|
Post by rusVan on Jan 7, 2009 15:01:02 GMT -5
Man this thread has run all over the place. It's like that game we used to play in Elementary school where you sit in a circle and whisper something in your neighbors ear....and it keeps going around the room. By the time it gets to the end of the circle, it isn't at all what the first person said. Apparently discussing the use of Photoshop vs. hand-painting a GPK is done, and now we're saying that Photographs aren't as good as Photoshop? Or are photographed GPK's not as good as finger-painted GPK's? Or...wait - I have no idea what anyone is saying. Time to put this fuggin' thing to bed. Amen Nico! I think I just brought a knife to a gun fight! Just keep doing what your doing guys, it's all good.
|
|
|
Post by Marmac on Jan 7, 2009 16:16:52 GMT -5
I don't mind digital art in the slightest, it just pains me to think that what I see on my screen is it. There is no piece of physical artwork that makes the screen image look terrible. A physical piece of artwork that is proof positive that this is what the artist intended. No print will accomplish that. Who's to say that your screen is even set up to view the art in the proper manner? Is my resolution right? Are my colors set up right and do I have the right scale? Is my brightness correct? Was there degradation of the image due to scaling to fit the screen? What size is it even supposed to be? And so on. There is more to art than the image to me. There is a story in the art as well. Usually when an artist works digitally on a piece the end result is generally a print. The print is the final piece not what is on the screen. Prints are produced in editions to the artist specifications. So to say no print will accomplish what an artist intended is false.
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 7, 2009 16:31:20 GMT -5
I don't mind digital art in the slightest, it just pains me to think that what I see on my screen is it. There is no piece of physical artwork that makes the screen image look terrible. A physical piece of artwork that is proof positive that this is what the artist intended. No print will accomplish that. Who's to say that your screen is even set up to view the art in the proper manner? Is my resolution right? Are my colors set up right and do I have the right scale? Is my brightness correct? Was there degradation of the image due to scaling to fit the screen? What size is it even supposed to be? And so on. There is more to art than the image to me. There is a story in the art as well. Usually when an artist works digitally on a piece the end result is generally a print. The print is the final piece not what is on the screen. Prints are produced in editions to the artist specifications. So to say no print will accomplish what an artist intended is false. Usually when...blah blah blah. Fugg that 'usually' nonsense. Final non-digital art is ALWAYS the real deal. There's no mistaking it. Fugg 'generally'. Fugg 'usually'. Fugg 'probably'. Fugg all the bulls**t wishywashy terms that don't mean anything. It's pointless arguing about this anymore, because the points continue to get lamer, so I'm done.
|
|
|
Post by Brent Engstrom on Jan 7, 2009 16:53:48 GMT -5
It's not lame. Griswold's right.
|
|
|
Post by gpkgirl on Jan 7, 2009 17:22:40 GMT -5
It takes just as much time and talent to painting in photoshop, as it does in any other medium. I'd be willing to bet that if done right, you couldn't tell the difference between a photoshop and an acrylic/oil painting. Just because something is done on the computer doesn't make it automated. You still have to paint every single stroke, like you would in any painting. I'm a fine artist too and have been teaching art for over 10 years in the public school system. I've taught pre-k to college art intro classes...I know the difference between a lame ass photoshop color piece and a fine work of art. how can you tell the difference? earlier you were asking Brent about the braided brooke piece..you had no idea it was photoshopped
|
|
Nicodemus
geepeekay.com Webmaster
Posts: 4,199
|
Post by Nicodemus on Jan 7, 2009 17:24:29 GMT -5
Usually when an artist works digitally on a piece the end result is generally a print. The print is the final piece not what is on the screen. Prints are produced in editions to the artist specifications. So to say no print will accomplish what an artist intended is false. Usually when...blah blah blah. Fugg that 'usually' nonsense. Final non-digital art is ALWAYS the real deal. There's no mistaking it. Fugg 'generally'. Fugg 'usually'. Fugg 'probably'. Fugg all the bulls**t wishywashy terms that don't mean anything. Cory is probably right on this. He usually always is.
