• 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.

Digital to Traditional art
1 1

35 posts in this topic

Art comes in many forms these days: traditional inks over pencil. original pencil w/ original ink over blue line and the other side of the spectrum - mono-prints. 

Recently saw a piece of unpublished art online. Reached out to the agent...artist created it digitally but he can convert it into traditional art on 11x17 Bristol board using the proper archival inks etc. Once he converts it to traditional he'll "break the mold" in that he wont do another. Thinking of the digital as a prelim and the traditional as finished piece. What are your thoughts on this? I've only purchased published traditional work so far and have a bias against any other permutation.

Creating original traditional art off original digital images.  What are your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that the art for East of West was done digitally. But post publication you could buy a page from the book. The artist Nick Dragotta would then do a recreation of this page on the stipulation that he would never re-create this page again. So this would be the sole existing hand drawn version of the art. 

If I loved a digitally created comic and this was the only way to get a one of a kind original from that comic, I think I’d be okay with that.

Now, the question is what happens if in 20 years time that comic becomes acclaimed and the ‘original art’ from that comic becomes valuable, and the artists decides to do second (or multiple) recreations of an important page from the comic. How would you go about enforcing the original contract that the page not be re-created again.

But my instinct is that, even in that case, the first re-creation, done closest to the publication date would command the highest value and be regarded as the quasi original art.  So even with that in mind, if the choice is between having no art from a book I love to having an original under these conditions, I’d get the post publication original re-creation.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Skizz said:

I understand that the art for East of West was done digitally. But post publication you could buy a page from the book. The artist Nick Dragotta would then do a recreation of this page on the stipulation that he would never re-create this page again. So this would be the sole existing hand drawn version of the art. 

If I loved a digitally created comic and this was the only way to get a one of a kind original from that comic, I think I’d be okay with that.

Now, the question is what happens if in 20 years time that comic becomes acclaimed and the ‘original art’ from that comic becomes valuable, and the artists decides to do second (or multiple) recreations of an important page from the comic. How would you go about enforcing the original contract that the page not be re-created again.

But my instinct is that, even in that case, the first re-creation, done closest to the publication date would command the highest value and be regarded as the quasi original art.  So even with that in mind, if the choice is between having no art from a book I love to having an original under these conditions, I’d get the post publication original re-creation.

 

 

With your example the published digital is the original - anything after is a reproduction of sorts - no? With my situation the art isn't published but the only existing example is digital...so is the digital a prelim? Is the final traditional piece looked down upon by the hobby? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Stefanomjr said:

With your example the published digital is the original - anything after is a reproduction of sorts - no? With my situation the art isn't published but the only existing example is digital...so is the digital a prelim? Is the final traditional piece looked down upon by the hobby? 

Unpublished art seems to present all sorts of grey areas.

But in your case, value of the analog version is even higher than in my example.  Since nothing has been published, there is nothing to be beholden to. The analog version and the digital version are two separate pieces of unpublished art, albeit similar looking, that are equally valid. I suppose you could call one prelim, but it’s probably just splitting hairs - a rose by any other name and all that.

In any case, I’d have no problem buying it.  The only concern is, what if the traditional version isn’t as nice as the digital version 😱

Edited by Skizz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, malvin said:

It's basically a recreation then. 

If you want the published image, that's not it but it's still a hand drawn original from the artist 

Malvin 

Agreed - in my case the art isn't published but first created digitally...so if I get the artist to create a traditional piece is the first/digital piece more of a prelim? Or is it still going to have the stigma as a recreation   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Skizz said:

Unpublished art seems to present all sorts of grey areas.

But in your case, value of the analog version is even higher than in my example.  Since nothing has been published, there is nothing to be beholden to. The analog version and the digital version are two separate pieces of unpublished art, albeit similar looking, that are equally valid. I suppose you could call one prelim, but it’s probably just splitting hairs - a rose by any other name and all that.

