Blueline Inks--Is "After" universally recognized?

WaltG12 · 07-01-2016, 02:28 PM

I'm in the process of commissioning an inking of a blueline made from a pencil commission of mine.

Like the rest of my collection, I plan to bequeath it to a charity to auction off after I'm gone. But as the piece changes hands over the years, I want every subsequent owner to be clear that they aren't getting a "[Penciler]/[Inker]" piece, but, rather, an inked blueline.

Since it'll be long out of my hands at that point, I want the art itself to convey the message. My plan right now is to have the penciler's signature erased from the piece and the inker to add "after [penciler]" in his own hand. Is "after" universal or should the wording be more specific (i.e. "on [penciler] print")?

I just want to avoid any potential for ignorance or bad intentions (or a combination of both) to take advantage of a collector down the line with a piece that I brought into existence.

**JadeGiant** · 07-01-2016, 04:51 PM

Very good of you to take this consideration. I wish this was a more universal desire. Maybe it will become so as we see more of this going forward.

As for using "after" - I don't think it really applies here. You see this term used when an artist draws an homage to a work of art done previously by another, usually well known, artist. By putting "after" it may convey that it still might have pencils underneath and that the piece is an homage to something else.

I would not erase the signature personally as that is part of the art. I would probably make a notation on the art that the piece does not have original pencils and that it was inked over a blue line copy. Preferably on the back in ink so that it remains with the piece.

Care to share more about the piece? Artist(s)? Image? You might get some more specific recommendations if so.

WaltG12 · 07-02-2016, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JadeGiant

Care to share more about the piece? Artist(s)? Image? You might get some more specific recommendations if so.

I'm still working on negotiating the deal with the inker and I'd rather not divulge anything specific until that's taken care of. The inker is one who doesn't really do commissions because people don't realize that they're available--and, to be honest, I'd hate for an influx of people to make that realization and the same time and drive my price up. The number we're at now is already twice as much as the pencil commission cost me; I really don't want it to go any higher.

Beyond that, the last sentence is a bit befuddling to me. If the advice changes based on the artist or image, then it's not really universal advice--and as I doubt that any of us will be here when the piece hits the market via Estate Sale (and your heirs likely won't be here when it hits the market for the fifth or sixth time, losing any description or paperwork that was attached during the first sale), the advice needs to hold up, regardless of the artists or the content.

As for putting that it's a blueline on the back, it's an ok suggestion, but if the seller is unscrupulous, "can I see the back" isn't a common buyer question... And if it's framed as it changes hands from sale to sale, it could easily hit a point where the seller doesn't even know. As that's what I'm looking to prevent, whatever is done I'd want done on the front.

How about:

"[Inker]
over blueline [Penciler]
2016"

Short, sweet, to the point. Of course, that raises the question of whether "blueline" itself is a universal term for the copy, and can't be interpreted or twisted to mean "blue pencil".

**JadeGiant** · 07-02-2016, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaltG12

I'm still working on negotiating the deal with the inker and I'd rather not divulge anything specific until that's taken care of. The inker is one who doesn't really do commissions because people don't realize that they're available--and, to be honest, I'd hate for an influx of people to make that realization and the same time and drive my price up. The number we're at now is already twice as much as the pencil commission cost me; I really don't want it to go any higher.

Beyond that, the last sentence is a bit befuddling to me. If the advice changes based on the artist or image, then it's not really universal advice--and as I doubt that any of us will be here when the piece hits the market via Estate Sale (and your heirs likely won't be here when it hits the market for the fifth or sixth time, losing any description or paperwork that was attached during the first sale), the advice needs to hold up, regardless of the artists or the content.

As for putting that it's a blueline on the back, it's an ok suggestion, but if the seller is unscrupulous, "can I see the back" isn't a common buyer question... And if it's framed as it changes hands from sale to sale, it could easily hit a point where the seller doesn't even know. As that's what I'm looking to prevent, whatever is done I'd want done on the front.

How about:

"[Inker]
over blueline [Penciler]
2016"

Short, sweet, to the point. Of course, that raises the question of whether "blueline" itself is a universal term for the copy, and can't be interpreted or twisted to mean "blue pencil".

It's your piece so of course you can keep the info private. I asked to see the piece as to look at the layout of the piece to see where your description might make sense. You seem to want it on the front which is again your prerogative. Personally, I would not want this on the front. It feels clunky and not typical for what you would see on artwork. It is not part of the art and placing it in a place of prominence feels forced upon the next buyer to me. Many may find it distracting from the art which should not be the case IMO. If the art was done on a page that is used for publication (has the blue lines where the borders exist) for example, it might work out OK in the margins where it does not intrude upon the artwork. When framed this could be hidden so that it does not distract from the art. This advice might go in the opposite direction of what you are trying to accomplish but that is how I (and I presume others) might feel. We are talking in general terms so you are going to get general advice. I still would prefer to have it on the back so that the focus is on the art. Regarding unscrupulous people ... you cannot keep them from being dishonest. If someone really wanted to remove this it would not be hard to do. You could have it removed digitally or physically. And if you are really that worried about what might happen centuries from now, I question why you are really all that concerned about a commission as the vast majority of commissioned art will not be on the radar of anyone at that time.