Colleen, you absolutely know your stuff about dyes. But you are confusing one point. And many working pros, over the years, also make this mistake. "Non-repro blue" is not really invisible to a camera. For line art reproduction, light blue takes a longer exposure to show up on a negative. So it is fairly easy to drop it out of line art shots. But, if you wanted to capture a page of blue penciled art, you could shoot a halftone and capture all the subtle details. Give it a long enough exposure and you could get a line shot out of it. The negative would be very dusty, but it could be done. In the case of blueline color paintings, the camera sees that blue just fine. The same way it sees the same blue used in the painting. That blueline ends up backing up the black line art when printed, making the black line richer and darker. This is important, since the black ink commonly used in CMYK printing is transparent. Printed without other colors, that black ink appears washed out and faded. My studios, Insight Studios, provided bluelines for all the major and many of the minor publishers up until about 2006, by way of credentials.
Ah, you are correct, non-photo blue is a short hand term for a long explanation, but you encapsulated it perfectly. As you note, it takes longer for the blue to show up on the shot - but it's still invisible when you want it to be. All comic art pages provided by publishers have the non photo blue lines on them, and when you reproduce as black line art, the blue drops right out. All those Artist Edition collections shoot the art as full range color, so you see all the non-photo blue as well as all the pencils doodles, side notes, and ink lines. Barry Windsor Smith often drew with that blue pencil and those drawings have all been reproduced in their full glory. Of course, non photo blue scans just fine on a computer scanner. You also just touched on why we want flat colors in digital printing to back up the black line art as well! Because if you don't, you get that weird effect underneath what to the eye looks black, but what will come out greyish in print. This is a great explanation thanks so much!
I had a long-time experienced publisher come to me a few decades ago, frustrated that they had this beautiful blue pencil illustration they would love to use as a cover. But of course, since it was in blue pencil, they "knew" it was impossible to reproduce. Could I come up with a clever solution to solve this problem? Needless to say, I solved that problem faster than they ever expected! :)
At one time I was a professional artist and it always felt it was MY responsibility to make sure my work lasted for centuries. My 'teachers' were the people I was astounded by -Monet, Caravaggio, Parrish - and I wanted my stuff to last that long. I forced myself to learn this stuff. It amazes me people don't care what's in their work material and how it's going to age. On the flip side it can be argued 'Oh it's only a comic book cover' but I can't imagine artists like Windsor-Smith NOT knowing the materials they are working with. I have to assume at a certain level they really do just look at it as the comic-book-cover-of-the-month and not lasting art
Well, it's really not Barry's fault, because almost none of the artists from that time knew about the materials. Almost everyone came from commercial art communities where the end result for publication was the only concern, and many of us were taught all the wrong things. My earliest A Distant Soil publisher gave me terrible art advice, and it was all centered around using Dr Martin's. All the creators I knew who were in comic and SF/Fantasy art had to learn the hard way. Many of us had no formal training, and there was no internet. While one of my first agents tried to explain to me the dangers of using markers, I didn't understand what he was saying until years later when I visited Walt Simonson and saw art he'd done fading to nothing on the wall. He told me why, and I was like...whoa. It finally sank in, I was horrified. In fact, most of us were strongly discouraged from studying or using fine art techniques because we were just lowly cartoonists and illustrators, and our work was worthless. I know of one famous SF illustrator whose works appeared on many an Omni magazine cover whose art was destroyed by his family for being junk. You've got to set your mind back 70 years to understand how the comic and fantasy art markets have changed, and how social mores around our art have changed. I mean, my Sandman art sold for $25. Who knew it would ever be worth anything?
Yeah I've heard horror stories about original art being warehoused and abused. It's heart breaking. As a kid I always looked at comics and thought "I'll never be that good" and then I learned it was thought of as just a throwaway for decades. I just don't have the words. I understand why it was thought of that way, simply people making a living and companies making money. We now have the luxury of looking at it differently but it's still heart breaking
Between 1983 and 88, while I was at school and at Marvel, I played with dyed and watercolors. Hey, those colors!!! I certainly recall my painting teachers telling me to stay away from the dyes. I haven't seen this little paintings in years. I wonder how they've held up sitting in a portfolio or box in the garage all these years...
It really is, so many people were constantly told they were worthless and their work was nothing, and many people like me, Paul Levitz and Jim Shooter were kids. Editors (and sometimes writers and other artists) just treated us like dogs. And they were always telling us our work was nothing, but I could be here for ages telling you tales of those same writers/editors/other artists walking away with our original art when they got their hands on it. Worthless and yet worth stealing, apparently.
Thanks for this, Colleen. It doesn’t help that the Marvel Comics Try Out Book insisted aspiring colorists use Dr Martin’s dyes. My local art store didn’t sell them so I made do with Chartpak brand. Didn’t bother going through with it, though.
Yes, the tools most of us were taught to use back in the day come from the industry standards that arose from the commercial art arena. I had no idea there was a difference!
Does anyone remember Luma Dyes? I used them in college and I was so in love with them I recently bought some off ebay. Is this the same watercolor as Martens?
Not a clue. The only Luma I'm familiar with is Luma Bleed Proof White. It should say on the container who the manufacturer is. Bleed Proof White is from Daler Rowney. FYI, the Dr Martin's Hydrus watercolor range is lightfast unlike the old Dr Martin's. It's VERY intense, too. A little goes a long way, but you really need to know how to mix your colors.
As an inker, I wonder what's going to happen to all those lines that our peers have put down using copics and microns. Luckily I use them very little. Old fashioned Higgins for me.
It depends on the marker. Some markers, like the Faber Castells, use pigments. The copics are dyes, but there is a newer line of black copic pens that are billed as lightfast. The Microns are lightfast. Again, they use pigments. The markers to watch out for are alcohol based. The Faber Catell and Microns are not alcohol based. The reason the ink is not as deep as ink out of a bottle is because it's thinner. It has to be because it has to wick through that sponge tip. And it doesn't have shellac in it. I've had some art I did with Deleters that has not faded in over thirty years. Again, it's pigment based. Yeah, I know this answer rambles, I'm medicated.
You spend far more time studying the science of these things that I do!
I don't use marker pens to ink basically because I prefer the variety and feel of traditional quill nibs. And the scratching sound helps keep me awake! :D
I like crowquills too, but I admit I got used to the convenience of the markers. Now I’m testing the Lumos pens, a refillable marker, and I am very impressed by it.