|
|
|
Post by rusVan on Jan 7, 2009 17:39:47 GMT -5
I'm a fine artist too and have been teaching art for over 10 years in the public school system. I've taught pre-k to college art intro classes...I know the difference between a lame ass photoshop color piece and a fine work of art. how can you tell the difference? earlier you were asking Brent about the braided brooke piece..you had no idea it was photoshopped It was common knowledge that most of ANS 7 was doctored, I just didn't know that Braided Brooke was a 100% computer piece!! I remember rumors on this site around Christmas 07 before it was released. I'm honestly less impressed with Braided Brooke now, but time will heal my broken heart. I thought it was mostly airbrush(real airbrush paint) over some digital, modern print..hell, I don't know!! I just assumed some of each GPK was done with real paint. Space Chase was VERY suspicious from the enlarged poster! I was wondering why so many people hate ANS 7 and quit collecting ANS for good! Is all of Brent's work 100% digital?
|
|
|
Post by Mark Pingitore on Jan 7, 2009 17:55:18 GMT -5
I'm honestly less impressed with Braided Brooke now, but time will heal my broken heart. Is all of Brent's work 100% digital? The fact that you have to ask proves the point that you can't tell the difference. How about no one explains how they painted anything, and leave everyone to wonder. If you like it, great. It amazes me how much focus is being put on how it's made.
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 7, 2009 18:15:43 GMT -5
Usually when...blah blah blah. Fugg that 'usually' nonsense. Final non-digital art is ALWAYS the real deal. There's no mistaking it. Fugg 'generally'. Fugg 'usually'. Fugg 'probably'. Fugg all the bulls**t wishywashy terms that don't mean anything. Cory is probably right on this. He usually always is. Hey Nico want to buy a print for $500. It's a 1/1, honest, and the image you'll see online is totally not better in quality. Is a print even relevant enough to be framed?
|
|
|
Post by Brent Engstrom on Jan 7, 2009 18:34:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mark Pingitore on Jan 7, 2009 18:46:35 GMT -5
Cory is probably right on this. He usually always is. Hey Nico want to buy a print for $500. It's a 1/1, honest, and the image you'll see online is totally not better in quality. Is a print even relevant enough to be framed? You get paid a for every "image" you paint to be used, so yes, it is relevant.
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 7, 2009 18:51:17 GMT -5
Those are prints of real art. Want to see what people think of the beauty of acrylic? perfumefreezone.com/pemaxda.htmlAlso, that painting sucks. Yuppie bulls**t is all I see.
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 7, 2009 18:55:31 GMT -5
Hey Nico want to buy a print for $500. It's a 1/1, honest, and the image you'll see online is totally not better in quality. Is a print even relevant enough to be framed? You get paid a for every "image" you paint to be used, so yes, it is relevant. You lost me on this one.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Pingitore on Jan 7, 2009 18:58:31 GMT -5
You get paid a for every "image" you paint to be used, so yes, it is relevant. You lost me on this one. Topps (and any other company who comissions artwork) pays you to use what you're calling worthless.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Pingitore on Jan 7, 2009 19:01:48 GMT -5
No one said prints are worth as much as an arcylic painting. You asked if anyone pays for prints.
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 7, 2009 19:08:54 GMT -5
You lost me on this one. Topps (and any other company who comissions artwork) pays you to use what you're calling worthless. I know that. The only time I said worthless was in reference to the actual image file. Prints will have some value but not nearly as much as a real painting. They just aren't in the same class because you get so much more with a painted piece. Real painted artwork has a little something extra, character. It is true that I wouldn't pay $50 to frame a print of a GPK though.
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 7, 2009 19:09:45 GMT -5
No one said prints are worth as much as an arcylic painting. You asked if anyone pays for prints. I asked Nico as a joke. You guys took it seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Pingitore on Jan 7, 2009 19:14:36 GMT -5
Topps (and any other company who comissions artwork) pays you to use what you're calling worthless. I know that. The only time I said worthless was in reference to the actual image file. Prints will have some value but not nearly as much as a real painting. They just aren't in the same class because you get so much more with a painted piece. Real painted artwork has a little something extra, character. It is true that I wouldn't pay $50 to frame a print of a GPK though. True, but you can sell more than one print, and make the same amount of money. You know I'm as big a fan of an acrylic painted final as the next person. I just don't think it should matter when it comes to the enjoyment of the card. You disagree, and that's fine.
