❀ vina@bmtv ❀

I brought up the following subject for discussion in an international art community forum, and this was the interesting responses I received.

Topic: Why Should Art Be Different From Music? Would You Consider Using An Agent?

vc: The subject matter is somewhat self-explanatory. I’m wondering what an artist/creative talent would consider if they were to be represented by an agent, and why this channel of representation isn’t a common one among artists when it’s very common with music talents and bands these days.

If an agent were to be interested in representing you, would you like or dislike the idea? why?

From NORWAY

Feedback A: There are a lot of freelancers out there who actually have an agent. I’ve read about it in Computer Arts actually. But of course, there’s pros and cons with everything.

vc: Would you personally consider using one?

Feedback A: No, not as it is now. When I need to get more work, maybe. Tho I hardly ever hear of such people up in Norway where I recide. At the moment I’m fine with promoting my work by myself, getting work by myself. At the moment I only have time for a couple of projects at a time, if I would have used an agent he would have his share of the pay, so it’s better for me to fix me a job now and then by myself and take all the pay for myself.

vc: Yes, but considering the internet and how international your “potential clients” can be, what if you had interested parties in your work in say, Singapore, who wanted to reproduce your illustration on, say, bags, then another one in Hong Kong who wanted to license your image for on tee-shirts, and then another one in Australia who wanted to create a cartoon series of your work … would you feel you could manage the negotiation on all that, or would you consider the use of an agent who had international marketing experience? I guess this would also boil down to how commercial you’d want your work to be and the market you’re interested in reaching.

Feedback A: Well, then it would be a whole other case, so yes maybe. Depends on how much on one time, if it was a single company at each time I could do it myself. But when several new clients wanted in on the share of my works I would turn to help I gues

vc: So that brings to mind something interesting … music is known as a creative process, yet it’s also very well known to be a business. Same thing with writing. The creative talent in those art form, through an agent, is often aware of several application of his talent to business ventures. Through an agent, the creative talent in music and literature is “scheduled” for several activities and they’re often kept busy that way as that’s also the way the agent makes money. It’s meant to be a win-win situation for both.

That’s not the practice with artists and illustrators in general. They tend to give me the impression that they don’t plan their art form for much commercial application other than say, holding an exhibition or selling paintings and prints, or having the occasional tee-shirt manufactured.

To get a creative talent known to the commercial world so his/her art form can be applied to different business channels and modes for a satisfying financial return of his/her work, means having someone competent in business work with that creative talent, or, the creative talent him/herself has to already have some idea of the business direction s/he will take.

Why should the creative talent wait for people to take notice of him/her slowly through one or two known traditional channels, when promotion and projects are needed through the opening up of several potential business channels? If a creative talent can entrust the work of business development to an agent, wouldn’t s/he end up like a filthy rich rock star or a “Harry Potter”/”Da Vinci Code” writer her/himself?!

Feedback A: Hmm, that might be. Your getting deep into stuff I don’t have much experience nor talent for one can say. It’s a really interesting debate tho.

vc: Not only an interesting debate, very interesting revelation in that the artist/illustrator is not as business-savvy as his/her creative counterpart in music or literary works. Something’s really wrong with this picture, I feel.

From ENGLAND

Feedback B: Music and Illustration are two completely different things, they are both art forms but illustrators unless you have an intrest in the field are completely removed from their art or product where as musicians are the product, you may say that isn’t true but think about it, when was the last time you had to paint one of your most popular pieces of art before a live audience and had people criticise you on the way you hold a paint brush? Once you as an artist have completed a piece of work thats it, its done. For a musician once they complete the recording of a song they’re expected to go out and start playing it for the people, their work never really ends.

When your under those kinds of constraints you can see why they would give someone 10% of their cash just so they can deal with crap.

Me i wouldn’t ever hire an agent because like the guy above me says if your commisioned by someone you need to interact with them on a one to one basis because people never ever know what they want, usually they’ll have a string of rough ideas they don’t know how to describe and its quite a process to fit all these ideas together to make a finished design, its only when you give them this finished design that they start to come out with solid ideas of what they wanted. Unless you want to do 2 jobs for the price of one its best to get all the ideas right in the first place.

Thats why i can’t see anyone as a freelance illustrator being able to do their job well with some middle man getting in the way. Unless of course they just find you work and hook you up with the client, but those kind of arrangments usually don’t come from personal agents they’ll come from recruitment agencies, they on the other hand can be worth while since their commision comes from the client rather than you

vc: perhaps the comparison should be between say singers and painters wherein the “audience” tends to express public appreciation of both. Singers perform on stage and painters exhibit their work. When it comes to cutting a record or a deal with a major label, singers tend to also have an agent negotiate the deal for them. With an artist, when it comes to say, commissions, or maybe future exhibitions or the re-production of their designs, most, I realise, tend to deal with the negotiation directly themselves instead of entrusting the negotiation aspect to an “agent”.

I see similarities between the two type of art form, but different practice, and I’m curious to know why there’s a difference, when it seems logical for both to follow the same system.

Feedback B: That comparison doesn’t work with respect to agents. Agents are intrested in product, their job is to sell you and your work its about money not art. Musicians not only need to sell their work but also an image and if you like a portion of themselves this makes them a better product because there are more angles in which to pull in money, live concerts, albums, posters, magazines, TV spots, DVD’s and in some cases even action figures and dolls the only real question you need to be concerned with as a musician is how much is too much. Your typical painter doesn’t have to deal with 90% of that crap so they can take charge of a lot more than someone who does.

I’ve got a friend whos producing a UK act called “Plan B”, now even though hes hardly well known unless you have an active intrest in UK hip-hop he is still running around like fucking crazy, if he isn’t in the studio working on his album (which is probably finished by now but i’m not sure) he’s giving an interview to a newspaper or magazine, if he isn’t doing that hes making music videos or getting photo’s taken of him, if he isn’t doing that he’s doing radio and TV spots (last one i saw was the NME awards) and if he isn’t doing that he’s almost certainly on stage in some country playing live.

