So, You Want to Open An Animation Art
Gallery? You're Darn Tootin!
by Ron Merk
Editor's Note: This is an unabridged editorial
submitted by Ron Merk in response to Tim Stocoak's editorial. We invite
people to submit such editorials to us for publication and to respond.
As
someone who has been involved in the creation, publication and marketing
of limited edition animation artwork, I feel that Tim Stocoak's editorial
is so skewed with sour grapes and personal anger, that it screams for a
very calm response to provide some balance to the issues raised.
In his editorial, I'm afraid that Tim is guilty of the same kinds of evasions
and avoidance of issues as those people in the animation art business about
whom he is complaining. To me, Tim's editorial seems more like a personal
diatribe against the very industry he seems to adore but secretly hates
for apparently rejecting him. While I can't comment on every issue or claim
he made in his editorial, I'll do my best to respond, point by point.
First, not knowing Tim, I couldn't possibly comment on his opening paragraph
about not being able to get into the animation industry, the alleged poor
handling of his portfolio by Cal Arts, his inability to get a job in the
"real" business of animation, and his "logical" decision
to substitute a career of selling animation art for one of actually creating
animation. However, I do read a great deal of frustration between his lines
of venom-filled prose, and some relief on his part that he's no longer
part of the animation-art selling business, but not that much relief, since
he took it upon himself to write what I believe is a distortion of the
facts. Perhaps he truly believes what he said in the editorial. I frankly
believe that the actual situation in the animation art business is quite
a different picture from the one Tim paints. So, here goes.
1. Tim claims that the animation art galleries are poor relations of
the animation production industry, who pick through the refuse of the production
companies to stay alive. That's simply nonsense. Animation sellers
are the best place to send the cream of the animation art crop. They have
the customers waiting with baited breath for the best original art coming
out of the studio vaults. The studios, in fact, make quite a point of creating
special cel and original background set-ups called "one-on-ones"
of great moments from a particular film. A "one-on-one" is a
set-up normally consisting of an original production drawing, a cel (either
an original cel, if the film was done in traditional ink & paint technique,
or one created for sale, but based upon the original drawing, if the film
was painted in the computer) and a background (either original or a copy).
What Tim does not say here is that the informed animation buyer can never
be the victim of a professional sales vulture, as long as the buyer knows
exactly what he or she is buying. More about what is "original"
and what is a "reproduction or limited edition" later in my response.
2. All animation art is not valuable and all animation art is not garbage.
Tim's blanket statement that animation art is garbage but valuable
garbage, is just one more attempt to paint everything with the same sour
color. It's not true that the studios considered animation art garbage
50 years ago. Much of the studios' original drawings and backgrounds have
been maintained in studio archives, especially those studios which have
survived the ups and downs of the animation business these last 50 years.
Drawings and backgrounds were preserved because they are the true "original"
art in the animation process. Cels were routinely washed and re-used, not
only because it made economic sense, but also because cels were really
"copies" of the original animation drawings, no matter how artfully
they were traced and painted. Of course, there are those in the animation
business who would tell you that some of the finest examples of animation
art that exist today come from the ink and paint ladies of the Thirties
and Forties, and I don't take exception to that position.
Just ask the archivists at Disney if they want to dispose of any of their
pre-production renditions by Salvador Dali for the film Destino
that didn't get made. Oh, that's by a real artist. That's different, right
Tim?
Therein lies the rub, Mr. Stocoak. The definition of art. At the bottom
of all your arguments lies the pernicious implication that animation art
is not art. Of course, that may be your opinion. I suppose you think that
the Sistine Chapel ceiling painting by Michelangelo is just interior decoration,
and that Mozart was just dashing off little ditties for the rich to play
at their parties in order to pay his bills.
The fundamental difference between my opinion and yours is that I believe
that animation art is Art with a capital A. Not all of it, of course, but
some. If you had ever run your fingers over the sublime original drawings
of Chernobog by Bill Tytla, or the exquisite original backgrounds of Eyvind
Earle, or the inventive layouts of Ken O'Connor, you would know in your
heart that there are artists of the highest level working in animation,
and what they produce (can we use the word produce or does that sound too
much like a factory, Tim?) is, without a doubt, art, in the commonly accepted
understanding of that word.
