Should artists and writers work for free?

[7Deadly$ins]

I'm confused. Plenty of kids spend time and effort on their art, but they aren't very "good" because they haven't had the practice. Why is time the defining factor for adults but not kids?

[KageSora]

...But plenty of kids do spend time and effort on those little "scribbles" that they draw. Why is that not art?

 

So? To read you DO have to learn the letters and what words mean. But the beauty of art is that you DON'T need that (at least not depending on the art form). Art can speak across the boundaries that languages erect between people, art can cross borders that culture creates.

 

You don't need to learn anything fancy to see something that makes you feel an emotion, and art does that--be it happiness, sadness, anger, grief, frustration, confusion, etc. A small child can not know what a "cat" is in terms of the word, but can be amused by a silly picture of a cat.

 

 

You don't need to learn fancy terms or strategies for drawing a picture--for drawing a professional picture, sure, but not just to draw. I'm almost entirely self-taught, and honestly? Most of what I draw is based entirely out of what comes out of my own imagination. This and this were based not on anything specific, but just an idea that popped into my head. I didn't base my style off any one source, or study other works to decided how I might draw. My style has evolved over time based on what I think looks nice. Some elements have been inspired by others over time, but not always and not all of them--most of it's just based solely on what I think looks good.

 

When it comes to subject matter I do often have inspiration, but not when it comes to the style. The style is entirely based on my abilities and what I like.

 

Why can a child not do the same? Why can a child not continue to draw their little "scribbles" and develop their own evolving style over time? Why can they not have a base to start from? They're not always incapable of such.

[NightLovesFantasies]

but thats exactly what i was trying to say!! the ones who are truely artists will develop a style and continue drawing and they can be called drawings. the ones who dont have that same interest but draw every once in a while, but just for amuesment or to sound cool cant be called artists. the ones who draw from time to time, but not everyday can be called artists because i assume they spent time on it.

 

the only difference is with children you wont know if their "scribbles" will one day become art or not.

[KageSora]

I'm still failing to see how their "scribbles" are not art in the here and now--children are fully capable of producing art.

 

Those who cease to do so simply are no longer producing art, not that they never produced art before.

[Princess Artemis]

i wouldnt critiuqe a kindergardners scribbles. but i wouldnt call it art/drawing/sketch.

Just so you know, I started drawing when I was three, and that's how everyone around me knew I had a gift for art. By the time I was in kindergarten, I could draw better than some children several years older than me. What I did sure as the day is long was drawing and sketching.

 

I somewhat understand what you're getting at though. Calling what some things people do "art" is like calling random word-vomit "writing", in that it is, but only by the loosest possible definition.

 

Nevertheless, yeah, there are a good few kindergarteners out there with a couple years of practice under their belts. Don't knock 'em.

 

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.

 

Depends on what the arrangement is how much you can turn them down. If one is a salaried graphic designer, I imagine one has a lot less freedom to turn down the boss than one who is the boss.

 

You might want to change the person you're writing about there. Sound's like it should be first person instead of second. I know for a fact that if I am writing or drawing or crafting or building or anything creative for pay I am doing a great deal of it to satisfy other people.

 

You don't need to learn fancy terms or strategies for drawing a picture

 

Huh? Yes you do. People don't need to learn the terms, but if they don't learn techniques/strategies, it will turn out terrible. Doesn't matter how they learn--formal training or self-taught--but they must be learned and put into use.

 

Or, well, yes, someone could bash their hands against a keyboard and call the result "writing"...but it would be a lot better if they learned something about how to write. Self-taught or not. Same thing.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

but thats exactly what i was trying to say!! the ones who are truely artists will develop a style and continue drawing and they can be called drawings. the ones who dont have that same interest but draw every once in a while, but just for amuesment or to sound cool cant be called artists. the ones who draw from time to time, but not everyday can be called artists because i assume they spent time on it.

 

the only difference is with children you wont know if their "scribbles" will one day become art or not.

Scribbles are art. Art is simply creating something for pleasure. Even if it's not refined art in any way at all, it's art.

 

As others have said, I started drawing at a very young age. If some teenager had waltzed in and said my doodles weren't art, they were scribbles, then I'd probably 1) have been turned off from art and 2) that teen would've been being extremely rude.