Even if he wanted to deal with the organisation of every aspect of his carrer he simply wouldn’t be able to, he barely has enough time to meet the requirments he already has if he had to take on an agents and managers role as well his work he would most probably never get anything done.

We as painters, designers, illustrators, cartoonists, concept artists and all the millions of other variations do not and almost certainly will not ever need to worry about that stuff because it doesn’t exist in our world. Our industry is driven by our craft not accountants and fast talking managers looking for the next big thing, that is the reason we really do not need agents for what we do, as some have already stated the prospect of steady work does seem appealing but the life of a freelancer is unpredictable and the price you pay for the freedom of working on your own terms. The day we as artists really need agents is the day the art takes a back seat to the artist, i can’t see that being a good thing.

vc: I see your point, but how about looking at it from this angle … instead of music, let’s look at the literary world. I’m actually not only thinking of just art or music but the creative industry and the creative talents in general – where there are common denominators and why certain creative talents tend to employ an agent to represent them whereas the others tend to very much go into a DIY (do-it-yourself) mode.

My other concern under this discussion, is much as we can say in the “traditional” mode there are certain known and set patterns followed as in the promotion and sale of an artist’s work, in the “digital” mode, and addressing the internet and its ability to command an international audience, the use of an image, an illustration, etc., nowadays tend to follow very similarly the same direction as that of music in that it can be re-expressed in different modes, thereby enabling several possible revenue-generating streams.

If a creative talent were to manage all these possible revenue generators in the commercialising of his/her work, I do believe it would take his/her attention away from the process of creating.

I understand DIY can be a good thing, if you have the time for that, and if, say, you’re into making your own furniture or your own clothes, but if there are ready-made stuff available, and if you’re pressed for time, would it not be wiser to “delegate” certain jobs?

That’s where I see an agent coming in and I trying to understand why they’re not often considered for artists, and/or the creative talents.

Feedback B: ohhh, okay most of what i type here will be speculation because i and indeed most of my friends are professional artists of some kind or play a role in the music industry so i have a pretty extensive knowledge about the inner workings of film, music and art production and how that turns into revenue (though i’ve been slacking on my own work lately). Books and poetry on the other hand i know nothing about other than what i like to read. lol

I can see the advantages of a writer having an agent to a certain degree but i think it would be largly down to success. Take J.K Rowling for example who writes the Harry Potter books (incase you were going to try and pretend you didn’t know as most of my friends do). She is now a world famous name, a brand if you will, the films based of her books have grossed well over a billion dollars. That kind of success has to come with a greater demand for your time and services and at this point her name on a product will almost certainly sell anything.

As an unknown professional working writer an agent may also meet your needs, i don’t think people that write books on the “Modern sewage system of Hull” did it out of a passion for wadding around in pools of human waste and i don’t know what kind of factual writer would want to take that up when things like religion and corrupt politics reign on our earth. I think books like these would most probably have been commisioned by someone (a publisher?) and given to a writer in need of work via an agent. But if your goal is to write your storys be it fact or fiction i think it would be best to test the water before you take the plunge into giving an agent a cut of your earnings, all agents are really for is to lighten your load and act as a liason. They negotiate the basic deal for your contract but your contract will be worked over by a lawyer (a much greater asset than an agent will ever be).

Really you summed it up pretty well in your post, if you have the time its best to do everything by yourself but if you have so much work that you simply can’t cope then an agent may be good for you. However, i do not think that an agent will be able to utilize the internet to a degree where they will be able to do something better than you, selling your art via the web is about presentation which you as an artist should have a full understanding of, the internet is the true free market where it doesn’t matter if your a multi billion dollar empire or a 16 year old kid working from your parents garage you can compete on an even scale as long as you can do a good job of (for lack of a better word) selling your wares. Agents deal mostly with people, they mingle, negotiate and basically hustle on your behalf.

For our type of art form the selling and generating of revenue will usually only come after you have finished your creation, i’m not sure if it works the same in most of the literary world but i know for a fact the music industry is quite pushy with deadlines and often promote an album months before its near finished. So the need for agents is greater for musicians than it would be for artists because we for the most part are left to our own devices, musicians have tour managers hassling them for dates record companies wondering where the hell their album is etc etc. The agent keeps them at bay while you create, i can’t see this being needed for us, as for writers i really have no idea the kind of pressures they are put under.

Sorry if this post is kind of all over the place, its been a long day. lol

vc: Hmm. I did mention “Harry Potter” in response to another post under the same subject.

You know the musical theatre and movie screenplay adaptation of George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion? It’s about a professor who turns a market girl into an aristocrat … okay, not 100% exactly an aristocrat, but I’m going for the concept here – it’s the “manipulation” of a professional who has the eye and the ear for a possible talent. This is what happens in the music industry and the literary industry. Someone with the gut feel for a possible “star” knows how to look out for a potential talent and invest his/her time in that talent.

I believe there are creative talents and there are creative talents, just as there are agents and agents. Some good, some bad, some brilliant.

Sure, the example you gave me regarding the writing of the “Modern Sewage system …” is a great one when it comes to illustrating how there are levels of talents, and how these talents will all display different drives and desires for achievements.

I’m sure if a creative talent were one who understood his worth, he would not stoop to taking up jobs or projects he would feel were “beneath” him, unless he was driven by necessity.

My point, to make this brief for you, since it’s a long day for both of us … is this … if there are headhunting “agencies” for management types, and employment “agencies” for rank-and-file employees … are you aware of an agency exist that caters to the placement and counselling, or business development of creative talents?

Feedback B: Well for our line of work the whole agents role kind of works in reverse. What tends to happen is you will go to a production company or design house with your portfolio as a freelancer looking for work and if they like your stuff (and you) then they normally don’t have any problems putting you on their books for a time your services are needed.