You say all this animation art is trash now and will be trash in 50 years.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm so sorry you just don't "see."
3. You really take the concept of the limited edition to task, Tim.
Didn't you know that many of the finest artists from the end of the
last century, and all during the present century, created limited editions
of their work. Surely you've seen the stone lithographs of the work of
Mucha, Picasso, Chagall and Toulouse Lautrec. Is this garbage because they
took advantage of technology to create these "limited edition copies?"
Didn't they supervise the printing, the mixing of the inks, and the application
of the plates to the paper? Or did they make their art more accessible
to the public by creating items at a lower price than an original painting?
After all, isn't it the artist's job to reach as many people as possible
with his art? Or is the medium more important than the message, Mr. Tim?
Yes, studios do create limited editions of animation art. This was born
of two necessities, I grant you. One is to make money, and the other is
to fill an ever increasing demand for animation art while the supplies
of original art dwindled and became quite expensive. Do you have some problem
with capitalism, too? Having been involved in the creation of more than
200 different limited editions involving, among others, all of the Warner
Bros. characters, the MGM characters by Hanna-Barbera, many of the Japanese
characters, including Speed Racer and Astroboy, plus Fleischer Studios
characters like Popeye and Betty Boop, and having given them the kind of
attention that "true art" deserves, I can tell you that limited
editions have filled a great need on the part of collectors.
The company with which I work from time to time, Tooniversal, recently
created a series of limited editions under the omnibus title, The History
of Animation. The first four releases in that series are images from short
films created by animation legend, Ub Iwerks. These are films which, unlike
the major studio films, have changed ownership many times, and fallen into
disrepair and disrespect, but which feature brilliant examples of the zany
animation style of the early 1930s period. Since nearly all of the original
art from these films has been lost, and nearly all of the Iwerks Studio
personnel are no longer with us, Tooniversal sought out the present owner
of the films, and located one artist who had worked at the studio at the
time the films were made, animator Irv Spence. After Iwerks, Spence went
on to a long and distinguished career as one of the top animators of the
Tom and Jerry Cartoons at MGM.
We were lucky enough to locate a few original drawings, and were also given
access to 35mm prints of the films, from which many frame blow-up photos
were made. Then, working with the Tooniversal artistic team and Irv Spence,
wonderful moments from these films were re-created, and then produced as
a series of limited editions. Two black & white and two color images
were created. Great care was taken to duplicate not only the character
drawings and background paintings, but also the color palettes of the films,
which included the early color processes Cinecolor and Technicolor. Every
possibility to make the pieces authentic and artistic was explored, and
I believe, successful in creating pieces of animation art, yes I said art,
which stand on their own as art. They were hand-inked and hand painted,
making each one in some sense, a unique piece, not identical as Mr. Stocoak
states.
In creating the Ub Iwerks pieces, we felt that we were providing some form
of recognition to both the films and their creator. Our main motivation,
believe it or not, Tim, was not just to make lots of money on the unsuspecting
public. The people who have purchased the Iwerks pieces are true animation
aficionados whose personal collections were made more full and yes, more
important, by the inclusion of the Iwerks pieces. While I am not suggesting
they are as "valuable" as originals, they certainly fill a place
in serious collections, since originals are nearly impossible to find.
Mr. Stocoak's apparent contempt for the buying public is clearly illustrated
by his statement that the public snatches these limited editions up faster
than if they were originals. This simply is not true. By and large, the
people who are collectors on a regular basis are well-informed about what
they are buying, and in fact, quite specific about what they like and what
they will buy for their collections. The level of sophistication among
animation art collectors is very high, so I don't think that many of them
will just snatch up limited editions indiscriminately as Tim indicates
is the case.
