Significance/Definition of published OA in 21stC 0

[jaykza]

Was just thinking about the significance of art being published in a magazine/book in this day and age. With the prevalence of social media and the large following some artists have sometimes their personal work or commission work is viewed by an order of magnitude more individuals, publicly on their IG or Twitter. 

As a consequence, it feels to me like the preference for art being published or the premium that published art receives may be a bit irrational (for at least very modern art). What do people think on this subject? In the modern age, does it matter if it's published when thousands of eyes have viewed/liked/commented on a piece of art? 

[malvin]

22 minutes ago, jaykza said:

Was just thinking about the significance of art being published in a magazine/book in this day and age. With the prevalence of social media and the large following some artists have sometimes their personal work or commission work is viewed by an order of magnitude more individuals, publicly on their IG or Twitter. 

As a consequence, it feels to me like the preference for art being published or the premium that published art receives may be a bit irrational (for at least very modern art). What do people think on this subject? In the modern age, does it matter if it's published when thousands of eyes have viewed/liked/commented on a piece of art? 

I can see your point.

But another point (or plus) to something published by a major publisher is that it passed editorial muster.

There are many unused covers that look great. But some pieces were passed over for a reason.

Malvin

[Rick2you2]

25 minutes ago, jaykza said:

Was just thinking about the significance of art being published in a magazine/book in this day and age. With the prevalence of social media and the large following some artists have sometimes their personal work or commission work is viewed by an order of magnitude more individuals, publicly on their IG or Twitter. 

As a consequence, it feels to me like the preference for art being published or the premium that published art receives may be a bit irrational (for at least very modern art). What do people think on this subject? In the modern age, does it matter if it's published when thousands of eyes have viewed/liked/commented on a piece of art? 

Publication carries the inherent imprimatur that the work is good—otherwise, it wouldn’t be published. There is excellent unpublished work, but because the public’s ability to recognize good art from dreck isn’t always so hot, publication remains a valid standard. That is also the case with likes on Facebook. Some mediocre stuff gets showings of support because the likes want to encourage the artist.

Edited September 22, 2019 by Rick2you2

[Stefanomjr]

To me the real difference comes in the common experience published art affords us - an experience which you don't get with unpublished.  The cover to THAT issue,  the panel or page to THAT story. Published art = nostalgia.

[malvin]

9 minutes ago, Stefanomjr said:

To me the real difference comes in the common experience published art affords us - an experience which you don't get with unpublished.  The cover to THAT issue,  the panel or page to THAT story. Published art = nostalgia.

Yeah, nostalgia is a big driver.  Certainly if it is shared widely on social media, it would help with the value of the OA since more people saw it, but the nostalgia from reading the comic is a massive driver compared to most other factors in our hobby.

Malvin

[Will_K]

I can't think of "significance/definition of published OA" being relevant to anyone but the "owner" of the OA. 

In a few other threads, we've debated the definition of "original art".  Original ink over original pencils.  Original ink over digital pencils.  Stat'ed originals modified for publication.  Digitally modified for publication.  All digital.  Etc.

And what will define whether art was "published" ??  It seems that publication is supposed to give the art some  "legitimacy".  In some instances you may be able to cite a person's tweets on the gold standard.  On the other hand,  can you really cite Wikipedia in your research paper on cold fusion?  If it was on Twitter, was it published ??

Whatever the situation, it'll be the prospective buyer(s) that determine the "significance/definition".

If an artist teases/posts (/publishes ?) an image for a new character that becomes "hot", was it first published online (by the artist) or in the official online comic ?

Edited September 22, 2019 by Will_K

[vodou]

2 hours ago, Will_K said:

And what will define whether art was "published" ??  It seems that publication is supposed to give the art some  "legitimacy".  In some instances you may be able to cite a person's tweets on the gold standard.  On the other hand,  can you really cite Wikipedia in your research paper on cold fusion?  If it was on Twitter, was it published ??

...

If an artist teases/posts (/publishes ?) an image for a new character that becomes "hot", was it first published online (by the artist) or in the official online comic ?

I'm wary to assume that published in unlimited digital form (for any/all eyes with a device, internet, electricity? so still 1/2 Third World is out?) will ever be the same as published in finite physical form.

I've been wrong before, many times, so this could just be another example.