At the start you probably won’t get a call for months if at all but if they do make contact with you and offer you a job (usually it will be something pretty remedial and unimportant) the two most important things when dealing with this job would be time and the quality of your work. A good looking portfolio is a nice thing to have but if you can’t finish a project in a sane amount of time and finish it on schedule then your really no good to anybody in a commercial enviroment. If you do well on this job then you’ve pretty much passed the initail test and more work will come your way, from there its about keeping up the standards but the second you slip up your number will find its way to the bottom of the pile. Freelance work can be really brutal and unforgiving at times.

That’s pretty much how the traditional agents role is filled in our industry, production companies and design houses get the work and sub-contract it to us. We work for the people acting as agents rather than them working for us, it’s not an ideal situation but it really is the easiest route to being a successul freelancer. The major downside to this though is your completely removed from your client in most cases. Companies have rent, staff and plenty of overheads to pay so the last thing they want is to introduce their client to the person who can do what they need cheaper and lose repeat buisness and its not unheard of for your employer to directly forbid you from actually making contact with the client.

As a freelancer that was one of the things i always hated about my job, getting out there and meeting people to hustle for work but after a while you start to understand just how important that interaction with your client really is. We need to visually represent an idea that only exists in someone else’s their head that usually has no artistic ability in any form, someone said it before but it really is worth reiterating just because of how true it is.

You need to learn to read minds.

If you do not have this ability your work will take you longer and time is money. That was the great thing about being a flash designer back when Flash 4 had just started being used to make entire websites and animated SWF logos and banners were everywhere. This stuff at the time looked amazing yet it was really easy to do. You could knock absolutly any of piece of crap together but as long is there was a few paragraphs of writing fading in and out and the logo changed its tint over the course of 30 seconds clients really didn’t care. It was like throwing a bag of catnip at a hungry cat. Dealing with a design company you really won’t get away with pulling any of that cheap crap because they know whats what.

A personal agent would only really be needed if people wanted work done by you because your name attached to a piece of work gives it some kind of credability and it was in demand, I don’t know if anyone reading this thread is entertaining the notion of posing of the front cover of GQ under the headline of “Picture perfect!” but i can tell you that won’t ever be the case, your work can appear in a magazine, it can be used to represent a world wide corperation it may even get featured in an Oscar winning film. People may recognize and see your work but they’ll never connect you to it unless they have an intrest in the industry.

This is good and bad, if you for example look at the way comic strips are distrobuted by syndicates its almost criminal. This is because people care less about the artist than they do for the art. Syndicates don’t just distrobute your strip and take a commision, they attempt to buy the entire IP (=intellectual property) and if you do not like the idea of that you can safely say that you will never see your strip in print. This may change now with the rise of webcomics and artists refusal to give away something they love for nothing more than a couple of thousand dollars and no second chances, and in a sense it already has changed, when was the last time you actually laughed at a comic you read in a newspaper or magazine? I remember when and although it may be going slightly off topic i want to share it anyway. The comic was about a typical british working class man, works as a bricklayer, eats nothing that itsn’t coated in batter or fried with 2lbs of lard, spends all day drinking pints of beer in a pub, cares for little else other than football, sexcist, kind of racist and pretty much thick as shit. The strip only has two panels, it features the guy in a doctors office after the doctor finished giving him a check up.

Panel 1:

Doctor – Well the best thing you can do is give up smoking, alcohol and fatty foods…

Panel 2:

Guy – whats second best?

I must have read this about 6 or 7 years ago, the strip in question is pretty old so may be one of the few remaining comic strip creators the syndicates have chains on. We can be taken advantage of more than any other type of creative talent because its our work that is respected rather than us as the creators, this in my opinion is the way it should be but i can’t help but feel we pay a price for this, the syndicates and comic strips scenario is probably the “worst case” example of how we pay for the way our idustry is perceived but there are many other examples that spread all across the board.

The best thing about the work we do though is the possabilitiy to evolve. Comic strip writers can become comic book writers who can then in turn take an active role in movies, Frank Millers Sin City comes to mind. Photographers, can turn into cinematographers then directors. As for todays artists, if you have talent, something that resemble’s a brain and are not scared of working on a computer you have unlimited potential.

To me it seems that theres a kind of balance between respect and freedom, if your a musician you’ll gain a lot more respect from people in general because they’ll make a point to connect you with your music. As an artist you don’t get much respect because no one outside of your buisness gives two shits about you but this grants you much more freedom to change what you want to do in your art. This scale falls of its hinges however once you evolve into another medium, no one gave a shit about Peter Jackson when he was working on special effects for crap horror movies, yet how many people don’t know who directed Lord of the Rings?

I think i’ll cut that here, looks like this is a long one…sorry about that.

vc: Oh not at all, I enjoyed reading your response and it’s pretty insightful.

I’m seeing that certain creative talents are not meant to be “recognized” whereas other are … and I don’t feel comfortable with that as I’m really into giving credit where credit is due – although I must say that it’s been repeated time and again in advertising, the slogans, “Coke is it!”, or “Just Do It” never came from a “creative talent” but from someone in administration, like a secretary, and that person was never recognized at all, nor did s/he get any richer for thinking the slogan up.

I really believe a creative talent can benefit from an agent, and it doesn’t necessarily have to be a “go-between” who’ll always work as the channel to the artist. It’s possible for the agent to secure contracts and jobs, and at the same time allow for a direct client to artist relationship to exist.

The work the agent should do is to generally fill the role of a business developer. There are “delegations” of roles in enterprises, and that also exists in some simple like a family. Much as one can, as I’ve written, go into Do-It-Yourself mode, I think it’s also a matter of addressing one’s future as an artist and the plans to get either better or more known so work comes easily to an artist.

