Near six figure MTG art sales 0

[Terry Doyle]

Here's the original pencil prelim for Volkan Baga's 'Korozda Gorgon' (I own the finished painting, but sadly not the prelim). If memory serves me right, the prelim went for about $200 (I may be wrong)?

 

Edited October 21, 2015 by Terry Doyle

[Bronty]

A 3 - 4 hours job?

 

you can't compare. That card is 20 years older than Baga's work. The company was paying them peanuts at that time ($250 per card illustration IIRC). Baga is no doubt getting thousands per card now that its a much much larger enterprise (as he should).

 

So comparing the time, level of detail, or pretty much anything else about the new art to the old art is apples to oranges. The old art is rough and ready and that has a certain charm. The new stuff is more polished and intricate and that has its own charm (while having lost the old charm).

 

The new pieces are better illustrations - flat out. But they are also way more corporate and sometimes a little soulless as a result (note the word 'sometimes' - not always - not an attack on anything present company may collect ). (The counterpoint is that the early art is sometimes crude).

 

Its absolutely tangible in the art that the artists today are under much more supervision and direction, which isn't suprising. Back in the early days Jesper Myrfors was the art director and from what I've heard he let them do anything - and you can see that freedom in the work.

 

Of course... Jesper, bless his heart was for my money definitely one of the weaker early mtg artists, so he probably couldn't throw stones from a glass house

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

It was a tongue-in cheek response.

[Bronty]

It was a tongue-in cheek response.

 

that is unacceptable

[Bronty]

(also tongue in cheek)

[Bronty]

It was a tongue-in cheek response.

 

btw, it may have been tongue in cheek but there was an element of 'the new art is so much better, look at the awesome newer art I have' as an undertone - totally fine, and its nice work for sure, I don't blame you for being proud of it or wanting to show off a bit, who wouldn't. We all do that from time to time and so we should.

 

But, I thought it might be interesting for people to know just how little the artists were being paid early on because that would no doubt impact how the art looked - more rough and ready, less polished, because they were quick assignments for a fledgling company. I hope I've got the number right, but it was definitely not much.

[Terry Doyle]

It was a tongue-in cheek response.

 

btw, it may have been tongue in cheek but there was an element of 'the new art is so much better, look at the awesome newer art I have' as an undertone . . .

 

 

That's your perception, Dan, not my intention.

[Phantalien]

A 3 - 4 hours job?

 

you can't compare. That card is 20 years older than Baga's work. The company was paying them peanuts at that time ($250 per card illustration IIRC). Baga is no doubt getting thousands per card now that its a much much larger enterprise (as he should).

 

So comparing the time, level of detail, or pretty much anything else about the new art to the old art is apples to oranges. The old art is rough and ready and that has a certain charm. The new stuff is more polished and intricate and that has its own charm (while having lost the old charm).

 

The new pieces are better illustrations - flat out. But they are also way more corporate and sometimes a little soulless as a result (note the word 'sometimes' - not always - not an attack on anything present company may collect ). (The counterpoint is that the early art is sometimes crude).

 

Its absolutely tangible in the art that the artists today are under much more supervision and direction, which isn't suprising. Back in the early days Jesper Myrfors was the art director and from what I've heard he let them do anything - and you can see that freedom in the work.

 

Of course... Jesper, bless his heart was for my money definitely one of the weaker early mtg artists, so he probably couldn't throw stones from a glass house

 

 

I would like to add a bit to this. I talked to some of the original artists Mark Poole, Jeff Menges, and Christopher Rush (maybe some more). Of things that were mentioned by one or more was...

 

1. MTG almost did not get made as there were money problems at the beginning. One of them mentioned that they were propositioned at one time, then a year later they were given the OK to create their art. During that time some art was made but not enough for a whole set.

 

2. The amount of $$$ they made was not mentioned but one of them said that they worked on enough paintings to pay for a month or two of rent.

 

3. There was an option to receive stock in the game/company. When Hasbro bought them out, it was well worth it I assume.

 

 

Beyond the above post...

 

Terese Nielsen is an amazing artist and I am not surprised her paintings went for a lot of money.

 

Christopher Rush's work will go for a lot no matter what. Even though the art is not as "perfect" as today I feel there is a type of historical significance when it comes to older art. Also remember, he is the one who created the mana symbols.

 

 

My friends and I don't have the money to get original art but when we go out to gencon we try to "pimp out" our decks with signature cards instead of foil cards. It's different and fun plus we get to meet the artists. We do try to find something of the artist to buy to help support them.

