Should artists and writers work for free?

[tjekan]

I suspect that most people who cop an attitude like "Why the hell should I pay you? Art is easy! You should do it for free!" are in fact the same people who tell waitresses "Why the hell should I tip you? All you did was carry the food over here!", argue with the plumber that they shouldn't have to pay him because the fix turned out to be so easy, and pick fights with the service desk people at big box stores. Jerks are jerks, and they're going to be disrespectful and demanding regardless of whether the person they're trying to stiff is creative or not.

 

I bet you anything that there are equivalent websites full of horror stories about rude customers dissing and trying to rip off waiters, contractors, and other service providers.

Edited September 22, 2011 by tjekan

[KageSora]

I suspect that most people who cop an attitude like "Why the hell should I pay you? Art is easy! You should do it for free!" are in fact the same people who tell waitresses "Why the hell should I tip you? All you did was carry the food over here!", argue with the plumber that they shouldn't have to pay him because the fix turned out to be so easy, and pick fights with the service desk people at big box stores. Jerks are jerks, and they're going to be disrespectful and demanding regardless of whether the person they're trying to stiff is creative or not.

 

I bet you anything that there are equivalent websites full of horror stories about rude customers dissing and trying to rip off waiters, contractors, and other service providers.

That may be true in many cases, but not in all cases. There are people who really just cannot comprehend how it takes '23 hours to draw 3 circles'. Hell, I draw a lot and even I get surprised from time to time to realize how long I've spent on something. I look at it and go "Wait, what? How the heck did this take me 5 hours to do?! It looks like it shoulda been done in 2 tops! If even that!"

 

 

 

And yes, there are websites, plenty of them. There's a ton of customer horror stories.

 

 

 

I'm just saying that artists and writers are not less deserving of payment than others. I've just seen a larger number of people who seem to think that artists/writers are less deserving of being paid that there are who think people who do other types of work should be paid.

 

It just seems like one of those 'acceptable targets'. People figure it's okay to rip off artists/writers because it's not "essential to keep things running" like food providers, or people who make sure electricity is running for businesses, or the people who keep your devices up and running. People seem to treat it as expendable, and like it doesn't really matter as much. They fail to realize that designers and writers are behind so much more than they'd just assume...

 

 

But of course, I tend to follow information on this as I do a lot of drawing and writing myself so it's important to me. More so than, say, how people treat plumbers because I have little interest in things related to plumbing.

[Imbecamiel]

Mmm, it really does make such a big difference who is initiating the offer of "free work". If the artist/writer/etc. is the one saying, "Hey, I want to put my name out there - I'll do X for you for free, in exchange for the publicity it'll get me." or "Hey, this is a cause/person I like - I'd be happy to do something for free here." that's well and good. If it's a company/person contacting the artist and saying "Hey, I want this... but I want it for free!" - Not Cool. My theory there is, if you're good enough that they're contacting you for work, you're good enough to be paid.

 

On a personal level, I’m an editor, writer, and artist, and have done both paid and volunteer work for all three.

 

Art-wise – most of that’s been volunteer (like for DC), simply because so far I’ve been mostly dabbling and developing my skills, having fun, and haven’t made an effort to make much money at it.

 

My first commissioned art project… was not a great experience. The woman was a member of a Creative Circle I’d been attending (like a writers’ group, only for all art forms), and after seeing some of my sketches commissioned me to do one for her to give her niece – she wanted essentially a slightly larger version of one I’d previously done, just in a different color, so I was confident I could give her the quality she’d expect. I told her I’d do the piece for $20, and she agreed. I worked hard over the piece, angsted over it, went to a lot of effort to give her the best work I possibly could. When I presented her with the piece, she seemed happy, but told me she only had $10 cash with her, and asked if she could give me the rest next time she saw me. Hey, she’d been attending meetings regularly enough for a while, and hadn’t known I’d be getting the piece to her then, so I didn’t think too much of agreeing. Naive, as it turned out. She never showed up or contacted me again. :/

 

As far as writing goes, pretty much anyone who wants to have a career as a writer has to be willing to do some unpaid writing at some point.

 

There are always those Cinderella stories of total unknowns who make it big, but the truth is the majority of publishers (book publishers, that is) are not going to take someone who doesn’t have their name out there with some previous work. And the way you get that start is… by being willing to write for some people who aren’t going to give you anything but a byline and the chance to see your work in print. And yep, I’ve done that. And this last year I was able to get one of my short stories published in a fantasy anthology – and got paid for it. Not a large amount, true, probably not what the story was worth, but given (1) careful consideration of the contract and the rights I’d retain, and (2) the fact that it genuinely was a huge step in getting my name out there, and likely to help with my future works, I consider it a success and well worthwhile.