These days, even in the music industry, you have IPR (intellectual property right) regulation protecting not only the main artists in the band or an orchestra, every single musician who plays on a set is registered and receives his share of any royalty due him once the album gets released.

This is “everyone”, and they’re recognized as well on the covers of the album.

I really don’t appreciate the difference in practice when it comes to artists who either illustrate or go into the classic arts. And frankly, the purpose of this subject is for me to look into ways to solve this internationally.

Thanks for sharing! I really appreciate your responses.

Feedback B: I really appreciate the thread, it’s not very often you get a subject about the industry that isn’t about some kid who wants to know how to make a billion dollars drawing pokemon fan art.

You do have a very good point with the royalty shares within the music industry and how for some reason they don’t apply for artists. My friend the producer who i mentioned earlier as well as 3 seperate fee’s is going to earn points, royalty’s and album credits for his work. Anyone who had even the slightest thing to do with the album will also get their mention. I’ve even seen tour managers who could no way of had anything to do with the creation of an album getting a credit on the inlay.

Another friend of mine is a fairly well rounded artist in all mediums but his main area for professional work is in concept art for movies and animation, though most of his ideas often get passed up a few have actually gone on to become million dollar fully functional sets. He does not get a penny other than his fee and his place on the credits can and has on occasion been completely overlooked. It doesn’t stop at concept art either, logo designs, advertising campaigns, cartoons, illustrations. You don’t ever get a royalty on, and in some cases you can just be ripped off and won’t even get a basic fee. An example of that is a TV cartoon that was made in the late 60′s by a japanese company called “Kimba – The White Lion”, if you watch the Disney’s “The Lion King” they in my opinion and a lot of others just outright ripped this show off.

Take a look at – [link] http://www.kimbawlion.com/lkc11a.jpg

Now check out - [link] http://www.kimbawlion.com/lkc11.jpg

Thats just the tip of the iceberg, you didn’t see Disney give any credits and they never paid for the rights, apparently they tried to but once that fell apart they just went ahead and released the movie anyway. So how could they get away with doing this?

Well for what its worth here is my opinion. Money, we as artists more often than not don’t have any, we are self employed for the most part and even when we aren’t self employed anything we do will be under a company banner. If the people we work for rip us off, we work for them so they own everything we produce for them. But, if its your IP that is being ripped off this puts you in a very strange position. You can hire a lawyer and take the people to court but that may cost more money than that the job is worth and usually you won’t have the money to front going to court and most certainly would not be able to afford losing it. People are very savy to this these days, the threat of legal action has really lost the sting it had back in the old days and has become a joke.

Musicians however don’t really do everything themselves for reasons we’ve already discussed, they are the source of an ongoing and lucrative product and the people who generate revenue from that product are legit companies, record companies, publishers, agencies, managers that know wranglings of copyright theft and IPR. These people and companies have to have legal teams and accountants to be able to operate, this protects musicians far more than anything an artist could ever get because most small record companies are infact subsidiaries of subsidiaries of multi-national corperations. People make an investment into their product (the musician) and they will protect it, a bigger company see’s the assets that the smaller company has gathered and see a potential growth and take steps to aquire said company, now the artist (musician) is protected by its label which is under the umbrella of something like Time-Warner.

I couldn’t imagine trying to sue someone like Time-Warner could you? most corperations like that don’t lose cases, if its an impossible case for them to win they’ll just drag out the case in court and wait for you to run out of money.

The only way i really see this being possible for artists is if you create something like a multi-media company with other types of artists and try to get into every kind of creative art form you can and hope it grows. This in my opinion would make an agent justified because as one person in a industry with no faces there isn’t very many channels you can go through to get revenue, a group of multi-talented artists working as a single entity however could get unique work done fairly fast in so many mediums that a good agent should have no trouble seeing the potential in a project like that, as your success grows, you’ll make an effort to become self sufficient and have legal people and accountants.

If this happened i think you can get into a similar postion to musicians, the idea of course would need some tweaking but i think thats pretty much the way to go.

vc: You’re actually coming very close to a solution I’ve been trying to propose for a few years now

I’ll write to simplify things so it’s easier to understand especially if you want to drive points through in a discussion with corporate left-brainers later in protection of creative right-brainers.

The music industry and the major labels are the “giants” they are now because of how certain “agents” or publishers, in the labels’ formative years, managed to develop, negotiate and direct the growth of their talents through the commercial causeway.

If you trace history, the major record companies and labels these days were once upon a time, indie labels in the late 40′s and just about the time when vinyls were introduced as a new “audio” technology to carry recorded music to the masses.

Visual recording and the distribution of visual material – and I mean this to be art forms that cover contemporary art and illustrations, or generally what artists communities are all about – should have followed very much the same pattern in business structure as music, when CD-ROM and DVDs started to replace analogue a/v recordings worldwide by the mid 90′s, but it strangely didn’t (except of course, for “film”). The creative talents should have employed the same system as in music and film to not only protect themselves, but address business development and the global commercialisation of their work. I’m not seeing that happen. Artists still peddle their ware and still go about running something like a mom and pop store system with their art and illustration.

With music, you would have an indie start out with one or two talents, a solo artist or a band, and then the collection of other talents along the way. The indie management would either have a background in music or business, or both, and would work to represent the talent/artists.

As we know, music is a “universal language”, so it is without a doubt that the labels/publishers of a musical talent would plan to always include a worldwide audience if they feel that the artist is capable of global appeal.

Planning for international exposure is something that is always there in the minds of people who are in the music business. It’s only through a global market and with a global audience and distribution that you can reap tremendous rewards (thus enabling you to secure a battery of expensive international lawyers for the protection of your IPR assets), and this is one of the major reason why all the giant broadcasting network focus on international distribution and on capitalising on audio/visual material. You have to see that the music labels these days, belong, oftentimes, to the same family as the film and television studios, which also can own bookstores and other commercial establishments, take Bertelsmann as an example

A global audience and distribution of combined audio-visual formats is what makes these music labels and film production corps. rich and giants in the world.