[Bronty]

(thumbs u

 

In honor of your cool avatar I've "unhidden" a piece of art on CAF for you

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/gallerypiece.asp?piece=449770

 

The pic is 5+ years old and bears my trademark blurry & out of focus hallmarks... actually, the seller took the photo but it might as well have been me

 

but, here's a quality close up for you of part of the art

 

[Phantalien]

Very nice. Great game and a fun cartoon as well. Earthworm Jim is the best comic book that was never a comic. (as far as know)

[Terry Doyle]

 

 

I like. (thumbs u

[Eric Seffinga]

Doug TenNaple is a creative force, and a character, that is for sure!

[Bronty]

Thanks guys.

 

PS that art is not by Doug - DT is a creative guy , but the best vintage EWJ illustrations are not by him

[Eric Seffinga]

Oh, I know the difference. I bought some of Doug's art from him directly when I first met him out at SDCC back in the 90s. I actually tend to prefer his more organic work to the polished stuff, (in the way that folks might prefer Frazetta to Ken Kelly for instance) OK so that might be a huge stretch, but first thing that came to mind. You get the drift.... but that's for another thread. I was actually responding to phantalien's comments about the game and non-comic more than anything.

[Bronty]

^ oh ok - agree let's save it for another thread, although let me add one thought first.

 

I do agree that Doug's work has it's own charm, and he contributed lots of ideas, but when it comes to finished illustrations? Regardless of who one likes better Doug didn't do any vintage finished published illustrations for EWJ... so it's a moot point... you can't collect (or even 'like better') what doesn't exist !

 

As a result, a much better analogy would be whether you prefer the early wolverine art of Romita vs Trimpe. Maybe you don't like Trimpe, but there isn't any early published Romita wolverine. John did do the first character concept sketch of wolverine but that's all. So too with EWJ.

[Eric Seffinga]

Not published work, anyway...

Fair points all around.

 

As for MTG, it was never my thing. I had a few close friends that were HUGE into playing, collecting, deck building, etc. I saw all their cards. It be came a ritual. I got to see anything new they picked up, cause I liked to see the art. Turned me on to some new names, and I got to hook them up with info on some of the others who came over from the comic side of things.

 

It was good times and great memories. I used to call their obsession "cardboard crack". They went shopping for cards at least once a week, hitting different retailers, etc.

[Bronty]

Exactly. Which is kind of key

[Eric Seffinga]

Key to who? Not to me. I collect what I like, not what's known or popular. Pretty much my thing.

[Bronty]

Thats pretty much the opposite of why you prefer Tennapel. Tennapel you've heard of, the others you haven't. It's Ok to like TenNapel. He's great! But don't tell me it's because " he's less known" than the illustrators of the published pieces or I won't be able to hold a straight face!

 

I totally respect your knowledge and enjoy your posts. But you're bringing a knife to a gunfight on this particular discussion

[Eric Seffinga]

Seems you misunderstood my statement. That's what I get for being brief and trying to keep the thread on topic. Gotta love the internet...

 

You said the work being published is key. I disagree that it is key to my own preference in EWJ art.

 

I like Doug's work (EWJ and otherwise) because I think it contains much of what the over rendered stuff I've seen (much of it) doesn't. And there are tons of guys that have done EWJ work in some capacity or other. Some good. Some pretty great. From working on the games, promo images, the toy line, clothing, etc.

 

You indicated that he is more a "creative guy" and the best was created by others. I disagree. That's perfectly ok. We all like what we like. We haven't all seen the same things. That's good too. Variety and all that.

 

There is a lively loose line quality present in Doug's designs and development work. The humor and gags are certainly present in many of the published pieces, but I quite like the loose unrefined quality when applied to the character. I personally tend to like that more, irregardless of whether you or anyone else have seen that work, published or not. Hence my throwaway line about not collecting based on what's known or popular. That's not the basis of my art interests. It's the art.

 

I like what kicks me in the gut. That I have a visceral attraction to, or that really drives my brain. Sometimes it's work that's hard to like, or that takes some mental unpacking and living with it. Not all of it, or even most of it has been seen by the populace at large. I also have and love work that's been used all over the place and is very widely known.

 

The source and it's dissemination as pop culture, fine art or otherwise doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I don't like art for the name of the artist attached, or the brand, or how popular it is, or even in most cases for any nostalgic ties to it. I like a piece of art or an artist because I like the art and it elicits a response from me. Pretty simple.

 

It's not a judgement against you or anyone else, or what anyone has or hasn't seen, or their personal tastes. To me it's not key to my being drawn to it. I am merely expressing my own opinion based on what I have seen and hence like/love/prefer. Some artists or styles or pieces I like go against the norm. I'm used to that. Hopefully that accounts for all my statements so far, and we can move along?

 

Wasn't aware that art discussion was a fight. I didn't even bring a pen.