Digital Artist Proof vs. Original Art

[Rmfn33]

Hey guys, just wanted to get some thoughts on this. With so many Artists going digital now a days. See Saga.... how are your thoughts on if a artist works digitally but sells their

 

"Original One of a Kind Artist Proof that is signed"

 

Do you treat that the same as Original art that is done on paper or do you think its not as valuable or real art?

 

Thanks

 

NB

[comix4fun]

No

 

It's a glorified poster.

 

 

[ashrael]

I have no desire for them.

[Terry Doyle]

 

Do you treat that the same as Original art that is done on paper or do you think its not as valuable or real art?

 

 

Seriously?

[Dr. Balls]

Back in 2003 I had a guy approach me on buying a digital "original" and so I gave it some thought and came up with the idea of producing an "original" on canvas and then prints on paper, then deleting the "original" layered file, thus - in theory - destroying the ability to edit or change anything. I then created a few pieces that were "originals" only, no prints and only low-res files existed.

 

BUT, ultimately creating those pieces it's up to the artist to be ethical, and I felt that I could stick to it, I don't think the digital genre as a whole could do that and have "originals" truly be valued as such - so I stopped doing them.

 

Low print run giclees seem to generate good revenue for them, so maybe they also have abandoned the idea of the digital original - because it's virtually impossible to prove that you actually have an "original".

 

The digital "artist proof" is another issue I ran into in digital art at about the same time and saw that the ethics and misunderstanding of the term would hurt the artist's reputation for the long term.

 

A digital "artist proof" is really a misnomer, because most digital printers are color calibrated and unless the artist is there to suggest color corrections that the copier technician will perform, there is no real "artist proof" any longer.

 

In the olden days, artists would press proof their prints and have the pressman make minute adjustments to the color and density of the inks until they got the desired look for the final print run. These subtle variations were artist proofs, as they had a visual difference from the regular print run.

 

I would not buy an "artist proof" thinking it had any more value or uniqueness than any of the other prints. It's generally a marketing ploy to entice people to buy something it's not. For a definitive answer to whether it's a real "artist proof" is to compare it to the regular print edition. If you can see some color variances, then it's safe to say you have a real artist proof in the sense of the term.

 

And I have worked in digital art since 1995 - and I don't think there will ever be a digital work as valuable or substantial as an original, tangible, provable piece of art.

[Rmfn33]

Thanks guys!

 

I am in a bit of a pickle. I read a big DC title last week and fell in love with the art. I had a feeling he did all his work digitally but I wanted to ask anyway if he sold any of his pages. H says; "I work all digitally, but make an artist's proof for each page to check print quality. They're one-of-a-kind and signed - the closest I get to original art pages these days."

 

So i am curious to see what types of prices he may charge for this particular splash page. The price to my surprise is about the same as I paid for a David Finch Splash page on The Dark Knight Issue 2 for the New 52. I thought this was odd. He went on to add this:

 

"Also, here's a little more info on artist's proofs: After finishing a page, I make a high-quality, inkjet print of the page to verify quality of the printed work. Each artist's proof is 11x17" on Strathmore Bristol 500 series board and is one-of-kind and signed."

 

So that was the main reason why i wanted some opinions as I am absolutely in love with this page but it seems high to spend on a print pretty much.

 

With the age of digital art coming I wonder how long before most titles are drawn this way.

 

Anyway thanks for any and all feed back already!

 

NB

 

 

[Dr. Balls]

Thanks guys!

 

I am in a bit of a pickle. I read a big DC title last week and fell in love with the art. I had a feeling he did all his work digitally but I wanted to ask anyway if he sold any of his pages. H says; "I work all digitally, but make an artist's proof for each page to check print quality. They're one-of-a-kind and signed - the closest I get to original art pages these days."

 

So i am curious to see what types of prices he may charge for this particular splash page. The price to my surprise is about the same as I paid for a David Finch Splash page on The Dark Knight Issue 2 for the New 52. I thought this was odd. He went on to add this:

 

"Also, here's a little more info on artist's proofs: After finishing a page, I make a high-quality, inkjet print of the page to verify quality of the printed work. Each artist's proof is 11x17" on Strathmore Bristol 500 series board and is one-of-kind and signed."