But they were all somewhat small once upon a time.

Fast forward to our time … here you have a bunch of talented artists mainly working on visual creation, although now with technology, there are experimentations and merges of traditional and digital as well as transitions from certain restrictive analogue platforms to now multiple digital channels and platforms, all done with speed and ease of use.

To a creative talent, they’re great toys to play with and bring out something unusual and yes, oftentimes, incredible. And we can say, after seeing not only Lord of the Rings, but Harry Potter, The Chronicles of Riddick, Gladiator, even television series like CSI, and so forth and so on, how computer graphics can prove to show tremendous potential in delivering to us fantastic results and fantastic entertainment.

But what of the creative talents behind all the work? And the protection and credit to the talents that enables us to enjoy these fantastic visuals and entertainment? You bring about the subject of “ripping” – yes, but to protect oneself against that very real possibility, one cannot fight alone … it’s better to fight as one massive, united international front.

The protection of IPR is costly, I’ve written about that often when responding to some post on copyright, and you’ve highlighted most of the crucial points everyone should be aware of. But whereas the music and film industries work collectively to protect their talents and their “assets” … nothing of the kind is happening to the art/illustration world. Why is that?

Where is the flaw? What is being overlooked? Why are there no “agents” or an indie group that shows interest in promoting these artists and taking care of not only business development, but protection and credits as well? And why have these agents/indie groups not grown to be giants so examples can be made and given to us these days?

And yes … the creation of a multi-media company you’ve brought up … but perhaps it’s necessary for us to first pose a question to draw out and perhaps pique the interest of the artists themselves and to gauge whether they’re aware of their situation, and if they know of an effective solution.

Thus the purpose of this post.

Feedback B: Another great post, a lot to think about in there and a lot of great questions.

Personally i find it very tempting (although prehaps overlooking the real issue) to blame Andy Warhol and one of his most famous comments for the acceptance of copyright theft in the arts, the phrase “good artists copy, great artists steal” seems to be buried deep within the pysche of a lot of people, had it of been “good artists pay, great artists go to court” (which is the adapted phrase of professionals in visual fx) people may not have this lack of respect for our profession. I know it would be pretty ignorant for me to just blame one well known character for the state of affairs we find ourselves in today and i’ll try to go deeper later on in the post, but you have to consider that this quote pretty much made the work ethic of some of the worlds richest and most influential people of buisness today e.g Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Something you may find ironic (and probably already know of since you seem to be a very keen observer of the buisness ethics of art) given my previous example of Disneys disregard for copyrights that do not belong to them and how they fight tooth and nail to protect their own products is Steve Jobs is now the majority share holder and a key member of Disneys board of directors.

Now onto the real issue, you pointed out some nice facts in the history and development of music and film and asked why it can’t be the same for our art form, well as with any problem its a chain of events that has been shaping up over hundreds of years slowly but all came to ahead in the 60′s. And as always this is just my view on things, it may or may not be correct.

During the 60′s when musicians were pushing boundaries and creating cultural movements and film makers were shaping up their industry with great films containing real social messages (Jack Nicholsons speech in “Easy Rider” about how nobody is free stands out for me) and finally coming into its own the art scene had its final innings. In my opinion the 60′s saw the last of the big names in what you would consider traditional art and that it was the critics who killed the art scene.

Music and Film were relatively young then when you consider how far its evolved but the creative talents driving that industry forward were for perhaps the first time real people with real stories with real talent and passion and because of this their audiences were their equals, they could relate to these films and songs and people respected them for it. Before bands like The Beatles came about being a musician was a job, composers wrote songs sold them to companies who then hired the services of professional musicians to accompany an act that the label has, usually a solo singer that fits the bill of tall dark and handsome. Being able to just play wasn’t good enough in those days, what school you went to and unimportant things like exam results actually mattered because it was ran as a business first and foremost and you were an employee.

The Beatles changed all of that, they inspired kids to pick up guitars and write their own songs and the global phenomenon they caused was enough to make record companies try to repeat their success. Enter The Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, The Who, Led Zeppelin, David Bowie, Janis Joplin, The Doors, The Animals, The Allman Brothers…the list goes on and on. From that point people started to think about what else could be out there and you had independent music magazines and papers pop up all over the place to seek out new artists and give them exposure, at the same time you had independent music labels crop up and start putting out acts. People didn’t do this for money they did it out of love for the art form because the little snip that the major record labels gave them woke them up to a world of new ideas and potential, in short, the artists they listened to inspired them.

The same thing happened in film, people got a taste of real genius and saw what real un-tainted talent is and set about making it possible to get these people audiences and more opportunities. The Art scene had its last few giants but they didn’t really inspire, Andy Warhol for all the shit i give him actually predicted the death of traditional art due to critics with the “everyone will be famous for 15 minutes” quote in reference to the critics attitudes of “if it’s already been done it’s not worth doing!”.

Where music and film embraced its people and actively sought to find people with talent and support them, Art seemed to be closing itself off from its audience and its artists. Art seems to be constantly living in the past waiting for something new which will become old before anyone has even heard of it. Film and Music love originality but they still appreciate talent as much. That’s the fundamental flaw and why Art never grew with Music and Film

Art failed to inspire people because it turned its back on appreciating talent, the intellectual elite made people despise traditional art because they made it so inaccessible. It wasn’t enough to like a painting you had to be able to talk about why you like it for 2 hours whilst comparing it to poetry and reading into symbolism that may or may not have been there, they made people feel like they didn’t belong and slowly but surely the critics have come to rule over “traditional” art. You may be able to paint like Da Vinci and sculpt like Michelangelo but you won’t get any respect for that because it’s already been done, however if you cut off a cows head or put some dog shit in a can you are a god to these people. It’s always amazed me how these supposed intellectuals can be so stupid but in the world of traditional art you need these people and to get the respect of these people you need to be original before you even think about displaying any form of ability or talent.