Colleen, I am a long-time reader, first-time commenter. I have been reading all your posts about art material longevity over the past year and your dedication and knowledgeability about this topic is impressive. I never thought about any of it before reading what you had to say. I have spent all this time trying to understand your perspective; why it is so important to you, and to all these other respected pro artists, that your original art lasts. Why you have such veneration for the originals of art that’s made to be reproduced. Of course it seems obvious to you, but not to me. And now I’m basically sitting here trembling on the verge of an existential crisis. I am of two minds. I think, “Maybe it’s just that she’s older and wiser. Maybe I will feel the same someday.” “Maybe it’s just a pre-digital-age thing.” “She sits in front of the paper for hours and hours pouring her heart and soul into it, of course she feels that that paper and ink IS the art in a way that I, the reader, who sees only a mere reproduction, can’t understand.”
I am younger than either of the pieces of art you used as examples. I was not raised by wolves, but I was raised by computers. I am a huge fan of Barry Windsor-Smith, by the way. When I look at how that magenta in the sky behind Conan has vanished, making a totally different color palette, I think “how interesting” and “both versions look nice.” But to me it’s as if you’re mourning something that is not dead. I can see how it looked when he painted it. It’s right there in front of my eyes.
I am an average comic-book reader. Call me a Philistine if you will. I will never see the originals of the art that I admire. Infinitesimally few people will, compared to the thousands that see it in the medium it was created for, in print or on a screen. To me, that image in whatever form I see it IS the art. It’s an intangible, infinite soul, not something that resides only in the physical medium in which the artist first created it, and it doesn’t need to be a perfect reproduction to be beautiful and valuable to me. The manuscripts of books are important objects that are worth preserving, but if the original manuscript hasn’t survived the book is not gone. Words aren’t the paper they’re written on, and to me images are the same. I feel this is similar to the philosophical issue of consciousness and the brain. If my consciousness could be preserved digitally, or through some intangible magical means, I would feel no need for my body to last. My body’s just meat, it’s not me, and I don’t need it to last forever. And I feel the same way about my paper, ink, and paint. I appreciate that you feel differently.
Of course, I might feel differently if I had ever painted something I felt was really worth preserving for a long time. And of course, everything being temporary doesn’t mean there’s no reason to make things able to last for decades or centuries instead of just years.
Seeing your responses to others’ comments, I also see that the historical lack of respect and proper preservation for comic book art as opposed to “fine” art is a major reason you’re so passionate about this. And that is highly understandable. For the record, I feel the same about all works of art. Of course originals are important and valuable and of higher quality than reproductions, but I simply do not buy the idea that a canvas in a gallery I’ll never visit is more “real,” contains more of the “soul” of the work than the image I see in a book or on a screen half a world away. You may find this ridiculous, but I don’t think you can change my mind about this any more than I’ll change yours. Thank you for reading this ridiculously long and pretentious comment.
I think you just straw manned my entire perspective. Nowhere did I say that the art in a gallery is more real than the art you see printed or digital art. Point to the part of the post where I wrote that or implied that? Because I totally didn't. But you do realize a main point I made here is that when someone buys an ORIGINAL PIECE OF ART FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS and then sees it fade away in the manner the Kevin Knowlan piece did...Someone put the hard working hours of their life into making that money to buy that art. It is literally worth the time of their life. What kind of disrespect am I showing my clients when I put NO EFFORT into honoring that investment into my heart and hand? Fading and deteriorating art is a thing. A big thing. It's incredibly bad form as an artist to charge large sums of money for art and then have it destroy itself. In fact, artists have been sued for it. I have owned paintings by major illustrators that have literally broken apart while hanging on my wall because the artist did the work in a manner that would not stand up to time and temperature. And there was never any way to reproduce that art in a manner that presented the artist's original intent. If the difference between the original hand made creation means nothing to you, then fine. Then don't care. That's you. NO one said any of this art was going to last forever, any more than the pyramids at Giza are going to last forever, especially after the sun expands and the world blows up. Using your logic, NOTHING is worth preserving, or caring for, and has no material value. That's fine. You do you. My respect for original art isn't just coming from the place of being a downtrodden D-list comic artist, but in intrinsic respect for heart and hand above all. What you invest in what you create with your own hands has material and spiritual value, and if you think it's worth the effort in the first place, it's worth the effort to make it last for those who become its caretakers. The experience of a piece of original art in a gallery or museum is a completely different experience than a piece of art printed in a book. I never "got" Picasso until I saw his work in a museum. The crackling power of a Kirby original is not the same as the reproduction in a comic. The whole point of my art process on the graphic novel Chivalry was a commentary on the heart and hand of illuminated manuscripts vs printed work. The art CANNOT be experienced in print in the same way as it can be in a gallery setting which is why it ended up in multiple museums after publication. If nothing original has any value to you, then that's just you. But people want an original autograph, not a computer print of an autograph. And what you get when you buy a piece of art, is not just an autograph, you are literally getting the material investment of an artist's life, a tangible history of skill, time investment, care, attention. The hours of someone's life. That to me is important. I make it a point to travel around the world to see original art, and I have broken down in tears at its beauty in a way I've never been moved when seeing a reproduction. Because when I see this thing that that artist made with their own hands right in front of me, it's speaking to me across the ages, it's time travel. It's the most beautiful thing in the world. So yeah, if that doesn't work for you, ok. But for me...heart and hand above all.
Am I not seeing the material investment and the hours and the work of heart and hand when I read a comic book? If not, what is the point of reading it?
Again, you just missed the entire point. This post is about original art.
If all you care about is the printed comic, fine, stop there. But some of us actually care about the hand made art itself as an artifact worthy of creating, studying, and preserving.
The original art itself is a different and separate experience than the final printed work. That's the point.
I am the kind of person who goes nose to canvas with painting looking for details in glazing technique. I am the kind of person who will be examining the white areas to see if the artist drew around, used a razor, or used Chinese White.
And BTW...I'm a digital artist as well. I mean, I didn't just come to these conclusions because I'm a Luddite. I've been making digital art now for some years. And I've been blogging about the technical issues with getting digital art from computer to print for some time as well, including the problems with gamut limitations, a major issue when trying to get the full range of pigments and dyes to print because a scanner can't see them and print can't duplicate the full rgb range. I can say without reservation that everything about the experience of creating digital art and getting it to the final printed work - and hand created work to print - are very different experiences.
The value of all art is in the human experience, if the human experience of the original hand made work is not worth examining and preserving to you, then that is fine. You have the printed work within the limitations of that experience.
I have a lot more area to cover. It's my job.
But I'd be just as dazzled by a hand-made chair over a factory made chair. The factory-made chair may be just as solid and functional, but the hand-made chair will have more value to me because of the human effort of heart and hand that can't be duplicated by replicating the chair.