 

So that was the main reason why i wanted some opinions as I am absolutely in love with this page but it seems high to spend on a print pretty much.

 

With the age of digital art coming I wonder how long before most titles are drawn this way.

 

Anyway thanks for any and all feed back already!

 

NB

 

 

Yes, that's a one-off signed print. The artist may be able to convince the buyer that it's worth something, but I think the challenge would be for the buyer to convince another buyer of it's value down the line.

 

And honestly, you have no assurance (nor does anyone else) that he won't print off another one the next time someone asks for it. That's the sketchy part of digital art that I spoke of earlier - too much ethical gray area.

 

If you can get it for the price of a poster, I don't see the harm in it. But if you're paying more than $50 for it, I would take a serious look and ask questions (like you are) to make sure that what your buying retains some of it's value. After all, if an artist is trying to sell a print as a rare item, the perception is that the price is reflective of it's potential value - something that should be retained when you take posession of it.

[Pete Marino]

Thanks guys!

 

I am in a bit of a pickle. I read a big DC title last week and fell in love with the art. I had a feeling he did all his work digitally but I wanted to ask anyway if he sold any of his pages. H says; "I work all digitally, but make an artist's proof for each page to check print quality. They're one-of-a-kind and signed - the closest I get to original art pages these days."

 

So i am curious to see what types of prices he may charge for this particular splash page. The price to my surprise is about the same as I paid for a David Finch Splash page on The Dark Knight Issue 2 for the New 52. I thought this was odd. He went on to add this:

 

"Also, here's a little more info on artist's proofs: After finishing a page, I make a high-quality, inkjet print of the page to verify quality of the printed work. Each artist's proof is 11x17" on Strathmore Bristol 500 series board and is one-of-kind and signed."

 

So that was the main reason why i wanted some opinions as I am absolutely in love with this page but it seems high to spend on a print pretty much.

 

With the age of digital art coming I wonder how long before most titles are drawn this way.

 

Anyway thanks for any and all feed back already!

 

NB

 

 

I think it has some value, but not nearly the same as true OA that was drawn on the board.

 

A big part of the allure of OA is that the artist actually took that blank piece of paper and made something amazing.

 

In this case he made something amazing on his computer and then printed it out.

 

I know some guys do digital pencils and then ink the print out to create "OA" an example would be Mark Brooks. But this is just a signed print 1 of 1.

 

It's up to you (obviously) but I wouldn't be paying big $$ for a 1/1 print.

 

that's my

 

-Pete

[Terry Doyle]

Thanks guys!

 

I am in a bit of a pickle. I read a big DC title last week and fell in love with the art. I had a feeling he did all his work digitally but I wanted to ask anyway if he sold any of his pages. H says; "I work all digitally, but make an artist's proof for each page to check print quality. They're one-of-a-kind and signed - the closest I get to original art pages these days."

 

So i am curious to see what types of prices he may charge for this particular splash page. The price to my surprise is about the same as I paid for a David Finch Splash page on The Dark Knight Issue 2 for the New 52. I thought this was odd. He went on to add this:

 

"Also, here's a little more info on artist's proofs: After finishing a page, I make a high-quality, inkjet print of the page to verify quality of the printed work. Each artist's proof is 11x17" on Strathmore Bristol 500 series board and is one-of-kind and signed."

 

 

So that was the main reason why i wanted some opinions as I am absolutely in love with this page but it seems high to spend on a print pretty much.

 

With the age of digital art coming I wonder how long before most titles are drawn this way.

 

Anyway thanks for any and all feed back already!

 

NB

 

 

To my mind, what you're looking towards buying is little more than a glorified print.

 

Sorry . . .

 

Unfortunately, with the age of digital, there is no physical artwork to collect and covet.

