The Bullpen

[JimN]

How about the digital artist selling their digital work file and deleting it from their own computer? That would be the actual original - and I'm sure some art afficianados/colleagues would get a kick out of investigating how the art was done with different layers in Photoshop etc.

It's an interesting idea but since files can be copied, it poses similar problems to the print solution.

It's also a far less-than-desirable solution for the artist, who may want to use the file/image again someday in a collection of this work, for an unlimited edition of prints, to sell the rights for a second use (if the rights are his to sell), etc.

[KW!!]

I think it's disingenuous to call it "original art" - I get that it's the closest thing the artist has to "original art", and that calling it "original art" could fetch him or her a nice premium, but I'm afraid that's just a sacrifice artists will have to consider as they transition to working digitally.

On the upside, (hopefully) working digitally is costing them less on time and supplies in the long run. So it's not a total loss.

I'm much more comfortable with the idea of limited edition prints. Limited to a quantity of 1 seems kind of silly to me. But maybe 50 or so, printed up all fancy like, signed and numbered with a certificate of some sort could be the move.

I wouldn't worry about the artist flat out lying about the limited supply of their prints, but like Wood and others have pointed out, multiple hands in the cookie jar + communication breakdowns + lots of gray area could lead to trouble.

Say you paid top dollar for a one-of-a-kind print, certified and all that, and a year later the artist was selling that same artwork, just printed via a slightly cheaper method. It's not the same as what you have, but possibly too close for your personal comfort. Technically, you weren't cheated. But would you feel cheated?

[Dean S.]

Here's another thought that just occurred to me. 

Is there really that much difference between an artist creating some digital artwork and then creating/selling a singular print AND an artist drawing a page the old fashioned way and then creating/selling a singular print?

In both cases, you have a copy of the original and the artist still has the original work product.  A print is a copy.

[legion of daves]

Here's another thought that just occurred to me. 

Is there really that much difference between an artist creating some digital artwork and then creating/selling a singular print AND an artist drawing a page the old fashioned way and then creating/selling a singular print?

In both cases, you have a copy of the original and the artist still has the original work product.  A print is a copy.

no, i think that's the point some people are trying to make.  we'd definitely buy a print of some one's work if it was a great print at a good price, but we're not going to buy it under the pretense it's "original art," like you said, it's a copy.

[Wood]

I know many artists are doing what was mentioned earlier, working mainly digitally but doing a few pages in traditional media to sell. The first I heard of that was Freddie Williams, who went all digital awhile ago (and penned a book on digital comics illustration in partnership with DC), but did one splash page, or key page, per issue by hand to sell. I know Norton has gone digital, I'm not sure if he's doing a few pages in pencils or not though. Skottie is mostly digital now, although my understanding is that he does digital blue lines and then inks by hand over his own blue lines for Oz.

[Chris Campbell]

For me, if I'm not buying it directly from the artist, a known commodity art dealer, or via a vetted/well heeled auction house, I'm not buying it.

Best practices right here.

I would have zero interest in buying a one-of-a-kind print.  Just doesn't grab me.

[hunter gathers]

But how would you know?  Digital files are so easily replicated, moved, stored, etc...that, as a buyer, I don't think I would every truly believe someone deleted the one and only copy of any file in question.

If you travel down this line of thought, think about all the places the file was already sent to just get a finished product. The artist sent that file to editorial, which was then in turn sent to a colorist and letterer. The file on the artists computer is really not as unique as we'd like to believe. It's really not even remotely close to an artist scanning the art and then sending that along because the artist would retain the original.

[legion of daves]

Skottie is mostly digital now, although my understanding is that he does digital blue lines and then inks by hand over his own blue lines for Oz.

yeah, i've heard of a lot of people who are working in that method, the digital pencils/blue lines, and then printed out and traditionally inked.  seems like an efficient way to work, and you still have your final product to sell later if you prefer.

[Wood]

yeah, i've heard of a lot of people who are working in that method, the digital pencils/blue lines, and then printed out and traditionally inked.  seems like an efficient way to work, and you still have your final product to sell later if you prefer.

Yep, and I know this is in itself a controversial practice. I own a Skottie page, done this way, and he commands plenty of premium for his work. Yet some are loathe to buy inks over blue lines for the same reasons we're discussing. Some worry that an artist could print multiple blue lines and ink over them. I know Skottie personally and believe he would never do that, so it didn't inhibit my purchase. But it might for others.

[JimN]

Here's another thought that just occurred to me. 

Is there really that much difference between an artist creating some digital artwork and then creating/selling a singular print AND an artist drawing a page the old fashioned way and then creating/selling a singular print?

In both cases, you have a copy of the original and the artist still has the original work product.  A print is a copy.

That's true but in this case it would be a singular copy, the only physical copy of the original file printed at actual size (ie: the size of an original page of comic art). The main difference would be the method of creation. However, like a piece of original comic art, it would be a unique, one-of-a-kind item. In the scenario you presented above, there would be two physical versions: the original art and the singular print.

[miraclemet]

I dont know why, but the fewer real hands that did work, the less I want to buy it.

