• 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

42 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

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.

You might have lead with this, as it negates most of your argument that the two (photography, digital monoprinting) are similar.

Photography is nearly equivalent to artist-pulled printmaking, but not much else. So much printmaking, even historically going way, way, way back was outsourced to a master printer, with a reputation of his own that collectors would handicap demand/value against, that many print editions are closer to a photographer sending his film (or files) out to a developer/printer for physical outputs to sell instead of the old (and wonderful) darkroom artistry we collectors (yes, us too!) romanticize the thing is all about. Some is. Most is not. Most certainly not in the digital age, unless the photographer is down-stepping his digital files to "print" to film output and then enlarging/printing to paper from that "film print" -by hand! (Not aware of anybody doing this, but never say never!!)

Imagine how hard it would be to get a fine art photogrpaher to part with his negative. And the amount of money such an exchange might require for it to happen. THAT is how digital art/monoprints should work at the highest tier (referencing my hierarchy list a few posts above), with prints -of whatever stripe- falling underneath, respectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just thinking out loud here, but under the traditional work-for-hire system under which most of the big two work is created, Marvel/DC have retained reproduction rights.

So, in theory Jimenez can provide a COA and pinky-swear that no other copy will ever be produced, but what's stopping DC from creating a "SDCC limited edition" and printing/selling a thousand copies? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ShallowDan said:

I'm just thinking out loud here, but under the traditional work-for-hire system under which most of the big two work is created, Marvel/DC have retained reproduction rights.

So, in theory Jimenez can provide a COA and pinky-swear that no other copy will ever be produced, but what's stopping DC from creating a "SDCC limited edition" and printing/selling a thousand copies? 

It wouldn't matter. The COA will show provenance. It will be the difference between an original print and a reproduction. We see this in photography every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Matches_Malone said:

It wouldn't matter. The COA will show provenance. It will be the difference between an original print and a reproduction. We see this in photography every day.

So he's selling you a COA and throwing in the print for free? :smirk:   I kid (sorta...)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2018 at 7:53 AM, hmendryk said:

At the risk of sounding like I am nit picking, I would suggest that the term monoprint not be used for this so as to avoid confusion. In the art world 1/1 prints would be called a (very) limited edition. On the other hand a monoprint is a print made by painting the inks directly on the printing block. When printed you get a single print. The artist could re-ink the block but he will never get another print identical to the first.

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

Yeah I was thinking the same thing-- I couldn't figure out how this was a mono print from what I've known (and done) of mono prints.

Digital is a thing now, and some art, like Nathan Fox's run on Captain Galaxy had some pages that I absolutely would love to have, but unfortunately the whole thing was digital.   So if an artist was selling digital prints of their work I'd be a lot more inclined to pull the trigger for $50-$100 than I would any higher.   If they promise that this is a 1/1 thing and the digital file will be destroyed you'd have to take them at their word (which I would have no problem doing with someone like Nathan) but then the digital file still exists with the publisher, so it's never actually destroyed.   

I agree that Giclee level prints in the fine art world sell for real money, and you could argue that if you paid a lot of dough for Andy Warhol's Campbells Soup can you bought a print, but right now I don't see this becoming a thing in comics.   Two or three generations from now?   Different story I bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ShallowDan said:

I'm just thinking out loud here, but under the traditional work-for-hire system under which most of the big two work is created, Marvel/DC have retained reproduction rights.

So, in theory Jimenez can provide a COA and pinky-swear that no other copy will ever be produced, but what's stopping DC from creating a "SDCC limited edition" and printing/selling a thousand copies? 

I think there's a counter argument, in that if it's a piece of art that deserves to be printed a thousand times, then that should make the monoprint more desirable by reinforcing the importance of the piece? I mean, if the cover of DKR #1 was digital, and you owned the monoprint, you'd presumably be quite happy for there to be posters of it sold at SDCC as that solidifies its position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, vodou said:

You might have lead with this, as it negates most of your argument that the two (photography, digital monoprinting) are similar.

