• 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.

Original art appreciation thread

Started by FlyingDonut,

629 posts in this topic

chromium

chromium

Posted
Posted

Well I finally took the plunge and bought my first two pieces of original art...

After finding piece after piece for Chriso (mostly nekked women and drunk men in seedy bars.....) I faced the giant called Heritage....

 

Being a Doom fan, I couldn't resist bidding on these two pieces, much to my surprise I won both of them....

 

First piece is Big John Buscema action page, featuring both major publisher's big

guns, Spider-man and Superman and of course a triumphant Doom (isn't he

always) dissing Supes is a nice bonus smile.gif

 

 

 

buscema.jpg

 

 

Second piece is one of my favorite Doom covers of all time...it's a reproduction by

(original artist) Dave Cockrum of the cover X-men 145. The original is prolly priced into the stratosphere and considering what

Cockrum is asking for commissions,

I'm glad I got this at a reasonable price thumbsup2.gif

 

 

 

 

 

cockrum2.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dadaist

dadaist

Posted
Posted

Hey chromium

 

Thanks for posting those. That cockrum recreation is cool! thumbsup2.gif

 

Ironically, on the charity auction post for the Batman 608, someone was trying to insinuate I was somehow bypassing artistic rigour by tracing using a lightbox or projector... and according to this forumite, the proof was that the women in my recreation were NOT the same as Jim Lee's; in my reply, I mentioned something about how original artists are known to vary from their original works, EVEN when they do recreations of their own work. That X-Men 145 cover recreation you shared is a perfect example. hi.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sckao

sckao

Posted
Posted

Ironically, on the charity auction post for the Batman 608, someone was trying to insinuate I was somehow bypassing artistic rigour by tracing using a lightbox or projector... and according to this forumite, the proof was that the women in my recreation were NOT the same as Jim Lee's; in my reply, I mentioned something about how original artists are known to vary from their original works, EVEN when they do recreations of their own work. That X-Men 145 cover recreation you shared is a perfect example. hi.gif

 

Well, that was me.. I actually compared your rendition to the actual 608 RRP cover and it was NOT traced (because the lines didn't match up.) So it's evident that you didn't lightbox it or project it. (Which is a compliment to your artistic skill in getting the proportions right without a grid pattern.)

 

My main point was that Dave Cockrum can recreate HIS cover.. but that you SHOULDN'T (for profit). (Especially, considering that you have two other re-creation auctions up that ARE NOT for charity.)

 

 

Amazing Fantasy #15 re-creation

 

Amazing Spider-man 100 re-creation

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Freiherr

Freiherr

Posted
Posted

Those are all amazing pieces (the Hulk Future Imperfect being my favorite).

 

I do not own any and really haven't had the opportunity to see many in person (no shows close to my area). However, I plan on acquiring my first pieces soon. Original Art interests me more than the actual comic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dadaist

dadaist

Posted
Posted
My main point was that Dave Cockrum can recreate HIS cover.. but that you SHOULDN'T (for profit). (Especially, considering that you have two other re-creation auctions up that ARE NOT for charity.)

 

 

Amazing Fantasy #15 re-creation

 

Amazing Spider-man 100 re-creation

 

I really thought we were past this. What is your problem?

 

We seem to be going back and forth on this matter. Initially, you took shots at me because my piece lacked detail. And that I used a lightbox, projector. Then you threw the fan art/homage notation to my face.

 

I explained that the pieces do make notation of the artists. I shared photos which were taken to better illustrate my methods.

 

So when the theories dried up in the face of your insinuations, you had to resort to bringing attention to something else. My cover recreations on the auction site.

 

The recreations on the site are homage pieces. These were not commissioned pieces, and belong to me. If they sell, I'll let you know. And if they bother you that much, then you need to do something to make yourself feel better.

 

But that's not what this is about. Its about proving you wrong, in the face of your accusations, isn't it? So why not test the waters, right?

 

I'll say it again; I tried my best with the Batman 608 piece.

 

If it wasn't good enough for you, then I ask that you pass it on. mad.gif

 

I actually wanted to deflect the negativity of your initial post by being as polite as possible because I didn't want it to ruin the auction. But to come to here, post bald-headed accusations -- "I'm an artists, so I would know better" -- to somehow undermine the event, the charity drive, and get my blood boiling. Why? Does it somehow make-up for the insecurities in your own artistic abilities to pick on me?

 

Of all the cover recreation/reinterpretationists out there, you had to single me out.

 

But, I know your game. You seem to thrive on rehashing the same discussion, and for what? For your own self-indulgent, and insecure reasons.

 

You've put me on a bender from day one -- and this amidst charitable pursuits. If you insist on ruining mine and this auctions spirit, then at least admit what your all about. If your intention was to ruin an auction that was designed for charitable pursuits, then let it out!! Otherwise, stop busting my 893censored-thumb.gif balls!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sckao

sckao

Posted
Posted
My main point was that Dave Cockrum can recreate HIS cover.. but that you SHOULDN'T (for profit). (Especially, considering that you have two other re-creation auctions up that ARE NOT for charity.)