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes. Because I think that the importance and beauty of a work of art to the viewer, not to be confused with its monetary value, doesn’t reside in the physical object and isn’t diminished in reproduction, this somehow means I think that the labor that goes into producing it is meaningless? If I truly thought that, would I be here reading about what goes into making art? Why would I want to learn about it? And I certainly never called you a Luddite or a D-list artist. Why would I be here if I did not love, respect, and admire what you do?
If you compare your original art to a handmade chair, and the printed reproduction to a mass-produced chair, that’s an analogy that makes no sense to me. In a recent post, you showed a page from a Superman comic with the color codes written in for the printer, and pointed out that the colorist’s original work was never seen by the public. That page is worth a lot more at an auction than a copy of the comic that the finished page appeared in, because of its rarity. But is it a superior version of that image? Does the value of the labor of producing it disappear when it’s sent to the printer? Is a well-loved issue of a beloved story, one that sticks in the reader’s mind forever, meaningless because it’s a mass-produced copy?
We are talking about two different things, it seems. I failed to properly consider the monetary value of the art as material object to the artist or whoever ends up owning it. I am sorry for sounding ignorant and if my tone reminded you of ignorant things that others have said to you. But I absolutely am not saying what you say I am saying.
Where did I claim you said I was a Luddite? Or a D-list artist? I didn't write that you said those things. Since you brought up the fact that you were a digital native, I pointed out I have plenty of digital experience. More than you have, probably. I write I was a D-list artist because in the fine art world, comics artists were the lowest of the low at one point. So low fine artists poached comics art, and actual cartoonists had little recourse or respect when they did.
I simply keep stating that the experience and value of an original is DIFFERENT than the reproduction. If it's not different for you, OK. You don't go out of your way to look at originals. I do.
Let me put it this way. If the Mona Lisa got destroyed tomorrow, but there are tens of thousands of reproductions of the Mona Lisa, did we lose nothing? In my opinion, yes. We lose a cultural treasure. We can see the Mona Lisa on the internet until the moon goes blue from cold, but once it is gone, it's gone, even if you have a copy.
When the Taliban blew up those Buddha statues, did the world lose nothing? I mean, we've got photos.
The Superman color guide isn't just valuable because it's rare, it has value because it is a cultural artifact. There's a lot of color guides out there that I assure you really don't have much value. No one said it was a superior image because it was handmade. No one said the final printed comics weren't valuable because they're mass produced. Where do you keep coming up with this theme? I'm not making that point and never have.
Every handmade image work isn't superior because it's handmade. Otherwise every work by Little Timmy would be in the Louvre. Not every hand made thing is imbued with spirit, with cultural significance, with value.
But if you love Little Timmy, you put that drawing on the refrigerator and show off to the neighbors.
The monetary value of a piece of original art is only one consideration in its cultural value, but a good deal of the monetary value of art is due to its cultural value. And the personal value that someone derives from the direct connection of experiencing a piece of original art is different than the value someone experiences in the reproduction of that art. In that case, it is superior to the person who acquires it because they have made that value connection in a way that someone who does not choose to acquire art does not make.
Both experiences are valid.
And something else to consider: I not only studied rare books, I took classes in rare book restoration.
Well, books are just reproductions, aren't they? Well golly.
But they are also cultural artifacts.
I am just as concerned with that rare book because it is something I happen to value. If you showed me a mass market paperback of the same book, I would not value it as much, not just because it's cheap, but because it doesn't have the same cultural meaning.
If you say you value the content of a mass produced comic as much as a piece of original art, then that's fine. That's you. And some of those mass produced comics are worth a lot of money. I'd personally never pay big bucks for one, but I'd pay bucks for original art.
These are two different experiences, two different values.
And yes, I think a lot of the value of the love of the artist is lost in reproduction. I spent a lot of my time and energy over lo these many years looking at crappy reproductions and faded copies of books. A great deal of time and art energy is spent in trying to get a good quality final reproduction and often we get bad reproductions, poor paper, bad bindings and production errors. You better believe I think the less of a work with that kind of finish. And will seek out the reproduction with the better quality results.
Nowhere did I state that something becomes "meaningless because it's a mass produced copy" NOWHERE. In fact, I've repeatedly stated it's a different experience.
And you keep missing the valuable, salient, and irrefutable point that the experience of an original is different than the experience of a reproduction. It's not just about the money. In fact, the art would have no monetary value unless it had intrinsic value to the person who wants it.
The reproduction will not be able to match size, scope, color, or texture, and that's just for starters, but I'll just add a lot of people value what the artist actually touched and lived with and breathed on.
Importance and value in art is in many different things. If someone thinks a copy of the Mona Lisa is the same as the actual Mona Lisa, well, OK. I don't think so.
And yes, the handmade chair is of greater value to me to the mass reproduced chair with all other things being equal. I mean, if you showed me a comic art color guide, I wouldn't want it, but I love hand made woodwork. I'd consider that chair for it's craftsmanship alone. Craftsmanship has meaning and value to me. YMMV. But that's just my value. You don't have to hold that value. You just want a chair you like. That's fine. If it's just a chair without any character and the artist made something that looked like it came out of Walmart, and then asked for $10,000 for the chair, I don't care how famous the artist is, I'd pass. But I'd respect the fact that they took the time to make something with their own hands more than I'd respect the mass produced chair from Walmart.
Those are my values, You don't have to hold them.
And FWIW, cultural value comes and goes. When Victorian art went out of fashion, values tanked and you could get major paintings by major artists for less than $100. The most gorgeous, huge paintings. The world decided the art had no value. And then a few decades later, the world changed it's mind.
What would I rather have? Leighton's Flaming June as a poster, or the original?
The original. Easy.
Especially back when it could have been got for about $100.
But see, my values re: original art didn't come from someone telling me what was quality. It was not considered the thing to like Victorian art or comic art when I was a kid. It was considered a sign of very bad taste.
I wish I had a time machine to go back and snatch up all the stuff I couldn't afford when I was a kid.
I love the same old comics I got as a kid.
Nothing I read today thrills me as much.
And if kids hadn't read those comics and loved them, the original art would not have the value it has today.
But I would never pay top dollar for a comic. I'd buy the graphic novel collection and spend the money on the original art.
PS: the color code page - it's production art. A big difference between that and fine art or an illustration. That it is handmade is generally meaningless to me except as a cultural artifact. It's not something I'd collect for the way it looks. You wrote "Superior image because it's handmade". I don't consider it superior at all in any way except as a cultural artifact. Comics aren't even made that way anymore, which is why its interesting. There's a difference between value and quality. As cultural artifact, it has value, as a quality art object, probably not so much.