In any case, I’d have no problem buying it.  The only concern is, what if the traditional version isn’t as nice as the digital version 😱

Good point!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's digitally-produced, then the OA exists in cyberspace.  If an artist who works digitally has offered to re-do the image traditionally, I'm quite intrigued and impressed by that idea and think it has merit.  Big improvement over digital artists offering you a one-off digital print.

If you like the artwork, I'd say go for it!  (thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect this may become more acceptable over time. In an interesting way it also allows artists to control inventory better since a piece is only created if sold and they won't have tons of unsold inventory sitting around. Personally it kind of rubs me the wrong way for all the reasons others have stated - no matter the intentions there's no guarantee a later recreation won't be made, there's no guarantee the recreation will measure up to the original, a recreation isn't part of the production process, etc.

I find it interesting that this discussion highlights how important we as collectors feel it is that a piece is actual art used for production when comic art being production art is a big reason why it was frowned on for so long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Skizz.  What if the recreation is not as nice as the digital first image/imagining?  I like artwork purely because of the image.  Why buy a redone version of what I liked originally?  It may be better, but it may be worse.  The digital artist should make a first print at full resolution and full size on VERY nice paper stock, and then sign and date it.  Subsequent printings can be done, but the artist should do them at smaller scale and dated later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The image that the artist first created, whether digital or analog, is the “original” for copyright purposes. He can make as many copies as he wants afterward—good luck trying to enforce an oral promise he won’t. What you basically are buying is a recreation of the original. For the future, it would help if he wrote something on the back saying it is a one off duplicate of the original, and he won’t duplicate it again, not so much for legal enforcement purposes (unless you have the foresight to buy from the next Jack Kirby), but it should add to the market value. IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Varanis said:

I find it interesting that this discussion highlights how important we as collectors feel it is that a piece is actual art used for production...

As I suspected, and this confirms, most aren't collecting comic art but rather comic artifacts...carry on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, then, how do you see this? I was told that a cover I liked was available. The artist did a rough, which was approved, but then completed the published artwork digitally due to time constraints. Afterwards, the rough was finished to match the printed cover.

It's being sold as the original cover art. Yes or no? I haven't yet pulled the trigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hal Turner said:

Well, then, how do you see this? I was told that a cover I liked was available. The artist did a rough, which was approved, but then completed the published artwork digitally due to time constraints. Afterwards, the rough was finished to match the printed cover.

It's being sold as the original cover art. Yes or no? I haven't yet pulled the trigger.

It would depend on so many details it's hard to say. I think it'd help if you get the original rough as part of the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Hal Turner said:

Well, then, how do you see this? I was told that a cover I liked was available. The artist did a rough, which was approved, but then completed the published artwork digitally due to time constraints. Afterwards, the rough was finished to match the printed cover.

It's being sold as the original cover art. Yes or no? I haven't yet pulled the trigger.

No. Simply, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stefanomjr said:

 Same as Skizz situation....published = original. So the traditional would be a reproduction. I say "no"

Kind of my thought, too, and one of my collector friends agrees with you and Rick2. An artist buddy disagrees, saying the cover was based on the rough that's since been made pretty. I appreciate the feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, cstojano said:

I am in a similar boat. Approached an artist about a piece he won an award for, all digital. I asked about the OA and he offered to do the re-creation in oils. I can't help but think it can't be exactly as people know the digital image. Not sure what to think of it. 

Agreed, not the same. If you are buying because you want the original then the oils ain't it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hal Turner said:

Kind of my thought, too, and one of my collector friends agrees with you and Rick2. An artist buddy disagrees, saying the cover was based on the rough that's since been made pretty. I appreciate the feedback.

The artist would be legally incorrect. The copyright is on the “published” version—in this case, “published” does not mean printed or distributed but seen by another person as the final product to be reproduced.

I am so tempted to refer to the artist’s view as like putting lipstick on a pig, doesn’t change it from being a pig, but the artist might misconstrue.

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