Art and one's definition of what is good art is a very personal and subjective
issue. Not all limited editions are great animation art, just as not all
"real art" (sorry Tim, I couldn't resist) is not great art. There
are levels of good, bad and indifferent in all things, including animation
art. Mr. Stocoak seems to have even more serious objections about having
some "old animator sign them," and slapping some "over-important
seal on the front," his quotes not mine. Well, Tim, we live in a country
that created the star-system. It's really hard to avoid. We have it in
politics, movies, sports, and yes, animation art! I frankly like the idea
that some "old animation celebrities" sign the pieces. The old
folks were responsible for the development of the art of animation, so
why not have the "real animation artists" (my quotes, this time)
sign them.
Tim seems to think that old animators have signed their names so many times,
that the signatures can hardly still have value. It's the art that people
buy, not the signature. I've never seen anyone buy a blank sheet of paper
with Chuck Jones' signature, no matter how nice the paper. It's the image
that appeals to an art buyer, and image that is created by the signer.
So, while it's secondary to the piece's value, the signature is important
because it tells us that the artist/signer was involved in the process
of the creation of the edition. It's important because art that is signed
is more valuable over the long term, and easy to identify as authentic.
In a business where "authenticity" is of extreme importance,
original signatures are part of that authentication process.
Tim also makes derogatory references to the seal which is affixed to limited
edition art. Well, Tim, if collectors did not have some way of determining
if the edition is authentic or someone's Aunt Tillie is doing knock-offs
in her garage, collectors would undoubtedly be getting ripped off by unscrupulous
operators. The fact is, the animation art industry goes to extraordinary
lengths to make sure that the integrity of their art work and editions
is beyond reproach.
In addition, it is the law in many states, that all forms of limited edition
art must follow certain rules. Seals and certificates are required by law.
Check California's Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1740 et seq., and it's
very clear that producers of limited editions are doing the very things
that protect the public from the kinds of abuses that Tim seems to imply
are taking place in the marketing of limited editions. There are also all
sorts of Federal laws about interstate commerce which protect buyers from
fraud. All of these must be and are observed by the industry. Tim refers
to "one particularly beloved and aggressively marketed veteran animator"
who "has signed his name over sixty thousand times" (Tim's quotes
and number), yet fails to mention this animator's name. I would guess that
it's Chuck Jones, though I could be wrong. Chuck has lived longer than
most of his contemporaries from The Golden Age of Animation, done more
films, and been quite well marketed by Warner Bros. and his daughter's
company, Linda Jones Enterprises. So what if he's signed whatever number
of pieces he has signed. No one ever confided such a number to me, Tim.
But even at 60,000 pieces, that's barely one piece for every 100,000 people
on earth. Not exactly a glut, is it? Besides, what does the signature have
to do with the real value of the art in the first place? People look at
the image, not the signature. Picasso probably signed as many pieces in
his life. Does it make the art less than art because it's signed? Does
it make the earlier signature less valuable as Tim alleges? Do art buyers
want bargains from Picasso's blue period because he signed many thousands
of printed pieces late in life? No, of course not.
4. Tim has serious objections to creating other products based on animation,
and selling them as limited editions. Since people collect all sorts
of things, rights owners to animation characters naturally look to create
the kinds of things that people want to buy. That's capitalism again. It's
hard to avoid in these days of bottom line corporate thinking. Art has
a long history of artists from one discipline creating work based upon
art from another discipline. Music can be based on poems, or images, or
be reinterpreted from other music. Images in art have been worked and reworked
since the dawn of the human race.
After all, Tim, the whole process of the artist is the combining and re-combining
of elements which the artist finds interesting, in order to create something
entirely new which is uniquely the work of that particular artist. While
you may object to artists creating pewter statues or bas reliefs of Bugs
Bunny, certainly the artist involved has the right to do it his way. That
is the right of an artist. Whether or not a character is "on model"
as they say in the animation business, may not be the point of the art
at all. Picasso was never sued by his models for not "reproducing"
them in a naturalistic way, and the art world marveled at how "off
model" he rendered the reality that he saw. Creative talent has a
right to sign their work, no matter how objectionable you might find that
practice.
5. It's wonderful that films can be made without acetate cels. That
doesn't mean that art work based on the film is less "real."
If the cel is beautiful, created by hand, and accurately reflects or interprets
the same frame from the film which was colored and composited in the computer,
is the cel less beautiful? I don't think so. Of course, the buyer should
be made fully aware that he or she is getting a cel that was not really
used to make the film. Truth in advertising is essential. Is the cel worth
less than one that was used in a film? That's a question that only market
forces and subjective opinion can answer.