But now here comes the dilemma, critics may not hold talent with any kind of regard and like to see something new and “ground breaking” but real people who you will be making a living off and are the only people who really matter see things for what they are and like to see talent, not mediocre bullshit. If you can’t get through the critics you can’t get to the people. That is why most of todays young artists have turned their back on the traditional art scene, it doesn’t want them and they don’t consider themselves a part of it.

With this in mind is it any wonder that people turn to artistic mediums that have inspired them? comic books, anime, cartoons are among the hundreds of different art forms which will soon be considered traditional art. Kids can look to people doing these things and learn to better themselves, I really do hate anime with every fibre of my being but i won’t say that there aren’t some incredible talents working with the genre on dA alone. If they can learn their trade and then apply it they have nothing but promise, their only critics will be the people who view their art and even if 99% of people hate their work that still leaves 1% that they can build on. They don’t have to worry with critics calling their work easy art or claiming that their work isn’t art at all.

That leads me to another good point, since when did critics have the authority to decide which mediums are and are not art? I remember reading an article by a painter who quoted a review of his work as saying “but remember this is not art, it is mere illustration”. To me art is the process of creation, to capture an idea or a moment and share it with others however profound or mundane, I don’t know how anyone that considers themselves an authority on art can have the nerve to say that a piece of work that was not an original idea from your mind can not be considered art. Does that mean the Sistine chapel is not to be considered as art either?

This is the problem, music media will love a band if they like their song, the way rock seems to be working backwards these days with bands like the Strokes becoming really popular tells me that music critics although often full of shit in their own right at least are not hung up on originality yet, they state their opinion which and everyone knows its nothing more than that. With television and movies what is demanded of your work is even less restrictive, your film just has to have a quality and that is enough. The music and film industries like the art scene has had its visionaries but you don’t have to be better than John Lennon or Kubrick to be appreciated and neither of their media outlets would ever say that a film isn’t a film and a song isn’t music, where as the art critics have no problem at all with this.

If the people who are suppost to be seeking out new artists and promoting new talents (i use the word talent very very loosely considering what the darlings of the art world are doing these days) don’t seem to like art then what does that say about us? The people who are suppost to be supporting us spend more time stabbing us in the back and who they love today they hate tomorrow unless of course they happen to be dead by this time, is it any wonder that no one seems to want to buy into this scene which is run by self-obsessed self-congratulating morons?

So it’s come to this, people have more or less turned their back on a scene that seems to do nothing more than set about to destroy their reputation with venom and spite. The one true traditional art form i think that has a lot in common with the artists of old is the graffiti artists or graphers as their known over here. Their canvas is everything and their galleries are the streets you walk and drive to work on. They don’t do this out of a need for a aprroval they do it out of a love for art. Critics and the general art world do not consider their work legitimate art so they in turn do not consider themselves artists. Their art is edgy, raw, its very existence is anti-establishment and often contains an important social message. Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t this what the intellectual elite were screaming out for throughout all their existence even when people like Da Vinci were still working?

The art scene is stuck in the past desperately trying to find a future, they see genius where there is none and do not see value in anything that may be popular or have broad appeal. This puts the vast majority of creative people at odds, we make our art for ourselves first and foremost but having people enjoy your work is the greatest of rewards for your efforts, artists have adapted and evolved.

If the art world had followed the same route as music and film then we may be in a very different place today, if they had given art to the people and not tried to question the intelligence of the people who had interest then the people would have taken art into the 21st century. That didn’t happen so all we have left is a world full of people who do not consider themselves artists making art that is truly ground breaking and taking great strides to show people things that they wouldn’t of even seen in their wildest dreams, and we have an art scene which consists of mostly artists without any art.

“Without any real art” may seem hypocritical of me so I’ll explain that stance, as i said before i consider art the act of creation. Most artists today at least indeed the big name artists of today are not actually creating anything, cutting a cow into 10 pieces is not creation its mutilation, putting a pile of dog shit in a can is not creation its vulgar and childish and turning a light on and then off (second place winner of the turner prize a few years back) is not creation, its lazy. This kind of art does not inspire anyone and the only thing that can be thought provoking about it is what kind of person could see this stuff as being genius.

So artists have been left festering in a scene that does not appreciate what they have to offer as others took to other fields where they can be creative and still earn a living. Making a living of something you’d do for nothing is an artists driving ambition, hence the reason so many people now do their work in a digital medium. It gives them greater working opportunities and can enhance their work ten fold, this however makes us more employees than it does creative talents and the reason for us not being seen as creative talents is the lack of acceptance what we do from the people who could grant us this kind of legitimacy. There are pockets of hope for people who have started to take their craft and apply it in film and other markets but for the technophobic painter still working of canvas i can’t see things improving much.

Of course this is just my opinion, a lot of people on dA may disagree since there are a great many budding critics on here but even if i’m missing something of the bigger picture the growth of the music and film industries alone shows us that something within our own industry must have been working against us at that time.

As usual sorry about typo’s etc, when i start writing about subjects like this i don’t have the energy to really go over everything i typed at the end. I’m not even sure if i did a good job of staying on topic. lol

vc:The exchanges with you have been an interesting somewhat indepth analysis of what I’d like to say is a “problem” in the world of art and illustration “business”. But if we say we’ve looked into history and established an understanding of why there’s a problem now with the art “business”, we should try to focus on a constructive “solution” to solve it.It’s like examining the wealth and poverty status of countries. I’ve come across people, quite known in the political world and with established international organizations who tell me with confidence that they can “erradicate” poverty in the poorest countries of the world.

One gentleman who told me this was from one of the Scandinavian countries, and he was the originator of the “Productivitiy Council”. Some years back, he visited China for the first time and returned to discuss with me about the plan to erradicate poverty in China. He said in Scandinavia, they were able to do that successfully, and in fact, the Scandinavian countries are one of the richest countries in the world these days.

