Real Authentic Copies

[puppetmaker]

I can remember looking at some artwork at a convention and realizing what I was looking at was a computer print out of the artwork. Since then Art Shows have expanded and changed the rules for this sort of artwork. The rules for the World Con Art show are very specific as to what is an original or how it is to be labled.

From the World Con Art Show Rules:

All entries must be the artist's own original work on a science fiction, fantasy, or fannish theme.

The following items may not be entered into the Art Show but are eligible for print shop.

* Commercial multi-lithographic copies,
* photoprints or photocopies of any kind
* hand colored and remarked prints,

Commercial ceramic molds, painted commercially cast pieces and kits of any kind will NOT be accepted for the Art Show or Print Shop. Items using patterns or designs by others must credit the second party.

FINE ART PHOTOGRAPHY & COMPUTER GENERATED ART will be accepted only with the specific permission of the Art Show Directors. Both must fit within the following guidelines and be labeled accordingly:

* Unique Image---Data Files Erased/Negative Destroyed

* Limited Edition Print---Data Files Erased/ Negative Destroyed, or

* Unique Image---Data Files/Negative Archived.

Each image must be accompanied by a Certificate of Authenticity that clearly indicates the print/image type and the disposition of the negative or data file.

TRUE LIMITED EDITIONS (MULTIPLE ORIGINAL CATEGORY) All hand pulled prints—serigraphs, photographs (silk-screens), etchings, lithographs, woodblocks must have the following clearly visible information in pencil on the print itself.

1. Artist's signature,
2. Title,
3. Date,
4. print of/print run, and must be a run of less than 100.

Then there are those things called Originals. Like the original oil painting or charcoal sketch or sculpture. I understand the artist trying to maximize their profits from their labor. I have noticed that a lot of doll artists use the words OOAK (One of a Kind) to signify that this is a one off. I don’t have a problem with artists doing this at all if they clearly label the work as a limited series for the consumer. In fact it allows others to own work that they might not be able to otherwise.

That being said, I was surfing E-bay looking for some Christmas/Hanukkah for various people I am getting presents for. I ended up, through a round about way, running across autograph pictures of various famous people. Some of the prices seemed a little low especially for the people who were dead and had been for sometime. I looked through the description and found something really disturbing. These were pictures of the autographs not the original autographs but they came with certificated of authenticity that these were copies from an original photo with a real autograph on it. Photoprints is what some of them were called. A number were a bit deceptive until you read the WHOLE description to find out you were buying a copy of the original autograph.

I found this phenomenon first when I was looking for Labyrinth stuff as I occasionally do or Froud work that is out of print. They were selling a script with the signature of Jim Henson, David Bowie, Brian Froud, and Jennifer Connelly. If you read through the description you found out that you were buying a color Xerox of the autographs attached to a Xerox of the script.

I don’t have a problem if the seller is up front with exactly what they are selling. I do have a problem with the numbers of sellers that buried the fact that these are copies and not originals. Especially when the description at the top says “Insert name of actor” signed 8X10 photo. It is not signed. It’s a frelling copy of a signature. If I buy a signed photo then I expect a signature on the photo not a picture of the signature. What good is a certificate of authenticity for a copy of a signature? Why even give it? My favorite was the certificate that was given to the photo to let anyone the bearer care to show that they original was in the hands of the person who made the prints. What is to stop anyone from buying a copy and making more copies with more certificates? Makes it kind of hard for those who do have the real autographs that they stood in long lines for that they want to sell now. I am even really suspicious now of any dealer selling signatures with a few exceptions where I have known the dealer for years and know that they are not going to rip me off.

So from now on, with very few exceptions, I plan to get any autographs from the people I want the signatures from. That way I know that what I got is authentic and mine. And if anyone wants my signature for any of my work, I suggest you find me at a convention because I don’t think it is going to show up on Ebay anytime soon.

I am grateful for the autographs I have gotten over the years especially from my friends.

Comments

[photognome.livejournal.com]

Ive always been confused by the idea of buying an autograph someone else got. To me, the whole point of the autograph is a reminder of meeting that person.

[puppetmaker40.livejournal.com]

I agree. I use a lot of my autograph collection to remind me of when I met someone.

Proud Member of.....hummmmmmm

[kamyra.livejournal.com]

I've been a active seller and buyer on eBay (not art or autographs though) for five years. During that time there have been a LOT of disturbing trends. The autographs one has been around a while and I would NOT buy any autographed items through them.

I'm amazed that anyone would buy the items your talking about above...but then I suspect that a vast number of eBayers go by the auction title and the first few lines of the description...very few read the ENTIRE description (even in my own experience as a seller).

One has to be both discriminating and thorough in buying on eBay!!

Just my two cents...and I would also much prefer to get autographs the old fashioned way, by GETTING them from the celebrity in question.

Later,

Kamyra

Re: Proud Member of.....hummmmmmm

[puppetmaker40.livejournal.com]

Yep. Then there is a story attached to the autograph even if it is "I waited in line for two hours for Spike's autograph and he kissed my hand too".

[zakcrazyquilt.livejournal.com]

Those WorldCon rules are really annoying, in respect to digital art. What I find interesting about them is that, as they are written, they are not concerned with the artistic integrity of the work in question, but, rather, the saleability of the product based on guaranteed scarcity. This is a continual issue for digital artists, and it arises out of the art market, although it bears little or no relation to artistic integrity. It also arises from the heretofore analog nature of art; an analog copy of a work is inherently inferior to the original. There are also shades of the snobbery that the fine arts community can feel towards so-called commercial artists or illustrators.

What, in effect, policies like this are saying is that the effort, vision, talent, and technique of the artist are of secondary importance. In order to even be considered on any of these grounds, the art must have a certain perceived value dictated only by its limited availability.

At the same time - and I may be wrong about this, but consdering that "fannish" art is specifically allowed, this seems to be the case -- one may freely use the ideas of another creator. This strikes me as profoundly backwards.

In any event, I suspect that, given the numbers of professional artists working partially or fully in the digital realm (as a survey of the most recent Spectrum collections will attest) that this will eventually change.

Sorry for the rantlet there. You can imagine, I'm sure, why this might be of some interest to me. ;)

[puppetmaker40.livejournal.com]

Oh I agree. I have a friend named Kyle Baker who is a comic book artist. He has gone from hand drawing to all digital for his most recent Plastic Man series. He, his wife and I had a long discussion about how he use to sell his art (pages he created for various comic books) and now when it is all on his computer. He has done limited prints of poster sized art but is still debating on how he might sell the other pages.

I think part of it comes from that the general art world hasn't figured out how to deal with the digital world of art. There is an entire format that doesn;t fit into the compartments that were created before the advent of computers.

[teasingfool]

I got that Xerox copy of the first Labyrinth script (in which Toby was called Freddie or a name like that) with Brian Henson, David Bowie and Jennifer (woot!) Connelly's signatures. I think my mom got it for ten dollars. Whether it's an original or not, I'm happy! lol I think I've read through it a couple of times.

Sorry I haven't been replying as I tend to do. Life as thrown me some curve-balls. *wince*

[puppetmaker40.livejournal.com]

Which is great and fine. You have something you are happy with. I am wondering about all the people who think they are getting something at a bargin price but it is not what they thought they were getting. I have seen some of these pictures of autographs going for more than the "book" value of the real autograph.

[teasingfool]

My mom has had that happen with a couple of Monte Crews "original works" (he's her Great Uncle) and actually received the magazine it was printed on. I think we've got most of his art, now, but we're working on making a "Crews Scrapbook" for my grandparents.