Real Art, by Mark Wheatley – The Guest Spot
So what the hell makes people think this “digital art” is real? I mean – you can’t touch it! Okay – I guess you can hold it in your hands if you’ve got an iPad – or you could poke your finger at a Facebook gallery – but that isn’t the same as being able to feel the surface of real paper, or water color board, or impasto paint on Masonite or even canvas. Digital art just is not tangible!
I grew up reading comic books full of real art. All those comics were drawn with pencil on real paper by hand! And then real ink was laid down with pen and brush and the highlights added with white paint! Well, except for the photos of figures, buildings and repeated panels. But those were real photo stats! Except when they were just photo copies from a copy machine. But they were real! And so was the rubber cement that would be slowly digesting the paper, turning it brown and slimy.
And I also read a lot of illustrated books when I was a kid – still do! Those illustrations were painted for real! There’s only one of those originals for each of those illustrations. Well, except for the fact that often the color reproduction of the images was vastly different from what the original art looked like. Blue backgrounds were really green. And that girl actually shows a lot of cleavage on the original, but in the book it was all covered up. But wait – millions of people have seen that printed illustration and loved how it looks in the book. So, is the printed illustration that doesn’t look anything like the original, the real original? So one original for each illustration – hey – sometimes there is one original for 3 or 4 printed illustrations – because those old time illustrators couldn’t afford to buy new canvas. So they just painted over the old one.
When I was in art school, the print makers – stone litho and screen printers – made a big deal about how the final prints were the originals. And that made a lot of sense to me. Looking around the print shop you could find a grease pencil figure drawing and some Rubylith sheets cut in random shapes that kind of looked like bits and shapes that made up the image in the final prints and concert posters. But nothing really looked like the prints and posters, except the prints and posters.
Um. Er. I have a confession to make. I’m a digital artist. Oh – I still keep a sketch book (even though I’m starting to do sketches on my iPad). And I still enjoy inking on art board. But I started doing all my drawing in Photoshop years ago. In the mid-1990′s I was already using 3D programs to build my locations and sets for my comics. It allowed me to be far more creative with my backgrounds and camera angles and made my comics and my art better. These days I use a camera for most everything. And you can trace the camera as an artist’s tool going back for centuries! (I’m including the camera obscura.)
In addition to being a comics creator, I’m also an illustrator and painter. A decade ago I figured out that I had painted over 3000 originals to that point in my career. And since there is a Zen saying that every artist has 3000 bad drawings in them – and the sooner they get them out, the sooner they will start to do some good work – I figured I was ready to start doing some good work! But it was very hard to do color work for print. For comics, the color art never lined up with the line art. And the color seps rarely matched the original art. Trying to sell a color project was massively expensive and labor intensive – and ultimately unsatisfying for anyone.
So I gradually stopped doing full painted illustration work, just because it was so frustrating an experience. 3000 paintings done, ready to do good work, but stalled in the starting gate.
Until last year. Last year I took the step and started painting purely digital paintings. And instantly the reactions to my work turned up about 8 notches. People loved what I was doing. At first I made no effort to tell anyone that the work was digital. I just posted my illustrations to my Facebook gallery and enjoyed the ever increasing numbers of people liking and commenting on my new works. I managed to post 6 to 8 new paintings a month. I did abut 50 paintings in 10 months, all while keeping up with my other work assignments. I never could have managed that with real paint – if only due to the set-up time, drying time and clean-up for each piece that would have been required. But more than that, I have found my perfect medium.
Like any creative person, I have been on a long quest to find the perfect brush, the perfect paper, paint, and ink. And my Wacom Intuos, Photoshop and Painter have finally satisfied that quest for me. I absolutely love painting this way. Frankly. I wish I wasn’t so good with the Wacom Intuos – because I’d love to be able to justify buying a Wacom Cintiq!
But I do get a few people complaining that I have betrayed my ability to REALLY PAINT. There are a lot of reasons expressed. But the one that it always comes down to is:
With a digital painting, there is no original.
They are right about that. The closest I get to an original now is my large prints on art paper. But I do add an original sketch and signature to each one. Other than that – what people see on Facebook, or on the cover of a comic book or novel is as “real” as it gets.
Which for essentially everyone in the world, is how it has always been.
Except for a rare number of my originals that have made it into museums around the county, where the public has access to the works – any original art I’ve sold has found a home with one person or family. And that is the fate of most original art. One original. One owner. And that is indeed the charm. At least it is for the person who has the ability to afford the original. But for all the rest of us – we have to be satisfied with seeing the work in print or on some kind of digital display. Just like always. I certainly was not seeing the originals in those comics and books all through my lifetime!
So my switching to digital art has resulted in my creating some exciting and wonderful images. And when I see them on Facebook or in print, because I created them digitally and had complete control over the final product, they look exactly like they did when I painted them. They look exactly like the digital “original”. Beyond that, I like them. And thousands of people are telling me that they like them. Because of that, I’m perfectly okay with disappointing that 1 person who might have ended up owning the “real” original art. I’m an entertainer with my art. I’ve never been about the 1 person. I at least like to try for 2.