 

Except that modern photography is much like digital monoprints. And there historically have been MANY photographers in history that couldn't develop their own prints. Mapplethorpe being an easy one to cite.
He knew what he wanted to see from his prints, but didn't really know developer from fixative. Not unlike comic art, many of the old guys really knew their craft inside and out.

Pretty much agree with the rest.

 

Regarding the Monoprint terminology, it's just a mis-application of the term, that a lot of people use to indicate a piece that is one of a kind print, never to be repeated. Similar thought, not exactly the same thing for obvious reasons. Not unlike the parts of the country that refer to any soda as a "coke"
 

Edited by ESeffinga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Photography works the same way.  I can right click, save, follow by print.  That is not an original. I’ts a reproduction.  An original digital photograph print needs provenance. In most cases, including an original comic art print, provenance comes via COA . 

Edited by Matches_Malone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As @ESeffinga stated "the market" will sort this out, except the one place it never has: "ask" @ primary (the artist or his rep/gallery). We can all point to recent originals priced one way "direct" that end up selling for less sooner or later (and often much, much so) for less than that first price. THAT is "the market" sorting something out, in these cases both the optimism of the artist (and/or his rep/gallery) irrational exuberance of the first buyer. And here's where I'll also remind everybody of a relative truism that @delekkerste has brought here numerous times over the years from the fine art world - that most (do not remember the % but it's really high, like 90%?) of all art resells for less than it originally cost from primary source. Take that, add a dash of Sturgeon's Law and I think we all understand the risk here to Doubting Thomas 'old folks' and millennials with bitcoins to burn ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Jimenez Batman pages will be interesting to watch, seems like a fair amount have sold, and there seems to be a lot of interest in the current creative team(especially from this who are not King fans). I may picking up one soon, bit haven’t pulled the trigger.

 

I have always believed if Fiona Staples did 1/1 prints for Saga it would blow the digital art market wide open. They would be be purchased very quickly at prices that would shock MANY collectors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1o1OAP™ market (1 of 1 Original Art Print) is still in its infancy, but it could be something to watch out for with the next generations of OA collectors. And Paper COAs that can be forger could be a thing of the past as well when you have things like Verisart  

Edited by Matches_Malone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, vodou said:

And here's where I'll also remind everybody of a relative truism that @delekkerste has brought here numerous times over the years from the fine art world - that most (do not remember the % but it's really high, like 90%?) of all art resells for less than it originally cost from primary source. Take that, add a dash of Sturgeon's Law and I think we all understand the risk here to Doubting Thomas 'old folks' and millennials with bitcoins to burn ;)

This is definitely true.  Much of the fine art world is built on a shaky foundation that holds only as long as everyone agrees to buy, but never sell.  

Edited by ShallowDan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is where the wheat/chaff will play itself out over the long term, re: digital art.
To play devil's advocate, there was a time when people thought Warhol was a joke. His art was frequently silkscreens of pictures and images he didn't even own. And he was making them by the dozen. Who would want that?
Much of his early memorable works sold for very cheap prices. Time has a habit of answering prognosticators.

My general stance is simply this, when faced with spending money in comic art (there are SO many options out there these days), what gets me excited?
Some will look at what is safest place to park the money, or what they presume will be the best return on the quantity of $ placed there.
History often laughs in our faces, and shows us to be wrong in one manner or another.

I still personally find it very hard to get excited about most digital art of any kind. Too much opportunity to rethink. Infinite undos. Ability to totally perfect an image. I tend to like artists that approach the act of creation like being a high wire act without a net. You have to commit. You have to do it right. It takes an immense amount of practice, technique and skill, and yet it still feels like a live performance. Some other guys prefer heavily multi-tracked recordings, to continue that awkward analogy.

I think as the world continues its march towards all thing digital, there will always be a place for the hand wrought. But what people end up spending large sums of money on? I really don't know any more. Just look at the numbers Gene was tossing around in the posts about manufactured sports card collectibles. They boggle my mind. As do some comic book sales prices. And so many other things.

