I can see the advantage of getting a professional (read: established) artist to work on your game/project/whatever, but if that isn't a concern for someone, then why not seek out someone who's going to be less money?
And I totally agree with the "don't pay them until the end" - especially if you're going to a site like DeviantArt and dealing with "unprofessionals". That's a great way to get screwed! I've had projects fall apart (and have backed out of projects, myself) - that's one of the risks you take when dealing with non-professionals. Note: This is considering that the audience for the article is a professional, and won't just disappear after the artist has worked on the stuff. Contracts and payment plans are always a good thing to be discussed.
One of the things about being a freelance artist is that you have to do your own research about what you think your work is worth. You have to be able to assign an objective value, and yes, bid lower than the other artists. You shouldn't just trust someone to pay you the "fair" price, because they're looking to make a profit on their end. It's a lesson a lot of artists need to learn.
Commission artwork is a business. This is how business works. *shrug*
And I totally agree with the "don't pay them until the end" - especially if you're going to a site like DeviantArt and dealing with "unprofessionals". That's a great way to get screwed! I've had projects fall apart (and have backed out of projects, myself) - that's one of the risks you take when dealing with non-professionals. Note: This is considering that the audience for the article is a professional, and won't just disappear after the artist has worked on the stuff. Contracts and payment plans are always a good thing to be discussed.
Yes, but there's also the other way, where you don't get paid for your work in the end, because "it doesn't meet the requirements" and then it's used anyway.
And as I said, contracts and payment schedules are good to discuss, for both parties.
Whenever you are dealing with business, it's best to be clear ahead of time.
People get screwed over, people screw each other over. One needs to have plans in place (such as a written, noterized contract, an embedded watermark, a payment plan, etc) to avoid being screwed over, regardless of what position (hirer or hiree) one is in.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I would write a very similar article, directed to artists, on how to get the most out of being hired for their work, and how to avoid being screwed over. It would include tips like: have a good idea of what your work is worth (from a non-artist viewpoint), start high and negotiate down, have a clear idea of expectations on both time and quality, make sure to have a written contract, there are unscrupulous people out there who will try to cheat you, etc. The article in question is just aimed at a different audience, but the advice is still sound.
I read it and all I could think of was 'welcome to the real world'. See, whatever you're sellin' is only worth what someone else will pay you for it. I can value, say, this very post at $5k - and that's all well and good. How many of you are gonna fork over the cash for it, though? Business is a relationship where both parties are seeking the greatest reward for the littlest risk/work. It's just how things work.
Exactly! It's just this is one side of the discussion, without addressing the other side - it's always going to look, well, selfish, if you're on the other side. Mostly, because it is.
************
Please return discussion to the topic of the thread, or it may need to be closed.
Exactly! It's just this is one side of the discussion, without addressing the other side - it's always going to look, well, selfish, if you're on the other side. Mostly, because it is.
Yup. And those artists screaming at this guy would - and you can bet your bippy on this one - most certainly take a deal that favored them before they'd advise the buyer what the 'proper' value should be every single time. In cases like this, it takes both sides to determine a value - and both sides will try to swing the transaction to benefit themselves more. So long as both sides are sufficiently pleased, it's all good.
I'm also curious as to what was deleted by the ORC. Just wonderin' ...
Exactly! It's just this is one side of the discussion, without addressing the other side - it's always going to look, well, selfish, if you're on the other side. Mostly, because it is.
Yup. And those artists screaming at this guy would - and you can bet your bippy on this one - most certainly take a deal that favored them before they'd advise the buyer what the 'proper' value should be every single time. In cases like this, it takes both sides to determine a value - and both sides will try to swing the transaction to benefit themselves more. So long as both sides are sufficiently pleased, it's all good.
I'm also curious as to what was deleted by the ORC. Just wonderin' ...
Not to discuss it, but I thought it was my post at first, but there's nothing that's changed, so IDK.
Yeah, I'm all for artists (and, really, everyone) getting paid what they deserve. Unfortunately, people inflate and deflate their and others' worths in order to get the best deal for them. Meh.
Those comments kind of tie into my rant about mystifying the art skillset, too - the "true value of art" blah blah blah crap. If you're doing commercial art, then that's it's value - as a commercial product. Not a work of fine art. Can one do both? Maybe. But it's certainly not the default.