And I’m learning 2 try harder!
–
Mark Wheatley holds the Eisner, Inkpot, Mucker, Gem and Speakeasy awards and nominations for the Harvey award and the Ignatz award. His work has been repeatedly included in the annual Spectrum selection of fantastic art and has appeared in private gallery shows, The Norman Rockwell Museum, Toledo Museum of Art, Huntington Art Museum, James A. Michener Art Museum and the Library of Congress where several of his originals are in the LoC permanent collection. His comic book creations include Ez Street, Lone Justice, Mars, Breathtaker, Black Hood, Prince Nightmare, Hammer of the Gods, Blood of the Innocent, Frankenstein Mobster, Miles the Monster and Titanic Tales. His interpretations of established characters such as Tarzan the Warrior, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Jonny Quest, Dr. Strange, The Flash, Captain Action, Argus and The Spider have brought them to life for a new generation of readers. He has written for TV, illustrated books, designed cutting-edge role-playing games, hosts a weekly radio program, and was an early innovator of the on-line daily comic strip form.
![[Facebook]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Twitter]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
February 17th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
As someone who saw the wonderful prints of your paintings on your table at San Diego last year, I can honestly say I couldn’t pick out the one print based on a hand-painted original. They all looked equally great to me.
Regarding the 3000-illo club, all I can say is “Uh, oh!” At the rate I draw, I’ll may never make it there in my lifetime.
You know what THAT means… (choke) artistic nirvana will always be out of reach, and I’ll (sob) always be a second-rate artistic schlub.
Oh, the humanity!
February 17th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
There is always going to be some critic (or troll) who will deny something is art based on it being “unreal.” It’s generally a bogus notion. The idea that you need to have the “Original” or the “First Edition” or the holographic mylar embossed cover to have the “real” version is just elitist, and links art far too much to the Talismans of Possession, Ownership and Control.
To me, unreal art has little to do with how it is produced, reproduced or controlled. It’s a question of the sincerity and credibility of the artist. Is the artist’s intent honest and does the artist have the talent to see that honest vision to some reasonable approximation of that vision?
For me, as a children’s entertainer, Fred Rogers is 24 Karat and Barney is fool’s gold, nearly worthless. Why? Because I just don’t BELIEVE Barney! I don’t think even the wife of the guy in the dinosaur suit can enjoy that fake, saccharin sweetness surrounded by those Stepford Child-bot actors. Barney has a bigger audience. I’m sure Barney has sold more toys, more DVDs, more CDs, more books. Barney is easily the better commodity. But Mr. Rogers is the Artist.
Mark, in my estimation, you are a REAL Artist and the work you’ve produced for years is very, very honest, effective and REAL. That includes your entirely digital works.
February 17th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
I graduated ‘Art School’ in 2004, with a degree in Fine Art. I was a printmaker (woodcut, specifically). But I’d also worked for years by that point, as a graphic designer. Soon thereafter, I was doing more and more of my art via the computer. I couldn’t help it. The skills I gained making websites, making direct mail pieces and catalogs, etc… all led me to continue to use the computer as a tool. When Unshaven Comics was formed in 2006, there was no doubt in my mind… I was, and am… a digital artist.
While I still strongly believe that kids growing up wanting to explore art should still seek the traditional methods to gain a foundation of skills… The computer will continue to elevate the art I love the most. That being comic books, illustration, and the like.
Mark, you work is amazing, and I for one think it’s as real as anything else. Trust me, I think Picasso and Monet would have loved a digital camera, wacom, thumbdrive, and stylus too.
Ultimately, the computer is like a pencil, a litho stone, or a wad of clay — it’s a tool to use, to visually communicate an idea.
February 17th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
I did my undergrad work at Pratt Institute majoring in illustration. The debate I remember most was between those who used an Opaque Projector to project photos and those who didn’t.
You were considered to be cheating if you used an Opaque Projector.
I thought the same thing until I realized that unless you can draw all you can get from an Opaque Projector was a tracing at best. Here’s how I found out.
While I was still at Pratt I started getting freelance work. I got a big job from Newsweek and was elated to find they were going to pay me $600.00 for ONE piece of art. I had a three week deadline and proudly delivered the finished work ( all hand drawn with no help from some bullshit Opaque Projector) on time. When I got my HUGE $600.00 check for ONE drawing I proudly showed it to my cousin who’s a world famous artist. I figured I was about to give him a run for his money in a few years because I was still in college and I was already making $600.00 check for ONE drawing!
I told him I was paid, $600.00 for ONE piece and he asked how long the job took me.
“It took me three weeks!” I said proud of the time I put into the work.
“Do any other paid work in that time?”
“Nope, I could have but this took ALL my time!” I said with a silly grin.
“Why didn’t you use an Opaque Projector?”
“Because that’s cheating!”
“It would have saved you some time and money?”
“Time I understand, but it would still be cheating. How would it have saved me some money?”
“Because you would have had time to do the other job also.”
At this point I was getting a bit pissed. So I played my trump card.
” I got paid $600.00 for one piece of art!”
“No, you got paid $200.00 a week and that ONE piece of art took you three weeks.”
