• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Is anyone here buying into monoprints
1 1

225 posts in this topic

5 minutes ago, batman_fan said:

These were limited to like 2000 I think so not a super high number

Actually, yes, super high number. A smallish edition in the fine art world, so not posters (which is what those Sprangs are), would be 30-50. Several hundred...phew, unless it's Warhol, Rauschenberg, etc. Several thousand...oof. That's why I never bought them, attractive as they are, too many. Further, nothing printmaker about them, offset lithographs were the ctrl+p of the 80s and 90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if they are posters or prints and certainly not 1 of 1 mono prints, but Moebius would put out images in lowish numbers in the 80's, and when they were gone they were gone.  Starwatcher stuff and the like.  Love that stuff, and when I see an occasional copy pop up they go much more than their original price.  Not a huge print guy but I would probably buy high quality Moebius prints to frame and decorate a few walls with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2018 at 6:41 PM, PhilipB2k17 said:

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 say this a fan of the Saga covers, I’d have a hard time paying more than $200 for something like that.  

I just don’t see how it’s significantly better than getting a first print of Saga #1 signed by Staples/Vaughan, getting it CGC slabbed and displaying that on a wall. 

 

Edited by Skizz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add to this discussion I believe Felix or @Nexus on the boards had an interesting way of handling digital art that was done by some of the artists he reps. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this, Felix but I remember that if a person was interested in a page or cover from East of West that is done digitally that you would have the option to select what page you were interested and the artist would only draw it once. So instead of buying a 1 for 1 print, you would instead buy the page with the artist drawing it to order, never making another one so that it became the original art that couldn't be duplicated. Is that correct or did Dragotta do some pages and covers physically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, batman_fan said:

My take on prints is they are nice but not a good investment. As an example, I purchased two D ick Sprang Batman prints.  These were those large sized prints.  I love them but I bought them in the 90s and the price I would have too pay to acquire them today is the same worst case and less best case (I have seen several sell for less than I paid and I bought directly from the source).  These were limited to like 2000 I think so not a super high number but enough to keep prices flat to down.

These are a little different. They are single print runs, no copies to be made. No reprints. That's part of the deal. 

But, no actual ink or pencil, unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

These are a little different. They are single print runs, no copies to be made. No reprints. That's part of the deal. 

But, no actual ink or pencil, unfortunately.

So what is the guarantee no reprints on it?  Can they do a new issuing that have a gold foil emblem on them?  How about issuing an autographed version?  What about a bundled set od several prints?  My concern is there is nothing that prevents them from issuing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2019 at 8:47 AM, Rick2you2 said:

Anyone else have thoughts? Any supporters? Please...  

I think this is just the wrong audience to get behind prints as a majority. 

Most bought massed produced comics and spent what their budget allowed. Then they found one of a kind art and spent that money there. It's going to be uphill getting them behind prints (i know, one-off print. Got it :ph34r: ). 

But that isn't to say there isn't a market for them. This discussion makes me think of an artist selling a "limited" print run of orders received in the next 24/48/72 hours. How many is that?!?!?  Could be 1 or could be 10,000.   If they can sell those (For $100 and up per "limited" print), then I see a market can be made for the one-off print.  Ray Caesar seems to be doing all right. 

Go to any "gallery art" centered message board and you can find prints for sale for a few hundred dollars that are 'limited' to 40/50/100 and selling. But then that is a fraction of the OA cost. In comic art you can buy (some) art for under $1000. You'll be hard pressed to do that in a gallery. 

Just don't expect a flood of PMs when you post them in the FOR SALE forum :baiting:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mister_not_so_nice said:

I think this is just the wrong audience to get behind prints as a majority. 

Most bought massed produced comics and spent what their budget allowed. Then they found one of a kind art and spent that money there. It's going to be uphill getting them behind prints (i know, one-off print. Got it :ph34r: ). 