Yeah, I'm all for artists (and, really, everyone) getting paid what they deserve. Unfortunately, people inflate and deflate their and others' worths in order to get the best deal for them. Meh.
Those comments kind of tie into my rant about mystifying the art skillset, too - the "true value of art" blah blah blah crap. If you're doing commercial art, then that's it's value - as a commercial product. Not a work of fine art. Can one do both? Maybe. But it's certainly not the default.
Hmm. That's interesting. I'd say you could do both - in the comments, someone mentioned the Sistine Chapel. IMO, that qualifies as both. As you say, though, it's not the default. But yeah, interesting.
Yeah, I'm all for artists (and, really, everyone) getting paid what they deserve. Unfortunately, people inflate and deflate their and others' worths in order to get the best deal for them. Meh.
Those comments kind of tie into my rant about mystifying the art skillset, too - the "true value of art" blah blah blah crap. If you're doing commercial art, then that's it's value - as a commercial product. Not a work of fine art. Can one do both? Maybe. But it's certainly not the default.
Hmm. That's interesting. I'd say you could do both - in the comments, someone mentioned the Sistine Chapel. IMO, that qualifies as both. As you say, though, it's not the default. But yeah, interesting.
Yeah, I know. That's why I left it as "maybe" - a lot of the "great" (famous, high-quality, inspiring, etc) artwork from times past were commission pieces, because that's what art was - it wasn't "art for art's sake", it was a trade skill.
But that's a whole 'nother discussion about the nature of art and the patronage model vs the independant artist model. ;)
Yeah, I know. That's why I left it as "maybe" - a lot of the "great" (famous, high-quality, inspiring, etc) artwork from times past were commission pieces, because that's what art was - it wasn't "art for art's sake", it was a trade skill.
But that's a whole 'nother discussion about the nature of art and the patronage model vs the independant artist model. ;)
Yes, a whole nutha discussion. But an interesting one. Anyhoo, the thought made me think. I don't do that all that much so I felt like sharing.
I was responding to Zombie Babies. I offered him 5$ if he used the f word in his post. I also added "Dance mokey". Apparently this is considered flaming.
See, that would have amused me. Just sos ya knows, I didn't report ya. Hell, I never even got to see the post ...
To see a good reply to the article, from an experienced manager, I'd recommend this link:
www.thejonjones.com/2010/08/09/how-not-t...
I'm confused. Why is Business 101 such a controversial topic?
because business is lost on those who never studied it. those who study business and practice it alongside their hobby can be expected to live off it reasonably if there is demand and you can produce quality.
However, that linked article is exactly what I was talking about - advice more directed to artists (on a webpage called "smArtist"), not really to the people hiring them.
I agree with a lot of the points - that there are advantages to hiring professional/experienced artists, be professional in your dealings with people, etc.
But yeah, that "response" is just as good/bad as the original article - full of assumptions, written in a pretty condescending tone, good and bad advice, and targeted to a different audience (ie: people who are "outraged" by the original article).
It's funny the stuff people rage over!
Because what this guy is saying is NOT in any way "Business 101". It's an inexperienced man ruthlessly screwing people over and hiding behind a faulty conception of what capitalism is.
To see a good reply to the article, from an experienced manager, I'd recommend this link:
www.thejonjones.com/2010/08/09/how-not-t...
... I started reading that article, but really, after "art is not a commodity" I couldn't take it seriously. Whatever else art may be, it most certainly is a commodity, to be bought and sold at the whims of those that hold the copyrights.
But seriously, however much that person might think they were giving a "point-by-point response", all they were doing was showing that nothing is absolute and that making a response that's five times as long as the piece you're responding to seems a bit excessive.
"Art is NOT a commodity"
However, that linked article is exactly what I was talking about - advice more directed to artists (on a webpage called "smArtist"), not really to the people hiring them.
I agree with a lot of the points - that there are advantages to hiring professional/experienced artists, be professional in your dealings with people, etc.
But yeah, that "response" is just as good/bad as the original article - full of assumptions, written in a pretty condescending tone, good and bad advice, and targeted to a different audience (ie: people who are "outraged" by the original article).