|
|
|
Post by leeroy on Jan 7, 2009 20:09:29 GMT -5
So being a newbie to art as I am, who is to say after the 250 prints are sold, more are not printed? My parents have these prints that they bought years and years ago that are worth a nice chunk of change, but I have always wondered why more just coudn't be printed?? People are greedy, esp with $$$. I assume on ANS7, Topps has the rights to the "Prints" if they were say to make 100 of them and sell them off? For me personally, I have enjoyed the final art knowing it is the only one out there. It takes hardcore talent to do photoshop and hardcore talent to work with a brush , I give props to all who can do either one because I can't do crap when it comes to art except sign my name it pays the bills ;D
|
|
|
Post by Marmac on Jan 7, 2009 22:00:20 GMT -5
Usually when an artist works digitally on a piece the end result is generally a print. The print is the final piece not what is on the screen. Prints are produced in editions to the artist specifications. So to say no print will accomplish what an artist intended is false. Usually when...blah blah blah. Fugg that 'usually' nonsense. Final non-digital art is ALWAYS the real deal. There's no mistaking it. Fugg 'generally'. Fugg 'usually'. Fugg 'probably'. Fugg all the bulls**t wishywashy terms that don't mean anything. It's pointless arguing about this anymore, because the points continue to get lamer, so I'm done. You're such a drama queen. Just admit what we all know in that you know nothing about art or the process. You're just embarrassing yourself when you talk out of your ass.
|
|
|
Post by jaylynch on Jan 7, 2009 22:01:31 GMT -5
Crumb's Cheap Thrills cover is a good example. Last time the original art was sold, it went for 30 grand. But the original art is an india ink drawing that was colored with cel-0-tac film. The cel-o-tak is forty years old now, and the adhesive on it is going bad...and the original art is peeling...and the cel-0-tak (which wasn't made to hold up over 40 years in the first place) is rotting away. The prints were recolored from a photostat of the original black and white art that Crumb saved. So the prints look a whole lot nicer than the original art does.
Science is working on a computer printer that prints with acrylic paint, and retains the texture of digitally created brush strokes. There are already printers that print on canvas. So eventually we'll all be able to hang exact repros of the Mona Lisa in our bathrooms.
The REAL thing to worry about is the future of content media. Direct electronic brain stimulation will be able to produce stylized feelings in folks without doing so by manipulating the emotions with content. The role of the artist in the future will be to devise computer programs of stylized feelings for folks to groove on. content will be unnecessary. And actually....this isn't really worth worrying about. It's just a natural progression in the history of media. But there will be folks who complain....and say they prefer content...Just as they complained when the printing press was invented, and they preferred to read books hand lettered by monks.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jan 7, 2009 22:11:49 GMT -5
Usually when...blah blah blah. Fugg that 'usually' nonsense. Final non-digital art is ALWAYS the real deal. There's no mistaking it. Fugg 'generally'. Fugg 'usually'. Fugg 'probably'. Fugg all the bulls**t wishywashy terms that don't mean anything. It's pointless arguing about this anymore, because the points continue to get lamer, so I'm done. You're such a drama queen. Just admit what we all know in that you know nothing about art or the process. You're just embarrassing yourself when you talk out of your ass. Next we should do Your Momma's so... jokes.
|
|
|
Post by rusVan on Jan 7, 2009 22:40:51 GMT -5
I'm honestly less impressed with Braided Brooke now, but time will heal my broken heart. Is all of Brent's work 100% digital? The fact that you have to ask proves the point that you can't tell the difference. How about no one explains how they painted anything, and leave everyone to wonder. If you like it, great. It amazes me how much focus is being put on how it's made. Gris, I'm an artist and a craftsman! This is my life!! GPK artists are my heros!! All artists are my heros!! All the hundreds of students I teach art to each week are my heros and the thousands I taught before them!! I study art as a career!! To me, this s**t is a gift Gris!! A gift from the highest. I know I'm traditional, it comes out in my personal work, but there's a beauty to a painting, as an art object, and not just the plastic image. What do you want me to say? Look around you, there's other people saying the same s**t(and saying better than I have ) Like I said before, many GPK collectors were spoiled by John Pound's masterpieces in the 80s, and he set a standard that everyother GPK artist will be compaired!! That's life! His early work is still s**t HOT TO THIS DAY!!! . And he has the paintings to back that s**t up too!! He's like a punkrock Norman Rockwell ANS 7 is super cool, it's my daughter's favorite series(out of ALL of them) and ANS is really about her and her generation! no worries guys! nevermind us old farts!
