Erasing a Sub-Par Sketch: What Say You?

[eldavojohn]

Originally Posted by Rian Fike

I said two wrongs can lead to a right. They don't "make" a right, they expose the problem so it can be corrected.

In this case, it is the principle of civil disobedience:

Civil disobedience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You break the law to show how unfair things are.

Sorry, I wouldn't go around comparing this to civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is breaking laws -- and only the laws -- that you feel are unjust. Erasing the sketch was wrong. And it was way over the line to expose 'bad' sketches. If this is civil disobedience then what this action is saying is that we should be able to deface all our sketches without repercussion from the community.

Defacing a sketch card would be the equivalent of Rosa Parks pulling out a handgun and shooting the bus driver through the head. That's not civil disobedience, it's actually a sign of aggression and regardless of what laws are unjust it should always be seen as morally reprehensible.

But, you know, feel free to paint this guy as a martyr when he could have just went out and bought some of his own cardstock and done new art on that instead of destroying existing art (however poor your opinion of it was).

[Rian Fike]

Originally Posted by baytowntex

try telling that to a judge

Actually, even though you said you were leaving this thread, if you would study Civil Disobedience you would learn that going to jail is often part of the process.

But thanks.

[Rian Fike]

Originally Posted by eldavojohn

Sorry, I wouldn't go around comparing this to civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is breaking laws -- and only the laws -- that you feel are unjust. Erasing the sketch was wrong. And it was way over the line to expose 'bad' sketches. If this is civil disobedience then what this action is saying is that we should be able to deface all our sketches without repercussion from the community.

Defacing a sketch card would be the equivalent of Rosa Parks pulling out a handgun and shooting the bus driver through the head. That's not civil disobedience, it's actually a sign of aggression and regardless of what laws are unjust it should always be seen as morally reprehensible.

But, you know, feel free to paint this guy as a martyr when he could have just went out and bought some of his own cardstock and done new art on that instead of destroying existing art (however poor your opinion of it was).

You can't be serious. It is a card, not a human being. And there are many people who disagree with you. It is not "wrong" to many people.

[baytowntex]

Originally Posted by Rian Fike

Actually, even though you said you were leaving this thread, if you would study Civil Disobedience you would learn that going to jail is often part of the process.

But thanks.

ha.. i did leave now im back.. So you will go to jail to change the sketch card industry?

[baytowntex]

Originally Posted by Rian Fike

You can't be serious. It is a card, not a human being. And there are many people who disagree with you. It is not "wrong" to many people.

some people just dont know right from wrong

[Rian Fike]

Originally Posted by baytowntex

So you will go to jail to change the sketch card industry?

No, but this is not a "crime" punishable by jail time.

I would go to jail to stop racism, or a real injustice like that, yes I would.

This is just a discussion about a hobby, not a serious social issue.

[baytowntex]

Originally Posted by Rian Fike

No, but this is not a "crime" punishable by jail time.

I would go to jail to stop racism, or a real injustice like that, yes I would.

This is just a discussion about a hobby, not a social serious issue.

you can go to jail for altering cards and selling them as unaltered. Didnt you hear about Mastro

[Rian Fike]

Originally Posted by baytowntex

you can go to jail for altering cards and selling them as unaltered.

And this is nothing like that. If you really don't understand the difference, I can't help you. Sorry.

[eldavojohn]

Originally Posted by Rian Fike

You can't be serious. It is a card, not a human being. And there are many people who disagree with you. It is not "wrong" to many people.

Yes, I am serious. When you practice civil disobedience you break only the laws that you think are unjust and wrong. Is destruction of art what he's fighting for here? No, the ends to these means was to send a message that we will not accept art that we find to be subpar. Destroying that art publicly is not illegal, in my opinion, but it should be frowned upon by the community. It should continue to be frowned upon by the community. If you are calling this civil disobedience then what you mean is that you dream of a future where we can all publicly destroy art we pull from packs and not be derided by the community.

