Is anyone here buying into monoprints
1 1

174 posts in this topic

Saw this tonight on comiccon art and was curious how everyone else felt about it. This is for Mikel Janin Batman covers/art.

 

under the topic of 'original' art covers - they are selling one of a kind prints.

you can see it all HERE

the description reads:

While Mikel occassionally draws select pieces by hand whenever time allows, the vast majority of his work is digital.  As a result, his original interior artwork offered here consists of a unique original print of the final production file for each published page.  The artwork is annotated by hand, and is signed & numbered ("1/1") by Mikel along the bottom edge and accompanied by our Certificate of Authenticity.  In addition, Mikel's digital covers are available as a large format (18 x 24) full color fine art giclee print suitable for framing.  Cover monoprints are also signed and numbered ("1/1"), and issued with accompanying dual-signed COA.

 

 

 

68ee50934ce9aa726e9fdab13d707e90.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the same thing.  It's priced at $1,000.

In general, if it wasn't limited, you could get a random signed print at a convention for $20 - $30 (and 2 for $50).  Some artists (e.g. Adam Hughes) have sold limited signed/numbered prints of some of their covers.

Some artists work digitally, sell a monoprint and delete the file.  But if the art gets published (not necessarily the art in question), there could be any number of bootleg prints or copies of the digital file.  Does anyone know if publishers and printers have protections against unauthorized prints or copying of digital files??  After all, wasn't one of the reasons original art was chopped up was to prevent bootlegs ?

So you're basically being asked to pay a LOT for a signature and "1/1" on the print.

If I paid even $100 for a "1 of 1" print and saw someone selling an unnumbered/unsigned print of the same thing, that would really suck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Panelfan1 said:

Saw this tonight on comiccon art and was curious how everyone else felt about it. This is for Mikel Janin Batman covers/art.

 

under the topic of 'original' art covers - they are selling one of a kind prints.

you can see it all HERE

the description reads:

While Mikel occassionally draws select pieces by hand whenever time allows, the vast majority of his work is digital.  As a result, his original interior artwork offered here consists of a unique original print of the final production file for each published page.  The artwork is annotated by hand, and is signed & numbered ("1/1") by Mikel along the bottom edge and accompanied by our Certificate of Authenticity.  In addition, Mikel's digital covers are available as a large format (18 x 24) full color fine art giclee print suitable for framing.  Cover monoprints are also signed and numbered ("1/1"), and issued with accompanying dual-signed COA.

 

 

 

68ee50934ce9aa726e9fdab13d707e90.jpg

There is the possibility of future editions, so really you are just buying an early print, and an autograph.  David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its NOT original or art, just just a bloody print. You have no way of knowing if the artists is only making one print or 100. Just another print from an artist. Absolutely no interest at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and a thought that didn't make it in above...

Gene's listed a bunch of reasons in the past while the comic market may never see another Miller, McFarlane, Lee level superstar artist that puts out a book that represents a certain zeitgeist across the entire market. 

But if someone in the future does become THE guy that the whole industry looks up to, and changes comics again in some substantial way that reverberates through generations afterward (even if its through a single story like the Master Race comic we've been chatting about), but this hypothetical artist's work is only ever all digital. You don't think people will want to own it?

I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm as disinterested in the artists print market as any of the rest of you (with my one exception), and I get your thought process. I'm just trying to show another side of things as I've seen it unfold over the last few decades in other parts of the art collecting sphere. There are national galleries holding art photographs by artists that would trounce all but the highest priced comic OA in public auctions. How many of these galleries have comic art in their collections and take it seriously? Some photos are expensive for historical significance (Billy the Kid tintype) but many are very recent captures. Some even digitally. Others with negatives that could be reproduced if the artist were willing. They aren't for the reasons listed above.

Again, it's not my thing, but I'm not sticking my head in the sand and saying nope either. Just observing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always known those as Monotypes. The Wiki entry you posted says they are the same thing.
I learn something new every day, but when I saw the title of the thread, I can say that's what I thought this would be about.

George Pratt loves Monotypes. Kent Williams was into them for a time early in his art career.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotyping

Link to post
Share on other sites

There so many cool produced-by-hand prints (monos or editions) out there...folks around here are overlooking that completely because of the generally narrow focus of an OA sub-board on a comic books (and speculative bent, what with the CGC aspect, at that) board. Seffinga and Mendryk are of other sandboxes out there, it doesn't cost anybody but a bit of time to Google Image around some of these terms and check out cool stuff you would never otherwise bump into (or find on a narrowly focus BB!) I highly suggets having some art fun every day, doesn't always have to be comic art :)

I mean...is this one Scott Hampton, Ashley Wood or...

degas.jpg

Degas ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not original art, a print. In my opinion, a waste of money, but to each his own. Outside of discussions like this, posts about these prints do not belong in this forum or on CAF as it is an entirely different hobby.

There’s some people on CAF who post prints, people don’t realize, and they get flooded with comments about what a great piece it is. Lol. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Panelfan1 said:

Saw this tonight on comiccon art and was curious how everyone else felt about it. This is for Mikel Janin Batman covers/art.

 

under the topic of 'original' art covers - they are selling one of a kind prints.

you can see it all HERE

the description reads:

While Mikel occassionally draws select pieces by hand whenever time allows, the vast majority of his work is digital.  As a result, his original interior artwork offered here consists of a unique original print of the final production file for each published page.  The artwork is annotated by hand, and is signed & numbered ("1/1") by Mikel along the bottom edge and accompanied by our Certificate of Authenticity.  In addition, Mikel's digital covers are available as a large format (18 x 24) full color fine art giclee print suitable for framing.  Cover monoprints are also signed and numbered ("1/1"), and issued with accompanying dual-signed COA.