It's funny the stuff people rage over!
It isn't really directed at the artists, though it does seem to be supportive of their side. It is mostly how to make sure you make good artists stay with you.
I agree however that art is a commercial commodity. All artwork before Manet was commissioned and nobody shouted any nonsense about "art for art's sake". That's the kind of artist I aspire to be.
Oh, and when you read an article that tells other people how to screw you over, it does get to you.
My overreactions are mostly for the show, I assure you (not that you're gonna believe me).
And I'd prefer to be paid rather than payed.
Apart from the "keep them in the dark" and "lie about the deadlines" parts – which I oppose on ethical grounds – I really can't see what is the big deal. "Scope for new talent, set firm deadlines, and only pay upon contract completion" is pretty obvious and sensible advice. I'd think anyone who didn't do these things is a frakking moron.
"Art is NOT a commodity"
However, that linked article is exactly what I was talking about - advice more directed to artists (on a webpage called "smArtist"), not really to the people hiring them.
[...]
It's funny the stuff people rage over!
I don't think you realise how condesending that last part is. People rage over it because this is their livelihood. I get the feeling not many of you work with illustrators, artists or in game development and don't quite realise how hard it is for a lot of GOOD artists to make ends meet.
Also, the article is directed at both managers and artists, just because the website is named "smArtist" doesn't mean it caters only to artists. Jon is a Manager.
To put the whole "art is not a commodity" into perspective you need to look at it like this: If you go to a store to buy a hammer, what you see is what you get. You can buy it in mass and there's not a whole lot of things that can go wrong.
When hiring an artist you really do want to spend a few extra bucks to ensure that he/she knows what they're doing. Revisions take time, time is money. Besides the time there's also the end result.
The original article outlines a surefire way to get bad results, screw people over and leave everyone unhappy. People were not raging about deadlines, everyone has deadlines. Not about paying upon completion, which is almost always the case.
But seriously, however much that person might think they were giving a "point-by-point response", all they were doing was showing that nothing is absolute and that making a response that's five times as long as the piece you're responding to seems a bit excessive.
How is it excessive? Don't view it simply as a response, but rather an article on how to do it well instead. It argues that positive reinforcement rather than threats works, and most probably works better. If you get great results from an artist you want to KEEP using that artist.
But, apparently the original article was written by someone still in High School, so it's no wonder he's got some strange ideas. He'll most likely learn from this, hopefully.
But, apparently the original article was written by someone still in High School, so it's no wonder he's got some strange ideas. He'll most likely learn from this, hopefully.
Ah. That would explain the bits I found objectionable.
Don't view it simply as a response, but [...]
So I should view the author as a liar then?
And I still stand by this kind of art being a commodity - when you hire a commercial artist (because that's what people who do this thing are, in this context), you hire them for a product that meets your specification. Meaning, if I'm looking for a hammer, I will pick the one that suits my needs/asthetics/price range.
Both sides have good points, and both sides are poorly written.
And don't start on the whole "it's my livelihood" thing - I'm an artist, myself, and I can see the value in both articles. I just don't get overly attached (negatively or positively) to the ideas in either. If it is, indeed, your livelihood, then you need to be aware of how to make yourself presentable and marketable. This often means you have to (gasp) cater to people in ways you'd rather not. It's a part of business, which you are in if you're doing commission/commercial work.
I don't see how the advice in the first article is "screwing over" artists in any way that is significant or substantial - the guy's basically telling people to find artists who will work for teh cheap, and then make sure you don't get screwed over by unprofessional behavior (which is a result of looking for unprofessional cheap artists, but that's a different issue). The other guy says "you get what you pay for, so don't go teh cheap". Both have advantages and disadvantages.
Do I think either side is the way to go? Nope. I think they both have good and bad ideas, and both are written poorly. I'm not here to defend one and vilify the other. *shrug*
I find most artists have no business sense... I always recommend getting an agent that can negotiate for them.... I have negotiated with a lot of good artists and they usually undervalue their work.
Well, many artists (especially young ones) are often dissatisfied with their work, so they don't really think their art is worth much.
Unless they're selling traditional pieces. Paint and canvas is no pocket-money deal.