 

With editing, my primary source of income… now there’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.

 

I understand how hard it is for writers to get paid for their work, I really, really do. So I can sympathize with the fact that – particularly fiction writers – may hesitate when it comes to paying the going rate for editing. (Or even, what I generally charge, more toward the low-middle end of the “going rate” scale.)

 

But editing can be just as much work as writing, believe me, and a lot of it is hard, painstaking, time-consuming work. So, while yes, I have been happy to do that work free in my spare time – for close friends, or in beta-reading fanfiction for fun…. Erm, no, I really can’t edit and critique your entire 300-page novel for, say, $50. On a tight deadline. And practically do your re-writes for you. *sigh*

 

Actually, though – and here’s where establishing a name comes in – I did once do a book edit for someone for $50, and on a tight deadline to boot. It was my first paid editing job, so under the circumstances (and adding in the fact that it was a relative of a good friend) I considered it fair, given my limited experience. And it worked out well. In addition to the pay, I got a great letter of recommendation, a whole lot of new confidence, and a kick-start to my career.

 

And I’ve done my fair share of other volunteer work, including working for a magazine – I had to give some thought to that one, but in the end I decided it was worthwhile, and they do have a genuinely good reason for not paying their employees (in order to allow them to make donations/gifts, in a cause I really believe in). That’s been vastly more work than most unpaid jobs I’d be willing to do, but again I’ve found it worthwhile. Especially at this point, where it is a huge resume-booster to be able to say “I’ve edited for (X magazine, very well known in its field) for over five years.”

 

In the end, the selective unpaid editing jobs I’ve willingly done have been very much worth the effort I put into them. I’ve actually never once had to apply for a job – every client I’ve had has come to me, either on someone else’s recommendation or through coming across my business online.

 

Heh. Anyhow… *looks up at monster!post* Probably TL;DR, but I tend to get that way when it comes to these subjects.

 

[JaziandCo]

Going back to this a little, but it was a reoccuring theme I saw.

 

How are people supposed to become known? Especially if they don't have the money or the connections?

 

I have a deviantart page. On said page, I put various artistic endeavors... some for myself, some as gifts or requests, some for DC. While DC is technically this taboo "free work", I gained maaaaaybe around 20 watchers from it, and most of them were just people I knew from other sites or here who felt obligated to add one of their friends.

 

I pixeled a gift for a buddy of mine. Apparently someone on dA liked it enough to suggest it as a DD, and I gained about 100 watchers overnight. BUT! The real kicker was... people who I'd never spoken to, never heard of, and never went on DC started asking me if they could commission me.

 

About a year later it happened again, this time on a silly tutorial I made, and I actually went for the commissions and I've had 2 spriting jobs come out of it. One was a $12/sprite paycheck which isn't much but significantly more than I WAS getting (nothing!) and when that went under I got the one I have now, where I'm paid significantly more.

 

All this from a little 100x100 avatar and a tutorial. If you have the talent for it, you're friendly and approachable, and you know your way around company settings, all it takes is time and practice, and a little bit of patience.

Edited September 23, 2011 by JaziandCo

[RockinSia]

*rages inside, then posts link to Facebook* Really all I can do, wish there was some other way besides just spreading the word. I don't want anyone getting messed over because of someone like this. One part I don't think they covered was how if you do transactions for your art online, there isn't always a guarantee you'll get paid for it if it's not something sold directly from a shop that has paypal. :/

Edited September 23, 2011 by RockinSia

[dragon_mando]

*rages inside, then posts link to Facebook* Really all I can do, wish there was some other way besides just spreading the word. I don't want anyone getting messed over because of someone like this. One part I don't think they covered was how if you do transactions for your art online, there isn't always a guarantee you'll get paid for it if it's not something sold directly from a shop that has paypal. :/

Simple way of making it so people are less likely to scam you by not paying: save an image in two versions, the normal one, and a very small, very low quality version. Show the client the low quality version when finished with the work, then once they've paid, email/upload the final version.

 

It's what I do.

[prairiecrow]

Simple way of making it so people are less likely to scam you by not paying: save an image in two versions, the normal one, and a very small, very low quality version. Show the client the low quality version when finished with the work, then once they've paid, email/upload the final version.

 

It's what I do.

*nods* That's the smart way to do it, all right. In commercial art the proof is always small/low res (or carries a watermark, although that's less common) for that very reason.

 

There are exceptions to this, of course, depending on the industry you're working in, but when dealing with individuals as clients (as opposed to multinational corporations) I always try to get payment up front before they get the final piece, or at the very least get two thirds of it.

