Scott Williams seeking your opinion 1 1

[Mr. Machismo]

While I’m not against the proposed method, I prefer non digital as it feels:

a) more impressive. Knowing how much room for error there is in digital, owning a piece that’s fully traditional speaks to the artist’s craftsmanship, decisiveness,  and mastery (i.e., Tradd Moore would not be the beast he is if his work was digital.)

b) like an entirely original piece. Even with a preliminary-printed base, there’s a fraction of it that still feels like a print.

Now, show me two side-by-side pieces, one fully traditional, one with an under-printed base, and I’ll choose whichever one’s better. 

I suggest proceeding as you’ve proposed. Better final output. 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Mr. Machismo

[stinkininkin]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Machismo said:

While I’m not against the proposed method, I prefer non digital as it feels:

a) more impressive. Knowing how much room for error there is in digital, owning a piece that’s fully traditional speaks to the artist’s craftsmanship, decisiveness,  and mastery (i.e., Tradd Moore would not be the beast he is if his work was digital.)

b) like an entirely original piece. Even with a preliminary-printed base, there’s a fraction of it that still feels like a print.

Now, show me two side-by-side pieces, one fully traditional, one with an under-printed base, and I’ll choose whichever one’s better. 

I suggest proceeding as you’ve proposed. Better final output. 

Terrific and thoughtful response.

[Twanj]

I don't think I'd have a problem with it.

I'm 40 & usually prefer pencils & inks on the same page.

 

@stinkininkin can you show up an example? 

 

Would it be something like this?

[stinkininkin]

39 minutes ago, Twanj said:

I don't think I'd have a problem with it.

I'm 40 & usually prefer pencils & inks on the same page.

 

@stinkininkin can you show up an example? 

 

Would it be something like this?

It would be as much visual information as I would need to do the best piece possible.

[Pete Marino]

I think for me, I'd be Ok, but I'd want to have some sort of agreement (in writing) that the original digital file was going to be destroyed after the commission was completed.

All 1 artist, I really am not concerned about the process, how many people ask artists if they use strait edges, circle patterns, photo-reference... so many other tools in their arsenal, why take away 1?  The only reason I can think of, is the one above.

I just want to know that mine is really one of a kind, vs "template x73-batman_on_a_garyole_while_its_raining"

Edited May 7, 2018 by Pete Marino

[MGS]

5 hours ago, stinkininkin said:

Thank you!  How about a single piece by a single artist with the only blue line component being the layout, with the final pencils and inks on a single page/board?  That' really my main question of the moment.

 

For me, if everything is done by the same artist then I’m okay with inks over digital pencils even if I would prefer traditional pencils.  Given that you’re just talking about digital layouts and then traditional pencils (and inks) over that, then that’s something I’d be happy with.

The one concern I would have is how much of the layouts, if any, are visible once you’re done.  I’ve seen some pieces where quite a bit of the blueline digital printout is still visible, and it does kinda take away from the visual appeal a bit.

Mike

[MGS]

6 minutes ago, MGS said:

...

The one concern I would have is how much of the layouts, if any, are visible once you’re done.

...

So glad I missed over a page worth of other replies basically saying the same thing before me.  Oops.

Mike

[mtaing]

Just for curiosity, which established artists do commissions with this method? I was not aware some commissions were done with digital prelim.

Edited May 7, 2018 by mtaing

[williamhlawson]

I was out of the hobby for 10/12 years or so and boy did I miss some tech changes.  I really hate all the various methods used now, they add layer after layer of problems for collectors of art imho.  Each process or stage added (digital work, blue, pencils...)creates authenticity issues for collector's, as you must research every single piece of modern art you buy and often the methods of the creator in question.  I really would make exceptions for single person produced pieces such as you state... but I just feel dirty owning art printed by a computer and then inked.  I prefer pencil and ink on one board, a blue line prelim printed on just seems extraneous to me, but I am not worth a damn creatively.  I love art, always have, always will so maybe I'm a little silly about it.  Stared at Van Eyck's Annunciation for about 6 hours before the guard asked if I was okay LOL....I guess I am a fan of the artist who carries all his own weight on one damn board kinda guy.  2.5c