Are sericels just cel images grafted onto plastic by the serigraph process?
Depends what you mean by the words "grafted onto plastic." There's
an entire artistic process in creating serigraphs. All of the great artists
of this century created serigraphs based on their paintings. Since not
everyone can afford an original oil painting, this was a wonderful way
for an artist's work to be sold and seen by many more people than would
see the original work. Creating a serigraph is a exacting process. It certainly
isn't a "grafting" process, as Tim alleges. Once again, I urge
buyers to always know exactly what they are getting. If a salesperson tells
a buyer that a sericel "is just like an animation cel," they
are not being honest. You can always shop for a reputable dealer with whom
you feel comfortable.
The Coca-Cola Polar Bears are not being sold as "original animation
art" as Tim suggests in his editorial. I called Mr. Craig Wolfe of
Name That Toon which publishes this edition, and discussed this matter.
Craig told me that the pieces are clearly labeled as part of a limited
edition, and not as original animation art. Tim also erred when he said
they were being transferred onto sericels. Sericel is not a form of material,
Tim, but a process. The bear images are in fact, transferred to acetate,
using a process similar to lithography, according to Craig Wolfe. Get your
facts straight before you complain the next time, Tim.
6. Animation art dealers are like all dealers of any commodity.
There are good ones and bad ones. My advice to buyers is to make sure they
know with whom they're dealing. Use common sense. Ask around. If you have
a problem with a dealer, make sure you pressure the dealer to correct his
error when and if he makes one. If you pay with a credit card, "all
sales are not final." You can always protest the charge on your credit
card, and stop your credit card from paying the dealer. If the dealer has
defrauded you, you can always call a lawyer, or take the dealer to small
claims court.
7. Selling animation art as an investment, if that is what a dealer
is claiming, is most likely against the law. Essentially, if someone
claims that anything they are selling you is an investment, and they are
not a licensed securities broker, they're breaking the law. If anyone tells
you that the art has historically gone up in value, as much original art
has done, that's fine. But if they say it will continue to go up, they're
telling you a lie which is predicated to induce you to buy. I think the
lawyers call this fraud.
8. It's not true that animation art never goes up in value. Since
I have no information about the Mutant Ninja Turtle cels that he
claims he saw with a $3.99 Toys-R-Us label, I can't comment. But like any
commodity, and art is a commodity, there is a market value. Market value
is determined by supply and demand, just like anything from diamonds to
automobiles. If the demand is great for a specific item, the price tends
to go up.
Tim's opinion of art dealers trying to trick the owner of valuable animation
art work into selling it to the dealer for peanuts just doesn't deserve
comment from me. If every dealer worked the way Tim alleges, none of them
would be in business for very long. In my experience, most dealers are
honest and reliable, and good business people. It just isn't good business
to take advantage of a customer. They never come back!
9. Again, I won't lower myself to respond to Tim's assertions that animation
gallery and studio store employees know nothing and are out to bilk the
public. This simply isn't true. I have found that most people who buy
animation art try to be well informed about what they buy. Knowledge is
power for the consumer. One should always remember the old Latin adage,
caveat emptor, which means "buyer beware." The only thing
I would add when reading editorials is, "reader beware."
10. Regarding Tim's comment about Warner Bros. marketing all sorts of
merchandise based on their classic characters, all I can say is, `Nothing
imitates success like success.' Yes, lots of people have made money
selling Warner Bros. merchandise. Is there something wrong with that, Tim?
Since 1991, Ron Merk has art directed more than 200 limited editions,
featuring characters such as Speed Racer, Superman, Astroboy, and characters
from Warner Bros., MGM, King Features and others.
Note: Readers may contact any Animation World Magazine contributor by sending an e-mail to editor@awn.com.
Feedback?
Past Issues
[about | help | home | info@awn.com | mail | register]
| Animation World Magazine | Animation World Store | The AWN Vault | The AWN Gallery Animation Village | Calendar of Events | Career Conections | Forums & Chat | Home |