Original art appreciation thread

[plitch]

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.

 

Hi Sckao!

 

I love grandiose public statements! But, I don't agree with this one. Besides the fact that Kirby is dead and can no longer do any cover recreations, your hypothesis just doesn't seem correct to me.

 

If I had the money to get the original artist to do a cover recreation of his own cover, then I would do that. Fine, no problem. But, since I don't have the money for a Jim Lee commission, let alone money for the original cover (last I heard Jim Lee covers go for 5 digits), I am SOL if I take your advice.

 

Your argument states that it is wrong for artists to sell a recreation of another artist work, because it undermines the original artists market for doing their own recreations. The problem with your theory is that a recreation done by the original artist WILL ALWAYS be more valuable and more desirable then a recreation done by (no offense Joe), an amateur. The original artist will ALWAYS have a market for cover recreations, if their clients are willing to pony up the bucks. Almost any artist will do a cover recreation, some just cost more then others.

 

If I see a hungry artist on the streets of NYC this weekend selling cover recreations that he did for $50 a pop, I will make sure that I tell him that he is "stealing" money from the original artists and he should be ashamed. But, I bet that if I told Jim Lee where this street guy was selling Jim Lee cover recreations, Jim would walk down the street and buy them all.

 

Just my perspective. Now, back to work I go!

[sckao]

 

I love grandiose public statements! But, I don't agree with this one. Besides the fact that Kirby is dead and can no longer do any cover recreations, your hypothesis just doesn't seem correct to me.

 

If I had the money to get the original artist to do a cover recreation of his own cover, then I would do that. Fine, no problem. But, since I don't have the money for a Jim Lee commission, let alone money for the original cover (last I heard Jim Lee covers go for 5 digits), I am SOL if I take your advice.

 

Your argument states that it is wrong for artists to sell a recreation of another artist work, because it undermines the original artists market for doing their own recreations. The problem with your theory is that a recreation done by the original artist WILL ALWAYS be more valuable and more desirable then a recreation done by (no offense Joe), an amateur. The original artist will ALWAYS have a market for cover recreations, if their clients are willing to pony up the bucks. Almost any artist will do a cover recreation, some just cost more then others.

 

 

Everyone's welcome to throw their thoughts into this discussion. There may well be many holes in my theory.

 

I actually thought Ditko drew AF#15 at first which is why I corrected my post. (I didn't realize that Kirby drew the cover and Ditko inked it.) Ditko is still alive, and while reclusive, is theoretically available to do the cover recreation. Inkers do cover recreations of works they've inked all the time. Joe Sinnott has a lot of recreations on his site.

 

While Jim Lee is probably not the best choice for a commission/recreation given his superstar status, he does convention sketches for free. He gave a thoughtful response about this on a fan site of his: Art of Jim Lee Sketching Scenarios I would postulate that having a free Jim Lee original sketch or original artwork is BETTER than having an amateur recreation of a cover, especially if that cover is possibly available as a poster. (Although, of course, opinions differ.)

 

Jim's very expensive though, so let's take a look what's out there.

 

The Comic Art Warehouse has over two dozen professionals ready and willing to do commissions or recreations of their own work. (The prices are quite low.. as low as $40.)

 

As you noted, almost every other artist out there with their own Website also does recreations. A Bob Layton Iron Man recreation is $350. A Joe Rubenstein commission would only run about $115 for a character like Wolverine and background. (He inked the Wolverine LS over Frank Miller.) Mike Zeck's penciled recreations are $600. Bob McLeod has a published X-men splash page piece by Brian Hitch and himself for $175.

 

Some of the recreations I've come across are priced up to $500 or more.

 

A lot of artists from the past are not currently working in comics today or are semi-retired. It would be ironic and a shame if the recreation artist is more expensive than the original artist. It may not be possible to afford a BWS or a John Buscema Conan original, but it's probably possible to get an Ernie Chan Conan. You're still not getting even that with a recreation.

 

I'm still not sure why it's okay for someone to sell derivative works without a license especially if that person did not have permission, was not involved in the creation of the original work, or was not a comic professional who had worked on that character in the past.

 

Fan art is one thing, but "semi-professional" recreation seems to be crossing the line.