 

 

 

68ee50934ce9aa726e9fdab13d707e90.jpg

 

Nope....

People have been trying to hawk this stuff since digital art creation was invented. 

No way. No how. No Thanks. 

As a print, maybe. As a replacement for original art? Nope. 

Edited by comix4fun
Link to post
Share on other sites

Digital artists might do better selling limited hard copy production rights, but without violating any agreements in the production process of the actual book.  Difficult to monetize as "original art". 

Hopefully, even this extreme limitation doesn't amount to a contract, copyright, or trademark violation on a technicality.  David

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Panelfan1 said:

Saw this tonight on comiccon art and was curious how everyone else felt about it. This is for Mikel Janin Batman covers/art.

 

under the topic of 'original' art covers - they are selling one of a kind prints.

you can see it all HERE

the description reads:

While Mikel occassionally draws select pieces by hand whenever time allows, the vast majority of his work is digital.  As a result, his original interior artwork offered here consists of a unique original print of the final production file for each published page.  The artwork is annotated by hand, and is signed & numbered ("1/1") by Mikel along the bottom edge and accompanied by our Certificate of Authenticity.  In addition, Mikel's digital covers are available as a large format (18 x 24) full color fine art giclee print suitable for framing.  Cover monoprints are also signed and numbered ("1/1"), and issued with accompanying dual-signed COA.

 

 

 

68ee50934ce9aa726e9fdab13d707e90.jpg

I was literally just looking at the Janin art, and thinking the same thing. Absent an exclusivity contract, I’m not sure how you prevent him from selling more copies of it. 

Edited by PhilipB2k17
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ESeffinga said:

Oh, and a thought that didn't make it in above...

Gene's listed a bunch of reasons in the past while the comic market may never see another Miller, McFarlane, Lee level superstar artist that puts out a book that represents a certain zeitgeist across the entire market. 

But if someone in the future does become THE guy that the whole industry looks up to, and changes comics again in some substantial way that reverberates through generations afterward (even if its through a single story like the Master Race comic we've been chatting about), but this hypothetical artist's work is only ever all digital. You don't think people will want to own it?

I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm as disinterested in the artists print market as any of the rest of you (with my one exception), and I get your thought process. I'm just trying to show another side of things as I've seen it unfold over the last few decades in other parts of the art collecting sphere. There are national galleries holding art photographs by artists that would trounce all but the highest priced comic OA in public auctions. How many of these galleries have comic art in their collections and take it seriously? Some photos are expensive for historical significance (Billy the Kid tintype) but many are very recent captures. Some even digitally. Others with negatives that could be reproduced if the artist were willing. They aren't for the reasons listed above.

Again, it's not my thing, but I'm not sticking my head in the sand and saying nope either. Just observing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs

If Fiona Staples sold an “Exclusive 1/1 print” of the cover to Saga #1, would you pay the requisite $10K+ she’d probably ask for it? 

I can get a fabulous modern pencil & ink Batman cover for less than that. 

Edited by PhilipB2k17
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s how you could maybe pull this off. Make a special “production print” of the page, send a hard copy (not a digital version) off to the publisher (who then stamps it, dates it and puts the issue number, etc on it), and the publisher then sends it back to the artist after creating the print run from it. 

That is then the “original” production page used to publish the art. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting idea Philip, assuming the publisher would play along. I'm not on the inside of editorial/production so just guessing, but they all may now require digital file submission. Does anybody still "mail original art in"?

A deeper question is this: Big Two (and other publishers of corporate owned content) retain all the rights to this stuff except the original art, right? That's been settled since the mid-1970s or so under work-for-hire. But in the case of all digital original art, isn't the only right the artist has (to otherwise fully corporate owned characters, costumes, stories, etc) is the actual digital file itself? If that's the case then they can't (legally) make printouts from that file, without specific permission, any more than any of us can make photocopies of the art in our possession and sell those for $5/ea (or whatever). We all know that Big Two are generally not enforcing their rights here as artists produce and sell all sorts of copies of their (non digital) work in plain view at any old convention anywhere and online too. But not enforcing is not the same thing as being legal. And without that agreement in place, the consignor and auction house taking the listing are both in a legal gray area too...at best.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, vodou said:

Interesting idea Philip, assuming the publisher would play along. I'm not on the inside of editorial/production so just guessing, but they all may now require digital file submission. Does anybody still "mail original art in"?

A deeper question is this: Big Two (and other publishers of corporate owned content) retain all the rights to this stuff except the original art, right? That's been settled since the mid-1970s or so under work-for-hire. But in the case of all digital original art, isn't the only right the artist has (to otherwise fully corporate owned characters, costumes, stories, etc) is the actual digital file itself? If that's the case then they can't (legally) make printouts from that file, without specific permission, any more than any of us can make photocopies of the art in our possession and sell those for $5/ea (or whatever). We all know that Big Two are generally not enforcing their rights here as artists produce and sell all sorts of copies of their (non digital) work in plain view at any old convention anywhere and online too. But not enforcing is not the same thing as being legal. And without that agreement in place, the consignor and auction house taking the listing are both in a legal gray area too...at best.

Not exactly. The artist is selling the company the right to use his artistry for a story (and maybe other things) and reprints. The artist, however, owns the original artwork and can make copies of it as well unless the agreement with the artist restricts them (which it probably does). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1