General Category > Comic Related Discussion
Action #1 Original Art
fett:
There was an older post evidently when this was first was "invented", he explains what he was trying to do on page 2 I believe
http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2007068#Post2007068
bchat:
--- Quote from: JVJ on April 12, 2010, 03:43:18 PM ---I don't understand why ANYONE would think that the "white" areas of the cover image wouldn't be the same browned color as the board it was supposedly "drawn" on.
--- End quote ---
Not everyone thinks like you (or I) do. They only "see" something that appears old (the outer edges) that also contains artwork. It doesn't register in their minds that the signs of aging they can plainly see doesn't extend into the artwork.
Yoc:
It is explained but yes, it might have been more 'authentic' without using the brown wax as the creator explained it.
Still what I'd call a nicely done fake all in all. Better than I'd be able to do if I tried.
-Yoc
JVJ (RIP):
--- Quote from: bchat on April 12, 2010, 04:21:56 PM ---Not everyone thinks like you (or I) do. They only "see" something that appears old (the outer edges) that also contains artwork. It doesn't register in their minds that the signs of aging they can plainly see doesn't extend into the artwork.
--- End quote ---
To some extent, bchat,
I agree with you. But whoever did this was trying to fool people who might be impressed with the cover art to Action #1 and I don't think that subset of people should have been fooled for one second. I mean, they would have to know:
1. what comic book original art WAS
(to be impressed)
2. have SOME idea of what it looked like
(to be fooled)
3. be somewhat skeptical to begin with
(which he supposedly tried to overcome)
Those don't add up to the kind of people, IMHO, who wouldn't see through the difference in the aging of the board and the un-rendered portions of the "drawing."
Of course, I may have a unrealistically high notion of the folks who are interested in comic art...
Peace, Jim (|:{>
bchat:
--- Quote from: JVJ on April 12, 2010, 09:12:19 PM ---
--- Quote from: bchat on April 12, 2010, 04:21:56 PM ---Not everyone thinks like you (or I) do. They only "see" something that appears old (the outer edges) that also contains artwork. It doesn't register in their minds that the signs of aging they can plainly see doesn't extend into the artwork.
--- End quote ---
To some extent, bchat,
I agree with you. But whoever did this was trying to fool people who might be impressed with the cover art to Action #1 and I don't think that subset of people should have been fooled for one second. I mean, they would have to know:
1. what comic book original art WAS
(to be impressed)
2. have SOME idea of what it looked like
(to be fooled)
3. be somewhat skeptical to begin with
(which he supposedly tried to overcome)
Those don't add up to the kind of people, IMHO, who wouldn't see through the difference in the aging of the board and the un-rendered portions of the "drawing."
Of course, I may have a unrealistically high notion of the folks who are interested in comic art...
Peace, Jim (|:{>
--- End quote ---
Well, I don't know what the original intent was for re-creating the artwork to the cover (just fun for or something more sinister) ... my eyes kind of glazed-over after reading a half-dozen respones that didn't amount to much more than "hey that looks cool" and "yeah".
If someone were going to try to sell a fake piece of cover art AND get a ton of money, what better cover to pick than Action Comics # 1? They'ld be looking for a sucker with a lot of money who could be convinced of the item's resale value, not a collector of original art who has a sharp eye & enough knowledge to know when something is fake.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version