|
|
|
Post by rusVan on Jan 7, 2009 22:53:29 GMT -5
Crumb's Cheap Thrills cover is a good example. Last time the original art was sold, it went for 30 grand. But the original art is an india ink drawing that was colored with cel-0-tac film. The cel-o-tak is forty years old now, and the adhesive on it is going bad...and the original art is peeling...and the cel-0-tak (which wasn't made to hold up over 40 years in the first place) is rotting away. The prints were recolored from a photostat of the original black and white art that Crumb saved. So the prints look a whole lot nicer than the original art does. Science is working on a computer printer that prints with acrylic paint, and retains the texture of digitally created brush strokes. There are already printers that print on canvas. So eventually we'll all be able to hang exact repros of the Mona Lisa in our bathrooms. The REAL thing to worry about is the future of content media. Direct electronic brain stimulation will be able to produce stylized feelings in folks without doing so by manipulating the emotions with content. The role of the artist in the future will be to devise computer programs of stylized feelings for folks to groove on. content will be unnecessary. And actually....this isn't really worth worrying about. It's just a natural progression in the history of media. But there will be folks who complain....and say they prefer content...Just as they complained when the printing press was invented, and they preferred to read books hand lettered by monks. I all your posts Mr. Lynch! Happy BD too!! I'd love to talk art history with you sometime! Thanks for being so cool and holding your tongue, it's must be difficult. Your art career has lasted longer than many of our ages! I have a lot to learn from you about new technology and how to be a gentleman! I'd love to do some illustration art down the road which is a big reason why I hang around here. That and cheap toys! And special thanks for the the Flashbacks insight and information in that thread. God bless!
|
|
Nicodemus
geepeekay.com Webmaster
Posts: 4,199
|
Post by Nicodemus on Jan 7, 2009 23:02:49 GMT -5
No one said prints are worth as much as an arcylic painting. You asked if anyone pays for prints. I asked Nico as a joke. You guys took it seriously. I got a chuckle if it makes you feel any better! :lol1:
|
|
|
Post by Sniglet on Jan 7, 2009 23:39:46 GMT -5
Crumb's Cheap Thrills cover is a good example. Last time the original art was sold, it went for 30 grand. But the original art is an india ink drawing that was colored with cel-0-tac film. The cel-o-tak is forty years old now, and the adhesive on it is going bad...and the original art is peeling...and the cel-0-tak (which wasn't made to hold up over 40 years in the first place) is rotting away. The prints were recolored from a photostat of the original black and white art that Crumb saved. So the prints look a whole lot nicer than the original art does. Science is working on a computer printer that prints with acrylic paint, and retains the texture of digitally created brush strokes. There are already printers that print on canvas. So eventually we'll all be able to hang exact repros of the Mona Lisa in our bathrooms. The REAL thing to worry about is the future of content media. Direct electronic brain stimulation will be able to produce stylized feelings in folks without doing so by manipulating the emotions with content. The role of the artist in the future will be to devise computer programs of stylized feelings for folks to groove on. content will be unnecessary. And actually....this isn't really worth worrying about. It's just a natural progression in the history of media. But there will be folks who complain....and say they prefer content...Just as they complained when the printing press was invented, and they preferred to read books hand lettered by monks. To paint with a machine.... sounds epic. I like the idea of prints and i like the idea of an actual painting. Creating art through photoshop and wot not has its perks and is an obvious sign of the process of "modernizing art". If they created limit edition "prints" of anything that i collected i would buy them. I have some Frank Frazetta prints that i'm quite fond of and they are quite rare. though, not an actual ink drawing by him, still limited addition and nice to have. I would actually buy prints of Diaz's parody kids if they were to sell. I would much rather be concerned with having a print as opposed to the actual art in my case. Simply because i can't afford those types of items, and prints would be a nice substitute. I just want new GPK in any form they take.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2009 0:56:15 GMT -5