 

If you don't have the money for a Jim Lee commission, then buy the Batman 608 poster. Or buy Jim Lee's original art (as low as $85 on his agent's Website). Take your own copy and have it blown up by a printer. (Which is still probably illegal.) It's not necessary to plagiarize, violate, or take advantage of DC's or Jim Lee's generosity.

 

Thanks for presenting another side of the argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kevin Boyd]

Blah blah blah.

 

I go to Ron Frenz at the Pittsburgh con and I say, "Ron, can you draw me a Spidey in the same pose as Ditko used for the cover boxes on the original Amazing Spidey issues. He says... sure...he'll do it for $40 and I'll need a copy of the comic for reference." He does it and it looks great. I'll make sure to let him know that he should be passing that money on to Mr. Ditko.

 

I see Fred Hembeck doing cover recreations in his own style all of the time and it doesn't bother me in the least. He's not been hassled, to my knowledge, about it. They clearly look like Hembeck's work, but the poses, the logos, the text... everything is pretty much the same as the original. I don't see Fred giving money away to Marvel or DC or back to the original artists.

 

I remember when I was learning to draw I would copy panels and poses from my favourite comics. While I never thought about doing it for profit... it certainly doesn't bother me in the least if someone else did. Professional artists charge for sketches of characters that they don't own all of the time.

 

Joe does a piece for charity, for Christ's sake, and he gets hassled - first on technique then on the ethics of doing the piece in the first place.

 

I guess I could see your point about the other pieces he's selling... but he's not making a living at doing cover recreations, he's doing it for fun, not to rip someone off. If, for a second, he thought he was cheating someone out of some dough he wouldn't do it.

 

Kev

 

[sckao]

I go to Ron Frenz at the Pittsburgh con and I say, "Ron, can you draw me a Spidey in the same pose as Ditko used for the cover boxes on the original Amazing Spidey issues. He says... sure...he'll do it for $40 and I'll need a copy of the comic for reference." He does it and it looks great. I'll make sure to let him know that he should be passing that money on to Mr. Ditko.

 

I see Fred Hembeck doing cover recreations in his own style all of the time and it doesn't bother me in the least. He's not been hassled, to my knowledge, about it. They clearly look like Hembeck's work, but the poses, the logos, the text... everything is pretty much the same as the original. I don't see Fred giving money away to Marvel or DC or back to the original artists.

 

 

I totally agree. I think you're twisting my words around in general, however. The thing about Ron Frenz is that he is very good about attributing his work. This Website is full of his commissions. Note that on the Thunderstrike Cover Homage Piece, he ATTRIBUTES himself. Ron Frenz is also a bad example for you to bring up as he is a Spider-man artist himself (a very good one), and consciously drew SM in a Ditko-like style. I have no problems with him doing recreations or selling his artwork.

 

Fred Hembeck also takes great pains to attribute his work (even putting the month of the original artwork down) even though his style is that of a parody and is clearly different. (Parody is held to a special standard generally.)

 

Yes, that was a charity auction, and I'm sorry to see that all of the potential money won't be going to ACTOR. So here's what I'll do. I'll put up my Daredevil #11 CGC 9.4 on eBay on Sunday night and I'll donate the proceeds to ACTOR to make up for it. If you don't think that's equitable, I'm sure we can work something out.

 

In addition, to make things interesting, we could do something else: We could have an original art draw-off based on any characters or situation dreamed up by the forum. We'd then post the results in a week and auction off the pieces for charity. This would reinforce the fact that Dadaist/Comicwiz is a talented artist in his own right, which no one is disputing.

 

It's interesting to note that a lot of the posters about this are coming from Canada.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

It's interesting to note that a lot of the posters about this are coming from Canada.

 

 

It has nothing to do with Canada........it's just that they are all friends.

[Kevin Boyd]

That's very generous of you. I'm actually off to New York in a couple of hours so I won't be able to check in until next week. I'm sure Dam60 can tell me all about it when I see him on Saturday.

 

The Frenz Ditko recreations I've seen don't always credit Ditko.

 

John Byrne has done many variations on Kirby's cover to FF1 over the years. I realize he always puts a credit to Kirby on his artwork, but I'm pretty sure that John gets paid for his covers and he doesn't give that money to the Kirby estate. I realize that, like the other fellows I've mentioned he does the work in his style, but...

