MAYGUSTA In reply to orselis [2014-08-06 08:59:39 +0000 UTC]

While I actually quite agree with you, personally - artists have always, as you put it, "whored" themselves out to earn a living. They've gone above and beyond the norm when trying to sell themselves because custom art isn't something that the average person will ever consider buying, and so to make them buy it, you have to really push yourself onto them.

Maybe they will feel that you're a horribly pushy person and will never buy from you again - it doesn't matter. They weren't that likely to buy from you the first time, and if you hadn't pushed them so hard, they probably wouldn't have. You have the money, now, and they have the art.

For all people in all careers - especially creative ones - you have to push, push, and push harder. If art is all you are interested in creating, the above advice in the article is probably not very relevant, but if you're trying to turn a hobby or a passion into a career or business, then "whoring" yourself out is a part of the process. It may be one that many people are reluctant to do, but as someone who's been around on this site for over eleven years now, trust me when I say the artists who make a living from exclusively online commissions (which is an unfortunate must in many cartoon or anime artists cases), are the ones who had to sell themselves first.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

orselis In reply to MAYGUSTA [2014-08-06 09:49:13 +0000 UTC]

I've been on this site for more than 7 years and always rejected typical whoring side of art. I still believe art should speak for itself, not because I'm lazy but because art was always something way different than other things you can buy. Too many times I've seen poor quality work promoted so hard it was finally sold, while valuable paintings were sitting in galleries for ages just because the artist is not willing to literally sell them on toilet paper. It's a rat race that art will not benefit from.
I'm not a novice, as you may probably suspect. I write and illustrate children books, I have a publisher, a real one not some ebook stuff. I've been doing commissions for years, published in magazines, illustrated books and book covers for major publishers, have done all sorts of promotions. It just doesn't fit my philosophy. Sure, I had money but most of all I felt like a whore and this is what I meant. Yes, commission work didn't come on its own, I had to show myself to many people but it was years ago and it looked different. Internet was not everything, it was minor medium to show off, now it's main and it can pretend to be anything. I'm not a 20 or something who starts off and creates account on every dev clone found in the internet just to "mark their name". Art should mark their name. Maybe it's old fashioned but I myself am more willing to support someone who has good art and doesn't have to convince the world about this fact than someone who shouts from every internet site "meeee! buy meeeeeeee! I am gooooooooood!"
There is not much to say about this subject other than it has been talked over and over for years and the more fancy tools are available in digital world, the more random people grab Wacoms and state they do commissions of Toothless etc. is this the quality of art we are striving for?

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Xadrea In reply to orselis [2014-08-06 13:19:18 +0000 UTC]

It's great you have those accomplishments under your belt but you would not even being working with a publishing company if you had not advertised your skills in one way or another to your clients or employers. That is precisely what artists are doing now with the use of social media. 

Your disdain for social media is somewhat confusing to me as well. It's worked exceedingly well for me as I begin my career as a freelance artist to be able to connect with companies, other artists, and designers quickly and effectively. Your "art should speak for itself" diatribe is very dry. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? The answer is obviously yes, but if there was no one there to hear it does it even matter a sound was made in the first place? 

I very much don't appreciate your attitude toward digital art. I'm a traditional artist, I was formally trained as one, and water based media is my main tool. I own and use a Wacom Bamboo, I have the Adobe Suite and other digital programs. What you, and others who indict this medium, seem to think is that it's "easy" or lowbrow. A tablet cannot magically give you the tools to effectively tackle two-point perspective any more than a program can instantly cure your troubles with color temperature. 

If you feel the need to throw fellow artists under the bus to make yourself feel good you need to check yourself. This elitist nostalgia you've got going on is highly unbecoming. That was then, this is now. You don't have to embrace the way things are evolving, but keeping your snooty attitude to yourself would be a great step in the right direction.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MAYGUSTA In reply to orselis [2014-08-06 10:28:37 +0000 UTC]

Okay firstly you're being incredibly rude insulting groups of artists based on how they got started, their ages, and their interests. If I was a 20-something, who wanted to draw commissions of Toothless with a Wacom I picked up only yesterday, I would be well within my right as an ARTIST. If you don't want to partake in "whoring" yourself out: don't. Still, I notice you're a member of twenty groups. So, you're still happy to share your art with others, but on your terms. That's reasonable. What's also reasonable, is other artists wishing to share their art with others on their terms, which may or may not be a mass-social-media-art-dump in your eyes. It's irrelevant what you think, because your way is not correct. You don't hold the authority on what counts as sharing, and where it crosses the line into "whoring".

Secondly, I don't assume ANYTHING about you. I don't know you. I don't make wild judgements about people I've never met. Having read your response, I do feel that you are quite elitist though - and that's something that transcends age, because it comes across as something rather juvenile. I don't know where you've been published, and I don't care, because that's also irrelevant. If you're happy with the way your art is being received, then that's brilliant! That's what so many artists strive to achieve, and sadly many never achieve. I believe it is irrelevant how we get there, so long as we don't do anything that we'll regret too much.

I think you're a little misguided on how art sells online. I can't speak for everyone, but the other day, I decided I wanted some pictures drawn of two of my characters, so I took to the forums. I didn't have to go searching in every crack and crevice for artists, I decided I'd let them come to me. That would have been much harder without social media sites such as deviantART. Anyway, I asked people to leave samples and prices, and I looked through a LOT of potential artists. Some, I thought were horribly overpriced, and some I thought were a bargain. And actually, they were mostly of a similar level, and of a similar price range. The art I thought was worth something, I was happy to spend the money on - and the art I didn't want, I wouldn't have been happy to spend ANY money on. Price and worth are different things, and it wasn't the person that sold the art to me, it was definitely the art speaking.