I know something about the history of Scandinavia, in particular, Sweden, and I told him that sometime in 1870, Sweden was one of the poorest countries among the European countries – they were even poorer than Congo is today. What was remarkable with the Swedish, and the Scandinavians was they were UNITED in determining that their future had to change and they embarked on entrusting a handful of strong leaders then to assist with their change.

There was strong cooperation among them, and what you see of Sweden and the Scandinavian countries today is a firm attestation to the power of unity.

There is a serious problem in the world of art and illustration in that the artists who populate that world, in general, are not “rich”, and most barely can survive. Most are taken advantaged of and their creations are ripped and used without any regard to the effort and the hardship those artists go through in the process of birthing their creation.

The example with music … with film … with architecture … with fashion … any “successful model” and/or system of “business” WITHIN the creative industry should be examined and pit against the art/illustration business so we can see what is the real problem and not only identify the problem and its root cause, but effect proper solution after the diagnosis.

I just recently chanced upon this artists community a little over a month now – surprisingly enough for me, I never heard of the site for this global “art community” before, and only chanced upon it when I tracked a visitor to my own site in my process of evaluating and researching global visitors and their “movement”.

That one month of so, I’ve studied and evaluated the community of artists and I’ve posed a few “business” questions, the what ifs, to gauge if they were aware of how to plan their future direction and growth with art/illustration. The answers I’ve received were not really surprising. There are less than 10% of the community members who are aware that art/illustration IS A BUSINESS. They know they have to survive somewhat, but there is nothing clear that shows me that they should understand their craft is something that is not only meant to be a passion and an interest they follow with their heart, and love, but it is something that must prove lucractive as well.

Making beautiful music, beautiful clothing, beautiful interiors, hotels, office blocks, etc., that’s all about creativity, the art of creation, and very much a right-brainer activity, but it’s possible to balance both left and right brain activities in order to enable the creative talent to survive.

Bottomline – the creative talent in the art/illustration field should understand their world and work is BUSINESS these days. And they should establish a UNITY amongst themselves to solve current problem. It’s ridiculous for them to maintain the status quo JUST BECAUSE IT’S ESTABLISHED. I don’t believe in that.

The problem I see is that creative talents aren’t told and guided properly enough in understanding important things about their craft and their future. This must change.

Without change, the creative talent in the art/illustration world will continue to suffer, and like Van Gogh, they will be doomed to live the life of poverty until they die.

It sickens me to hear people in the commercial world ask how old an artist is … and then quickly evaluate how long they have to wait in terms of investment in his world before he “dies” and the value of his work goes up.

That’s very wrong. We should change that, and we should start now, even if it’s small steps forward, we should move our asses and start now to effect change.

Okay … I wanted to write more, but my schedule is a killer one today! Same thing like you, I may be full of typos as well and going all over the place iwth my random thoughts

Feedback B:

Well i honestly think we’ve come to a conclusion and from here the solution is all about reforms and changing the way people observe what we do.

In the music and film world great artists make great art.

In the art world as it is today great artists ship.We are the by product of buisness, our skills are utilized and our product is the property of our employer. We are not artists anymore, we are technicians and employees. The only way we can break from this is to make stars, we need a modern John Lennon type of artist to come along cut the intellectual elite off from the art scene and open it up so it can start to embrace all forms of art as one.

All artists believe that it isn’t the tools you use to create your work that matters only the work itself. Make talent and ability count for something again and start inviting normal people to get involved. When this happens people will support their artists and try to spread awareness of what is happening, the art world will have names again and their work will be in demand and people will start to respect what we do. With demand in place corperations will swoop in to help supply, they’ll work to protect their artists and their investments and then we will all fly to the moon in a spaceship made of choclate fudge.

This is what it will take in my opinion to set things right. I don’t think things will ever be right, they’re too far gone for the art scene unless we start getting a lot of independent movements going on. These do seem to be emerging but they seem to follow the tradtions set by the twats of old who would scream about why all art museums should be destroyed for the good of art when they should be catered to making the population at large intrested again.

The thing you have to remember with the artist community is that although this is most probably the largest community of artists on the net the vast majority of people on here have more than likely never worked in their life, you say 90% are not aware of the buisness oppertunities that they can get but 80% of the people here are between the age of 14 – 18 and are still students. I really didn’t start to get a proper grasp on how the buisness of illustration and design was until i was 22 after 6 years of working 90 hours a week for 30 hours worth of money, at 24 i’m now trying to change the direction of my career into animation and visual effects, you may still not be appreciated as much as an artist would be in the music industry but at least they don’t try to outright take the piss out of you.

The buisness side of things is very hard for us all and I don’t really have many solutions for it, every art form seems to be an institution, music and film for example have their own awards shows and media that recognize talent new and old within their industry. We don’t have that in the art world, web designers have their own media and awards as do cartoonists, 3d artists, graphic designers and all the rest of them where we should all fall under the umbrella of the art scene but they’re too busy wondering what the artist was trying to say by placing this used hanky on a choclate bar wrapper.

Just before i wrap this post up (i promised myself i’d keep it short this time, lol) i just wanted to say i agree that evaluating an artists work on how long hes got to live is wrong. Art should be judged on its own merits and the artist should be judged by talent, theres been rumours going on for years about private collectors buying works and then having the artist killed…thank god for computers is all i can say.

vc: I feel when it comes to the creation of a “star” like, as you mentioned, a modern John Lennon type (what happened to the rest of the Beatles?!), Disney effected that “Star Quality” in the old days and went on to reap the rewards of their effort. But whereas Disney did it under his name and his own umbrella of auxilliary businesses, he excluded the rest of the art/illustration talents. You have to belong to Disney in order to have your work recognized and supported, and yes used and abused as well.