 

[theflashunc]

As someone who's bought mostly modern OA produced via a range of methods, a couple thoughts:

• Keeping it all to "one page" so to speak simplifies things greatly. I'm reminded of outside a half dozen or so pages from early in the run, most of Paolo and Joe Rivera's Daredevil pages are separate pencils and inks of bluelines because of a shift in their process. Paolo started sending digital files to his dad to print and ink, rather than shipping the penciled pages themselves. While his dealer sold both "pages" as one set, I'm sure those will get split up as time goes on.
• Disclosing the process up front is always appreciated by the buyer. As noted in this thread, it'll turn some folks off, but not everyone. Does every collector of Kirby like his collage pages? Probably not.
• Variation in production can be interesting and an appeal for some. I have a page from Dale Eaglesham's recent run on Fantastic Four where there were no inks. He penciled each page crazy tight, and then they were colored digitally. Its not bog standard production and that's part of why I like it. 

I think in the long run, if its going to lead to more time for the artist to focus on the art, and a process that works better for them, keeps he or she engaged and doing really killer work, why not? If this change leads to producing killer stuff, I tend to believe the market will recognize it even if you're doing prelims in fingerpaint. 

[r100comics]

Scott, why not do your layouts in pencil copying the blueline layout you would have perfected via digital means ?

It's a slight duplication of effort, but you'd save time having worked out the composition digitally and copying a printed blueline layout in pencil can't take long.

This would simplify your creative process and avoid alienating the purists.

[ESeffinga]

1 hour ago, r100comics said:

Scott, why not do your layouts in pencil copying the blueline layout you would have perfected via digital means ?

I'm not Scott, but I'll take a stab at it...

 

Spontaneity.

Most artists strive to capture the life of their original sketches and drawings. When sketching, an artist's line is much more spontaneous and they are operating on muscle memory and calling on years (decades) of experience when throwing down ideas. Because they aren't bothered by getting the details right, they are able to let the hand flow and the energy and dynamics in a thumbnail or early preliminary drawing are often much more exciting than the final (over) rendered piece. It happens all the time. Pencils are super lively and crackle with kinetic energy. When inked up, the energy dies a bit.

Just the sheer act of doing a drawing again over itself is one step away form that exciting moment of creation. Like a xerox of a xerox done by hand. It can be at times nerve wracking, Wearying, and some times soul crushing, when a piece is 90% done and then one errant moment later it feels ruined. Now add in a 3rd step, and/or a 4th and so on. The farther removed from just "drawing" the inks become, the more dead they risk becoming as well.

The more one is slavish to the line, the more "dead" the art risks becoming. The more static and over-thought the lines risk becoming. Often the best looking works are the ones where the artist is unafraid to just draw in ink. They may have 2, 10, 100 trash drawings that suck eggs, but the one that comes out a winner has energy to spare.

Folks like Jon Muth and his sumi-e like techniques, or Ashley Wood and his punk rock, take no prisoner approach are both doing high-wire acts. There is no net. No computer to save the day (or the work), it's all just decades of practice and experience boiled down to the moment of conception. And then when they do a drawing and people see it takes a few minutes, they say "why should I pay $XXXX for that, it took 15 minutes", and they can respond that it actually took them 20, 30, 40 years.

But that is an extreme form.
If penciling, whether digitally or not, is how an artist works out form on a page, it is after all a tool. It is up to the collector to decide if they like that tool, like they may or may not like watercolors (fade), markers (bleed), no word bubbles (can't read), digital (could be used again), etc and so on.

If an artist needs to spend a bunch of time working out how a figure should be built on a page (proportions, shape, details) it can involve lots of erasing, which can damage the surface tooth of the substrate. Which means when inking, the ink takes to the paper unevenly, and can cause for a poorer drawing. So in that instance, if the artist needs a lot of practice at the early stage of drawing, they may benefit from taking the practice run digitally, then coming back with a real pencil, and so on. It saves the major erasing, and thus possible paper surface damage, resulting in a cleaner inked piece.