But that isn't to say there isn't a market for them. This discussion makes me think of an artist selling a "limited" print run of orders received in the next 24/48/72 hours. How many is that?!?!?  Could be 1 or could be 10,000.   If they can sell those (For $100 and up per "limited" print), then I see a market can be made for the one-off print.  Ray Caesar seems to be doing all right. 

Go to any "gallery art" centered message board and you can find prints for sale for a few hundred dollars that are 'limited' to 40/50/100 and selling. But then that is a fraction of the OA cost. In comic art you can buy (some) art for under $1000. You'll be hard pressed to do that in a gallery. 

Just don't expect a flood of PMs when you post them in the FOR SALE forum :baiting:

A properly worded certificate or related document is part of a contract between the buyer and seller, and probably a warranty of uniqueness.  Its violation, or breach, should give you legal recourse against the seller (and maybe recourse by remote buyers if you later sell it to them). And also maybe, the artists themselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, batman_fan said:

So what is the guarantee no reprints on it?  Can they do a new issuing that have a gold foil emblem on them?  How about issuing an autographed version?  What about a bundled set od several prints?  My concern is there is nothing that prevents them from issuing more.

Note my comment above.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certificates, foil stamps, holograms and any other doohickeys are useless and a waste, not counting being an eyesore in the print to boot.

It is this simple, and always has been since someone first sold. Limited anything to the world.

Either you honor the limited nature you sold the item under or you don’t. Those that don’t will reap what they’ve sewn. Who would buy from anyone that says this is one of x, when it later is not? Their market crumbles, the end.

Is this helpful for making someone feel at ease in the initial purchase? Probably not. But the holofoilcertificate doesn’t mean anything more than that original agreement did. If someone wants to make and sell more, they will. Even with more certs and more broken promises. The upright folks have a good rep and earn trust. The folks that don’t, are hosed.

 

There are centuries of cases of this to look back on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ESeffinga said:

Certificates, foil stamps, holograms and any other doohickeys are useless and a waste, not counting being an eyesore in the print to boot.

It is this simple, and always has been since someone first sold. Limited anything to the world.

Either you honor the limited nature you sold the item under or you don’t. Those that don’t will reap what they’ve sewn. Who would buy from anyone that says this is one of x, when it later is not? Their market crumbles, the end.

Is this helpful for making someone feel at ease in the initial purchase? Probably not. But the holofoilcertificate doesn’t mean anything more than that original agreement did. If someone wants to make and sell more, they will. Even with more certs and more broken promises. The upright folks have a good rep and earn trust. The folks that don’t, are hosed.

 

There are centuries of cases of this to look back on.

That is my take as well.  For items like these, if you feel comfortable with the price and like the piece, go for it.  If you are looking at it as an investmate, maybe it pays off, maybe it doesn’t but if you feel comfortable with purchasing it as an investmate, enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a somewhat related topic, I have seen at least one longtime comic book writer selling "certified" copies of his old comic book scripts. Not for a lot, but he just takes the -script to Kinkos, and runs off a set, then hand signs and numbers them, or something. People do actually buy them too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

On a somewhat related topic, I have seen at least one longtime comic book writer selling "certified" copies of his old comic book scripts. Not for a lot, but he just takes the --script to Kinkos, and runs off a set, then hand signs and numbers them, or something. People do actually buy them too. 

Scripts can be interesting to look through as a part of the process. I have known writers to post their scripts from time to time as examples for aspiring writers, and it's interesting to me to see how they differ. I could see myself paying for a printed collection of scripts as a way to compare styles, but not as much as I would pay for an artists edition book.

As for buying these limited printings or signed/numbered -script copies...the asking price is probably beyond what I would pay for the personal interest reasons stated above.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been collecting OA for just over 20 years, and like most of Original Comic Art Collectors I felt exactly the same way about this 1 of 1 monoprint non-sense. Is NOT art, it’s just a print.  They can be mass-produced at a moment’s notice. They are not valuable and not worth investing in. And they are NOT the same as fine art prints created on wood blocks, etching and so on.  If I want one, I just press “ctrl +p”.  A blasphemy is what it is. I quite simply hated the idea of them. 