The guy went too far. If he had instead repackaged the box and sent it back to the manufacturer with a note explaining why their product was unacceptable and made a public blog posting about it, then I would be playing a different tune.

Instead, he destroyed art in a very petty way to gain attention. That's not civil disobedience, that's stepping over the line and that behavior should forever be frowned upon by the community. Similarly taking a human life should forever be frowned upon by the community. That's where the analogy was going. Not that a human life was equivalent to a sketch.

[monkeymcgee]

Originally Posted by baytowntex

you can go to jail for altering cards and selling them as unaltered. Didnt you hear about Mastro

Trimming one of the most iconic baseball cards ever to sell it for several hundred thousand dollars or more than when it would have gotten unaltered is an entirely different situation than this.

Someone may get a nasty letter over this at the most. No one is going to jail for erasing their sketch card and selling it as a blank, regardless of how wrong we may think it is.

I really wish the mods had locked this thread when I requested it a few days ago.

[Rian Fike]

Originally Posted by eldavojohn

Yes, I am serious. When you practice civil disobedience you break only the laws that you think are unjust and wrong. Is destruction of art what he's fighting for here? No, the ends to these means was to send a message that we will not accept art that we find to be subpar. Destroying that art publicly is not illegal, in my opinion, but it should be frowned upon by the community. It should continue to be frowned upon by the community. If you are calling this civil disobedience then what you mean is that you dream of a future where we can all publicly destroy art we pull from packs and not be derided by the community.

The guy went too far. If he had instead repackaged the box and sent it back to the manufacturer with a note explaining why their product was unacceptable and made a public blog posting about it, then I would be playing a different tune.

Instead, he destroyed art in a very petty way to gain attention. That's not civil disobedience, that's stepping over the line and that behavior should forever be frowned upon by the community. Similarly taking a human life should forever be frowned upon by the community. That's where the analogy was going. Not that a human life was equivalent to a sketch.

That was very well said, thank you. While I still disagree, I understand your point much better.

I tend to side with the people that say "He paid for the box, he can do what he wants with the card." But I see the other side, and you made the best argument yet.

Thanks again.

[Hellfish]

Taking another person's art and altering it is wrong and insulting. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. If someone was making good money doing it, then I'm certain the card companies would take legal action against them, but the only way any jail time would be involved is if the individual continued to do so after a court order was issued. They would then be subject to criminal contempt of court.

It says more about the individuals who deface these cards than it does about the original artist. You don't think defacing someone else art is wrong? Well, there are groups out there that think racism isn't wrong; but it is!

[Hellfish]

Originally Posted by Rian Fike

I said two wrongs can lead to a right. They don't "make" a right, they expose the problem so it can be corrected.

In this case, it is the principle of civil disobedience:

Civil disobedience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You break the law to show how unfair things are.

1) people usually don't try to turn a profit on civil disobedience
2) no laws broken
3) no unfairness being dealt

Some people are just used to getting hand painted art cards and not sketch cards. Now they're spoiled and just trowing a public temper tantrum. Tantrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by baytowntex

and then the price goes up on the box

no, not necessarily. companies like rittenhouse make plenty. some changes may even increase their revenue, as well as help the artists bring in more cash for their work. there would be no need to raise prices.

Originally Posted by baytowntex

stop buying these products if you know there is a chance at crappy sketches. Companies can be more critical? Dont suport the companies if you dont like how they run.

Actually, lots of people have refused to purchase select products because of the quality of the sketches or chase cards. I'm not on here crying about a personal experience. I'm here to debate this issue.

Yes, I believe they should be more critical about the sketches they allow in there boxes. These boxes aren't cheap. If they don't listen to feedback, that's their perogative. Eventually it will bite them in the arse. Some releases(mainly non comic) have decent chase cards, so even if you don't get a great sketch, you may be able to make your money back, sometimes even profit.

