Mark Stutzman Prints

[jhanic]

Mark Stutzman is planning on issuing a limited edition series of the five prints based on the Stephen King covers he's done:

http://www.eloqui.com/Print%20Sales/KingPrints.html

To me, they seem a bit expensive, but...

Thanks to jflotx512 over at The Collector's Forum for this information.

John

[Ben Staad]

Thanks for the info but the price seems steep to a low brow like me.

[Ari_Racing]

I'm getting one for sure. The issue is that I can make up my mind which. I love 'em all! :)

[Tito_Villa]

They are all great but I think they are $150 too expensive

[Kingfan24]

WOW 295 a print is crazy

[Ricky]

To me, they seem a bit expensive, but...

You mean SUPER expensive.

[Ari_Racing]

I don't think they're super expensive at all. Some artists have their prints and works cheaper and some don't. Michael Whelan, for instante, has one of his prints for U$S 499 (End of the Road) and I don't think it costs more or less than it should. And most of his other Dark Tower prints cost U$S 200 and I didn't even hesitate to get them. On the other hand, I got a print by Mark Geyer based on The Green Mile for 25 bucks I think and the quality, size and (IMHO) work is way lower than the prints by Whelan. I got a lot of prints from many different artists and many ended up rolled or in a folder because their quality wasn't the one I thought it was going to be. I regret that I bought some for 30-50 bucks, but I never thought for a second that I paid too much for my more expensive prints.

I saw one of Mark Stutzman's prints for sale and it left me breathless. I agree that he's one of my favorite artists (I can't remember how many times I suggested him to illustrate a S/L edition) and for that my opinion about the price might sound more positive than for others, but in order to do the comparison, once again IMHO, you gotta compare those prints with those that could reach more or less the same quality and talent from the artist. In my case, I can only compare him with Michael Whelan and I don't see a big difference in the prices.

[Kingfan24]

I don't think they're super expensive at all. Some artists have their prints and works cheaper and some don't. Michael Whelan, for instante, has one of his prints for U$S 499 (End of the Road) and I don't think it costs more or less than it should. And most of his other Dark Tower prints cost U$S 200 and I didn't even hesitate to get them. On the other hand, I got a print by Mark Geyer based on The Green Mile for 25 bucks I think and the quality, size and (IMHO) work is way lower than the prints by Whelan.

I saw one of Mark Stutzman's prints for sale and it left me breathless. I agree that he's one of my favorite artists (I can't remember how many times I suggested him to illustrate a S/L edition) and for that my opinion about the price might sound more positive than for others, but in order to do the comparison, once again IMHO, you gotta compare those prints with those that could reach more or less the same quality and talent from the artist. In my case, I can only compare him with Michael Whelan and I don't see a big difference in the prices.

Heres my problem with the price - it is a PRINT of a body of work, not the original. Bernie Wrightsons prints for The Stand are amazing, yet he didn't issue them at 295 dollars a piece. Also, look at the IT art portfolio. The prints are very nice and cost a fraction of what his do.

[Ari_Racing]

I understand that but well...I think that a porfolio can't be compared to these prints. That porfolio has smaller prints with a lower quality paper and printed in b&w. Yes, I like it and have one, but it's a completely different item.

Again, if I have to compare it, I can only do it with Whelan's prints. Also a PRINT (not originals) and with more expensive prices than most of other artists. And MW's prices are perfectly okay.

[carlosdetweiller]

I agree with what Ari is saying. There is a big difference in fine art that is produced by the artist (or under his/her direct supervision) and portfolios produced by book publishers. I suspect that these Stutzman prints will be larger, on much higher quality paper and the image quality will be very, very close to the original painting.

[Ben Staad]

May be true but the cost versus the content is just not for me. I would love to support the artist but for me the <perceived> mark-up is to great.

[Tito_Villa]

I think it'll take a hell of a long time to shift 500 prints

[Kingfan24]

Any way you look at it - a print Is a print and not the original and shouldn't be that crazy

[Patrick]

Does it state the size of these prints? Maybe I missed it.

