The Tim Doyle/ Nakatomi Art Thread

earlgreytoast · Thu May 28, 2015 6:54 pm

Tim Doyle is just a big joke. He is something to point at and laugh, and that's exactly what he wants to be. Do you see how he handles himself on this board? It's all with a wicked sense of humor. The last thing he cares about is being taken seriously as an artist. He has proven time and time again that his first priority is to make money. And that's fine. His posters are jokes, how he presents himself on this board is a joke, and how most of his peers see him is as a joke. Can you imagine what the real artists/printers in this scene think of Tim Doyle? There's a reason why he is literally the only artist on the scene who plays the multiple edition card. Tim is there for us to laugh at and anyone who takes him and his actions seriously is sorely misguided. Have some fun with it! Laugh at him! And he is laughing all the way to the bank, so everyone is happy!

And the only reason he now gets defended by some board members who you would think have more sense is because the person leading the pitchfork brigade just comes off as a giant asshole. Nobody wants to side with MPE; it's a lot more fun to make fun of him and his passionate stance on the issues. This is a message board, not real life.

And I will say again, just for posterity: the last thing Tim Doyle cares about is being taken seriously as an artist. He's got a family and a poster printing empire to support. That is his priority, and anything he does to reach that goal should not come as a surprise to anyone.

fredo · Thu May 28, 2015 6:56 pm

I prefer "Fun-haver".

ErocAfellar · Thu May 28, 2015 6:58 pm

Buckhammer wrote:Since the original commission was not for profit

commission artists make no money? do they donate their time or something?

maden · Thu May 28, 2015 7:00 pm

Court ordered community service.

mike123230 · Thu May 28, 2015 7:02 pm

ErocAfellar wrote:
Buckhammer wrote:Since the original commission was not for profit
commission artists make no money? do they donate their time or something?

Just because someone makes money doesn't make it for profit.

fredo · Thu May 28, 2015 7:03 pm

Cancer = cured

unbroken1 · Thu May 28, 2015 7:05 pm

alexfugazi wrote:Christ sakes people.
I refunded the customer, and told them I would use these for scrap and test prints. They agreed. I did what I said.
I blow out my scrach/dent/scrap/test prints in tube sales.
Whatever their expectations were, it wasn't communicated to me, even though we were clearly communicating with each other as evidenced by my email posted above.
I wouldn't have done that with this print job if I didn't have their agreement, as indicated above.

This is a miscommunication that should have been handled privately, but the client decided to post about it publicly instead of talking to me directly for some reason.

You can jump up and down and yell and scream all you want, but it doesn't change these facts.

if this image you tried posting truly exonerates you, you might want to do a better job of posting it. i for one dont see anything.

Whitey9457 · Thu May 28, 2015 7:06 pm

dropdoctor wrote:
Buckhammer wrote:
fredo wrote:I'm guessing some big companies have written off legal costs for the sake of setting an example. Not that this fudge is worth it, but...
exactly. so if we remove the LEGALITY of the topic. it comes down to business ethics. Like I said, adding something to the invoice or contract when you print with Tim stating that he reserves the right sell or distribute any and all test prints solves the ethics problem...

Tim I saw what you just wrote. As a business owner myself I get it, but you need to have everything in writing when it comes to this stuff. SOlves alot of nonsense. IMO of course.
Well stated. A clear agreement was made in writing though as far as I can see. Not sure why this was all made public but the 2 parties involved came to an agreement, and one is salty it seems. Then came the bandwagoners, or dare I say bullies?

The clear agreement was that he would scrap them and turn them into test prints.... None of the copies i have seen looked like scrap or test prints. Tim Doyle's definitions always seem to differ from the accepted norms in this community. "Limited edition", "scrap", "test print", etc. If he had printed other pieces on top of these prints I would honestly have no problem with it. These copies look pretty much the same as the normal edition just with some trimmed off. Definitely lessens the demand for the final product.

Buckhammer · Thu May 28, 2015 7:07 pm

Whitey9457 wrote:
dropdoctor wrote:
Buckhammer wrote:
fredo wrote:I'm guessing some big companies have written off legal costs for the sake of setting an example. Not that this fudge is worth it, but...
exactly. so if we remove the LEGALITY of the topic. it comes down to business ethics. Like I said, adding something to the invoice or contract when you print with Tim stating that he reserves the right sell or distribute any and all test prints solves the ethics problem...