 

Oh! Another thing to keep in mind when determining a price for your work is the issue of reproduction rights. If you're selling the piece to hang on someone's wall, that's one thing. However, if it's a digital file you'd be wise to negotiate either limited/personal reproduction rights or, if they intend to make wide use of the piece, charge them more for the privilege. And if you choose to make reproduction rights an issue, be sure to get a contract detailing the extent of the rights you're selling.

Edited September 23, 2011 by prairiecrow

[MedievalMystic]

Hell no artists shouldn't work for free. They have a glorious gift that not everyone has. If they choose to volunteer for something that's one thing, but any other time of course they should get paid!

[soupnazi]

"Should artists and writers work for free?"

 

Wait, what?

 

Hell no!

[NightLovesFantasies]

people who aren't capable of creating their own work don't think its hard and aritsts aren't talented in any way.

 

those people are very wrong.

 

i really hate how people think they can draw, but it's actually terrible. kind of like with children. my art teacher always said you can't give a kindergardner a newspaper and say they can read but they can scribble up some horrible picture and people will say its art/ its a drawing. it drives me crazy when people think drawing requires no talent or training, or they can write a line on a paper and say thats a drawing because it isn't. if your in training for art and your pictures need work, and you know they need work then it's not a bad picture. it's a picture that requires work. kindergardners can not be in art training, therefor the drawings are bad. people who want artists to work for them, and have had no training and have never drawn/taken photography/ animated/ ect... do bad art/drawings. the people who never even thought of drawing but decided one day "oh i'm gonna draw a picture and never draw another one!" that is a bad drawing. thought i'd clear that up before someone responded...

 

artists shouldnt work for free, it takes time and patience to draw/animate/ whatever it is they like to do and if i was going to take time out of my own freetime to draw or animate something for someone (unless its a gift for a friend/family member) i'd expect some money.

 

 

Edited July 17, 2012 by NightLovesFantasies

[prairiecrow]

people who aren't capable of creating their own work don't think its hard and aritsts aren't talented in any way.

 

those people are very wrong.

 

i really hate how people think they can draw, but it's actually terrible. kind of like with children. my art teacher always said you can't give a kindergardner a newspaper and say they can read but they can scribble up some horrible picture and people will say its art/ its a drawing.

On a list I recently saw of "Things You Should NEVER Say to a Professional Artist", one of the points was: "My seven-year-old niece/nephew is a really good artist, just like you!"

 

I try to smile benignly when people come out with corkers like that, but I'm afraid the best I usually manage to produce is a mildly pained grimace.

[NightLovesFantasies]

On a list I recently saw of "Things You Should NEVER Say to a Professional Artist", one of the points was: "My seven-year-old niece/nephew is a really good artist, just like you!"

 

I try to smile benignly when people come out with corkers like that, but I'm afraid the best I usually manage to produce is a mildly pained grimace.

another awkward moment right there. (julian smith referenance from youtube, i gave into my temptations )

 

i bet it puts you into a very awkward position when someone says that. it wouldn't be as awkward if they said "13-year old" or somone over the age of 10(sometimes). because if their still drawing to that age since X then they really do like art. but a seven year old will draw just to get attention, which little children want very badly. while a 11/12/13 ect... will draw because they like it, if anything of them want less attention.

 

it'd be really awkward if someone said that to me, and i don't do good in awakward positions (i'm not a proffesional artist, but i do like the idea of being a proffesional animator).

Edited July 17, 2012 by NightLovesFantasies

[Walker]

Personally, I think going into art/writing is one of the most selfish careers paths a person can pick.

 

Now, before anyone jumps the gun, let me explain.

 

Art/writing is self-satisfying. You don't draw art to satisfy other people - you draw it to satisfy yourself. You don't write to satisfy other people - you write to satisfy yourself. Sure, you might have to make a few changes here and there, because a client/publisher will ask you to make them, but you're consenting to make those changes. You can always turn them down if it doesn't satisfy you to make them. It'd be bad for business, but it's the truth.

 

However, I also think that art/writing is one of the most life-enriching and amazing careers a person can have. Not only for the artists/writers, but for those who they share their work with. ALL artists and writers should be paid if they've been published. (PS - The only reason why they should get paid once they've been published is because it is the end result with these careers that matter, not the process. HOWEVER, this does change if you're, for example, a graphic designer and are working on a project for a company - they've got to pay you for the time you spent working on their idea. Even if they don't use the end result, you should still be paid. Not being paid after working on a project would be like not paying a janitor because you're not satisfied with the cleanliness of a floor that is perfectly up to normal standards in cleanliness.)

