[GKreindler]

Wow Mark, thank you so much for those amazing words. I really wish you could have seen the Mathewson painting in person, as the photo just doesn't do it justice. That's the truth.

In regards to reproductions, well, it's kind of a Pandora's box issue. The thing is, to make reproductions 'legally', there's a lot of red tape to get through. If I were to create an image of Mickey Mantle, I mean a one of a kind original painting, then it's totally fine for me to sell the image to a collector. However, once I start making reproductions of it, then it's used for commercial purposes. Once that happens, people like MLB, MLBPA, Mantle's estate, and even the photographers can come after you if they're not asked for their permission to use their products and of course, properly paid. They obviously have every right to, especially the photographers. We've (my agent and I) looked into getting the proper licenses to do prints and what not, but in the end, it just doesn't seem worthwhile. All of those licenses would also have to combine with the cost of printing as well, which in the end would be a king's ransom to get it done right.

At the same time, there are some camps who feel that having prints made of your originals can seriously devalue them. Clients will sometimes ask if we do prints because they want to know that they have something special, something that other people won't have. Personally, I'm on the fence about that aspect.

I would love it I could get the artwork out there to more people, as I know that there's such a large audience who would now be open to buying the artwork, which is definitely a good thing. But at the same time, it worries me.

When I walked around the National, I noticed a couple of booths where dealers were selling lithos and prints, some of which were specifically art companies, and others just regular memorabilia dealers. And I don't know, the prints just didn't do anything for me. Like, there was the Art of the Stars booth in particular, which had the works of Stephen Holland, Bill Purdom, Ron Stark and the like, all of which were prints. The proprietor (Dana) knows his stuff when it comes to art, but understands nothing about the game and how/why we cherish it so much. Granted, he's a good dude, but I feel like he has no emotional attachment to the game. He just wants to make a buck because he knows that these artists are talented, and that there's a demand for their work at such prices. I saw him talking with some collectors, and the pitches that he gave just made me nauseous. Then, I started to get a good look at what was on his walls. It just gave me the chills. I just thought of having my work up there with those guys, and kind of being lost in the shuffle. And that's definitely something I don't want. It's a lot like the stuff on goodsportsart.com. I've done two paintings for Bill Goff and he's sold some prints. He has all of the licenses to do so, and handles everything legally, which is definitely admirable. But in the end, I'm just another artist to him, and I guess if someone doesn't like one of the paintings I did, then they're another 20 for him/her to pick from other artists. And at the same time, not that this is a huge issue, but if I told you how much money I get for each print of his that's sold, I think you'd be livid.

Anywho, I don't really know where I was going with this. I guess I just wanted to voice my thoughts on the whole thing. Sorry if it turned into some obnoxious diatribe. In the end, I don't know if prints would be the route for us to go on, but for right now, I know we're going to stay away from it. However, we are hoping to put some sort of catalog together, or perhaps even have an artbook made, though I think I have to get more paintings done.

Back to the easel!