 

 

Amazing Fantasy #15 re-creation

 

Amazing Spider-man 100 re-creation

 

I really thought we were past this. What is your problem?

 

I didn't bring this up.. YOU JUST DID . I, too, thought this matter was closed. The last post about this from me in the other thread was talking about Copyright and Trademark issues. It made no mention of what you were actually doing.

 

If you're going to attack me in another thread as an aside, please don't accuse me of bringing up an old topic.

 

If you'd like me to respond to the rest of your post, I'd be happy to oblige.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dadaist

dadaist

Posted
Posted
If you'd like me to respond to the rest of your post, I'd be happy to oblige.

 

You obviously have a problem with what I've done; lets resolve it. Otherwise, the same questions will keep coming up.

 

This is not about me, but about you, otherwise, you would never have made the comments in your original post in the first place.

 

And if you still can't comprehend how/why you got me riled up, go back and read what you insinuated in your original post, and put youself in my shoes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sckao

sckao

Posted
Posted

You obviously have a problem with what I've done; lets resolve it. Otherwise, the same questions will keep coming up.

 

This is not about me, but about you, otherwise, you would never have made the comments in your original post in the first place.

 

And if you still can't comprehend how/why you got me riled up, go back and read what you insinuated in your original post, and put youself in my shoes.

 

Okay.. let's go back to the original post:

 

It's very nice. As another artist though, that recreation appears to be traced/lightboarded via outlines. That's why the outlines and general areas are right on but the interiors don't really match the Jim Lee precision. (Or more to the point, the women don't really look like "Jim Lee" drawn women. The tracing is particularly evident on Killer Croc. The fainter images in the back illustrate the artist's personal style since those probably didn't show up as clearly.

 

I'm glad it's for charity, but I'm wondering if maybe this goes beyond fan art or homages.

 

I noticed the other auctions listed ( Amazing Fantasy 15 and Amazing Spider-man 100 ) are NOT for charity.

 

I also don't see a notation on the original art that it IS a homage or recreation.

 

(I did pretty much the same thing in my youth with marker recreations of comic book covers on 18 x 24 posterboard, but I never sold them and I didn't have access to lightboxes, etc.)

 

I'm all for homages and fan art... but this seems to intrude on DC's (and Jim Lee's) territory. People like Herbe Trimpe and Mike Zeck are entitled to do recreations based on their own original work. Derivative works should always be attributed.

 

1) The notation is STILL not on the photograph you have listed in the auction. It's also not evident on the other two auctions. You say it's there, granted, and I'll take your word for it. (EVEN THOUGH THE PIECE IS FRAMED and evidently finished.) It also does not say that in the text of your auctions.

 

2) The last paragraph says that professional artists are ENTITLED to do recreations of THEIR original work. Derivative works should always be attributed. This points back to point #1.

 

If you'd like me to make a grandiose, public statement- I am stating that you are, in essence, "stealing" money from Jim Lee, Jack Kirby, and John Romita, Sr.

Many original artists do "recreations" of their OWN artwork and they use this to supplement their income. For many, this is a major source of income.

 

If you actually read my original post, I'm sure that you can see that I was not blatantly attacking you. I couched things in very diplomatic terms actually.

 

Does this satisfy your needs?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Correction: AF #15 was drawn by Kirby and inked by Ditko.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldGuy

OldGuy

Posted
Posted

Blow it off, it's a no win discussion. 99% of the people here have no problem with what you're doing (and in fact appreciate it very much), don't let the 1% even phase you. If one person calls you a horses a.s.s you can blow it off as an uninformed opinion. If ten people call you a horses a.s.s then maybe it's time to buy a saddle. So far I count one. thumbsup2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dadaist

dadaist

Posted
Posted

1) The notation is STILL not on the photograph you have listed in the auction. It's also not evident on the other two auctions. You say it's there, granted, and I'll take your word for it. (EVEN THOUGH THE PIECE IS FRAMED and evidently finished.) It also does not say that in the text of your auctions.

 

2) The last paragraph says that professional artists are ENTITLED to do recreations of THEIR original work. Derivative works should always be attributed. This points back to point #1.

 

A bit repetitive, but I guess it will satisfy you to no end unless I say it, once again, that they DO make notation.

 

If you'd like me to make a grandiose, public statement- I am stating that you are, in essence, "stealing" money from Jim Lee, Jack Kirby, and John Romita, Sr.

Many original artists do "recreations" of their OWN artwork and they use this to supplement their income. For many, this is a major source of income.

 

And you are a repressed, bitter [!@#%^&^] who needs to wage his crusade elsewhere. But since you decided to rattle me further with yet another accusation....

 

I'm pulling the piece for the charity auction, donating the current highest bid amount out of pocket to ACTOR, and tallying up yet another VICTORY point for you. Good work! You should remember to pat yourself on the back for this one.

 

Calling me a thief... wow! That is the last thing I would have ever expected from all this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing