Wrong.selenite wrote:And don't forget who started the company that pays you to draw movie posters. Doyled.
Drunken Promises 15 Doyle
Forum rules
• Posts in this forum should directly relate to the artist, art, or artwork.
• Do not post ISOs or FS/Ts in this forum section. Please use the Open Market section of the EB forums for all secondary (resale) market activity.
• Do not post details of your order process, shipping status, or condition upon arrival in this forum section. Please use the item's Release Discussion thread for this activity.
• Posts in this forum should directly relate to the artist, art, or artwork.
• Do not post ISOs or FS/Ts in this forum section. Please use the Open Market section of the EB forums for all secondary (resale) market activity.
• Do not post details of your order process, shipping status, or condition upon arrival in this forum section. Please use the item's Release Discussion thread for this activity.
- MagiaOrganica
- Art Connoisseur
- Posts: 454
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:09 am
I just want to chime in with my two cents on this occurrence as a non-biased party. I think that the reason this print would get you more heat for reprinting is that A. It was a timed edition which implies that it's available for a certain period of time and that is it. B. It was made to feel like a special print for members of the certain FB group who happened to be around while a drunken idea occurred which made the print have a little something extra. C. This may be a fair amount of peoples' first time either purchasing one of your prints or dealing with a 2nd edition printing.
That is all.
That is all.
- TheGeneralDean
- Art Connoisseur
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 2:24 pm
Sorry, as I was.Jesusmalverde wrote:Hate is a strong word. People need to relax a little bit. Life is too short to get all worked up over a limited/reprint of a dinosaur riding starlord light saber medley mashup. In the future, don't buy a Doyle as an investment. Oh. Also, steer clear of the mystery tubes.TheGeneralDean wrote:My favorite artist just destroyed my most hated "artist."
Today, is a good day.
"My favorite artist just destroyed my least favorite "artist."
Please log off this site forever.selenite wrote:Just don't act like you're above it, dude — you're way too high up on your horse. If you hadn't reached the mondo masses with Star Wars, Star Trek, Lost and a ton of "other peoples toys" properties, you wouldn't still be drawing ambiguously-titled pictures of ghost nurses in old houses for anybody. People around here don't want to hear a new band playing originals, they just want covers of songs they've already heard.danieldanger wrote:put the other peoples toys away
And don't forget who started the company that pays you to draw movie posters. Doyled.
- FloatingInOuttaSpace
- Art Connoisseur
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 4:55 am
- Location: Sydney
- Grateful69Phish
- Art Freak
- Posts: 12758
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:41 pm
- Location: Nirvana
Early candidate for shred of the year
- earlgreytoast
- Art Expert
- Posts: 9366
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:14 pm
Well, I'm satisfied. Doyle obviously cares what we think, and even more what his peers think, as he has taken hours and hours of his time to address the issues here. But it took a comment from one of the most respected artists in the business to get him to finally use some language like "I'll look into this" or to even admit that there is some room for improvement and transparency while still being greedy.
We all have to lie in bed for at least a few minutes before we fall asleep...
We all have to lie in bed for at least a few minutes before we fall asleep...
Codeblue wrote: I’m sorry for everything.
- earlgreytoast
- Art Expert
- Posts: 9366
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:14 pm
Can you break down the genesis of Mondo Mitch? Thanks.mcnail wrote:Wrong.selenite wrote:And don't forget who started the company that pays you to draw movie posters. Doyled.
Codeblue wrote: I’m sorry for everything.
- Cinlabyrinth
- Art Expert
- Posts: 6758
- Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:48 pm
- Location: Houston
Cragars wrote:Please log off this site forever.selenite wrote:Just don't act like you're above it, dude — you're way too high up on your horse. If you hadn't reached the mondo masses with Star Wars, Star Trek, Lost and a ton of "other peoples toys" properties, you wouldn't still be drawing ambiguously-titled pictures of ghost nurses in old houses for anybody. People around here don't want to hear a new band playing originals, they just want covers of songs they've already heard.danieldanger wrote:put the other peoples toys away
And don't forget who started the company that pays you to draw movie posters. Doyled.