I won't be buying this given the price, but that Suite package sure looks sweet.

[carlosdetweiller]

Does it state the size of these prints? Maybe I missed it.



No. I looked for that too. It says that technical details are still being worked on.

[Patrick]

Does it state the size of these prints? Maybe I missed it.



No. I looked for that too. It says that technical details are still being worked on.
Thanks. It is fairly sizable dollar commitment for something with no stated size.

Given the price, this is something that I would only purchase with the intent to frame and display. For me, that would limit the choices to LISEY and DUMA. The bloody ones are definitely out.

Too rich too keep hidden away. I have KNOWING DARKNESS for that.

[carlosdetweiller]

Does it state the size of these prints? Maybe I missed it.



No. I looked for that too. It says that technical details are still being worked on.
Thanks. It is fairly sizable dollar commitment for something with no stated size.

Given the price, this is something that I would only purchase with the intent to frame and display. For me, that would limit the choices to LISEY and DUMA. The bloody ones are definitely out.

Too rich too keep hidden away. I have KNOWING DARKNESS for that.

I'm on the fence about getting them. I'm glad I don't have to decide today. I just don't have the wall space to hang very much more stuff. Then there is the expense of framing. Like you said, they are probably going to be too nice to just store in a closet.

[Scoogs]

Any way you look at it - a print Is a print and not the original and shouldn't be that crazy

In this case yes, but as a general statement in the art world, that is not true.

I have an art degree in Printmaking(think engravings, woodcuts, etchings, lithgraphs, etc.). Real art prints are indeed originals and not reproductions of existing works.

Sorry. Didn't mean to derail the thread, but so much of the general public hears the word "Print" and thinks of what are essentially fancy posters with a limitation number on them, that it always frustrates me.

[Randall Flagg]

Do you folks remember these threads?:

Mark Stutzman Art/Book Project Poll (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?17496-Mark-Stutzman-Art-Book-Project-Poll&highlight=stutzman)


Stutzman Print revised poll (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?17502-Stutzman-Print-revised-poll&highlight=stutzman)

[carlosdetweiller]

Any way you look at it - a print Is a print and not the original and shouldn't be that crazy

In this case yes, but as a general statement in the art world, that is not true.

I have an art degree in Printmaking(think engravings, woodcuts, etchings, lithgraphs, etc.). Real art prints are indeed originals and not reproductions of existing works.

Sorry. Didn't mean to derail the thread, but so much of the general public hears the word "Print" and thinks of what are essentially fancy posters with a limitation number on them, that it always frustrates me.

I don't think you are derailing the thread at all. I knew that printmaking was more than hitting the "print" button (which isn't much less complex that some of the "portfolios" that have been recently issued). But I didn't know nearly enough to start going into any details. In the art world $295 for a limited edition professionally done lithograph by a well known artist might even be considered reasonable. If you could (briefly) explain what all is involved it would be interesting.

[Scoogs]

Sure, any chance to educate others about printmaking is welcomed by me.
I'll post that later tonight if I have a chance.

[Patrick]

Cool. Looking forward to it, Scoogs.

[Kingfan24]

Any way you look at it - a print Is a print and not the original and shouldn't be that crazy

In this case yes, but as a general statement in the art world, that is not true.

I have an art degree in Printmaking(think engravings, woodcuts, etchings, lithgraphs, etc.). Real art prints are indeed originals and not reproductions of existing works.

Sorry. Didn't mean to derail the thread, but so much of the general public hears the word "Print" and thinks of what are essentially fancy posters with a limitation number on them, that it always frustrates me.

Thats what I should have said - I know original etchings and wood carvings are original art - what I meant was a print of original art is still a reproduction no matter what quality paper its on or whatnot

[Merlin1958]

Any way you look at it - a print Is a print and not the original and shouldn't be that crazy

In this case yes, but as a general statement in the art world, that is not true.