 

lol. Cheers to anyone who can make sense of my post... I hardly think I can.

Any good writer knows if you're writing with only yourself in mind you're doing something wrong.

 

If you want to make a successful story, you have to analyze what your audience wants to hear, what they tell you you're doing wrong, what they like.

 

Same with art.

 

If you go in the goal of writing or drawing only to show yourself, then it's for you. If you are trying to go professional, it starts to become way less personal. I'm actually of the belief myself if I publish something in a professional capacity, I kinda start to lose ownership of it. Even if I were to legally retain it, what you write might inspire someone else. You might get fans. Those fans will take your characters and in ways make them their own. Art is just as communal as it is personal.

[hazeh]

Any good writer knows if you're writing with only yourself in mind you're doing something wrong.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

 

I don't write so that I can have this story to tell myself. I write so that I can share my stories with other people, so that I can invite other people into this new world that I have created. Writing for yourself is called keeping a diary.

[Moonbeam22]

Don't make me laugh. Of course they should get paid! Think of your favorite book series! Do you not think that the author who wrote specifically to entertain an audience (that means YOU) deserves pay? Artist certainly deserve pay, as some can do things no one else could, can, or will. I draw as a hobby, and don't have intentions of making it a profession, and if I were to works as an artist, I would want to be paid as well as everyone else in the world.

[Sorrowgrave]

Would I work for free?

 

If it was for Nichole or Clara yes.

 

Any one *

 

NO pay me!

 

 

Also,

 

a writer should write for themselves first and formost, when you're writing to please people your audience picks up on it, and you get labeled as a "Sell out"

Edited July 18, 2012 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Obscure_Trash]

i really hate how people think they can draw, but it's actually terrible. kind of like with children. my art teacher always said you can't give a kindergardner a newspaper and say they can read but they can scribble up some horrible picture and people will say its art/ its a drawing.

While I agree with this:

 

On a list I recently saw of "Things You Should NEVER Say to a Professional Artist", one of the points was: "My seven-year-old niece/nephew is a really good artist, just like you!"

 

(I don't see how people don't understand that's rude.)

 

Can you imagine how crushing it would be to a Kindergartener if you critiqued their 'scribbles' and told them it was awful and not a real drawing? At their age and motor skill level, that's about all they can do. Yes, it's not professional and not going to be on the level of a trained artist, but that doesn't mean it isn't good for them and that it can't be called art. Art isn't just a professional piece, it's also creative expression. Drawing isn't just trained lines, it's also lines made by some medium.

 

/probably misunderstood

 

Why should any writer have to cater to an audience who will always be dissatisfied with something you write?

 

Because those aren't the people you're really writing for?

 

Yes, any art is likely going to fail if you don't do it for yourself, first and foremost. But if you share your work and then ignore your audience? Then you're bragging, not sharing. Any artist worth their salt won't ignore good critique. If you do that, then you might as well be keeping a diary or a private blog-type thing, not writing as an art to share.

 

~

 

A friend of mine was just sharing with us how someone came to them on advice for pricing of a piece they commissioned. We all agree the price the artist gave them (after we saw the sketch), that what the artist asked for was at least shorting themselves by $10, maybe $20. The person totally ignored their advice. It's sad that things like that really happen to artists. As someone who doesn't have the money to pay for commissions - that's why I don't ask for commissions and just admire drawing art from afar. It's that easy. =|

[Stromboli]

... Why should anyone be expected to work for free?

Unless it's volunteer work. But to "hire" someone without expecting to pay them? Uh, no. I don't care what they're doing, if it has value they should be reciprocated.

[KageSora]

Can you imagine how crushing it would be to a Kindergartener if you critiqued their 'scribbles' and told them it was awful and not a real drawing? At their age and motor skill level, that's about all they can do. Yes, it's not professional and not going to be on the level of a trained artist, but that doesn't mean it isn't good for them and that it can't be called art. Art isn't just a professional piece, it's also creative expression. Drawing isn't just trained lines, it's also lines made by some medium.

THIS. This so much.

 

There are different levels of art--compared to some people, my best work might as well be a child's stick figure drawing with crayons and finger paint. Does that mean that, since there are people obviously so much better than me, that my work isn't art? No--it means that it's art but on a different level.

 

 

Some kids put in a lot of time and effort on those "bad" crayon drawings--so why should some doodles a professional craps out in under 2 minutes be "art" but a stick figure drawing a child labored on for 10 minutes be "bad"? Shouldn't you judge art partially by the amount of work that went into it, instead of only by the end product? (Not saying the end product isn't important, it most certainly is, but there's more to considering a piece than JUST the final product).

