[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Coloring Original Art



Well I would say it comes down to personal taste. I know for me, I wouldn't color original art
that has been used to publish material like a comic book issue or trading cards. However,
if someone is willing to pay for the artwork, they more or less earn the right to do with it
what they want. So if they wish to color it then they can. I think the pain comes from the
sub conscious thinking that this artwork could outlast the owner and get passed on
over time and eventually it might fall into the hands of someone whose preference
would not to have it colored and thus they would probably say over and over "man,
I wish this was not colored". Or eventually a day comes that many years (10-20 100s?)
that someone might seek out any original art to use in a collection or a book reprinting
some examples of artwork to honor an artist. And if it is colorized, perhaps it removes
the chance of it being shown in its rare beastly nature of a black and white. I dunno, again
it all comes down to tastes.
 
--Ken
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 5:11 PM
Subject: Coloring Original Art

Hi Folks!

I kind of brought this up before, but now I would like to take a pole.  I
ran across a guy who purchased about one-quarter of the original art from
the Groo cards, including the 9-card Wager of the Gods art and the 3-Card
Fountain of Youth art.  He then had Tom Luth color the art work.

Now to me, hiring Tom to color a piece of unpublished (generic?) original
art purchased from Sergio at a convention makes perfect sense and someday I
hope to do that.  But for some reason, coloring the original art-even when
done by Tom-that was used for a card or comic book or something like that,
just seems not right.  I can't explain why.

What does everyone else think?