I have an art degree in Printmaking(think engravings, woodcuts, etchings, lithgraphs, etc.). Real art prints are indeed originals and not reproductions of existing works.

Sorry. Didn't mean to derail the thread, but so much of the general public hears the word "Print" and thinks of what are essentially fancy posters with a limitation number on them, that it always frustrates me.

Thats what I should have said - I know original etchings and wood carvings are original art - what I meant was a print of original art is still a reproduction no matter what quality paper its on or whatnot

Art can be a strange world. Limited Litho's can be very pricey. They usually have an original signature, but they are "reproductions as well. You really don't want to mess around in that world unless you know it or have an advocate. Hell, I sold a Ron Wood (AP) litho for $22,500.00!!!! I paid $1,500 plus framing. Go figure...

[thegunslinger41]

$300 a print just seems like too much. I mean...one could purchase a pretty nice stephen king book, even one that is signed, for $300. Which would you rather have???

Also, a print run for a lithograph seems like a really high number, especially when asking $300 a print. I think the following print numbers and prices would make more sense. Opinions

Print run of 500----$50 a print
Print run of 250----($75-$85) a print
Print run of 100----$150 a print
Print run of 75----- $175 a print
Print run of 50----- $250-$300


BUT NO...our reality is print run of 500----$300 a print!!!! most SK collectors can't justify that....nnow maybe in art circles $300 a print for these is a super bargain. I'd advises all of use to research this guy to see what his collectability is like. Regardless...i'm 99% not participating in this cash donation.

-G

[thegunslinger41]

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=stutzman++%28litho%2C+lithograph%29&_osacat=0&_from=R40&LH_Complete=1&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.Xstutzman++ma rk&_nkw=stutzman++mark&_sacat=0

Hmmm... the waters look pretty stagnant.

G

[Kingfan24]

$300 a print just seems like too much. I mean...one could purchase a pretty nice stephen king book, even one that is signed, for $300. Which would you rather have???

Also, a print run for a lithograph seems like a really high number, especially when asking $300 a print. I think the following print numbers and prices would make more sense. Opinions

Print run of 500----$50 a print
Print run of 250----($75-$85) a print
Print run of 100----$150 a print
Print run of 75----- $175 a print
Print run of 50----- $250-$300


BUT NO...our reality is print run of 500----$300 a print!!!! most SK collectors can't justify that....nnow maybe in art circles $300 a print for these is a super bargain. I'd advises all of use to research this guy to see what his collectability is like. Regardless...i'm 99% not participating in this cash donation.

-G

Now there is NO doubt that his work is A+++. I think he is just playing the "King factor" a little too hard.

[Merlin1958]

$300 a print just seems like too much. I mean...one could purchase a pretty nice stephen king book, even one that is signed, for $300. Which would you rather have???

Also, a print run for a lithograph seems like a really high number, especially when asking $300 a print. I think the following print numbers and prices would make more sense. Opinions

Print run of 500----$50 a print
Print run of 250----($75-$85) a print
Print run of 100----$150 a print
Print run of 75----- $175 a print
Print run of 50----- $250-$300


BUT NO...our reality is print run of 500----$300 a print!!!! most SK collectors can't justify that....nnow maybe in art circles $300 a print for these is a super bargain. I'd advises all of use to research this guy to see what his collectability is like. Regardless...i'm 99% not participating in this cash donation.

-G

Art is weird and subjective. I paid $5,000 (back in the day) for a "Ron Wood" Litho of Eric Clapton's "Crossroads cover", that is now worth over $10,000. There was only "249" of these, and I own No. 249/249. It's a totally different structure. Stutzman, is a renowned artist. He gets what he gets because he can!!!

[thegunslinger41]

I would hope that his agent or whomever (stutzman himself) would have done their homework and priced their art accordingly. Ill give him the benefit of the doubt, I mean..what do I know??!!

