Are you implying that J Scott Campbell's work doesn't take a huge amount of time to produce?
There can be no other explanation as to why his books are always late . . .
There is a Jim Lee one too. They are pretty much poster books, I have no idea who thought the "Fine Arts" title was a good one.
I know this is not the correct thread, but, this is something you seem quite interested in, Paul. Been working late, so I've had ITV on, with one of their dodgy phone in quiz things, just to see if they're really as bad as I've heard.
The question was complete the word or phrase: BLUE ______
The money jumped around from £20,000 to £10,000 to £5,000, and funnily enough nobody got any of the correct answers! Which were:
BLUE ANCHOR
BLUE GARTER
BLUE GEM (or something similar)
BLUE LASER
After some Googling, it appears that Blue Anchor is a place in Somerset, Blue Garter must obviously refer to a bride's garter and a blue laser refer's to the light emitting diode within DVD players. The real question, is while they are technically all correct, how the Hell would anyone get these?
What is worse, the majority of callers appear to be elderly people, which is just wrong. Even after hearing all the horror stories, I must admit I am just shocked that this sort of con is legal, and is apparently regulated by Ofcom. MInd you, Ofcom's investigation into the handbag affair was pretty pointless.
Sorry for the rant,
Nick
I believe Wizard put put a Michael Turner "art"book last year. It's terribly sad.
awwww ca'mon. but if some swipe artist were to take it out of context, do nothing more than reproduce on a huge canvas via silk screen, and put on a wall all of a sudden its fine art oh and the original artist wouldnt get credited. watever man. fuck this high brow low brow shit. arts art man. i mean sure campbell's stuff is camp and cheeze. i prefer the fantagraphics and indy stuff myself, but i don't go around trying to be pretentious by putting down shit cuz it ain't my taste. well whatever what the hec do i know....
while i'm at it....so why dont we bash Roy Lichenstein yet take pleasure in bashing swipe artist Todd Goldman??????? Can anyone please explain that to me??????????
Because Roy Lichtenstein's art was about presenting existing images in a new context. He acknowledged that his pictures were based on pre-existing comic book panels; that was precisely the point.
Now, personally, I think Lichtenstein is massively overrated, and his work is largely concerned with themes which are of negligible interest outside the closed world of art theory. But in purely moral terms, it's copyright infringement rather than plagiarism (in the sense of passing off somebody else's work as your own).
I'd rather wait and get Paul Pope's art book! 
Commenting by HaloScan