No matter what job you get, you will be required to sell yourself. As an artist, you have to work doubly as hard, because the average person doesn't respect or understand art the same way a fellow artist will, and the fellow artist generally won't pay as much as the average Joe will. This is amplified online. Yeah, it might be a shame. Yes, it may be attacking the integrity of art in the eyes of many people. But it is what it is. Some people don't feel that the change is bad. That doesn't make them right, and it doesn't make you right.

It was never 'better' back then, and it isn't 'better' now. It's just different. What makes you feel like a whore, may not make other people feel like a whore. I personally wouldn't want my artwork on toilet paper, but to someone else, that might be perfectly reasonable. Most importantly, it's not our place to judge that person as whether or not they are worthy to be an artist. They have created, therefore they are an artist and that isn't disputable.

Art you deem of a poor quality is just art you don't like. It's no better or worse than your art, it's just art and you don't like that particular style, piece, or artist. Or perhaps you don't like that it generated more revenue than one of your own pieces or something. I find it absurd that someone so focused and so passionate about art can even talk about 'good' and 'bad' art, or one form being more worthy than another. It's ludicrous. Sure, not everybody's master and control of technique and theory is on par with one another, but you can't judge someone's meaning behind their piece - and you can't judge the resonance it has with someone who wants to buy it.

While it's honestly a shame that some artworks gather dust in galleries while other artworks are printed onto everything tangible in existence, it boils down to one thing. At the end of the day you have to weigh up what's more important: painting and painting alone, or painting, talking and selling. If these gallery artists want to sell on a mass scale, they need to evolve with the market, and if they don't, I see no issue with their artworks hanging in the galleries they chose to hang them in. Should they have to "whore" themselves out just to earn a dollar? Actually, yes. They should. The moment you start painting for other people, is the moment you start painting on someone else's terms, and the terms of the majority are in social media right now. Artists are well within their right to not do that, but then they can't expect to generate the same revenue as those who go above and beyond with self-advertisement.

I appreciate that it doesn't fit your philosophy. I personally don't like the way social media has taken over, either, but I have two choices - I can embrace it, and join in and earn, or I can struggle and strive, and search for work with needless difficulty. However, in my response I did say, if you want to sell almost exclusively online to earn a LIVING, then you're going to have to "whore" - if you don't (which I assume is you, as you're happy selling to tangible mediums), then you really don't need to.

Either way, people are never going to buy art they genuinely don't like - no matter how hard you push them (unless you outright lie to them about its value, which isn't an online-only thing, and has been happening for centuries in the tangible world) - so it isn't exclusively a person that sells the art, the art always has to sell itself... the person just directs the traffic towards their art - they can dominate the pool of customers, but the art still has to talk.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

jane-beata In reply to Myllady [2014-05-28 05:30:00 +0000 UTC]

And you too - thanks for stopping by

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

jane-beata In reply to Goodnight-Melbourne [2014-03-03 12:45:11 +0000 UTC]

Your concern is reasonable, but it should be posted at the article about keywords instead of this one - my article about presentation touches this subject only briefly, it's why I linked resources for further reading. Perhaps your question could be answered there

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Goodnight-Melbourne In reply to jane-beata [2014-03-03 15:15:42 +0000 UTC]

Hello,

I understand.  I will ask  Thunderstatement  too. Just wrote here because you should know as you are referring to that article. Also I think  Thunderstatement  already got a notification that I mentioned.

Thank you for replying !

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

jane-beata In reply to Lintu47 [2013-08-12 07:56:53 +0000 UTC]

Thank you for reading, dear

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lintu47 In reply to jane-beata [2013-08-12 09:11:50 +0000 UTC]

I always do, but lately i'm so slow and behind with reading the journals that it takes me up to 4 hours to get rid of the stack. So sorry for being a little late. By the way, that tick is really looking nice to your username, it feels like it's been there for a long time already

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

jane-beata In reply to Lintu47 [2013-08-13 06:36:15 +0000 UTC]

I'm late with replying as well Thank you, I like the tick very much  but it will take at least one more week to get used to it

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lintu47 In reply to jane-beata [2013-08-14 20:47:18 +0000 UTC]

Seems about right, i needed time to get used to it too. I think i should name it : )

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

jane-beata In reply to Lintu47 [2013-08-15 06:58:57 +0000 UTC]

I call my tick "Orlando"

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lintu47 In reply to jane-beata [2013-08-18 15:14:49 +0000 UTC]

Oh that's a handsome name

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

jane-beata In reply to Mladavid [2013-08-08 07:34:18 +0000 UTC]

Thank you for reading

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

jane-beata In reply to H-A-Cooke [2013-08-08 07:35:36 +0000 UTC]

Thank you for your comment, it's good to see how others perceive this topic

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

H-A-Cooke In reply to jane-beata [2013-08-08 17:47:12 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome! All you say is true about presentation and not cluttering the Profile. I wish I new how to do CSS

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

jane-beata In reply to LadyBrookeCelebwen [2013-08-08 07:34:50 +0000 UTC]

Thank you for reading

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LadyBrookeCelebwen In reply to jane-beata [2013-08-08 15:40:08 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

jane-beata In reply to SerenaR-art [2013-08-08 07:34:36 +0000 UTC]

Pleasure

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

jane-beata In reply to TaNa-Jo [2013-08-07 20:17:11 +0000 UTC]

Thank you for reading

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TaNa-Jo In reply to jane-beata [2013-08-10 08:34:02 +0000 UTC]

np^^

👍: 0 ⏩: 0