[monkeymcgee]

Originally Posted by Hellfish

Taking another person's art and altering it is wrong and insulting. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. If someone was making good money doing it, then I'm certain the card companies would take legal action against them, but the only way any jail time would be involved is if the individual continued to do so after a court order was issued. They would then be subject to criminal contempt of court.

It says more about the individuals who deface these cards than it does about the original artist. You don't think defacing someone else art is wrong? Well, there are groups out there that think racism isn't wrong; but it is!

It actually is an opinion. It's one I agree with, but it's not a fact.

It's not morally wrong or illegal; it is his property. Now if he tries to misrepresent it when selling, that's a different story. But changing something you own is not a crime.

[eldavojohn]

Originally Posted by monkeymcgee

It's not morally wrong or illegal; it is his property. Now if he tries to misrepresent it when selling, that's a different story. But changing something you own is not a crime.

I agree it is not a crime. However, I believe I can frame a line of logic that would lead most people to agree that it is actually morally wrong to at least some degree (and that degree may be wildly different between people).

First, I will state that the card, having been inscribed by both a human with meaningful markings and licensed markings by a company contains an instrumental value above its physical value. What I mean is that there is at least one other person on Earth who would choose the card with the markings over a completely blank card of equal construction (it doesn't matter how many just as long as you can find one).

To build on the first point, every human is mortal (for simplicity let's leave Ray Kurzweil out of this). And every human maintains a completely unique perspective on Earth. As such, when that human's life is over there will never be markings made equivalent to that person's efforts and style -- no matter how frivolous. Assuming the card's construction can outlast the lives of the artist, this builds upon the card's worth. This is evident when an artist dies as their original art increases in value.

Did the person who erased the sketch not have access to blank cards of equal construction? I would be willing to argue that if we have the means to purchase such cards we also have the means to purchase such blank cards.

Therefore I submit to you that it is morally wrong to destroy these markings when 1) an equal blank card is readily available and 2) there are still people on this Earth that would collect that card and appreciate its significance (no matter how small that may be). You can look on eBay if you don't think these subpar cards are bought and sold. I've bought some myself. I would gladly have provided a blank card of equal pt and weight in exchange for the card that was erased.

So I think I can establish that there is some morally corruptness in destroying art on purpose. The magnitude of which you are free to argue but the presence of I believe the above ascertains.

[Hellfish]

Originally Posted by monkeymcgee

It actually is an opinion. It's one I agree with, but it's not a fact.

It's not morally wrong or illegal; it is his property. Now if he tries to misrepresent it when selling, that's a different story. But changing something you own is not a crime.

It is absolutely morally wrong. Unless they had permission from the original artist, then there is no argument to be made here. And I also know that it's a fact that it's insulting because I'm insulted. I've said many times that it's not illegal, but art ethics 101 is don't deface someone's art without permission.

Was an attempt ever made to contact the original artist and get their side of story BEFORE deciding to ruin their work? Who know's, if you were nice about it and didn't approach it with a sense of entitlement, the artist may appreciate the opportunity to edify the card for you, and add a real gem to your set.

[baytowntex]

Originally Posted by monkeymcgee

Trimming one of the most iconic baseball cards ever to sell it for several hundred thousand dollars or more than when it would have gotten unaltered is an entirely different situation than this.

Someone may get a nasty letter over this at the most. No one is going to jail for erasing their sketch card and selling it as a blank, regardless of how wrong we may think it is.

I really wish the mods had locked this thread when I requested it a few days ago.

fraud is fraud and why would you request for this thread to be locked?

[baytowntex]

of course you can do whatever you want with your possessions but you cant alter a trading card and then try to sell it as an unaltered card.

[monkeymcgee]

I don't understand what moral standard would make this a moral issue (not talking about selling it--just doing this to your own property). Maybe it's a rude thing to do or a short-sighted thing to do or not something that someone who values art should do, but *morally* wrong is a stretch for me.