 

When Don Rosa was here a few weeks ago he was selling these great looking prints where he had redrawn famous superhero covers with the main characters as Ducks. Clearly parody, but for profit (similar to Mr. Hembeck).

 

The question I want to ask you is this - when does it become acceptable for a professional to ape or recreate another professional's work for profit? If it's ok for someone like Frenz or Hembeck or Byrne or the biggest recreator of them all - ALEX ROSS (much as I love the paintings and they are a great tribute to classic covers they are still cover recreations for profit or in some cases, for charity) then why can't an amateur do the same - for fun, for charity, or for profit? Why is it ok for top of the food chain Alex Ross to do it, but not Joe Fiore, who is just a guy doing drawings in his office at home in his spare time?

 

(and no, Ross isn't always doing this with permission from DC or Marvel... they may care down the line if they want to reprint them, but some of the cover recreations shown in the recent Ross hardcover volume indicate that they were done for friends and private collectors).

 

Granted an original Ross will cost you hundreds to thousands of dollars and has the possibility of appreciation (although we do have an inflated art market), while an original Fiore recreation is going to be pretty much what the buyer will pay for it and is unlikely to appreciate.

 

Kev

[sckao]

The question I want to ask you is this - when does it become acceptable for a professional to ape or recreate another professional's work for profit? If it's ok for someone like Frenz or Hembeck or Byrne or the biggest recreator of them all - ALEX ROSS (much as I love the paintings and they are a great tribute to classic covers they are still cover recreations for profit or in some cases, for charity) then why can't an amateur do the same - for fun, for charity, or for profit? Why is it ok for top of the food chain Alex Ross to do it, but not Joe Fiore, who is just a guy doing drawings in his office at home in his spare time?

 

(and no, Ross isn't always doing this with permission from DC or Marvel... they may care down the line if they want to reprint them, but some of the cover recreations shown in the recent Ross hardcover volume indicate that they were done for friends and private collectors).

 

In my opinion....

 

Basically, this comes down to business. Alex Ross doing something for your company is good for business. His Earth X sketches done for Wizard magazine on a lark after the publication of the smash hit Kingdom Come becomes the basis for a series of Marvel comic books, essentially a new alternate universe or future. His rendition of DC's core heroes in Kingdom Come leads to Treasury sized editions of the heroes' current incarnations.

 

His Battle of the Planets paintings for Wizard led to a revival of the series.

 

I'd go so far as to say that Alex Ross has DC and Marvel's (and probably every other publisher's) defacto permission to portray their characters since he has an established track record of producing stellar work that remains true to the character's origins.

 

At this point in his career, Alex Ross can basically do whatever he wants. He's the Michael Jordan of the comic world currently. He's a proven commodity.

 

An amateur isn't given this leeway because he hasn't proven himself or hasn't "broken in" and established a relationship with a company. Barry Bonds gets a leather recliner in the club house. A rookie just called up from the minors doesn't.

 

Generally, since most of the work being done is "work for hire," everything is being done for profit. When Byrne does it, he's doing it generally for a company that has hired him to draw a comic book and its cover. A Hembeck or a Frenz recreation, while not officially sanctioned or commissioned by the parent company, gets latitude over someone like Joe Fiore because they ARE professionals. Michael Jordan gets the referee's benefit of the doubt. It's not fair, granted, but that's life. These professionals tend to have relationships with the company (Marvel, DC, Image) in question and are allowed a certain latitude. They've worked on the characters or on books for the company. They've established fan followings and or contributed to seminal runs on the books and to the character. The company realizes that these artists may not currently be working on a monthly book, and that they may need these commissions on a financial level. It's just good business.

 

Many artists or inkers will also not recreate something that they have not worked on in the past. This should not be confused with a quick convention sketch when someone asks Jim Lee to draw Lady Death, a character he may never have drawn before.

 

The characters belong to the company. When is it appropriate for a professional to ape or recreate another professional's work for profit? It's appropriate when it's requested as a work for hire by the company or if the individual has the company's permission to do so, whether that permission is tacit or explicit. A professional has that relationship with the company. An unknown amateur does not.