Its about owning part of the process.

Printing out a digitally rendered page for the sake of sale and labeling it 1 of 1 is not part of the process.
(of course by that logic I would want to own the pdf itslef, cause that is part of the process).

I can take a comic page to kinkos and get it blown up and printed out nicely and end up with the same thing that they are describing. I cant do anything at kinkos that will have me end up with an original pencilled and inked page.

[Wood]

That's true but in this case it would be a singular copy, the only physical copy of the original file printed at actual size (ie: the size of an original page of comic art). The main difference would be the method of creation. However, like a piece of original comic art, it would be a unique, one-of-a-kind item. In the scenario you presented above, there would be two physical versions: the original art and the singular print.

It gets  more complicated because so many inkers are now sent digital files to either a) ink over digitally and send along or b) ink traditionally over the digitals. In that case, you could see an inker selling his inked work (over blue lines) and the original creator selling blue lined art, or a blue lined piece that he pencils over for resale. Both could be completely candid about what they're selling, and yet most would think they were getting a one of a kind, when in fact both are buying variations on something that ends up in the finished printed work.

[Jay Tomio]

I know many artists are doing what was mentioned earlier, working mainly digitally but doing a few pages in traditional media to sell. The first I heard of that was Freddie Williams, who went all digital awhile ago (and penned a book on digital comics illustration in partnership with DC), but did one splash page, or key page, per issue by hand to sell. I know Norton has gone digital, I'm not sure if he's doing a few pages in pencils or not though. Skottie is mostly digital now, although my understanding is that he does digital blue lines and then inks by hand over his own blue lines for Oz.

Yeah, I'd never buy that though I love his work (and if mine is  that, I'll probably throw it away). I think for me it has nothing to do with fearing or not trusting  an artist reproducing it (though I hate that too), I just place no value on a copy that was been hand inked over, or I do have a value on it, and it's close enough to zero to not buy it.

Almost everyday I look I see artists, dealers and inkers not mentioning that what they are selling is not the original pencils (which almost ALWAYS holds the $ value on a published page). This process has also opened the door wide open to rampant fraud (not just by professionals who did the work) for the unlearned buyer.

These days I now ask specifically, get it in writing clearly asking my questions so I have recourse if I find what I'm told is not true.

[JimN]

It gets  more complicated because so many inkers are now sent digital files to either a) ink over digitally and send along or b) ink traditionally over the digitals. In that case, you could see an inker selling his inked work (over blue lines) and the original creator selling blue lined art, or a blue lined piece that he pencils over for resale. Both could be completely candid about what they're selling, and yet most would think they were getting a one of a kind, when in fact both are buying variations on something that ends up in the finished printed work.

They'd still be one of a kind items but I see your point. However, that's not so different than an inker now selling an original that was inked over a print-out of scanned pencils. What is the original piece of comic art in that scenario, the original pencils or the finished inks (which would be what actually appeared in the comic)?

All of these things we're talking about are variations on a theme and this just boils down to personal choices. People should buy what they like, whether it's actual, physical original art, a single, one-of-a-kind print, final inks over blue lines or something else. There's probably a market for all of it, just like when cell animation experienced a gallery boom back in the '90s and suddenly limited edition cell lithographs were being sold everywhere at relatively substantial prices even though the cells in them were prints never used in any animated film. I had no interest in that stuff but it sold like crazy!

Maybe single, certified prints of digital comic art will end up occupying a market space between prints and original art and collectors will get into them as a hobby unto themselves.

Jim

[Wormworth]

If you travel down this line of thought, think about all the places the file was already sent to just get a finished product. The artist sent that file to editorial, which was then in turn sent to a colorist and letterer. The file on the artists computer is really not as unique as we'd like to believe. It's really not even remotely close to an artist scanning the art and then sending that along because the artist would retain the original.

My reply was a comment on the idea of "original" in the digital process, and the work file is the original source, and reveals the process in the same way that an original drawing on a paper. The artist sends "drafts" of the work file, but those are not the work file (though the artist may have several versions and back-ups). It's another thing if it has collectability.

And that's what the the question is here: What would/should the motivation be for the purchase of an original page/singular art print be? Is it an investment, way to express one's love and appreciation for the art or what?

The difference between, say, painting and comic pages is that painting is the end product, and when you look at a reproduction of a painting, it always loses something, but with comics, the printed comic is the end product - and
the reproduction process hides the sketch lines and mistakes, and the corrections with whiteout that the artist does't intend to be seen.

That's not to say that the originals aren't very interesting to study the process and can be great pieces of art in their own right.

[Dean S.]

I've got a Ryan Stegman splash page that is interesting.  It has two parts.  One is pencils over a very rough digital blue line.  The other is inks over the scanned and digitally cleaned up pencils. 

I actually LOVE it because you can see 1) the Stegman rough blue line, 2) the Stegman pencils, 3) the digitally cleaned-up Stegman pencils and 4) the inks (by Michael Babinski).  If you sit there and look closely you can see a lot of little changes in rubble and shading.