BCarter27

Member
  • Content count

    816
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BCarter27

  • Boards Title
    Talkative?

Personal Information

  • Location
    NYC
  1. Olivia for $40K! https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/paintings/olivia-olivia-de-berardinis-wonder-woman-gal-gadot-painting-original-art-2017-/a/7169-91096.s Was this because it was Olivia or a Gal Gadot WW likeness?
  2. Ugh, my mistake. Yes, Library of Congress. They are different organizations, but both located in Wash, DC.
  3. Knowing that the Smithsonian has the AF 15 art, how would everyone here feel if the Action 1 cover surfaced and was bought for a private collection? I've stated several times that I dislike museums acquiring large amounts of comic art, but I do think there are a few exceptions.
  4. My first thought upon hearing @zhamlau 's story was that maybe the collector saw a production cover used for the Famous First reprints -- kind of like those retouched stat pieces that Metropolis sold last year, iirc. But if they were advertising some crazy dollar amount for the exhibited art, then who knows?
  5. https://gizmodo.com/metropolis-the-real-life-town-that-superman-couldnt-s-1172537331 Gotta be someone that knows someone who put this exhibit together, no? Pure conjecture on my part, but I was thinking earlier today how unlikely it is the Action 1 cover would have been tossed. It was an instant hit, iirc. I'd think someone would have hung onto it.
  6. Comicconnect November 2017 auction

    http://comicarttracker.com/en/comicconnect-auctions/2017-12-04 http://comicarttracker.com/en/comicconnect-auctions/2017-12-05
  7. Then, my memory of the description of how the DKR 1 cover was made is incorrect. I mistakenly assumed it was done in the same manner as the interior pages you have on offer. Therefore the cover would be a bad example of the broader point I was trying to make. The interior pages would still be a suitable example, however.
  8. Yes, I understand all of that and I agree. I was just using this as an example of a broader point about how there is a spectrum of what is considered "original comic art". Varley's contribution to the book is indelible, especially when you see those colored, painted pages. My understanding of that picture above is that someone was visiting Jim lee to show him the cover.
  9. It is a reproduction of the line art, but it is hand-colored. I think that's a pretty safe assumption. And I would think that it trumps all of the other hangups people have about colored art.
  10. This one that someone posted awhile back. By some strict readings of the definitions above, this isn't OA either... which I don't agree with. For example, those Lynn Varley colored pages you had at Comic Art Con are terrific and I think they go a long way to loosening up the status quo around here about the contribution of colorists.
  11. Judging by the responses above, ComicConnect might have done themselves a disservice by calling this a proof. In my mind, a proof is 100% reproduction sent from the printer for editorial approval before the presses run. Based on their description, this is a hand-colored mockup. Perhaps nomenclature carries certain connotations after all and has the net effect of keeping people away.
  12. Perhaps. Would you consider the DK1 cover to be OA or production art? There is a spectrum here. I wouldn't consider guys doing paste-ups in the bullpen as anything but interchangeable, but the inker, letterer, colorist, and logo designer are all making unique contributions that fall under my definition of "original". Some of this tips into the various recent discussions about the changing nature of original comic art. For some, if it isn't twice-up with lettering and logos on the board, visible from across the room, they don't want it. Others are fine with stats, no lettering, paste-up word balloons, inks over blueline copies, and whatever else was necessary to get the thing out on time. I think this definition is and has always been more fluid than what is generally thought of. I just find it strange that art collectors aren't more excited about this. It's one of one... even if you consider "one" to encompass all Action 1 production materials and not just one unique hand-colored mockup. What if there were 3-4 variations of these in the lot? Would that stir up more interest? Maybe it would. Of course, I don't value this as much as the pen and ink art from the same book. I wouldn't even value it as much as the final color guide. But assuming the description is accurate, and with the general scarcity of any DC original art from that period, I am left scratching my head.
  13. For me, if hands touched it, it is OA. It may not be published. It may be prelim and unused. But is still original art. By that same token, I consider all hand-painted color guides OA as well. The market may not, but again I think this diminishes the colorist's contribution.
  14. I'm fairly tepid about printed proofs. But this not that. This isn't a final color guide (as I erroneously lumped it in with in my earlier post) but is maybe more aptly described as a color mockup. But how many other hand-crafted pieces of the Action 1 production process have you ever seen?