FUCK!!!!!!
That realization hit me like a brick in the face.
I spent some of that $600.00 on my first Opaque Projector.
Cheating?
I’ll leave you with what I tell assholes who debate me about art vs illustration .
What’s the difference between an artist and an illustrator? An artist makes dinner, an illustrator makes reservations.
February 18th, 2011 at 9:51 am
A few years ago I was talking with a popular SF illustrator at a science fiction convention. He was the GoH and had a large display of his original cover paintings on display in the art show. But these paintings were only slightly “original”. He did his painting in Photoshop – using photos and distorting them to create his image. Then he would take the file to a local print service that printed his image on prepared canvas. He then stretched the canvas and painted over the exposed flesh areas of his figures, and the clouds and sky. The hardware images of ships and robots and cities he mostly left “as is”. I asked him, “Why don’t you just finish it off in Photoshop?” He confessed that on tight deadlines he usually did that. But he would still print it out and add some paint so he would have an “original” to sell at the conventions. Why not?
February 18th, 2011 at 11:53 am
I think end users care more about “originals” nowadays than creators do. Which makes a kind of sense to me – if you’re an end user who wants to own something that nobody else has, digitally-created artwork cheats them of that sense of ownership, entitlement, whatever you want to call it. Even with original sketches or doodles added, a digital printout is still a printout, it can be printed umpteen times and it’ll be exactly the same each time it prints.
For this same reason, digital originals are a blessing to many creators, particularly those working in the comic book industry who are paid based on reproduction rights. Working digitally is a real boon to inkers; my husband Robin has been set up to work digitally for at least a decade, well before the Big Two accepted that sort of thing. For pencillers it may work to the detriment of the “secondary market” but I can see where that might actually be good for the artist, as he or she won’t spend time creating badly composed and pointlessly staged double-page spreads featuring absolutely zero storytelling because he or she knows the original art will sell real well in the secondary market.
By the way, Robin adores his Wacom Cintiq.
February 18th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
The bad thing about all-digital art — for comics artists anyway — is the resulting loss of income.
One of the reasons artists fought so hard to get their original art back in the 1970s and beyond is because it represented a significant increase in income.
For example, in 1988, let’s say Marvel pays Todd McFarlane $150 a page for a Spider-Main comic. Later, after the book is published, McFarlane gets his art back and sells each page for an additional $100.
That’s a big chunk of dough that, in the digital age, vanishes, making the original art wars of the 1970s and 1980s all for naught.
Artists can still sell signed, numbered prints of their creator-owned material at conventions to help income-leverage an image, but that’s something they could have done anyway.
And while some of the original art-income loss inherent in an all-digital system can be offset by the increase in productivity such systems allow, I fear that in a significant number of cases — particularly for slow artists — the new technology is 40-year step back, income-wise.
February 18th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
R,
Good point but at least SOME of the lost of income can be minimized by artists taking commissions.
Because of Felix Serrano and Mark, I’m now playing with Photoshop. People have been telling me for years to do so but I now finally see the light. I love what Mark said about the guy who paints on the canvas after photoshop. That’s textbook mix-media.
February 19th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Hopefully this doesn’t sound like an advertisement, but if you do enjoy working digitally, you really should check out the Cintiq.
I don’t even paint, but I work with one and it is an amazing tool. I saves me so much time when working out sketches, and helps me be more creative with composition than I could have been with pencil and paper. For painters, of course it’s also great for that. If you’re getting paid for the work you do, it will pay for itself in no time.
For me personally, my hand would cramp after a couple of hours trying to draw in Photoshop with my Intuous. The Cintiq eliminates that problem. I still work with pen and paper but mostly for concepts and free-er sketches; I don’t feel the pressure to ‘get it right’ since I know I can easily fix whatever I want later.
If there’s a store with a demo unit, I highly recommend trying it out. They sometimes trot out demo units at certain expos and tradeshows too.
February 20th, 2011 at 12:14 am
MOTU — Hey, your comment about commissions got me thinking and I realized there’s a bit wider angle to consider regarding the whole original art issue. Since what an artist can get for his/her work is, to a large degree, a function of supply and demand, if there are no original art comic book pages floating around, artists can probably ask for, and get, more money for commissions/recreations. That could also offset the decreased income inherent in all-digital comics.
I still think, however, the best way to offset the loss is signed and numbered prints.
February 20th, 2011 at 12:45 am
R,
VERY good points all.
February 20th, 2011 at 12:48 am
Charlene,
I checked out some of your work on line and like you Hopefully this doesn’t sound like an advertisement but…DAMN! You are an talented (insert something clever) artist!
I LOVED your work.
February 21st, 2011 at 10:10 am
Charlene – I’ve seen demos of the Cintiq and I’ve been impressed. I have not been able to get a hands-on demo. I would love to get a Cintiq. But I work fast and very well with the Intuos. For the cost – I can’t justify the purchase. There are many things and experiences competing for my affections that could use up the cost of a Cintiq. But the moment I have too much money – a Cintiq is at the top of my list.
February 21st, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Charlene – I took a look, too. Your art is wonderful!