Selenite is awarded no points, and may god have mercy on their soul
- thisisjosh
- Art Expert
- Posts: 2839
- Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:27 pm
- Contact:
Blah blah blah blah Rob, right?earlgreytoast wrote:Can you break down the genesis of Mondo Mitch? Thanks.mcnail wrote:Wrong.selenite wrote:And don't forget who started the company that pays you to draw movie posters. Doyled.
I realize Tim said he was done and probably won't see this, but I wanted to tag up with my experience of the whole thing.
I was unaware of Tim's business model. I saw the FB thread unfold and thought it was fun. When I jumped in, I paid for a small print that would probably get hung on my wall as a silly goof. When he changed the size, I didn't complain because, although the chances of a larger print making my wall were zero, it was already selling for enough money that I figured there was no room to complain; utility had been replaced with value.
I bought two t-shirts after that. Now that I find out that Tim reprints editions often, and that the first reprint is at the size I'd originally bought. I'm not terribly thrilled on the front that others will now have what I was promised and the value that was my reason for not asking for a refund is no longer there.
I can understand Tim's argument. What I don't understand is why he doesn't simply do as other artists do and hold on to some of his APs and harvest some of the aftermarket value that way. His call to revolution to do it differently doesn't seem to have garnered many artists doing the same, and in the absence of that, using the same marketing terminology to sell a similar product and then treating it completely differently after the fact smacks of convenient sophistry.
I also get that, staring at a bunch of potential demand, it's tempting to make the argument to yourself and get yourself convinced that this is about a new model. After the fact, it's also easy to find all the rhetorical holes that allow you to think that you aren't being dishonest when using the trappings of the other model that most artists use while marketing your own. Money spends regardless of how it ethically it was acquired.
But the bedrock of the argument appears to be "you all know me and how I do." And I, for one, didn't.
I was unaware of Tim's business model. I saw the FB thread unfold and thought it was fun. When I jumped in, I paid for a small print that would probably get hung on my wall as a silly goof. When he changed the size, I didn't complain because, although the chances of a larger print making my wall were zero, it was already selling for enough money that I figured there was no room to complain; utility had been replaced with value.
I bought two t-shirts after that. Now that I find out that Tim reprints editions often, and that the first reprint is at the size I'd originally bought. I'm not terribly thrilled on the front that others will now have what I was promised and the value that was my reason for not asking for a refund is no longer there.
I can understand Tim's argument. What I don't understand is why he doesn't simply do as other artists do and hold on to some of his APs and harvest some of the aftermarket value that way. His call to revolution to do it differently doesn't seem to have garnered many artists doing the same, and in the absence of that, using the same marketing terminology to sell a similar product and then treating it completely differently after the fact smacks of convenient sophistry.
I also get that, staring at a bunch of potential demand, it's tempting to make the argument to yourself and get yourself convinced that this is about a new model. After the fact, it's also easy to find all the rhetorical holes that allow you to think that you aren't being dishonest when using the trappings of the other model that most artists use while marketing your own. Money spends regardless of how it ethically it was acquired.
But the bedrock of the argument appears to be "you all know me and how I do." And I, for one, didn't.
If the "it" to which you refer is "EB", DD is way, way above it.selenite wrote:Just don't act like you're above it, dude — you're way too high up on your horse. If you hadn't reached the mondo masses with Star Wars, Star Trek, Lost and a ton of "other peoples toys" properties, you wouldn't still be drawing ambiguously-titled pictures of ghost nurses in old houses for anybody. People around here don't want to hear a new band playing originals, they just want covers of songs they've already heard.danieldanger wrote:put the other peoples toys away
And don't forget who started the company that pays you to draw movie posters. Doyled.
EB could disappear tomorrow and we would all weep in our Wheaties, whereas Daniel will just continue to become more popular and respected as an artist.
Maybe you need a break from EB.
p.s. - and I know Daniel can defend himself, but I think the artists we enjoy deserve a little extra respect around here, don't you?
Welcome to the sleaze pit