I believe Skottie Young does really (often REALLY) rough layouts digitally and then inks those, which is where the vast majority of his drawing is done. All the details and effects for sure, but even a lot of backgrounds, faces, etc. He seems to mostly just use it for positioning his ideas on the panels, and get his major compositional shapes down. He lets the ink be as spontaneous as it can be, and thus lets the energy of just drawing come out.

So something like that?

[chrisco37]

10 hours ago, stinkininkin said:

That's pretty much it.  Drawing all the elements digitally so that anatomy, size, proportions and placement is all completely worked out, printing that out on one board in blue line, finishing the pencilling process with a lead pencil and then inking it with pens, brushes and white out.  There would only be one original.

Thanks for the response.  Like most, I would prefer just a pencil/ink only piece, but the above method isnt something that would stop me from buying a piece.  It would still have the pencils.  

Times are changing and to think that artists wouldn’t/shouldn’t use all the available tools at their disposal to make the best piece they can is a bit silly and selfish (for lack of a better term).  

Edited May 7, 2018 by chrisco37

[eewwnuk]

Scott, I'd say that there is enough pent up demand for your work that you will be able to sell out a commission list so long as the price meets the market regardless of how you go about laying out the image (digital or traditional).  I think disclosing it up front is a fair practice.  There are many artists nowadays that are doing their layouts for larger commissions on a digital basis and inking or finishing the pieces with traditional means.  Many don't outright disclose that this is what they are doing, but in fairness to them, most people don't ask (and some commission collectors don't care).  The end result usually is a piece that is considered more 'cover worthy' than most traditional commissions.  So long as you don't re-use the layout for another piece, IMO its all good.

 

[Mighty Hal]

3 hours ago, chrisco37 said:

Times are changing and to think that artists wouldn’t/shouldn’t use all the available tools at their disposal to make the best piece they can is a bit silly and selfish (for lack of a better term).  

No one is saying the artist can't use all of their available tools. (I'm not convinced that the use of technology necessarily creates the best art, either.) What we're saying is, if you want to sell the art to me, this is what I will or won't buy. Scott can do whatever he'd like. He may or may not find fewer interested buyers if he changes his approach.

[Nexus]

5 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

I believe Skottie Young does really (often REALLY) rough layouts digitally and then inks those, which is where the vast majority of his drawing is done. All the details and effects for sure, but even a lot of backgrounds, faces, etc. He seems to mostly just use it for positioning his ideas on the panels, and get his major compositional shapes down. He lets the ink be as spontaneous as it can be, and thus lets the energy of just drawing come out.

Yes, you got it.

[stinkininkin]

10 hours ago, williamhlawson said:

I was out of the hobby for 10/12 years or so and boy did I miss some tech changes.  I really hate all the various methods used now, they add layer after layer of problems for collectors of art imho.  Each process or stage added (digital work, blue, pencils...)creates authenticity issues for collector's, as you must research every single piece of modern art you buy and often the methods of the creator in question.  I really would make exceptions for single person produced pieces such as you state... but I just feel dirty owning art printed by a computer and then inked.  I prefer pencil and ink on one board, a blue line prelim printed on just seems extraneous to me, but I am not worth a damn creatively.  I love art, always have, always will so maybe I'm a little silly about it.  Stared at Van Eyck's Annunciation for about 6 hours before the guard asked if I was okay LOL....I guess I am a fan of the artist who carries all his own weight on one damn board kinda guy.  2.5c

 

Really appreciate these comments.  At the end of the day, I'm trying to find a way to make the absolute best looking piece of art I possibly can, which is why I solicited opinions.  Yours is great.

Edited May 7, 2018 by stinkininkin

[stinkininkin]

5 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

I'm not Scott, but I'll take a stab at it...

 

Spontaneity.

Most artists strive to capture the life of their original sketches and drawings. When sketching, an artist's line is much more spontaneous and they are operating on muscle memory and calling on years (decades) of experience when throwing down ideas. Because they aren't bothered by getting the details right, they are able to let the hand flow and the energy and dynamics in a thumbnail or early preliminary drawing are often much more exciting than the final (over) rendered piece. It happens all the time. Pencils are super lively and crackle with kinetic energy. When inked up, the energy dies a bit.