But lately I’ve been changing my opinion towards the 1 of 1mono print digital market.


I recently took notice with the craze of DCs new villain Punchline, a character created by Jorge Jimenez. After reading Batman 92 - 95 I decided to check our Jimenez art work availability, and of course it’s all digital.   I immediately had zero interest, until I noticed the amount of Monoprints covers and interior pages he had sold.  Not many, mind you, but enough of a number to make me ponder. And so I pondered and said out loud “Are people just guano crazy or am I missing something here?” Into which my wife replied “This generation doesn’t think like us. You are getting old, you need to evolve”.  Im only 41, how out of touch can I be?  And I pondered again. “There was the Russell Dauterman Thor Artist Proof pages sell in ComicLink.   Did I dismissed the sell as a one off too quickly?”  Call it Artist Proof or whatever, is still a print, no? But it did sell in the thousands. Hmm? 


So here I am trying to do my best to have an open my mind and understand the monoprint concept as an original art collectible.  Unlike traditional OA, the 1 of 1 monoprint is a manufactured collectible, no question about it. Outside publication it doesn’t need to exist beyond its digital self.  But Can a 1 of 1 Monoprint  of the original digital file be considered Original art? Why not? There is one attribute that most artwork must have to be universally recognized as original:  provenance. It’s the link between the physical object of art to its creator.  Is not a reproduction, but a one-time expression of its digital original self, approved by its original artist. Digital photographs prints created by the artist are the same. Provenance determines if it’s an original print or just a reproduction, and we don’t question their value as an original piece of art.  If we accept original photograph print as a valuable collectible, why not an original comic art print?


I’ve started to see there is some value in collecting digital monoprints.  Also consider how expensive the Original Comic Art has become. The OP art example would have been at least 4X if it was created in the traditional pencil and ink.  Dauterman's Thor Cover? At least $10K. 1 of 1 prints are a fraction of what traditional OA are. It’s an attractive option to the Noob millennial collector who has been priced out just starting out.  As prices rise, attainability thins.


The obvious concern as many OA collectors as myself have is what happens if the artist prints out another one. Can the artist be trusted not to do so? Well that’s when the COA and all other hologram BS comes into place.  An unfortunate necessity I’m afraid as it is part of the contract between buyer and seller.   Think of it as a type of provenance or a record of ownership. Authentication establishes provenance along with the link to the original artist.  In Jorge Jimenez case, his COA states “This is the only authorized work print of this work which will ever be produced”. Sounds like a contract.  Im sure some OA collectors wished there was a COA along with some of Mike Deodato’s art that was purchase in the past. 


Im still not crazy about the collectible monoprint market, and No I will not be buying one anytime soon. Quite simply, it will never replace the traditional ink over pencils form, but my mind has change enough that I would definitely be a buyer if Fiona Staples sells 1 of 1 Original Digital Prints of her Saga work.  I would be in at no more than $2500 for the covers and no more than $500 for interior pages. Yes, it is a lot for a 1 of 1 print, but it’s the only original physical art form available of her work where it can be considered original, even if it is a print. 


Like it or not, most comic art will ultimately be created digitally. First was digital coloring and then World balloons were gone. This new norm it’s inevitable.  The value of the 1 of 1 monoprint exists because there is actually no original art beyond the digital file.  Owning the 1 of 1 original print of the artist original digital file will eventually offer that one of a kind feeling we currently have and love for traditional OA.


I know it’s difficult to get behind this, but I’m just trying to adapt, and I don’t think we will eventually have a choice. 
 

Edited by Matches_Malone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am talking out of my hat here, but is there a way to make the art unique with blockchain? Or does that have to be done before it is produced, and is it too costly? That would certainly help the market, but I think the best you will get is a market like lithographs as compared to paintings. Potentially valuable, but not an oil, etc.

