why anti-art? (slightly ot ranrish)

[Roland Delacroix]

The other school of though is that art is worth whatever people are willing to pay for it. This hold up better with classics like Rembrant. Though some popular artists fit into this school as well.

It's also how our entire economic system works. An object is worth what someone will pay for it. Most stuff modern artists churn out I wouldn't take if THEY paid ME. (BTW not a cut at anyone here, none of the stuff i've seen here was that bad)

Good posts Umbran and Celebrim

I know a lot of artists. They don't get time off. They work a lot longer hours than nearly anyone else I know. Some of them make money of their work. Had they gone into another field and worked the same kind of hours, even something as low paying as waiting or retail, they'd be making way more than they do now.

Hum. I do the same thing, with PC games. I stay up long hours, never getting a break. When I can't sell my save games at a decent wage I don't bitch about it though. Even though noone else really understands what the games mean to me.

An artist surplus must be a good thing since most of the artists here claim you have to be an artist to 'fully understand the value' or whatever. If you want to make money you have to sell to the average Joe. If you just want to enjoy life doing what you love, expect to be broke. This goes for many careers, not just artists (as we all know, being into RPG's).

Almost anyone who can read at a high school graduate level and whose hands don't shake can learn to be a mechanic, a plumber, a salesman, a doctor, or president of the USA.
The same can not be said for becoming an artist.

Yep. Artists don't need to read, and sometimes shaking hands is better for their art. Conversely, the mechanic, plumer and doctor are getting paid more because not every fool invests the time and energy into learning such a specilaized trade.

Which is part of the problem. The general feeling is that artists don't NEED to go to school, they should be artists from birth. Those that need to go to school are obviouslly not meant to be artists, wouldn't they already know how to do that stuff?

 

[kkoie]

I don't want you to get something out of the story that no one else is getting. I want everyone to sit down and get the same thing out of the story, and afterwards maybe go 'Wow, I never realized we all had so much in common.', or maybe just 'That was fun.'

Ok, let me get this straight, you do not appreciate nor approve of each individuals personal interpretation of anything they see/read/hear? Maybe I'm misinterpreting, and if I am no problem. But if I understand what you were saying correctly, then I think that is a serious misunderstanding on your part.

Everyone is intitled to their own interpretation, just as they are intitled to an opinion. Why would everone have to get the same thing out of a story?! Life would be boring as hell if everyone saw or watched something and all of them had the exact same interpretation or opinion.

 

[Drawmack]

*warning I will not mention names here so if you take offense at this then double think why before you post*

Most of the people I have known who classify themselves as artists are eliteist snobs.

They say things like what was mentioned above about learning to do things other people do.

I've got to say obey the old addage about walking a mile in someone's shoes.

Any profession can be elevated to the height of being an art form.

I'll take something I know intimatly for my example programming.

Anyone can buy some programming manuals and between copying code from them and finding stuff on the web glue together programs that will work.

On the other hand knowing the theory to write that program from the ground up and understand the way that the electrons travel around the circuit board to the point where you can write that program in the most efficient manor possible. That is an art and no not everyone can do that. I see code from the other people at work and it looks either sloppy or clinical. I have had to rewrite large pieces of code and redesign databases because when the dataset got large the person's program slowed down too much.

These people consider this art because they do not understand how I do it. In fact it is science because I know the theory inside and out.

To me you elevate programming to an art form when you write programs that anyone with a basic understanding of programming can read but that someone with years of experience could not write.

Not everyone can learn to do that. It is a knack and a talent.

I saw a movie the other night that I would like to quote here because I think it best sums up my point:

You do what you are.

 

[littlejohn]

I thought I'd post several thoughts I had on (or off) the topic:

1. There's a distinction between art and illustration. I think we're mostly talking about illustration here. Maybe it's art, maybe it's not. Illustration (and what people ought to pay for it) is hopefully a little more clear. [Actually, maybe we are talking about fine art. In which case, I don't know anything about anything.]
2. Fie on those who think illustrations aren't necessary in RPG products! Seriously, would you cut out the flavor text, too? That's cold.
3. Like other design jobs, illustration requires a lot of work that's hard to quantify as labor to a client. Shower time is hard to put on an invoice. Trying to count hours painting or cost of materials isn't really a complete picture.
4. It's true: anybody can be an illustrator. Just like anybody can be an NBA basketball player (go Earl Boykins!). But it is equally true that great illustrators probably can't do anything else. I suppose it's also true that many illustrators would work for free and that the great ones don't have to. Hmm.
5. So some of the problem is our own fault. Doing work on a for-pay product for free doesn't help the industry in the long term.
6. I have really appreciated all the encouragement I've recieved on the forums over the last year or so. The market can be pretty heartless; but this board doesn't need to be.


Anyways, interesting discussion. Thanks, everyone.

 

[alsih2o]

If you want to make money you have to sell to the average Joe.