I just read through your discussion with Colleen, so I'll try not to repeat anything she says. But if you are at all interested in art as a "member of the audience" you really should take any opportunity to see the physical works, the originals, of art that you like and enjoy. You will be surprised.
I will give you some examples from my experience. First off, I had the benefit of a parent (my father) how loved museums. When I was little, living in Michigan, when we would drive into Detroit for a day or two, one of the places we would visit was the Detroit Institute of Art. So, I became familiar with museums. They are lovely places.
About 2000, my job took me to New York City, my first visit there. And I knew that the Museum of Modern Art owned my favorite painting of all, Van Gogh's "Starry Night." So I HAD to go see it. It turned out that the painting was out on loan at that time, so I didn't see it that trip (I saw it on another trip -- happy camper me!). Having paid my entrance fee, I decided to explore the rest of the museum.
A bit later, I entered a gallery not far from where "Starry Night" was NOT hanging, and at the far end of the gallery was a VERY large painting that I recognized instantly. I had seen it reproduced many times in books, and thought it was interesting, but it didn't "do anything for me." It was Picasso's "Three Musicians." I was stunned. No photographic reproduction conveyed to me the sheer size of the piece for one thing. The figures are life sized -- if not actually a bit larger than life. In reproductions, the colors seemed a rather dull brown, in various tones, which did not strike me as interesting in the reproductions. But the Real Thing, not only was it much larger than I imagined, the colors were also more vibrant than any photographic reproduction in print could convey. The browns were more tinted with red, giving them a vibrancy that book reproductions cannot catch. It was warm and lively. Never had I seen it that way in books.
A few years later, there was a touring exhibition that came to Los Angeles, called "Van Gogh's Van Goghs" -- these were some of the paintings that Vincent's brother Theo had held onto, before Vincent's works gained currency. There were three paintings in particular in this exhibit that also demonstrate how photographic reproduction of artwork simply cannot catch the special quality of the Original Painting.
The first of these was a painting of a cottage in the rain... on a seaside, I think, but the setting didn't strike me the way something else about the painting did. That's because of the very PHYSICAL nature of this particular painting. Van Gogh had painted this work with very thick paint, which gave dimensionality to the texture of the surface. The grass, wasn't flat on the canvas, for instance. That aspect was very intriguing. But what made this painting exciting to see in person, was the realization that the rain presented is not *painted* on the canvas. The artist took his knife and cut through the paint at an angle (without slashing the canvas), many, many strokes. From a few yards away, the viewer's eye reads the painting as a cottage in the rain and understands it that way. But closer up, you discover that the "rain" is not even painted. No photo could do that justice.
The second of the three, was of a stand of trees in springtime. Slim trees with green shadows in the woods, long grass that is dusted with little spring flowers. I'd seen color photos of this painting, and it didn't seem particularly inspiring. In person, however, it is astonishing, for there is a brightness to the paint, and you definitely can feel spring in the air -- the shadows on the tree trunks have a tinge of a bright lavender to them, which conveys the sense of sunlight even though we are looking at shadows. And the flowers in the grass have a variance of brightness to them, so that you feel as if you just missed seeing the breeze dance by and ruffle the grass blades and flower petals. Again, color detail that print reproductions cannot replicate.
The third one is "Crows over a Corn Field" -- all reproduction in print of this painting render the sky very dark and heavy, and they all convey a very ominous atmosphere, primarily because of the dark sky. In person, the painting is QUITE different! That dark blue sky, is not ominous --- it is a very rich blue, deep, deep blue, as if you are looking at a blue infinity. The cornfield is bright in the yellows and greens.
I have had other experiences of seeing the originals of paintings I have liked for a long time in reproductions, and always I am brought to realize that technology just cannot capture the entire essence of original artwork. It's all well and good to get a familiarity with artworks via reproductions, especially if you cannot travel much. There's a lot of beautiful work created by humans. But it is a mistake to think that you've gotten all the work has to say to a viewer if you have only seen reproductions. Try to see the Original Work when you get the chance, if only so you can truly get a sense of why anyone thought it was worth the time to reproduce at all.
Even originals of comic book art -- well, non-digital, that is -- can reveal something to the viewer the print version won't convey.
I will point out that the blue people on Windsor-Smith’s picture (the right / weird picture) might have been the original intent. I read somewhere that Robert E Howard intended for Conan to fight hordes of ravenous, rabid Smurfs, despite the Smurfs being created 50 years after Howard passed away.
Where did I read that? Well, right here, where I made it up! 🤷🤷🤷
It’s funny that you bring up the blue and purple dyes, because I did a deep dive into color techniques for samurai armor this last week. The predominant color of surviving armor is red, and not because that was preferred. It’s because blue and particularly violet dyes absorb ultraviolet light, which had enough energy to degrade the silk treated with said dye, so very few examples, particularly of early armor, exist today. Even when they were used, blue and violet silk and other threads had to be repaired and replaced so much more often. The armor that survived? Red, baby.
It depends on the color, the pigment, the dye, and what binds it or doesn't bind it. Didn't samurai armor used plant based dyes and lacquer? That's not what you'll find in a marker or in Dr Martin's. The dyes often used in commercial printing and marker colors have fluorescents in them. EVERY COLOR IS DIFFERENT. For example, some red/pink paints, which look great when you paint them, are very fugitive. Madder, alizarin, opera. Reds and pinks. Notoriously fugitive.
That’s why I pay attention to those who have longterm experience, and ask before I start my own work. Even then, there’s no guarantee, as I’m discovering with widely-advertised UV inhibitors for casting resin that can’t handle the amount of UV put out by white high-intensity LED lighting. (In this case, there’s no data on 20-year UV exposures from LED lighting for the simple reason that white LEDs haven’t existed for that long. However, a lot of people in the museum trade are having discussions on exhibit restoration and repair, with LEDs saving a lot of money on repairing damage from old lighting heat versus the money spent on repairing and minimizing UV damage.)
A lot of people who have fooled themselves into believing the claims that UV glass and UV sprays are going to protect their marker drawings forever are in for a big shock. But hey, not my circus.
Thanks for this article. I often wondered how well comic art stood up over time when I look back at my own faded "permanent" marker comps that are 30+ years old. Also, has Rich Corben's original color art, which was made by airbrushing on the film separations, held up over time?