I think if we look at not only history, but we monitor the development of other movers and shakers in the creative industry, we should be able to weed out what it is we don’t want and what it is that appeals to us in general. Some one should start to pull together the creative types so they realise they need to have some form of order and standard set so everyone can benefit.

Your example of telling me that you yourself did not have a grasp of how the BUSINESS of illustration and design was until you had spent/wasted time learning the ropes! Why couldn’t you be informed earlier? There are business schools established (MBAs that charge an arm and leg for their courses) for giving strong background to students interested in the business world so the students come out of their educational institution aware of what to expect.

How can a student enter an educational institution and not be told what to do with his/her craft when the time comes for them to mingle with the real world?! That doesn’t sound right to me!

I saw that happening through the years and frankly, I’m annoyed by the situation and really want change so there’s necessary protection available not only for art/illustration talents, but the creative talents in general. Even in the music industry where there’s already established form of “regulation” – the majors have gotten really too greedy and they can spell the life or death of a potential talent. They’re not all that great! In fact, I’m also anti-establishment when I realise just how they’re populated and controlled by the big fat cats of the industry who can take a potential and incredible talent, keep the person or group under contract and just feed the mediocre talents out to the public so they don’t face a “problem” with the exceptional talent they’ve managed to ensnare.

I feel that BEFORE an artwork goes out, it should be evaluated by a body of artists or creative talents themselves who know the right questions and the right “feeling/sensation” to express when it comes to the appreciation or the critique of their own kind – rather than having these stupid idiotic art critics from media who think they know something of the art world when in fact, they know shit nothing!

They’re the ones who have the power to discredit the creative industry and that power has been abused often enough time.

Now … how about we go discuss how we can start, in a small way, to establish something to make a change for the art/illustration world? or the creative industry in general because there’s just so much cross-over by the talents who are just so into experimenting these days!

I really feel it’s about time to do that. And I can tell you, I do have resources to try to make it happen BUT we need to see if the artists themselves want that. It’s like the example I gave earlier with Sweden – will the artist/creative talent themselves want the change to their current situation and are they willing to come together as a UNITED front to make that change possible?

That’s the key question if we come down to basics. Is there a problem? Is there a solution? Are we united in implementing the solution? Then … if yes … how.

From ITALY

Feedback C: keeping an agent is not art… music is not different from painting or photography or writing or sculpting… in the creative process.. selling art or music is not part of the creative process of “Arts”…it’s just business… there’s no correlation… there are great artists without agents, there are bad musicians plentyu of agents and they often don’t sell “art”, they sell crap…

vc: yes, i agree that art is not “business”, or the creative process of creating art is not meant to be business. therefore, shouldn’t the business side of promoting, negotiating and selling “art” be left to an agent, and not an artist?

Feedback C: well… only if it’s tooo much! i think people should care their own business instead of make some agents decide what it’s good for they… i mean, it’s the artist the one who must choose his commissions, not someone else. an agent sholud prove useful only to find contacts or to get the money, no more..

vc: Well, what if the agent just follows the instruction given to him or her by the artist? For example, the artist will tell the agent how much s/he expects for a certain work, and it should not be sold less than that, or how much s/he wants back. Don’t you think that a “good partnership” should exist first?

Feedback C: well i think that’s no agent: that’s an accountant… and i think from this point of view it’s useless, unless u have to contract or keep contact with many commissioners

vc: an accountant keeps books ready for fiscal declaration annually to government, he or she also looks into maintaining and keeping in order, on behalf of a person or a company, any financial/fiscal records. an accountant does not deal with business development nor does she or he represent an artist externally, that is, outside of an office environment.

if you work with an agent and instruct the agent to work according to your price list and you set a quota for him or her to follow, then, like any business development or marketing/sales person, that agent will move to expand your business and bring you not only necessary clients, but other business/revenue generating channels.

unless you know how to use an agent properly, and unless you feel you could do with one, then it’s really pointless to have one as it’s a partnership between two people that has to work first for them, and preferably they appreciate each other’s abilities and talents, as both will required to have that to make the partnership work well.

From the U.S.

Feedback D: The reason that agents are so commonplace amoung musicians (and not artists) isn’t really because the two are different areas with different needs (although they are,) but because of the music industry. The music industry is massive, and out of control, and “agents” probably don’t work in the way you’re thinking of.

They don’t work for you, they work for some big record company, and they use you to make money. You don’t fire your agent unless you’re no longer interested in the music biz, they fire you. As a musician, you go to an agent, throw a bunch of money at them and kiss their ass, because that’s the ONLY way you’ll ever get on the radio, become “known” or have any chance to be a household name, or do anything besides the local small venue or a coffee house gig. An agent is the only chance you have to land a contract with a big label, that’s what agents are for. Musicians don’t have them so that they can find lots of gigs around town.

I’m not real interested much in professional art, but if I did go that way, I think an agent would only really have use to get started. After that I would just want to build off my reputation to get business.

vc: Hmmm, okay, the music industry has both major and indie recording companies, and if you work with an agent from either, it can be someone representing a major OR the indie management themselves.

Oftentimes, it’s not easy to just “fire” a talent because there are contracts that bind the both which should be understood before the contract is signed. There are terms that should be fulfilled and as responsible adults, both parties should know if you’re both capable of fulfilling them not only responsibly but reasonably. You don’t often have to go to an agent, sometimes they come to you if they’re interested in signing you on as one of their talents, and of course, their assets, if they believe you have the ability to draw public attention and support – very much like that American Idol programme not so long ago.

I think, like most things in “business and the commercial world”, there are good, bad and mediocre agents, business managers or representatives. How you discover if the one you’re working with is good and not bad really depends on synergy and experience between the both of you.

I don’t believe you can work on negotiating deals on a global scale if you were to find your reputation going international! You would definitely need either an agent or manager to assist you.

>>>>> this is part of a current on-going discussion …