 

I appreciate that you hold the image/s in high regard, so maybe this high-quality inkjet print is the best you can hope for. I wouldn't attach any great value to such an item (and who's to say the artist won't replicate the same images for other collectors?).

 

If the artist's asking too much for such an item, maybe you should just take pleasure in the printed book and leave it at that.

 

[Matches_Malone]

If you have to use quotation marks for the word original, then is not original.

[Rmfn33]

If you have to use quotation marks for the word original, then is not original.

 

Using the quotation marks as a form of quoting the artist. Not putting up air quotes.

[Doc McCoy]

I have a couple from David Marquez's run on All-New X-Men, but they weren't too expensive and I went in knowing what exactly they were and that they would probably only ever be mine. If you're going in looking to sell them down the line, you should seriously rethink it. If you're buying them because you like the art and it's for you alone, then go for it, but there's no way you should be paying anywhere near what you would for a comparable piece of actual OA that was hand drawn and inked.

[comix4fun]

I want to buy some

 

"Original Art"

 

 

[the420kid]

I see no problem with a 1/1 art print. Didn't cost me much either.

 

[comix4fun]

I see no problem with a 1/1 art print. Didn't cost me much either.

 

 

 

 

That's the key part in bold.

 

As long as

 

1) you aren't paying a bundle

 

and

 

2) you aren't depending on being able to resell the item easily or at any specific price

 

then you are ok.

[Rmfn33]

I see no problem with a 1/1 art print. Didn't cost me much either.

 

 

 

 

That's the key part in bold.

 

As long as

 

1) you aren't paying a bundle

 

and

 

2) you aren't depending on being able to resell the item easily or at any specific price

 

then you are ok.

 

I totally agree, which is why I wanted to come on here and see what people thought. Thank you everyone for all the feed back. I think this is a pretty interesting conversation going forward and i like all the insights.

 

NB

[alxjhnsn]

Isn't this issue common in the fine art world as well? Signed and numbered, limited edition, prints of fine art are sold and are not cheap. My wife owns a few and has them framed around the house.

 

However, you never know if it will be reprinted at some point.

 

Closer to home, I used to own the BWS Conan prints that they swore would never be reprinted. Not long after the appeared in the comics.

 

[Bronty]

No

 

It's a glorified poster.

 

 

[AKA Rick]

It's an ORIGINAL REPRODUCTION

 

This Digital Artists Proof is just a fancy way of marketing a print out. Much like the terms Lithograph or Glicee are used.

 

I think comic art differs from fine art, so most collectors don't want limited editions and things that deviate from their comfort zone.

 

Here's my take on the decision:

 

If you love the image, and it's only available as a Digital Artists Proof, then by all means, buy it to enjoy it.

 

If you think it's a great investment opportunity, put your money back in your pocket and find a better one.

 

To me, as most have stated, no matter what the artist says about the image, printing it out, signing only one, destroying the file, etc. - - at the end of the day it's not traditional original art by most collector's standards in the hobby (most even don't like inks over blue line, which are more so original art than a Digital Artists Proof.

 

If it were in B&W to be inked over or colored, then it's considered a blue line, pre - embellishment, and we've all seen pure bluelines of pencilers work have no desired value in the hobby (if so, then what's to stop people from taking penciled original art and making copies to sell).

 

The fact it's marketed as one of a kind is meaningless from my perspective.

 

I'd consider buying 'em if the image was right and the price was appealing, but otherwise, in truth, I could just keep a DIGITAL COLLECTOR'S PROOF in my computer by right clicking onto an image or scanning the published comic and enjoy that very image in medium it was designed in...

[Rmfn33]

All great points!

 

Just to keep the convo going here is the latest answer from the artist regarding questions I had:

 

"Yes, there is only one artist's proof/high-quality print of each page. Since I don't have original art in the traditional sense, I use the proof as the one and only "original art" page - there won't be any other high-quality prints of it. The most there would ever be is a photo-copy to show at conventions or exhibitions, but never for sale. The artist's proofs are definitely not the same as my prints that I make regularly."