While I realize a lot of OA has become expensive, a lot of very good art is not. No reason to drink the Koolaid unless you want to try your hand at a little speculation and resale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's inevitable that the comic art market will start to resemble the broader contemporary art market - original work as the most desirable, commanding the highest prices, then the monoprint, then the first broad print run (with printer or artist proofs attracting a premium), then the second run, etc.

Actual original artwork will always be the pinnacle, and there will always be people for whom that's the only thing worth collecting, but for people coming into the hobby now, some highly desirable pieces are only available are prints because they were fully digital - and given that we see nostalgia as a significant driver for values in original art, it would be reasonable to assume that the same will happen for well-known pieces that are fully digital.

I've bought a few digital pieces that I'm very happy with, at good prices (although I'm still annoyed with myself that I didn't pick up the Thor 705 cover that Dauterman was selling when it was available) but I looked at the Jimenez Punchline cover and balked at the price tag - but I do think it's entirely possible that I could be regretting that decision in a few decades. It feels like it's a market in its infancy, and there's still a lot of price discovery going on, so I guess we'll see if it continues to evolve, or if it hits a plateau. But given the broad trend for artists to work digitally - which does look like it's slowing down - I find that hard to imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Matches_Malone said:

The value of the 1 of 1 monoprint exists because there is actually no original art beyond the digital file.  Owning the 1 of 1 original print of the artist original digital file will eventually offer that one of a kind feeling we currently have and love for traditional OA.

Why are we (collectors, the collectors market) accepting anything less than the actual original* raw digital file here? There are prints of EVERYTHING already, no matter the working and distribution method, most obviously the printed comics themselves (or the web comic that can be printed out).

My response to guessed-at concerns that creators might have to giving up their file...

1. It could be accidentally (or intentionally!) deleted or corrupted. Yes, just like traditional physical art (um, spilled coffee or house fire anyone?)

2. It could be manipulated into something similar but not the same and not in line with the artist's wishes. Yes, just like traditional physical art (um, Steve Oliff coloring, anyone?)

3. It could be used for commercial purposes against the creator's wishes and without compensation back to the creator. Yes, just like traditional physical art (um, scanning it in at hi-rez and doing literally anything with it, anyone?)

4. etc.......................................(there could be others, lots of others, I'm just starting the conversation here....)

And one biggie that collectors might have...

1. Couldn't the artist just create a copy digitally for themselves and/or send you the copy and keep the original back? (Yes they could, same as with physical art, and that's FRAUD, not a great risk/reward situation for any artist, using whatever tools of trade!)

I'd argue that if an artists working methods allow us to only be able collect this digital stuff, then we should apply the same hierarchy -as collectors- that we do now, as to desirability and value - from primary and at later secondary source sales.

- The Original (1/1, contractually and legally binding statement by the artist, be careful...it's the Only One There Is, though it can be recreated at a later date using backward-engineered from other input/output sources!)

- Artist Authorized Prints (signed/numbered/dated, yadda yadda yadda)

- Generic Posters (endless open run retail paper of low 'collector' interest)

 

*As a collector/buyer original raw digital files, you'd want purchase the original "shell" medium - the HDD, the tablet, etc or have the file transferred to you and the original deleted in a legally-binding way by the artists. 1/1 has to be real and honored to be worth anything, which would in time be equal to the artist's reputation among collectors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help but make a comparison to fine art prints (etchings, lithography, silk screen etc.). There artists typically make a edition of a set number of prints which are then signed by the artist and each print numbered with the edition size. That of course is a promise like the one being made today by monoprint comic artists. But with fine art prints you often do not know what was done with the original plates used to make the prints. Some artists will physically damage the plates so that no further prints are possible. But some do not. And yes sometimes when the plates are not destroyed, they are used again years later (generally not by the artist himself). This of course is fraud, as would be the cases if a monoprint is later reprinted. In the case of fine art prints since the printing is done by hand it is pretty much impossible to make a perfect copy of the original edition. There will always be subtle differences that can be detected. But if the original file for a monoprint is used again on the same printer model the result would likely be indistinguishable from the original. I guess my take away is that if you are going to invest in a monoprint, you have to insure a good provenance otherwise there will always be the possibility that sometime in the future it will be considered worthless. But even with a good provenance, a monoprint may be significantly devalued since any fraudulent copies may be indistinguishable from the original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've mentioned this before, but there is already something of a model for this that has existed in the art world for a couple generations now. I see the photography art market as pretty similar.
From the moment the photo negative was in existence, photographers have had the ability to reproduce more than 1 copy of a given image. Theoretically, why would anyone buy art photography, if the photographer can print as many copies as he wants to?
It is not unlike the "limited art print" market that also relies on a number of the same ideas.