A better barometer for Stutzman at least how he perceived his art, its collectability, and pricing would be to use Michael Whelan's THE GUNSLINGER prints as a good reference. I don't remember what the print runs were for these (can someone refresh my memory?/) I know some..maybe all were signed by Whelan. Any signed by king?? Anyhoo... Whelan IMO is a legend with Fantasy Science fiction art...so if you are trying to tap into the king market of collectors that would be a good place to start. Please excuse any grammar mistakes...im hungry as FUK! ok...i think dinner is about ready.

G

[Scoogs]

Art can be a strange world. Limited Litho's can be very pricey. They usually have an original signature, but they are "reproductions as well. You really don't want to mess around in that world unless you know it or have an advocate. Hell, I sold a Ron Wood (AP) litho for $22,500.00!!!! I paid $1,500 plus framing. Go figure...

And that's my point.
What you are talking about is not a Fine Art Print. It's just a print OF fine art.

An "original/fine art print" is defined by the Print Council of America as
an image drawn or etched or engraved on some surface by the artist, who prints a limited number of the pieces by hand (or personally supervises someone else doing it), then signs and numbers the individual prints and defaces the printing plate.
Reproductions do not qualify.

I learned three methods in school; relief printing - wood or linocuts, intaglio - copper etching or engraving, and lithography - stone or aluminum.
Everything we did was hand drawn on the plate, hand inked and hand printed by us.

For example, when we learned to make Litho's in school it was the traditional way.
We had to hand draw the image on a 5 or 6 inch thing slab of (fancy Italian) limestone or a prepared aluminum plate. We etched it ourselves, mixed the ink colors, rolled it up and printed them on a hand operated press.
After that the image is polished off of the stone so it can be used again and preventing additional prints from being made outside of the edition.

If you have 15 minutes to kill, I found an old video that we watched in school that shows the process here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kyFgoKRmlQ). (In this case, it shows an artist working with a master printer.)

With limited reproductions, which have traditionally used an offset lithography process(commercial printing), there's really nothing stopping anyone from running another edition of the same reproduction. They might change the size or the paper and call it something else (deluxe edition!), but it's still just a print OF art.

Now I realize that most people can't afford the original art and even if they could, there's only one of them. So these limited reproductions do absolutely serve a purpose. I just don't personally feel they are worth high prices, though I do support the artists selling them at whatever price their market will bear.

In a way, these reproduction take the purpose of prints full circle.
Historically, the field developed because there was no way to reproduce paintings or other art before the invention of photography. Engravings were made of say, the Mona Lisa, so others around the world could see the painting or include it in a book. The printmaker essentially had to recreate the original art as closely as possible.

For a long time, this meant the snobs of the art world only considered printmaking a "craft" and not a true "art." Even today, there are those who still don't like it because it's one of the few mediums that creates a "multiple original." Photography and digital fall in this category as well.

As far as pricing of originals, like anything, it will vary wildly.
I've seen stunning prints for less than $100, but a Warhol screen print will break the bank.

[Scoogs]

That post was longer than I thought it would be. Hope I didn't ramble too much.

[Shannon]

Very interesting, thank you my friend. :)

[Lauterer]

Really much to expensive. This 500 prints will be never get sold imho...

And thanks to Randall to the earlier polls. I do not know why someone wants to see how people react and then do exactly the opposite...

[TwistedNadine]

Do you folks remember these threads?:
Mark Stutzman Art/Book Project Poll (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?17496-Mark-Stutzman-Art-Book-Project-Poll&highlight=stutzman)

Stutzman Print revised poll (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?17502-Stutzman-Print-revised-poll&highlight=stutzman)

I do...

[Patrick]

Thanks, Scoogs. Interesting stuff.


TN, please elaborate.

[Merlin1958]

Art can be a strange world. Limited Litho's can be very pricey. They usually have an original signature, but they are "reproductions as well. You really don't want to mess around in that world unless you know it or have an advocate. Hell, I sold a Ron Wood (AP) litho for $22,500.00!!!! I paid $1,500 plus framing. Go figure...

And that's my point.
What you are talking about is not a Fine Art Print. It's just a print OF fine art.