 

And some kids KNOW their art isn't "good". As a kid I knew my art wasn't "good", so I kept drawing and doodling and doing crappy little drawings to improve and to get better at it. I've had like no formal training, mostly I'm self-taught, but I like to think I make "art" even though my work can't hold a candle to a professional's work. At least, it's good enough that I've gotten requests for both art and writing.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

Artists/writers should absolutely never work for free. People think they're not real jobs? Ohoho, try promoting your new gadget without some clever wording or visually catchy ad and see how far that gets you. Or tell J.K. Rowling that her million dollar books aren't a real job. And so on and so on.

 

However--pricing art is a very, very odd thing. Because the styles and ranges and subject matters vary so vastly, it's darn near impossible to set a 'base' price. I've seen people who I don't think draw very well sell their art for high prices, and I've seen people who I think draw wonderfully sell for really low prices.

 

The important thing is if the artist is happy with their prices, and that you mention it if you think their art is underpriced to the point where it is painful.

Edited July 18, 2012 by angelicdragonpuppy

[NightLovesFantasies]

yes there are different levels of art. i wouldnt critiuqe a kindergardners scribbles. but i wouldnt call it art/drawing/sketch. anything can be considered art as long as you have a passion for it. not drawing every month, or every other week. then that persons scribbles are not art. their just scribbles.

and i dont think scribbles are very expressive, but it depends on the scribbles. and i draw pictures that i know are not good, but some are. sometimes proportions off, something looks wrong and i abandon it because im not a good eraserer .

 

and i dont like of proffesional pictures, like the scribbles. or just random lines everywhere. but kindergardners dont express themselves,for example tantrums. i dont think they can portray how they felt when they had a tantrum through scribbles. if their scribbles are actually art, and they like to draw they will continue drawing even as they get older. it just depends on the person.

 

my wording is absoloutley awful today .-. and i didnt mean it like that, i meant someone who has never shown interest in any form of art. doesnt put time or effort into their "pictures". the people who draw a picture just to show off and call themselves an artist. the people who actually try on the other hand, have the privelage to be called an artist who actually tries. or if they like photography or acting or any other forms of fine art.

Edited July 18, 2012 by NightLovesFantasies

[KageSora]

Oh, okay. Good to know that this and this are not art, they're just "scribbles". Because, y'know, I don't draw every day, week, or even every month depending on what's going on in my life. Nevermind that I can put 4+ hours into a piece, have put 10+ into a piece before. Nope, since I don't draw regularly I don't make art. Lovely to know. :|

 

 

And that's kinda BS that kiddies aren't expressing themselves other than with tantrum. You do realize children have more emotions than whatever causes a tantrum, right?

 

What about the child who expresses their love of their family by drawing a nice stick-person picture of them with their parent(s) in front of their home? And who are you to say they can't use a drawing to express whatever caused them to have that tantrum? I'm sure at least some of them can.

[Obscure_Trash]

I agree with Kage. Especially as someone who works with children - including Kindergarteners and kids going into Kindergarten. That's actually a bit offensive to say a tantrum is the only way they express themselves.

 

Words, pictures, hugging, how they play, what they play with, what they share, dance, singing, games, stories, painting... They're still people, even if not fully developed adults. I think they actually get underestimated a lot. There is certainly a lot they have not learned or developed the skills for - definitely. A lot of what they do have hasn't been focused, yet, yes. But they're not stupid, either.

Edited July 18, 2012 by SockPuppet Strangler

[KageSora]

Words, pictures, hugging, how they play, what they play with, what they share, dance, singing, games, stories, painting...

This reminds me of the fact that "art" is not limited to the visual works, and even then not just to drawings or paintings. Sculpture is art, dance is art, prose and poetry are art, oral storytelling can be an art form, music is art, jewelry can be art. Art is not limited to what is drawn/painted. Art is not limited to what is visible to the eye.

[NightLovesFantasies]

i probably should have explained that post better .-.

i did at the bottom, but just in case ill write it here. the people who spend time on the pictures and actually try, then those pictures are art. but the people who have shown no interest what so ever in any form of art, then those pictures can not be called art. or their acting, or photo, or whatever it is they like to do.

 

and the tantrum was meant to be an example but i cant say anything right today for some odd reason .___. but i have to point out, of the things kindergardners, or any person of any age for that matter can not be expressed through a paper and pencil/clay/ect....

some people dont have that gift/privelage/proper learning to be able to do that with every action. i just find it offensive that people say for example that a child cant read until taught but can draw without learning anything and those pictures may be called art. some people are self-taught but theres always a base that they build up from. (books, a person, another artist...)a picture/photograph/sculpture/a play can be called art if you actually try and like to do what you do.