Originally Posted by baytowntex

fraud is fraud and why would you request for this thread to be locked?

You were suggesting he could go to jail for this. I believe that is not going to happen unless he starts doing this on a massive scale.

I wanted the thread to be locked because this endless bickering is overshadowing what was a very good discussion.

This is my last post about it.

[Ronin]

people seem so focused on the right or wrong of altering a sketch card, when they should be wondering why there is a sketch card of such low quality that we would want to alter it.

if you want to argue specifics i.e. people knowing what they got themselves into. i don't remember certain companies releasing previews for those sketch cards. isn't that kind of like being mislead?

[Ronin]

or maybe consumers are idiots for expecting so much out of a "sketch"

[Rian Fike]

Originally Posted by Hellfish

It is absolutely morally wrong.

Wow. That is one hell of a sentence.

For your information, you just made an oxymoron.

Absolutely. Morally. Wrong? Do you understand what you just said? Do you understand the definitions of those words?

Really?

Wow. That is one hell of a sentence.

You could go to Hell for writing that!!!

[unamuzd1]

Originally Posted by eldavojohn

I agree it is not a crime. However, I believe I can frame a line of logic that would lead most people to agree that it is actually morally wrong to at least some degree (and that degree may be wildly different between people).

You make a number of assumptions that render your argument questionable, at best.

First, I will state that the card, having been inscribed by both a human with meaningful markings and licensed markings by a company contains an instrumental value above its physical value.

Would you agree that it is the combination of "meaningful markings" and "licensed markings" that is relevant in this case?

I would also point out that the phrase "meaningful markings" is inherently value-laden and subjective, and that those who erased art would argue that what they received were not "meaningful markings."

What I mean is that there is at least one other person on Earth who would choose the card with the markings over a completely blank card of equal construction (it doesn't matter how many just as long as you can find one).

To build on the first point, every human is mortal (for simplicity let's leave Ray Kurzweil out of this). And every human maintains a completely unique perspective on Earth. As such, when that human's life is over there will never be markings made equivalent to that person's efforts and style -- no matter how frivolous.

"Markings made by a human" is something of a broad definition of "art." So broad as to be functionally useless.

Assuming the card's construction can outlast the lives of the artist,

A human being exposed to its natural environment can be expected to live decades. Cardboard exposed to the environment will decompose in about two months. There is nothing inherent in the construction of a card that would lead us to expect it to out-last the life of its creator.

this builds upon the card's worth. This is evident when an artist dies as their original art increases in value.

This is a common belief. It is also wrong in the vast majority of cases.

Do Prices Increase When an Artist Dies? Facts About Death and Art Values

Did the person who erased the sketch not have access to blank cards of equal construction? I would be willing to argue that if we have the means to purchase such cards we also have the means to purchase such blank cards.

At this point I will remind you that the artist's addition to the cards was what you referred to as "meaningful markings." What I've seen did not result in the erasure of the "licensed markings" that denote that the card is part of a larger corpus of work that has been reviewed and approved for inclusion in a licensed product. For your point above to have merit, the person who erased the sketch would have to be able to purchase not just blank card-stock, but blank cards from that set with the licensing information on them. Is that realistic?

Therefore I submit to you that it is morally wrong to destroy these markings when 1) an equal blank card is readily available

Assuming that "a blank card of equal pt and weight" is the equivalent of a card with all relevant licensing information on it is not warranted, IMO.

I appreciate the intellectual exercise of attempting to establish a moral argument in this case; I just don't think your assumptions allow the case to be made all that well.

(And for the record, I think erasing art is incredibly sleazy, and misrepresenting altered art is practically the definition of "fraud." I just don't agree with your argument as structured. )

[Rian Fike]

I am cooking two pounds of bacon right now. I know it is absolutely morally wrong, but it tastes SO GOOD.