Colleen, you absolutely know your stuff about dyes. But you are confusing one point. And many working pros, over the years, also make this mistake. "Non-repro blue" is not really invisible to a camera. For line art reproduction, light blue takes a longer exposure to show up on a negative. So it is fairly easy to drop it out of line art shots. But, if you wanted to capture a page of blue penciled art, you could shoot a halftone and capture all the subtle details. Give it a long enough exposure and you could get a line shot out of it. The negative would be very dusty, but it could be done. In the case of blueline color paintings, the camera sees that blue just fine. The same way it sees the same blue used in the painting. That blueline ends up backing up the black line art when printed, making the black line richer and darker. This is important, since the black ink commonly used in CMYK printing is transparent. Printed without other colors, that black ink appears washed out and faded. My studios, Insight Studios, provided bluelines for all the major and many of the minor publishers up until about 2006, by way of credentials.
Ah, you are correct, non-photo blue is a short hand term for a long explanation, but you encapsulated it perfectly. As you note, it takes longer for the blue to show up on the shot - but it's still invisible when you want it to be. All comic art pages provided by publishers have the non photo blue lines on them, and when you reproduce as black line art, the blue drops right out. All those Artist Edition collections shoot the art as full range color, so you see all the non-photo blue as well as all the pencils doodles, side notes, and ink lines. Barry Windsor Smith often drew with that blue pencil and those drawings have all been reproduced in their full glory. Of course, non photo blue scans just fine on a computer scanner. You also just touched on why we want flat colors in digital printing to back up the black line art as well! Because if you don't, you get that weird effect underneath what to the eye looks black, but what will come out greyish in print. This is a great explanation thanks so much!
I had a long-time experienced publisher come to me a few decades ago, frustrated that they had this beautiful blue pencil illustration they would love to use as a cover. But of course, since it was in blue pencil, they "knew" it was impossible to reproduce. Could I come up with a clever solution to solve this problem? Needless to say, I solved that problem faster than they ever expected! :)
OMG, that's hilarious!!!!!!
At one time I was a professional artist and it always felt it was MY responsibility to make sure my work lasted for centuries. My 'teachers' were the people I was astounded by -Monet, Caravaggio, Parrish - and I wanted my stuff to last that long. I forced myself to learn this stuff. It amazes me people don't care what's in their work material and how it's going to age. On the flip side it can be argued 'Oh it's only a comic book cover' but I can't imagine artists like Windsor-Smith NOT knowing the materials they are working with. I have to assume at a certain level they really do just look at it as the comic-book-cover-of-the-month and not lasting art
Well, it's really not Barry's fault, because almost none of the artists from that time knew about the materials. Almost everyone came from commercial art communities where the end result for publication was the only concern, and many of us were taught all the wrong things. My earliest A Distant Soil publisher gave me terrible art advice, and it was all centered around using Dr Martin's. All the creators I knew who were in comic and SF/Fantasy art had to learn the hard way. Many of us had no formal training, and there was no internet. While one of my first agents tried to explain to me the dangers of using markers, I didn't understand what he was saying until years later when I visited Walt Simonson and saw art he'd done fading to nothing on the wall. He told me why, and I was like...whoa. It finally sank in, I was horrified. In fact, most of us were strongly discouraged from studying or using fine art techniques because we were just lowly cartoonists and illustrators, and our work was worthless. I know of one famous SF illustrator whose works appeared on many an Omni magazine cover whose art was destroyed by his family for being junk. You've got to set your mind back 70 years to understand how the comic and fantasy art markets have changed, and how social mores around our art have changed. I mean, my Sandman art sold for $25. Who knew it would ever be worth anything?
Yeah I've heard horror stories about original art being warehoused and abused. It's heart breaking. As a kid I always looked at comics and thought "I'll never be that good" and then I learned it was thought of as just a throwaway for decades. I just don't have the words. I understand why it was thought of that way, simply people making a living and companies making money. We now have the luxury of looking at it differently but it's still heart breaking
Between 1983 and 88, while I was at school and at Marvel, I played with dyed and watercolors. Hey, those colors!!! I certainly recall my painting teachers telling me to stay away from the dyes. I haven't seen this little paintings in years. I wonder how they've held up sitting in a portfolio or box in the garage all these years...
I've had some marker drawings that sit in sketchbooks last really well over time, while other have faded. But if it went on a wall, it's a goner.
It really is, so many people were constantly told they were worthless and their work was nothing, and many people like me, Paul Levitz and Jim Shooter were kids. Editors (and sometimes writers and other artists) just treated us like dogs. And they were always telling us our work was nothing, but I could be here for ages telling you tales of those same writers/editors/other artists walking away with our original art when they got their hands on it. Worthless and yet worth stealing, apparently.
Thanks for this, Colleen. It doesn’t help that the Marvel Comics Try Out Book insisted aspiring colorists use Dr Martin’s dyes. My local art store didn’t sell them so I made do with Chartpak brand. Didn’t bother going through with it, though.
Yes, the tools most of us were taught to use back in the day come from the industry standards that arose from the commercial art arena. I had no idea there was a difference!
I learned a lot from this. Thank you.
Does anyone remember Luma Dyes? I used them in college and I was so in love with them I recently bought some off ebay. Is this the same watercolor as Martens?
Not a clue. The only Luma I'm familiar with is Luma Bleed Proof White. It should say on the container who the manufacturer is. Bleed Proof White is from Daler Rowney. FYI, the Dr Martin's Hydrus watercolor range is lightfast unlike the old Dr Martin's. It's VERY intense, too. A little goes a long way, but you really need to know how to mix your colors.
As an inker, I wonder what's going to happen to all those lines that our peers have put down using copics and microns. Luckily I use them very little. Old fashioned Higgins for me.
It depends on the marker. Some markers, like the Faber Castells, use pigments. The copics are dyes, but there is a newer line of black copic pens that are billed as lightfast. The Microns are lightfast. Again, they use pigments. The markers to watch out for are alcohol based. The Faber Catell and Microns are not alcohol based. The reason the ink is not as deep as ink out of a bottle is because it's thinner. It has to be because it has to wick through that sponge tip. And it doesn't have shellac in it. I've had some art I did with Deleters that has not faded in over thirty years. Again, it's pigment based. Yeah, I know this answer rambles, I'm medicated.
You spend far more time studying the science of these things that I do!
I don't use marker pens to ink basically because I prefer the variety and feel of traditional quill nibs. And the scratching sound helps keep me awake! :D
I like crowquills too, but I admit I got used to the convenience of the markers. Now I’m testing the Lumos pens, a refillable marker, and I am very impressed by it.