Okay I'm going to keep this short...(atleast I will try, but this subject is something I've racked my brains on for sometime and I know I'm not the only one) I feel sorry this all occurred in Brent's thread, but it's a great subject to write about. I learned to paint first then use the computer and for that I'm very happy about. I know what a pain in the butt to have to repaint an acrylic and worse an oil painting still wet. I haven't painted in oils in quit a while, but I'm sure this year I will do plenty as the months role for a special event I'll have. I first used Photoshop (PS) when it only had 1 undo and if you have more than just a few layers your computer would start to show steam on the side of it. It was a frustrating time and I thought I'd never use a freaking mac ever again. Now I'm writing on this thread with one and read most of this thread earlier today on my iPhone. Holy crap. I learned photoshop as a designer first for a news station and because of this I was able to apply that knowledge to my photoshop artwork years later. As the sequels to PS came out every couple of years and later changed to letters (CS), I got better at using it and experimented with it and facilitated my color and drawing layouts for my fine art and commercial work. I can't imagine not having Photoshop or Painter these days around for some "major" help in the process of any of my artwork on both spectrums of the art world. I use PS to layout my sketches, correct mistakes, add other things and finally print out the layout on archival paper to finally paint with acrylics. I know the bias people have with digitally manipulated artwork, but it's not which one is better or how it was done. It's your experience with the art and most people like to experience art in different ways. Some like the glossy look of acrylics on paper and when acrylic came out the fine art world didn't accept it very well as with most new things. It just has to do with people's preferences or biases. There are many people that buy prints. A lot of silk screen prints for 90's Rock Bands go for a good amount of money today because some are very rare. Some of those old school movie posters from the 30's and 40's and 50's are ultra rare and can go for a lot as well and it's just something a machine printed. Like comic books. First appearance of Spider-Man goes for a good amount and it's just a printed piece of "art". I love the way those half tones look BTW. So in reality it is what the masses put a price on something. Lots of times it has to do with how old something is and all those other things that make something "worth" something, but if you really think about it, it's worth has to do with what we all are willing to pay for it or how rare we decide it to be. The real value to me is how it makes you feel, but in our world it's all diluted to the other things I mentioned. So I went a little off the subject here, but in essence from the artist's stand point: money, he or she has to do what will make them the most money at least that's what I think we all pretty much work towards since any of us all are affected when we can't pay for the rent, or electricity, etc. So it's up to the artist to decide what he/she wants to do. I decided to make sure I can sell each of the art work I make. So I can get twice as much for one image created. Other people are faster and can probably make the whole thing digital and make twice as many "images" and so it kind of balances out. So it's what the artists feels like doing. I have worked over 60 hours on one piece on either PS or on an acrylic painting so it's not that digital is faster it's just that it can deliver certain results and give certain freedoms to the artists that traditional media won't ever be able to do. As far as color is concerned my color sense has improved because of the computer. I layout most of my work first on the computer so I don't have to waste my time figuring things out on paper or on canvas. It's amazing how you can change the color or move elements on the computer that can make an "image" far better, but for myself I know the final has to be something someone will fine a value to so I make sure it is finalized in what they expect. Geez I went on and on. Hope it brings some light into what I think about the matter, but I can't be biased to any side cause my work and the process of how I do any artwork is an amalgam of them both. P.S. That cottontail artwork will eventually become an oil painting. Even though I did it digitally first.
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 8, 2009 8:59:33 GMT -5
Usually when...blah blah blah. Fugg that 'usually' nonsense. Final non-digital art is ALWAYS the real deal. There's no mistaking it. Fugg 'generally'. Fugg 'usually'. Fugg 'probably'. Fugg all the bulls**t wishywashy terms that don't mean anything. It's pointless arguing about this anymore, because the points continue to get lamer, so I'm done. You're such a drama queen. Just admit what we all know in that you know nothing about art or the process. You're just embarrassing yourself when you talk out of your ass. Why don't you just admit you are some kind of elitist pig that thinks that only an artist can know anything about a subject. Go f**k yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Cory on Jan 8, 2009 9:42:33 GMT -5
Okay I'm going to keep this short...(atleast I will try, but this subject is something I've racked my brains on for sometime and I know I'm not the only one) I feel sorry this all occurred in Brent's thread, but it's a great subject to write about. I learned to paint first then use the computer and for that I'm very happy about. I know what a pain in the butt to have to repaint an acrylic and worse an oil painting still wet. I haven't painted in oils in quit a while, but I'm sure this year I will do plenty as the months role for a special event I'll have. I first used Photoshop (PS) when it only had 1 undo and if you have more than just a few layers your computer would start to show steam on the side of it. It was a frustrating time and I thought I'd never use a freaking mac ever again. Now I'm writing on this thread with one and read most of this thread earlier today on my iPhone. Holy