Tim I saw what you just wrote. As a business owner myself I get it, but you need to have everything in writing when it comes to this stuff. SOlves alot of nonsense. IMO of course.
Well stated. A clear agreement was made in writing though as far as I can see. Not sure why this was all made public but the 2 parties involved came to an agreement, and one is salty it seems. Then came the bandwagoners, or dare I say bullies?
The clear agreement was that he would scrap them and turn them into test prints.... None of the copies i have seen looked like scrap or test prints. Tim Doyle's definitions always seem to differ from the accepted norms in this community. "Limited edition", "scrap", "test print", etc. If he had printed other pieces on top of these prints I would honestly have no problem with it. These copies look pretty much the same as the normal edition just with some trimmed off. Definitely lessens the demand for the final product.

Lessens the demand? Wait I thought this was a private commission?

Whitey9457 · Thu May 28, 2015 7:12 pm

Buckhammer wrote: Lessens the demand? Wait I thought this was a private commission?

??? Not sure how that matters.

Buckhammer · Thu May 28, 2015 7:15 pm

Whitey9457 wrote:
Buckhammer wrote: Lessens the demand? Wait I thought this was a private commission?
??? Not sure how that matters.

The true point of a commission to get a piece of art that YOU like and want, not what everyone else wants. Why would you care about demand right now? Enjoy the art.

maden · Thu May 28, 2015 7:19 pm

Whitey9457 · Thu May 28, 2015 7:20 pm

Buckhammer wrote:
Whitey9457 wrote:
Buckhammer wrote: Lessens the demand? Wait I thought this was a private commission?
??? Not sure how that matters.
The true point of a commission to get a piece of art that YOU like and want, not what everyone else wants. Why would you care about demand right now? Enjoy the art.

I don't care at all. I wasn't part of the commission. I'm just saying it lessens demand which affects value... It's something that Tim Doyle and his fans don't like to admit while they're defending his constant reprints and I honestly respect the view that you should buy art you want and not to flip it. I try not to buy anything I don't want to hang on my wall (sometimes things aren't as nice as I imagine and I end up reselling them)... but it is nice to know that a piece a buy will increase in value whether it is immediately or 10 years from now. There is nothing wrong with wanting to buy something partly because it will increase in value. But with few exceptions, everyone has a price no matter how much you love the piece.

OtomoChaser · Thu May 28, 2015 7:20 pm

Whitey9457 wrote:
Buckhammer wrote: Lessens the demand? Wait I thought this was a private commission?
??? Not sure how that matters.

To me, it matters because the way you write it suggests that the sole reason for a small group commission is to create a product that a larger group will of people will lose their fudge over and pay you more than what you originally paid for it.
Considering there's so much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how commissions - and particularly this one - should be 'not for profit' , it reeks of hypocrisy to complain that aftermarket demand gets hurt.

If you really wanna be evangelical about ethics, I suggest you sign waivers stating you won't resell at a later date for a big mark-up.....otherwise your non-profit argument is hypocritical, null and void. That's just my take, though....and i'm sure certain vocal contingents from this thread would be incensed at the idea and flat-out refuse - which, to me, shows their true colors.

MoviePosterEmpire · Thu May 28, 2015 7:25 pm

OtomoChaser wrote:
Whitey9457 wrote:
Buckhammer wrote: Lessens the demand? Wait I thought this was a private commission?
??? Not sure how that matters.

To me, it matters because the way you write it suggests that the sole reason for a commission is to create a product that people will pay you more than what you originally paid for it.
Considering there's so much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how commissions - and particularly this one - should be 'not for profit' , it reeks of hypocrisy to complain that aftermarket demand gets hurt.

If you really wanna be evangelical about ethics, I suggest you sign waivers stating you won't resell at a later date for a big mark-up.....otherwise your non-profit argument is hypocritical, null and void. That's just my take, though....

The inherit nature of art and collectibles is that they hold value or gain value as time progresses. Reprinting and creating new versions hurts that value. Now when it's the artist doing it to his/her own art it's one thing but someone who didn't create or commission the art doing it is another.