Artists don't need to read

the first is incredibly wrong. the average joe owns NO original art.

as for the second, i think any fool can tell the differences between the guy who makes glazes like pappy did and the one who reads "properties of lithium ceramics" and understands it.

lord knows entire movements in art have been based on artist being some of the first to deal with and expand science and technology. and of you can't read you aren't gonna have much fun when you confuse your vanadium pentoxide and your wasabi

 

[Celebrim]

kkokie: Here is a fine example. I apparantly wasn't clear enough.

"you do not appreciate nor approve of each individuals personal interpretation...Everyone is intitled to their own interpretation, just as they are intitled to an opinion."

Err... where did I say anything about appreciating or approving? Some people complain about how wordy my writing is, but here clearly I guess I had to say something like, "Don't get me wrong. I neither approve or disapprove of each individual's personal interpretation. I'm not disagreeing with anyone's right to judge or experience my work however they see fit." The reason my writing is wordy is pinning down exactly what I mean is often so hard. I know what I mean, but I can't be certain whether you are going to understand after one sentence or five. I don't know whether you would have understood after one sentence, but that that fifth will just muddle things. I err on the side of caution in hope that I don't have to come back and explain to people that it isn't about me judging what they got out of my work in part because sometimes I never get a second chance to speak to that person.

You are entitled to judge me however you please. If, no matter what I say, you want to judge from my writing that I'm the sort of person who thinks that everyone has to agree with me, then you have every right to do so and clearly there is nothing I can do about that. If, no matter what I write, you think I am the sort of person who thinks that everyone's opinion that isn't identical to my own is wrong, then well you are intitled to feel that way too.

But the point is I would have done a very bad job conveying what I believe if my intention was to explain myself.

And, when I write a book, my intention is to communicate something. If I don't communicate that something, then I haven't done a very good job as a writer and I feel all my effort was wasted. Yes, you may have every right to get out of some particular sentence that I wrote some meaning that is affirming to you, but I labored to constuct that sentence so you would understand me - and you didn't.

And that is very frustrating.

 

[Mallus]

Celebrim...

... there's a lot in your post, and it deserves a better response than I can give here at work Let me just say for now...

1) I put the hypothetical dead bodies and hypothetical cuddly puppies on equal footing: to wit that they are both unchallenging images that provoke a singular response. I find both banal. There's no ambiguity, nothing to sink ones teeth into. Which isn't to say that you couldn't create fresh and challenging work starting with incredibly banal images/source material. I think that was the whole point behind Andy Warhol

2) I like Adam Sander, albeit in small doses. Happy Gilmore is a funny film. Though I do think his best work is in P.T Anderson's Punch-Drunk Love

3) You really shouldn't say that the kind of "fiction of affirmation" falls under the rubric "literary modernism". Modernism in lit. is work like Ezra Pounds poetry, or the fiction of Joyce and Wydham{sp} Lewis.

I look forward to continuing this after work, dinner, and a nice glass of Maker's Mark...

 

[Wolv0rine]

Once an artist decides to sell his or her work on the open market that art is now (or at least should be) subject to market forces. As many have stated or agreed with, part of the trouble with art is that it's value is fairly subjective after we figure in the cost of labour and materials.

This is entirely true, and the value of art will always fluxuate with every buyer's personal tastes. That being said, every industry market has it's set range of value(s) for art of every type.

Barring that, I remember someone stating that a piece of art should cost materials, plus labour. This, I agree with, but at the same time, the example of a week has me somewhat skeptical. Is that a 40 hour work week? Did this particular piece take 40 hours to complete? Then it most certainly would cost [Materials + (Wage * Hours)] but I'd have to take issue with the artist on how long a particular piece takes to finish.

A lot of people do not understand the process of making the art itself (which, in all honesty, is at least slightly different from artist to artist). I, myself, work with deadlines. Granted, fairly often those deadlines can be extended if need-be, but not much. Do I work 40 hours a day/5 days a week? Hell no, I work when I feel like drawing. Sometimes that's 12 hours a day, sometimes that's 12 hours a week, sometimes it's an hour or two a week. But the key here is quality. Everything that I turn in, I am agreeing that this piece is fit to see print. I am saying, by turning it in, that this piece is the best I could produce at the time I produced it. Now sometimes I know it's not, and when that happens I am ashamed, and even have to ask myself if I deserve to continue doing this. But every time that comes up, I am again faced with the truth that has led me to art -- that being, I am an artist. Not by choice, not by training, not because I draw for money. It's who I am, it identifies me because the art imposes itself upon me 24/7/365.
The process, for me, is always grueling. I go through severe eyestrain, incapacitating back and arm pain from a contorted posture held for hours at a time, blinding headaches which are likely from the level of concentration I have to maintain for that long. I have given up drawing for years at a time because of the discomfort and disillusionment. But always, I come back to my pencils, I cannot help but do so.
So, I suppose in answer to the quote above.. no, it rarely takes so long to finsih a piece. On the other hand, noone I know who works a 'real job' goes through so much effort in doing their job.