I don't know how many folks into comic art are into the photography art market. I'd assume few. My wife and I do have a few pieces in our collection. We bought the first almost 20 years ago now.
It is interesting, for those that have never set foot in a real gallery that sells photography. Especially those that specialize in it. It's a bit of a culture shock for someone that comes from a background mindset of "the original and only 1 original has value and all else is trash."

Here's a brief synopsis of the way art photography functions:
Photographer takes art image. Photographer prints art image. Photographer/gallery sells art image. (duh)

But then quantities and size come into play, and there are different names for different types of releases. Monoprints. Numbered editions. Open editions. Etc.

Monoprint: this originated with artists back in the old days (along with monographs, and monotypes), but as regards to photography, it is self explanatory. There is only 1 copy of the print.
Numbered editions: photographer sets a quantity of prints that they will ever produce, and they stick to that. Could be a quantity of 10, 100, 1000.  Often with very limited numbered editions (say a quantity of 5-20) for popular artists, the cost of a print goes up as the available stock shrinks. So an image that was sold as #1 might be $3000, #4 might be $3500, #9 might be $4500, etc. The increments and details all vary of course. It seemed very counter intuitive to me at first. But I realize why this happens now, and there is a logic to it.
Open editions: photographer can sell as many as they like.

As with anything, the pricing on all this depends on the popularity of the photographer, the image in question, size of any editions, or variations of editions, etc. Long-term, the market value sets itself. Just like it does in comic art, comic books, etc.
It is always possible that an artist/photographer could print a number of copies beyond what is in a numbered edition, but it would be the death of their career. Their legacy is entirely tied to their reputation, and the universal acceptance and understanding of the wider marketplace. To sell anything outside that would be income/career suicide. So it generally doesn't happen.

I think the same thing applies to the digital art market. The market will set itself, as it always does. If an artist is shown to be printing more than whatever was stipulated at the time of a piece's sale, that artist is going to be tainted and see any art value their work had, crash like a stone. So will the collectors of said artist's work. So there is that as a risk.

At the end of the day, if you want to see the hand of the maker in the piece, you like the feel that comes from seeing process, or imperfection, or quirks that often come from only holding an original piece in hand, the digital art market is going to leave you feeling disappointed in the end. Even if the image is amazing. It's like owning the only Death Dealer poster, if there never was an original painting. It's all about the image. You ahve a big printout of the image everyone else gets to see for free on the internet, or in print on a comic.

But if there is any interest in having that big image hanging in your house, then the next question is, how archival and lightfast is that print? Doing it right can get very pricey very quickly. And even though lightfast printing technology has imprived with UV resistant inks, etc. They stilla ren't exactly perfect, or great yet. So now you have that death dealer poster in your closet, so it doesn't fade.

To me the gut feel of it not being hand on paper, is the big killer in 1-off comic art. The second is archival nature of it. The reprint quantity thing would be farther down my own worry-list.

And at the end of the day, photography is different in that for a lot of older pre-photoshop photography, much of the printing of the piece involved the hand of the artist. Dodging and burning. Vaseline on the lens to blur areas, etc. Nowadays you hit a print button. You might tweak in Photoshop and hit print again. Not much romance baked into that.

-e.

 

 

Link to comment
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