Colleen, I am a long-time reader, first-time commenter. I have been reading all your posts about art material longevity over the past year and your dedication and knowledgeability about this topic is impressive. I never thought about any of it before reading what you had to say. I have spent all this time trying to understand your perspective; why it is so important to you, and to all these other respected pro artists, that your original art lasts. Why you have such veneration for the originals of art that’s made to be reproduced. Of course it seems obvious to you, but not to me. And now I’m basically sitting here trembling on the verge of an existential crisis. I am of two minds. I think, “Maybe it’s just that she’s older and wiser. Maybe I will feel the same someday.” “Maybe it’s just a pre-digital-age thing.” “She sits in front of the paper for hours and hours pouring her heart and soul into it, of course she feels that that paper and ink IS the art in a way that I, the reader, who sees only a mere reproduction, can’t understand.”
I am younger than either of the pieces of art you used as examples. I was not raised by wolves, but I was raised by computers. I am a huge fan of Barry Windsor-Smith, by the way. When I look at how that magenta in the sky behind Conan has vanished, making a totally different color palette, I think “how interesting” and “both versions look nice.” But to me it’s as if you’re mourning something that is not dead. I can see how it looked when he painted it. It’s right there in front of my eyes.
I am an average comic-book reader. Call me a Philistine if you will. I will never see the originals of the art that I admire. Infinitesimally few people will, compared to the thousands that see it in the medium it was created for, in print or on a screen. To me, that image in whatever form I see it IS the art. It’s an intangible, infinite soul, not something that resides only in the physical medium in which the artist first created it, and it doesn’t need to be a perfect reproduction to be beautiful and valuable to me. The manuscripts of books are important objects that are worth preserving, but if the original manuscript hasn’t survived the book is not gone. Words aren’t the paper they’re written on, and to me images are the same. I feel this is similar to the philosophical issue of consciousness and the brain. If my consciousness could be preserved digitally, or through some intangible magical means, I would feel no need for my body to last. My body’s just meat, it’s not me, and I don’t need it to last forever. And I feel the same way about my paper, ink, and paint. I appreciate that you feel differently.
Of course, I might feel differently if I had ever painted something I felt was really worth preserving for a long time. And of course, everything being temporary doesn’t mean there’s no reason to make things able to last for decades or centuries instead of just years.
Seeing your responses to others’ comments, I also see that the historical lack of respect and proper preservation for comic book art as opposed to “fine” art is a major reason you’re so passionate about this. And that is highly understandable. For the record, I feel the same about all works of art. Of course originals are important and valuable and of higher quality than reproductions, but I simply do not buy the idea that a canvas in a gallery I’ll never visit is more “real,” contains more of the “soul” of the work than the image I see in a book or on a screen half a world away. You may find this ridiculous, but I don’t think you can change my mind about this any more than I’ll change yours. Thank you for reading this ridiculously long and pretentious comment.
I think you just straw manned my entire perspective. Nowhere did I say that the art in a gallery is more real than the art you see printed or digital art. Point to the part of the post where I wrote that or implied that? Because I totally didn't. But you do realize a main point I made here is that when someone buys an ORIGINAL PIECE OF ART FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS and then sees it fade away in the manner the Kevin Knowlan piece did...Someone put the hard working hours of their life into making that money to buy that art. It is literally worth the time of their life. What kind of disrespect am I showing my clients when I put NO EFFORT into honoring that investment into my heart and hand? Fading and deteriorating art is a thing. A big thing. It's incredibly bad form as an artist to charge large sums of money for art and then have it destroy itself. In fact, artists have been sued for it. I have owned paintings by major illustrators that have literally broken apart while hanging on my wall because the artist did the work in a manner that would not stand up to time and temperature. And there was never any way to reproduce that art in a manner that presented the artist's original intent. If the difference between the original hand made creation means nothing to you, then fine. Then don't care. That's you. NO one said any of this art was going to last forever, any more than the pyramids at Giza are going to last forever, especially after the sun expands and the world blows up. Using your logic, NOTHING is worth preserving, or caring for, and has no material value. That's fine. You do you. My respect for original art isn't just coming from the place of being a downtrodden D-list comic artist, but in intrinsic respect for heart and hand above all. What you invest in what you create with your own hands has material and spiritual value, and if you think it's worth the effort in the first place, it's worth the effort to make it last for those who become its caretakers. The experience of a piece of original art in a gallery or museum is a completely different experience than a piece of art printed in a book. I never "got" Picasso until I saw his work in a museum. The crackling power of a Kirby original is not the same as the reproduction in a comic. The whole point of my art process on the graphic novel Chivalry was a commentary on the heart and hand of illuminated manuscripts vs printed work. The art CANNOT be experienced in print in the same way as it can be in a gallery setting which is why it ended up in multiple museums after publication. If nothing original has any value to you, then that's just you. But people want an original autograph, not a computer print of an autograph. And what you get when you buy a piece of art, is not just an autograph, you are literally getting the material investment of an artist's life, a tangible history of skill, time investment, care, attention. The hours of someone's life. That to me is important. I make it a point to travel around the world to see original art, and I have broken down in tears at its beauty in a way I've never been moved when seeing a reproduction. Because when I see this thing that that artist made with their own hands right in front of me, it's speaking to me across the ages, it's time travel. It's the most beautiful thing in the world. So yeah, if that doesn't work for you, ok. But for me...heart and hand above all.
Am I not seeing the material investment and the hours and the work of heart and hand when I read a comic book? If not, what is the point of reading it?
Again, you just missed the entire point. This post is about original art.
If all you care about is the printed comic, fine, stop there. But some of us actually care about the hand made art itself as an artifact worthy of creating, studying, and preserving.
The original art itself is a different and separate experience than the final printed work. That's the point.
I am the kind of person who goes nose to canvas with painting looking for details in glazing technique. I am the kind of person who will be examining the white areas to see if the artist drew around, used a razor, or used Chinese White.
And BTW...I'm a digital artist as well. I mean, I didn't just come to these conclusions because I'm a Luddite. I've been making digital art now for some years. And I've been blogging about the technical issues with getting digital art from computer to print for some time as well, including the problems with gamut limitations, a major issue when trying to get the full range of pigments and dyes to print because a scanner can't see them and print can't duplicate the full rgb range. I can say without reservation that everything about the experience of creating digital art and getting it to the final printed work - and hand created work to print - are very different experiences.
The value of all art is in the human experience, if the human experience of the original hand made work is not worth examining and preserving to you, then that is fine. You have the printed work within the limitations of that experience.
I have a lot more area to cover. It's my job.
But I'd be just as dazzled by a hand-made chair over a factory made chair. The factory-made chair may be just as solid and functional, but the hand-made chair will have more value to me because of the human effort of heart and hand that can't be duplicated by replicating the chair.
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes. Because I think that the importance and beauty of a work of art to the viewer, not to be confused with its monetary value, doesn’t reside in the physical object and isn’t diminished in reproduction, this somehow means I think that the labor that goes into producing it is meaningless? If I truly thought that, would I be here reading about what goes into making art? Why would I want to learn about it? And I certainly never called you a Luddite or a D-list artist. Why would I be here if I did not love, respect, and admire what you do?