 

You certainly don't have to consider a first grader's drawings to be the most beautiful things ever (some are cute, but I'd have trouble calling any fine art ), but trying to call them something other than art seems silly, pointless, and rather mean to the kid in question. You not critiquing a seven year old's unicorn picture is not about to lead them on the path to irredeemable narcissism.

 

As a side note, how'd the question of whether artists should be paid turn into this, haha?

Edited July 18, 2012 by angelicdragonpuppy

[NightLovesFantasies]

like i (probably) said before what the picture is ranges from one kid to another. you see one kid who has put no time or effort into it and did it only because he/she had to. and the other may have drawn a nice/decent/mabye beautiful picture for his or her age. some kids have that certian interest while others , or , dont. i drew at a young age too but i knew they were bad. mabye better than some of the other kids, but i wouldnt remember.

and not all art is for pleasure, art is used to show the world how you feel about this or that. its about expressing yourself and having a passion. i usually draw to music of something that makes me think of that song. sometimes to express my anger/sadness/ emotions.

but i cant call a kindergardners scribbles/pictures/drawings whatever you want to call it (ill use the term scribbles X) ) art. but thats just me.

i mean id be very angry if someone took a look at my art and said

"thats very nice "without any constructive criticisim or comments, and then looked at their childs scribbles and said "oh thats amazing!!!" or any other child. mabye its because their kids but if they said that in front of me, it would make me feel like ive worn out my cute and my drawings are just nice, which i may have slaved hours on, compared to the younger kids amazing scribbles that he or she may have just done in a minute or two.

 

but again, thats just my opinion.

[Princess Artemis]

As others have said, I started drawing at a very young age. If some teenager had waltzed in and said my doodles weren't art, they were scribbles, then I'd probably 1) have been turned off from art and 2) that teen would've been being extremely rude.

I had someone say something far more devastating to me when I was four about my drawings and it didn't turn me off art. It put a giant corkscrew of weirdness right in the middle of my head, but it didn't put me off art. I imagine if art is in someone, it would take a lot more than a rude comment to get it out of them.

 

As a side note, how'd the question of whether artists should be paid turn into this, haha?

 

Looks like the thread got a bit side-tracked onto looking for a definition of art...good luck : )

Edited July 18, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[angelicdragonpuppy]

like i (probably) said before what the picture is ranges from one kid to another. you see one kid who has put no time or effort into it and did it only because he/she had to. and the other may have drawn a nice/decent/mabye beautiful picture for his or her age. some kids have that certian interest while others , or , dont. i drew at a young age too but i knew they were bad. mabye  better than some of the other kids, but i wouldnt remember.

and not all art is for pleasure, art is used to show the world how you feel about this or that. its about expressing yourself and having a passion. i usually draw to music of something that makes me think of that song. sometimes to express my anger/sadness/ emotions.

but i cant call a kindergardners scribbles/pictures/drawings whatever you want to call it (ill use the term scribbles X) ) art. but thats just me.

i mean id be very angry if someone took a look at my art and said

"thats very nice "without any constructive criticisim or comments, and then looked at their childs scribbles and said "oh thats amazing!!!" or any other child. mabye its because their kids but if they said that in front of me, it would make me feel like ive worn out my cute and my drawings are just nice, which i may have slaved hours on, compared to the younger kids amazing scribbles that he or she may have just done in a minute or two.

 

but again, thats just my opinion.

People love their kids. Thus they sometimes say things that aren't quite true. A parent who looks their five year old in the eye and tells them their attempt to draw Pooh looks like barf is a nasty parent. Kids shouldn't be flattered eternally, but they should also not by any means be compared to artists many years their elder. Start small. Tell the five year old their picture is beautiful. Tell the ten year old the face is nice but perhaps the arms could be a bit shorter. Tell your fourteen year old artist all of the goods and some of the bads. Tell the seventeen year old all of it.

 

If you're getting jealous when a parent says something nice to a kid and then isn't as overly flattering to you, then it's your fault for being jealous of something very silly. They're expecting you to be a bit more mature and able to handle a lack of constant encouragement than the kid who still can't reach the cookie jar. Don't prove them wrong.

 

Also the comment about being turned off art was a bit of an exaggeration, ahaha. More likely just mad and sulky for a few days. But the point stands--a high schooler shouldn't be gritting on an elementary kid's artwork.