Just the sheer act of doing a drawing again over itself is one step away form that exciting moment of creation. Like a xerox of a xerox done by hand. It can be at times nerve wracking, Wearying, and some times soul crushing, when a piece is 90% done and then one errant moment later it feels ruined. Now add in a 3rd step, and/or a 4th and so on. The farther removed from just "drawing" the inks become, the more dead they risk becoming as well.

The more one is slavish to the line, the more "dead" the art risks becoming. The more static and over-thought the lines risk becoming. Often the best looking works are the ones where the artist is unafraid to just draw in ink. They may have 2, 10, 100 trash drawings that suck eggs, but the one that comes out a winner has energy to spare.

Folks like Jon Muth and his sumi-e like techniques, or Ashley Wood and his punk rock, take no prisoner approach are both doing high-wire acts. There is no net. No computer to save the day (or the work), it's all just decades of practice and experience boiled down to the moment of conception. And then when they do a drawing and people see it takes a few minutes, they say "why should I pay $XXXX for that, it took 15 minutes", and they can respond that it actually took them 20, 30, 40 years.

But that is an extreme form.
If penciling, whether digitally or not, is how an artist works out form on a page, it is after all a tool. It is up to the collector to decide if they like that tool, like they may or may not like watercolors (fade), markers (bleed), no word bubbles (can't read), digital (could be used again), etc and so on.

If an artist needs to spend a bunch of time working out how a figure should be built on a page (proportions, shape, details) it can involve lots of erasing, which can damage the surface tooth of the substrate. Which means when inking, the ink takes to the paper unevenly, and can cause for a poorer drawing. So in that instance, if the artist needs a lot of practice at the early stage of drawing, they may benefit from taking the practice run digitally, then coming back with a real pencil, and so on. It saves the major erasing, and thus possible paper surface damage, resulting in a cleaner inked piece.

I believe Skottie Young does really (often REALLY) rough layouts digitally and then inks those, which is where the vast majority of his drawing is done. All the details and effects for sure, but even a lot of backgrounds, faces, etc. He seems to mostly just use it for positioning his ideas on the panels, and get his major compositional shapes down. He lets the ink be as spontaneous as it can be, and thus lets the energy of just drawing come out.

So something like that?

D a m n.  I COULD NOT HAVE SAID THAT BETTER MYSELF.  You spoke to the abstract nub of the issue for me-spontaneity.  The more steps added, especially from a reproducing standpoint, the more the drawing starts to lose it's oomph and it's mojo.  I'm not making fine art here, but even in comics, that initial burst of creativity is the secret sauce that you strive to somehow maintain.

I swear, I might take your post and print it up posterity because truer words were never spoken.  Thank you!

[Andahaion]

I wish more comic artists penciled and inked their own pages.  I really never bought into multiple people having their hand on one work.  I suppose it's my own personal hang up, and perhaps fine art snootiness?  Getting back to the topic, I actually prefer what you're describing.  It's all from you, from one hand, and at the end of the day your pencils and inks get onto one board, which is the preferred result for most of us (I'd imagine).  That said, I do own some modern stuff with pencils and inks on separate sheets.  I guess one has to make up their own mind when they see a page in a book that hits them in the face with the art as well as the story.  I will also echo my support for transparency and disclosure of the process.  It makes things less confusing.  I'm 39, in case you're interested in additional context around my comment.

[stinkininkin]

Along these lines, this is a piece I recently did using a digital layout.  I painstakingly light boxed the layout onto a board and then drew it again in pencils.  It's far from a masterpiece, but I'm fairly happy with it.  But to be brutally honest, a little something was lost from the initial sketch and the final pencils, since I basically drew it three times.  At this point, I'm not sure I could bring myself to ink it.  Happily, Jim Lee is going to ink it for me, flipping the art chore table in what I hope will be a very interesting experiment!  Looks like he is going to do it live on his Twitch live-stream this week (then recorded and posted on youtube).  Should be interesting to say the least!