 

Edited by ESeffinga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I known little about these digital collectibles, but I would like to comment on the part of the conversation centered around cost of entry for this hobby and people perhaps being driven to digital as an alternative.

 

My experience is that most people fascinated with this hobby typically find a niche they can afford to collect in (one of the many modern art reps, independent artist direct, 'new' art) and over time their income increases and they slowly escalate due to that or their mindset changes and they up their spending accordingly.

 

Those that can't make that adjustment for one reason or another that I've personally known simply get out of the hobby. They usually don't stop collecting completely...I've seen them move to hardcover / omnibus collecting, back to single issues, to rare variant cover collecting (the modern forum here has some very vocal proponents of such), or to some combination thereof.

 

So, certainly, it is confirmation bias to some degree, but I don't know anyone that has moved to digital art collecting personally - most that I know seem to have moved to hardcover collecting. Like some others, I struggle to detect what sense of satisfaction might be gained from participation in this corner of the hobby (just like I did with the modern variant crowd), but I generally try to be a proponent of whatever makes people happy in these type of instances. More power to them... as long as what is going on doesn't appear to be a complete scam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

To play devil's advocate, there was a time when people thought Warhol was a joke. His art was frequently silkscreens of pictures and images he didn't even own. And he was making them by the dozen. Who would want that?
Much of his early memorable works sold for very cheap prices. Time has a habit of answering prognosticators.

So true. But his primary prices changed very quickly too! An interesting research project (MA art history folks...he's your thesis concept!) is...what happened to "the rest" that showed at Eleanor Ward's Stable Gallery in 1962?

From Book to Bid – Andy Warhol's Two Dollar Bills | Art | Agenda ...

https://warholstars.org/warhol1/13stable.html

Alex Katz didn't do bad, but phew you don't see his name and Warhol in the same sentence...ever ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

I struggle to detect what sense of satisfaction might be gained from participation in this corner of the hobby

My guess: bragging rights fully takes the front seat and the 'art' aspect is even further removed than it already is for most comic art collectors. That's my answer to all that baseball bs that Gene brought up too; that's not baseball cards or even about baseball (really - is it?) and I bet we'll see, if we could, those buyers have a variety of things they collect in a similar manner, trophy collectors not baseball card collectors, not art collectors not whatever collectors of whatever, just bragging rights collectors. I M O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, vodou said:

My guess: bragging rights fully takes the front seat and the 'art' aspect is even further removed than it already is for most comic art collectors. That's my answer to all that baseball bs that Gene brought up too; that's not baseball cards or even about baseball (really - is it?) and I bet we'll see, if we could, those buyers have a variety of things they collect in a similar manner, trophy collectors not baseball card collectors, not art collectors not whatever collectors of whatever, just bragging rights collectors. I M O.

Well there is no shortage of that in original OA collecting either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Just the other day, I found my #1 / 100 of a 13 x 19 Adam Hughes print and the Itoya page got a dinged corner.  I was not happy.  It was maybe a $50 - 75 print ?

2) An artist may keep a digital image and might run off copies for their kids or friends/family.  The publisher would keep a digital image, they should, it's a company asset.  The printer would keep a digital image, they should, it's their job.  And it's reasonable to maintain backups.  The only thing that would set apart a 1-of-1 from anything is the COA.  We've already learned not to trust COAs by default, so now what ??

3) Photographers/artists/etc have created limited edition prints of an image and created another limited edition prints of the same image in another size.  Is this fair ?

4) This thread is tangentially related to the Jose Delbo blockchain thread.

https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/topic/472622-jose-delbos-cryptoart-close-to-7k-and-rising-at-auction/

That Jose Delbo art might be a "unique" item.  However, there was another listing for a Jose Delbo image limited to 50 (i.e. 50 unique blockchain tags of the same image)

I'm not sure if there's anything against (besides the inherent cost) against someone taking a random Jose Delbo image and creating their own blockchain tag to sell that "unique" item.

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