If you compare your original art to a handmade chair, and the printed reproduction to a mass-produced chair, that’s an analogy that makes no sense to me. In a recent post, you showed a page from a Superman comic with the color codes written in for the printer, and pointed out that the colorist’s original work was never seen by the public. That page is worth a lot more at an auction than a copy of the comic that the finished page appeared in, because of its rarity. But is it a superior version of that image? Does the value of the labor of producing it disappear when it’s sent to the printer? Is a well-loved issue of a beloved story, one that sticks in the reader’s mind forever, meaningless because it’s a mass-produced copy?
We are talking about two different things, it seems. I failed to properly consider the monetary value of the art as material object to the artist or whoever ends up owning it. I am sorry for sounding ignorant and if my tone reminded you of ignorant things that others have said to you. But I absolutely am not saying what you say I am saying.
Where did I claim you said I was a Luddite? Or a D-list artist? I didn't write that you said those things. Since you brought up the fact that you were a digital native, I pointed out I have plenty of digital experience. More than you have, probably. I write I was a D-list artist because in the fine art world, comics artists were the lowest of the low at one point. So low fine artists poached comics art, and actual cartoonists had little recourse or respect when they did.
I simply keep stating that the experience and value of an original is DIFFERENT than the reproduction. If it's not different for you, OK. You don't go out of your way to look at originals. I do.
Let me put it this way. If the Mona Lisa got destroyed tomorrow, but there are tens of thousands of reproductions of the Mona Lisa, did we lose nothing? In my opinion, yes. We lose a cultural treasure. We can see the Mona Lisa on the internet until the moon goes blue from cold, but once it is gone, it's gone, even if you have a copy.
When the Taliban blew up those Buddha statues, did the world lose nothing? I mean, we've got photos.
The Superman color guide isn't just valuable because it's rare, it has value because it is a cultural artifact. There's a lot of color guides out there that I assure you really don't have much value. No one said it was a superior image because it was handmade. No one said the final printed comics weren't valuable because they're mass produced. Where do you keep coming up with this theme? I'm not making that point and never have.
Every handmade image work isn't superior because it's handmade. Otherwise every work by Little Timmy would be in the Louvre. Not every hand made thing is imbued with spirit, with cultural significance, with value.
But if you love Little Timmy, you put that drawing on the refrigerator and show off to the neighbors.
The monetary value of a piece of original art is only one consideration in its cultural value, but a good deal of the monetary value of art is due to its cultural value. And the personal value that someone derives from the direct connection of experiencing a piece of original art is different than the value someone experiences in the reproduction of that art. In that case, it is superior to the person who acquires it because they have made that value connection in a way that someone who does not choose to acquire art does not make.
Both experiences are valid.
And something else to consider: I not only studied rare books, I took classes in rare book restoration.
Well, books are just reproductions, aren't they? Well golly.
But they are also cultural artifacts.
I am just as concerned with that rare book because it is something I happen to value. If you showed me a mass market paperback of the same book, I would not value it as much, not just because it's cheap, but because it doesn't have the same cultural meaning.
If you say you value the content of a mass produced comic as much as a piece of original art, then that's fine. That's you. And some of those mass produced comics are worth a lot of money. I'd personally never pay big bucks for one, but I'd pay bucks for original art.
These are two different experiences, two different values.
And yes, I think a lot of the value of the love of the artist is lost in reproduction. I spent a lot of my time and energy over lo these many years looking at crappy reproductions and faded copies of books. A great deal of time and art energy is spent in trying to get a good quality final reproduction and often we get bad reproductions, poor paper, bad bindings and production errors. You better believe I think the less of a work with that kind of finish. And will seek out the reproduction with the better quality results.
Nowhere did I state that something becomes "meaningless because it's a mass produced copy" NOWHERE. In fact, I've repeatedly stated it's a different experience.
And you keep missing the valuable, salient, and irrefutable point that the experience of an original is different than the experience of a reproduction. It's not just about the money. In fact, the art would have no monetary value unless it had intrinsic value to the person who wants it.
The reproduction will not be able to match size, scope, color, or texture, and that's just for starters, but I'll just add a lot of people value what the artist actually touched and lived with and breathed on.
Importance and value in art is in many different things. If someone thinks a copy of the Mona Lisa is the same as the actual Mona Lisa, well, OK. I don't think so.
And yes, the handmade chair is of greater value to me to the mass reproduced chair with all other things being equal. I mean, if you showed me a comic art color guide, I wouldn't want it, but I love hand made woodwork. I'd consider that chair for it's craftsmanship alone. Craftsmanship has meaning and value to me. YMMV. But that's just my value. You don't have to hold that value. You just want a chair you like. That's fine. If it's just a chair without any character and the artist made something that looked like it came out of Walmart, and then asked for $10,000 for the chair, I don't care how famous the artist is, I'd pass. But I'd respect the fact that they took the time to make something with their own hands more than I'd respect the mass produced chair from Walmart.
Those are my values, You don't have to hold them.
And FWIW, cultural value comes and goes. When Victorian art went out of fashion, values tanked and you could get major paintings by major artists for less than $100. The most gorgeous, huge paintings. The world decided the art had no value. And then a few decades later, the world changed it's mind.
What would I rather have? Leighton's Flaming June as a poster, or the original?
The original. Easy.
Especially back when it could have been got for about $100.
But see, my values re: original art didn't come from someone telling me what was quality. It was not considered the thing to like Victorian art or comic art when I was a kid. It was considered a sign of very bad taste.
I wish I had a time machine to go back and snatch up all the stuff I couldn't afford when I was a kid.
I love the same old comics I got as a kid.
Nothing I read today thrills me as much.
And if kids hadn't read those comics and loved them, the original art would not have the value it has today.
But I would never pay top dollar for a comic. I'd buy the graphic novel collection and spend the money on the original art.
YMMV.
PS: the color code page - it's production art. A big difference between that and fine art or an illustration. That it is handmade is generally meaningless to me except as a cultural artifact. It's not something I'd collect for the way it looks. You wrote "Superior image because it's handmade". I don't consider it superior at all in any way except as a cultural artifact. Comics aren't even made that way anymore, which is why its interesting. There's a difference between value and quality. As cultural artifact, it has value, as a quality art object, probably not so much.
I just read through your discussion with Colleen, so I'll try not to repeat anything she says. But if you are at all interested in art as a "member of the audience" you really should take any opportunity to see the physical works, the originals, of art that you like and enjoy. You will be surprised.
