think futures OA admirers would be glad to see that, in the past, some people tried to prevent degradations like fading for important pieces by him. I'm not saying that the Monaco drawing that I mentionned is a important piece and should be re-inked at all cost, but imagine it would be viewed then as a important piece of art. So in this future, I would be glad not to enter the museum, look at the original art piece displayed now in this current condition :

... and, displayed nearby, a fine digital restoration of it like the one BCarter27 did above, with a sign below saying "Here is the piece in its original glory".

On 6/7/2023 at 6:56 PM, BCarter27 said:

I will say the original artist is likely not the best person to restore inks on a piece. It's just a different skill set.

I agree. It's precisely why I think Rafael Amat had a nice idea in his article in detailling the choice of the person for the restoration work for the Kane JIM cover. Call me naive or anything else, but I would gladly buy this cover in its current situation. It's a fine restoration work.

Edited June 7, 2023 by Ecclectica

[Michael Browning]

I don’t think you should ever alter or re-ink any faded art.

And I agree with BCarter. The original artist is usually NOT the right person to do restoration of a piece because too many artists want to correct mistakes they think they committed in the original drawing.

There are far too many major works that have been altered by re-inking, including the cover to The Death of Captain Marvel (re-inked) and a few pages from that classic Marvel Graphic Novel, a few Starlin pieces he drew in marker and a bunch of Gil Kane covers and commissions. (A Superboy cover I once owned that was badly faded now looks like someone inked it with clots of India ink after a longtime and well-known collector had it re-inked. The collector then sold/traded it away without revealing that it was (badly and heavily) re-inked.

I’m not sure why everyone jumps on the Donnelly bros for supposedly having art re-inked. I’ve never known of them doing that. I do know several major collectors who have had art altered in some way, though.

For instance, I traded the cover to Crisis on Infinite Earths 6 to a collector and he didn’t like that the flashes in the Anti-Monitor’s eyes were on an acetate overlay, so he had those cut out and pasted them onto the art - he glued the flashes directly onto the eyes.

A Jim Starlin unpublished cover for Cosmic Odyssey #1 was re-inked at a collector’s request by Bob McLeod because the collector didn’t like the way it looked (it was slightly faded).

The same collector also almost had the Jim Starlin Miracleman #4 cover - which was done entirely in pencil and was published from those pencils - inked because he hated that the cover was in pencil.

In all three of the instances I mention and the Death of Captain Marvel cover and pages were all altered by the same collector.

Re-inking faded art directly over the original art destroys the published image and the integrity of the piece.

[Rick2you2]

All valuable and insightful views, and particularly interesting to me because of a related thread I just started. 

With that said, I think I have reformulated my thoughts. Are you buying a piece of art, or a piece of history? Pieces with historical significance may better be left on their own, because their essence is not just their appearance but their creation. But most pieces are just bought for their appearance. So, if the restoration improves the appearance, without altering the original art, I think it should be okay to retouch, restore and repair. Ink away. On the other hand, I would probably leave early Spider-man Ditko’s alone.