Essentially, I'm saying that if you want to work in your chosen field for a living, it should probably be a truly full-time endeavour. That means 8 hours a day and five days a week (taking things like breaks, lunch and holidays into account). To be honest, I don't see many artists doing this sort of thing -- but my experience is essentially limited, so please enlighten me if this is somehow different.

Again, we're looking at quality issues here. I could spend that much time drawing, working on art, and other things directly related. Onthe other hand, the times when I can feel that I am "on" are much, much less frequent than that. I work when I know that I am ready to work, and work well. A lawyer who goes in to the courtroom knowing that he hasn't studied the case knows he doesn't belong there, a public speaker who has laryngitis knows it is not time to do his job. They can do it, but they'd be at sub-par levels at best. On the other hand, I sometimes spend days scouring the web for reference images, information research, etc. Considering that I tend to spend at least 65% of every day in front of my computer, I can guarantee
that that goes way above 40 hours/week in research time alone. I guess this comes down to, an artist has to work when the time is right, or he will produce bad work, and that does no good for the artist, or the potential buyer.

Obviously, an artist should take as much as s/he can get without gouging the client, but barring that, what should it be? No experience and no certification? Minimum wage -- to start at least. College or University degree in Fine Arts? Probably something higher -- which would then go up.

Now this is the only thing that I actually took some offense with.
This implies that inborn talent either does not exist, or does not matter. This presumes that one cannot learn anything outside of college, on one's own. Aside from 3 years of art classes in High School that I took for fun, I am completely self-taught. I've been self-teaching for nearly 31 years, and that's a lot longer than even the most stringent of degrees takes to aquire. I also seek out harsh critics to point out where I am slacking (my partner being the best I know, she never pulls a punch, and borders on cruel in her critiques, but she's always right). But, really, why should someone who does not neccesarily have any innate talent draw higher pay, just because they went to college?

Of course, it's probably much easier in theory than it is in practice. But, please, don't look down your nose at artists that have embraced this ideology. They've determined that it's better for them to produce what the people want, rather than what the High Arts Establishment decides is "Art." I personally think that these people should be commended for their industriousness, it seems that they would be the most likely to be able to live off their artistic skills (unless you win the Fine Arts lottery known as "High Art" or whatever the acceptable name for it is... Modern Art?)

This part I can at least partially agree with. I accepted long, long ago that I do not truely consider myself an Artist. I haven't got the slightest desire to ever comminicate any message in my work, no conveying of emotions or any crap like that. I am an illustrator, I draw pictures to please the eye and convey a scene, to support ideas and text, to show things. If someone defines, in their mind, the look of something by one of my illustrations, then I have done my job, and done it right.

*looks around sheepishly*...ermm..okay, gods I hope I got around to the point in that rambling somewhere. I've been typing this for about an hour or so now.

 

[Gizzard]

There's a distinction between art and illustration. I think we're mostly talking about illustration here. Maybe it's art, maybe it's not. Illustration (and what people ought to pay for it) is hopefully a little more clear.

Interesting. Thinking about this is probably headed off onto a tangent, but oh well. ;-)

What is the difference between art and illustration? To me, illustration implies a medium (pens, inks) but "art" encompasses all mediums. But, somehow there is a scale of how much a certain form of art is worth. Some, like oils or acrylics are maybe more art-y than others like pencils; a Whelan pencil sketch will be under $1000 perhaps. Partly because its just a quick composition sketch for full painting, but still.

Anyway, to me, its all part of the same universe and understanding the high-end of the art market helps you understand why its may be a pretty good deal if you can get a color Dr. Midnight original for $50. And why, even if he were to lower his price to $20, there'd still be people complaining about it. ;-)

-edit-
Ah, I see people are using illustration as meaning "work for hire"? Perhaps thats my confusion. There's plenty of stuff done by serious artists on commission, I never really considered that illustration. Perhaps I am still confused about "illustration"?

 

[Wolv0rine]

Arguing with them won't help. If you have to convince them it's better than they think -- it isn't. Listen to what they have to say, thank them, decide if you agree, and do what you need to do.

This is not universally true, I've found. One does have to keep in mind that artists, in general, learn to see things in a different way than the average person. I was once doing portraits at a fair, when a child came up and started watching me work. At the time, I used a rather normal technique on the mouth where the line broke in the middle, and he asked me why I did that. His mother looked embarrased and told him not to ask me questions like that, it's rude. It was obvious SHE didn't know either, but didn't want to say so. So I pointed out why I did that, and although the child did not understand, the mother obviously did from the expression on her face. Sometimes, you do have to show someone why you did something before they see it for what it's meant to be.

Like kick them through a stack of drywall, the obnoxious Philistines.

Well, yeah, we can all agree that that's just fun, a perk of the job, right?