An "original/fine art print" is defined by the Print Council of America as
an image drawn or etched or engraved on some surface by the artist, who prints a limited number of the pieces by hand (or personally supervises someone else doing it), then signs and numbers the individual prints and defaces the printing plate.
Reproductions do not qualify.

I learned three methods in school; relief printing - wood or linocuts, intaglio - copper etching or engraving, and lithography - stone or aluminum.
Everything we did was hand drawn on the plate, hand inked and hand printed by us.

For example, when we learned to make Litho's in school it was the traditional way.
We had to hand draw the image on a 5 or 6 inch thing slab of (fancy Italian) limestone or a prepared aluminum plate. We etched it ourselves, mixed the ink colors, rolled it up and printed them on a hand operated press.
After that the image is polished off of the stone so it can be used again and preventing additional prints from being made outside of the edition.

If you have 15 minutes to kill, I found an old video that we watched in school that shows the process here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kyFgoKRmlQ). (In this case, it shows an artist working with a master printer.)

With limited reproductions, which have traditionally used an offset lithography process(commercial printing), there's really nothing stopping anyone from running another edition of the same reproduction. They might change the size or the paper and call it something else (deluxe edition!), but it's still just a print OF art.

Now I realize that most people can't afford the original art and even if they could, there's only one of them. So these limited reproductions do absolutely serve a purpose. I just don't personally feel they are worth high prices, though I do support the artists selling them at whatever price their market will bear.

In a way, these reproduction take the purpose of prints full circle.
Historically, the field developed because there was no way to reproduce paintings or other art before the invention of photography. Engravings were made of say, the Mona Lisa, so others around the world could see the painting or include it in a book. The printmaker essentially had to recreate the original art as closely as possible.

For a long time, this meant the snobs of the art world only considered printmaking a "craft" and not a true "art." Even today, there are those who still don't like it because it's one of the few mediums that creates a "multiple original." Photography and digital fall in this category as well.

As far as pricing of originals, like anything, it will vary wildly.
I've seen stunning prints for less than $100, but a Warhol screen print will break the bank.As regards to my portion of this post, well, not exactly. Fine or near fine or whatever you choose to call it. It is predominantly what a person (s) is willing to pay. That is all to consider. Everything else is tools, guides and/or advice that the buyer ultimately chooses to hear or, not.

[TwistedNadine]

TN, please elaborate.

Nothing to elaborate. Below says it all.


I would hope that his agent or whomever (stutzman himself) would have done their homework and priced their art accordingly.


And thanks to Randall to the earlier polls. I do not know why someone wants to see how people react and then do exactly the opposite...

[Brice]

These don't seem all that high to me.
I won't be buying though probably.
I wanna' see the JAS cover.
Has this been shown before?
Am I just forgetting it?

[TwistedNadine]

I wanna' see the JAS cover.
Has this been shown before?
Am I just forgetting it?

Id like to see it too. Dont think its been posted before

[Brice]

I wanna' see the JAS cover.
Has this been shown before?
Am I just forgetting it?

Id like to see it too. Dont think its been posted before

No, I don't think I've seen it. I don't think it was in Knowing Darkness either. Does anyone know?

[Ricky]

The Just After Sunset cover hasn't been posted anywhere (to my knowledge). When Mark mentioned to me a year or two ago that he had done art for the book, I asked if I could see it but I never did. I got the impression that even though it wasn't used on the final cover, he wanted to keep it "under wraps."

[Ari_Racing]

I saw it and I can't believe it wasn't used. It's an incredible piece.

[TwistedNadine]

I saw it and I can't believe it wasn't used. It's an incredible piece.

Can you post it Ari? Would love to see it

[Ari_Racing]

Sadly I don't have authorization to do so. :( I've just asked Mark anyway!

[Randall Flagg]

This thread seems dead. Many broken links.
Archive?

[Ari_Racing]

I'll ask Mark if he still have the prints for sale.

I noticed there's a question on the piece he did for Just After Sunset. The illustration is present in my book :)