 

It's just business.

 

A derivative work should ALWAYS be attributed though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kevin Boyd]

I had a couple of minutes to read your post before I left.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't think there's a different set of rules for professionals to do recreations over amateurs. There isn't a magic line that suddenly makes it ok for person A to do something and for person B not to simply because person A had some work published by a major company.

 

Person B will always have a tough time selling their work, but by doing it, they may get their work exposed enough to get a job and become a Person A.

 

And Jim Lee was attributed on the final piece, and elsewhere.

 

Kev

[delekkerste]

Here's my latest pick-up...the original pencilled cover art to Elektra #3 (regular, nude variant, whatever) by Greg Horn! Greg told me at the San Diego Con that this is his best & favorite cover of the series, so who am I to argue?

 

Gene

 

[Kevin Boyd]

Hey Shin,

 

I was just checking out your website and I must say that I do like your work.

 

BUT

 

I find it interesting that you have a bunch of cover recreations up on your website:

 

http://www.corpcity.com/paintings.html

 

Yes, you have credited the original artists, and no they don't appear to be for sale either, but they are cover recreations that you did when you were younger and you have chosen to display them on your website, a website which is essentially your online resume.

 

Kev

[g-man]

Here's my latest pick-up...the original pencilled cover art to Elektra #3 (regular, nude variant, whatever) by Greg Horn! Greg told me at the San Diego Con that this is his best & favorite cover of the series, so who am I to argue?

 

Gene

 

[delekkerste]

Bought this one at the San Diego Con over the summer from Mike "Romitaman" Burkey (one of the very few nice original dealers I've met, BTW). It's a huge (19.5"x25"), gorgeous double splash page by Gonzalo Mayo, originally published in Vampirella #81 by Warren Publications back in 1979 (I think).

 

I just brought it back from San Diego over Thanksgiving, as I didn't have the proper luggage to be able to transport it safely over the summer. I hope you can enjoy it without feeling the need to hurl insults and accusations at me like some people seem to feel compelled to do.

 

Gene

 

[Bonds25]

That's a really cool piece - congrats!!

 

Hopefully you didn't overpay for this POS by too much!

[BestOf7-migration]

Hey Shin,

 

I was just checking out your website and I must say that I do like your work.

 

BUT

 

I find it interesting that you have a bunch of cover recreations up on your website:

 

http://www.corpcity.com/paintings.html

 

Yes, you have credited the original artists, and no they don't appear to be for sale either, but they are cover recreations that you did when you were younger and you have chosen to display them on your website, a website which is essentially your online resume.

 

Kev

 

Interesting thing you point out kevthemev. I guess sckao doesn't need to attribute the artists in his cover recreations because he's been published?!?!?

 

Hey sckao, you might want to add hypocrite to that resume of yours.

[Illiterati-migration]

Fantastic piece, Balki! Let me just say that I'm very, very glad that you're not into what I'm into.

[delekkerste]

Fantastic piece, Balki! Let me just say that I'm very, very glad that you're not into what I'm into.

 

Thanks, Cousin Larry! But if I see another nice American Century splash hit the scene, I might not be able to restrain myself!

 

Balki

[Illiterati-migration]

Fantastic piece, Balki! Let me just say that I'm very, very glad that you're not into what I'm into.

 

Thanks, Cousin Larry! But if I see another nice American Century splash hit the scene, I might not be able to restrain myself!

 

Balki

 

 

Damn you, upper-crustaceans! Leave us bottom-feeders alone!

 

Here's my latest purchase (from "Formerly Known As The Justice League" #2):

 

 

Damn, that's hard to read. Oh well, if you've seen the book, you'd understand why it belongs in the Khaos Khollection.

[g-man]

i see that moy has posted some new jim lee pages. the splash with hush is priced at $2800. i was offered that page at much less and turned it down. Yikes!

[delekkerste]

i see that moy has posted some new jim lee pages. the splash with hush is priced at $2800. i was offered that page at much less and turned it down. Yikes!

 

RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!

 

Gene

[OldGuy]

Here's a recreation of my favorite comic cover ever that I commissioned from Joseph Fiore. Needless to say, I'm very happy with it.

 

 

And the original for comparison.