I will give you some examples from my experience. First off, I had the benefit of a parent (my father) how loved museums. When I was little, living in Michigan, when we would drive into Detroit for a day or two, one of the places we would visit was the Detroit Institute of Art. So, I became familiar with museums. They are lovely places.
About 2000, my job took me to New York City, my first visit there. And I knew that the Museum of Modern Art owned my favorite painting of all, Van Gogh's "Starry Night." So I HAD to go see it. It turned out that the painting was out on loan at that time, so I didn't see it that trip (I saw it on another trip -- happy camper me!). Having paid my entrance fee, I decided to explore the rest of the museum.
A bit later, I entered a gallery not far from where "Starry Night" was NOT hanging, and at the far end of the gallery was a VERY large painting that I recognized instantly. I had seen it reproduced many times in books, and thought it was interesting, but it didn't "do anything for me." It was Picasso's "Three Musicians." I was stunned. No photographic reproduction conveyed to me the sheer size of the piece for one thing. The figures are life sized -- if not actually a bit larger than life. In reproductions, the colors seemed a rather dull brown, in various tones, which did not strike me as interesting in the reproductions. But the Real Thing, not only was it much larger than I imagined, the colors were also more vibrant than any photographic reproduction in print could convey. The browns were more tinted with red, giving them a vibrancy that book reproductions cannot catch. It was warm and lively. Never had I seen it that way in books.
A few years later, there was a touring exhibition that came to Los Angeles, called "Van Gogh's Van Goghs" -- these were some of the paintings that Vincent's brother Theo had held onto, before Vincent's works gained currency. There were three paintings in particular in this exhibit that also demonstrate how photographic reproduction of artwork simply cannot catch the special quality of the Original Painting.
The first of these was a painting of a cottage in the rain... on a seaside, I think, but the setting didn't strike me the way something else about the painting did. That's because of the very PHYSICAL nature of this particular painting. Van Gogh had painted this work with very thick paint, which gave dimensionality to the texture of the surface. The grass, wasn't flat on the canvas, for instance. That aspect was very intriguing. But what made this painting exciting to see in person, was the realization that the rain presented is not *painted* on the canvas. The artist took his knife and cut through the paint at an angle (without slashing the canvas), many, many strokes. From a few yards away, the viewer's eye reads the painting as a cottage in the rain and understands it that way. But closer up, you discover that the "rain" is not even painted. No photo could do that justice.
The second of the three, was of a stand of trees in springtime. Slim trees with green shadows in the woods, long grass that is dusted with little spring flowers. I'd seen color photos of this painting, and it didn't seem particularly inspiring. In person, however, it is astonishing, for there is a brightness to the paint, and you definitely can feel spring in the air -- the shadows on the tree trunks have a tinge of a bright lavender to them, which conveys the sense of sunlight even though we are looking at shadows. And the flowers in the grass have a variance of brightness to them, so that you feel as if you just missed seeing the breeze dance by and ruffle the grass blades and flower petals. Again, color detail that print reproductions cannot replicate.
The third one is "Crows over a Corn Field" -- all reproduction in print of this painting render the sky very dark and heavy, and they all convey a very ominous atmosphere, primarily because of the dark sky. In person, the painting is QUITE different! That dark blue sky, is not ominous --- it is a very rich blue, deep, deep blue, as if you are looking at a blue infinity. The cornfield is bright in the yellows and greens.
I have had other experiences of seeing the originals of paintings I have liked for a long time in reproductions, and always I am brought to realize that technology just cannot capture the entire essence of original artwork. It's all well and good to get a familiarity with artworks via reproductions, especially if you cannot travel much. There's a lot of beautiful work created by humans. But it is a mistake to think that you've gotten all the work has to say to a viewer if you have only seen reproductions. Try to see the Original Work when you get the chance, if only so you can truly get a sense of why anyone thought it was worth the time to reproduce at all.
Even originals of comic book art -- well, non-digital, that is -- can reveal something to the viewer the print version won't convey.
I will point out that the blue people on Windsor-Smith’s picture (the right / weird picture) might have been the original intent. I read somewhere that Robert E Howard intended for Conan to fight hordes of ravenous, rabid Smurfs, despite the Smurfs being created 50 years after Howard passed away.
Where did I read that? Well, right here, where I made it up! 🤷🤷🤷
I am sure he meant for the blue tones to be in there, but I am also sure he didn't mean for those pinks to drop out.
It’s funny that you bring up the blue and purple dyes, because I did a deep dive into color techniques for samurai armor this last week. The predominant color of surviving armor is red, and not because that was preferred. It’s because blue and particularly violet dyes absorb ultraviolet light, which had enough energy to degrade the silk treated with said dye, so very few examples, particularly of early armor, exist today. Even when they were used, blue and violet silk and other threads had to be repaired and replaced so much more often. The armor that survived? Red, baby.
It depends on the color, the pigment, the dye, and what binds it or doesn't bind it. Didn't samurai armor used plant based dyes and lacquer? That's not what you'll find in a marker or in Dr Martin's. The dyes often used in commercial printing and marker colors have fluorescents in them. EVERY COLOR IS DIFFERENT. For example, some red/pink paints, which look great when you paint them, are very fugitive. Madder, alizarin, opera. Reds and pinks. Notoriously fugitive.
That’s why I pay attention to those who have longterm experience, and ask before I start my own work. Even then, there’s no guarantee, as I’m discovering with widely-advertised UV inhibitors for casting resin that can’t handle the amount of UV put out by white high-intensity LED lighting. (In this case, there’s no data on 20-year UV exposures from LED lighting for the simple reason that white LEDs haven’t existed for that long. However, a lot of people in the museum trade are having discussions on exhibit restoration and repair, with LEDs saving a lot of money on repairing damage from old lighting heat versus the money spent on repairing and minimizing UV damage.)
A lot of people who have fooled themselves into believing the claims that UV glass and UV sprays are going to protect their marker drawings forever are in for a big shock. But hey, not my circus.
Thanks for this article. I often wondered how well comic art stood up over time when I look back at my own faded "permanent" marker comps that are 30+ years old. Also, has Rich Corben's original color art, which was made by airbrushing on the film separations, held up over time?
Not a clue, I gotta say his technique was off the scale amazing. I know very little about it and couldn't do it myself!
Agreed. How he knew which plate to add which color to get his rich colors is a level of technique that is definitely a lost art.
Too difficult for me, my little brain scrambled when I read about it!
Really interesting, thank you.
First thing I though with that original Conan piece was, "hey!! Non-photo blue line art!" And then I read the rest of the text. 😅
*thought