crap. I learned photoshop as a designer first for a news station and because of this I was able to apply that knowledge to my photoshop artwork years later. As the sequels to PS came out every couple of years and later changed to letters (CS), I got better at using it and experimented with it and facilitated my color and drawing layouts for my fine art and commercial work. I can't imagine not having Photoshop or Painter these days around for some "major" help in the process of any of my artwork on both spectrums of the art world. I use PS to layout my sketches, correct mistakes, add other things and finally print out the layout on archival paper to finally paint with acrylics. I know the bias people have with digitally manipulated artwork, but it's not which one is better or how it was done. It's your experience with the art and most people like to experience art in different ways. Some like the glossy look of acrylics on paper and when acrylic came out the fine art world didn't accept it very well as with most new things. It just has to do with people's preferences or biases. There are many people that buy prints. A lot of silk screen prints for 90's Rock Bands go for a good amount of money today because some are very rare. Some of those old school movie posters from the 30's and 40's and 50's are ultra rare and can go for a lot as well and it's just something a machine printed. Like comic books. First appearance of Spider-Man goes for a good amount and it's just a printed piece of "art". I love the way those half tones look BTW. So in reality it is what the masses put a price on something. Lots of times it has to do with how old something is and all those other things that make something "worth" something, but if you really think about it, it's worth has to do with what we all are willing to pay for it or how rare we decide it to be. The real value to me is how it makes you feel, but in our world it's all diluted to the other things I mentioned. So I went a little off the subject here, but in essence from the artist's stand point: money, he or she has to do what will make them the most money at least that's what I think we all pretty much work towards since any of us all are affected when we can't pay for the rent, or electricity, etc. So it's up to the artist to decide what he/she wants to do. I decided to make sure I can sell each of the art work I make. So I can get twice as much for one image created. Other people are faster and can probably make the whole thing digital and make twice as many "images" and so it kind of balances out. So it's what the artists feels like doing. I have worked over 60 hours on one piece on either PS or on an acrylic painting so it's not that digital is faster it's just that it can deliver certain results and give certain freedoms to the artists that traditional media won't ever be able to do. As far as color is concerned my color sense has improved because of the computer. I layout most of my work first on the computer so I don't have to waste my time figuring things out on paper or on canvas. It's amazing how you can change the color or move elements on the computer that can make an "image" far better, but for myself I know the final has to be something someone will fine a value to so I make sure it is finalized in what they expect. Geez I went on and on. Hope it brings some light into what I think about the matter, but I can't be biased to any side cause my work and the process of how I do any artwork is an amalgam of them both. P.S. That cottontail artwork will eventually become an oil painting. Even though I did it digitally first. Doing digital art is very advantageous to the artist in many ways. I get that and I really don't dislike digital art at all. It's really only hurts the fan of actual art. Someone that can only see the image (aka Griswold) it doesn't matter. But for the people that look deeper (Me and obviously rusvan, among others) it makes a difference and takes artwork to the next level. Looking at a print or screen image is nothing like looking at a finished physical product. Seeing the imperfections and techniques used to craft it is just as interesting as the image itself. No print (limited edition or not) can even begin to offer the same kind of experience right now. My opinions are based on being a viewer of art, not a creator of it. I have taken fine art classes in college so I do know the history of art. I'm a fan of many different artists, not just GPK art. GPK art just happens to be the only art I'm interested in that I can afford. I don't think physical art will ever die because there will be a demand for it. Jay's printing press analogy is a decent one but books would have to be handwritten by the author to be comparable. Then there would be a 1 of 1 from the artist and a bunch of prints. Fans of books may not even be into that as their hobby is based on the written story and not the handwriting. A lot of book fans don't even care if it's an actual book. It can be one of those reading screen things or a monitor.
|
|
Nicodemus
geepeekay.com Webmaster
Posts: 4,199
|
Post by Nicodemus on Jan 8, 2009 10:43:49 GMT -5
You're such a drama queen. Just admit what we all know in that you know nothing about art or the process. You're just embarrassing yourself when you talk out of your ass. Why don't you just admit you are some kind of elitist pig that thinks that only an artist can know anything about a subject. Go f**k yourself. Love it.
|
|