Edited July 18, 2012 by angelicdragonpuppy

[7Deadly$ins]

Pff, even ten years old could stand for more concrit. At ten I was brainstorming ways to try and get my mom to think my pictures were drawn by someone else so she'd be honest.

[NightLovesFantasies]

well i wouldnt be jealous, just a bit...annoyed. if it was my kid id at least give him/her some tips or say "hey this should be here" (ex). i woyldnt say "oh thats terrible you did a bad job!" id say it was good but could use work and give the child some tips or advice gently. that would be a parent who actually cares and wants to help. i cant imagine a kid crying over that.

if i did have kids, and i was a proffesional artist/animator or it was just a hobby then i would give tips. that way the kid gets even better and doesnt break down because i said it wasnt perfect. hopefully the child would get that from me .-. because i appreciate the pointers. mainly, because i cant find them on my own .

 

but what if that picture wasnt done proffesionally (my spelling AND wording today, jeez -.- ; ) and my family/friends said "oh why dont you show them this picture" that i spent of time on. and the kid butts in (that makes it sound mean, dont take that the wrong way) and decides they want attention for scribbles. i would have at least said the same thing for the younger kid as that person said to me. not a greater phrase or the kids gonna think their all amazing. which is probably why of kids are kinda bratty about it (from what i've seen, not applying that to every kid!!)

[angelicdragonpuppy]

Pff, even ten years old could stand for more concrit. At ten I was brainstorming ways to try and get my mom to think my pictures were drawn by someone else so she'd be honest.

Again, they're just general examples. Maturity and talent vary widely, and every case is different. The real point is not to critique a youngster's art with the same depth you'd apply to a teenager's. If the kid's still learning how to draw thumbs facing the right way, it's probably not a good time to give them a deep lecture on how to draw realistic neck muscles.

Edited July 18, 2012 by angelicdragonpuppy

[NobleOwl]

but i cant call a kindergardners scribbles/pictures/drawings whatever you want to call it (ill use the term scribbles X) ) art. but thats just me.

 

Mozart was composing at seven. Alexandra Nechita was eight when she had her first solo art exhibition, and started inking at two.

[NightLovesFantasies]

Mozart was composing at seven. Alexandra Nechita was eight when she had her first solo art exhibition, and started inking at two.

they were child prodigies.

 

if a kindergardner makes a neae perfect mona lisa i will say its art. if they can compose and beautiful symphony to be remembered for centuries after their time i will call them artists

[NobleOwl]

they were child prodigies.

 

if a kindergardner makes a neae perfect mona lisa i will say its art. if they can compose and beautiful symphony to be remembered for centuries after their time i will call them artists

But who are you to judge what is art? I think Jackson Pollock is just scribbles, after all, but his work sells for millions.

 

Just because someone thought their child's art was better than someone else's doesn't make them liars or the kids not artists, or the scribbles not art.

[StarSea]

I think it more of depends on what exactly they're doing. For me, if it's something I enjoy doing and doesn't take up much time, I'd gladly do it for free, but if it's for something huge like the Dodge Dart contest (you should know about it if you're a DA member), then I'd like at least something! You should have seen the winning arts! That, I'm sure, took them all a long time, especially the paper art, and they greatly deserved the rewards! So, if I was doing something for that Facebook group in the OP, I'd like some money because, IMO, sketching for comics can be hard and for sure time consuming.

[Princess Artemis]

@ Princess - I was talking about a self-employed designer, not a hired. But, if it were a hired designer, then they really can't turn down what they're being asked to do, unless it's outside of their skill range. Even then, I'd imagine the best response to a boss is "I can try."

 

You write to satisfy other people, but do you not write to satisfy your own standards? I've learned over the years that people, when told that they're being written for/catered to, are usually always satisfied with whatever product you give them, even if you yourself don't like it. I had to write multiple stories for English IV and Creative Writing as well. Being a student, I wouldn't give it my best because my best simply takes too long for me to reach, because I'm rarely satisfied with what I write and I usually end up rewriting most things to achieve satisfaction. Either way, I still made good grades simply because my teacher told me that she "couldn't wait to see what stories I had in store for her." I didn't have to pass CW, but I DID have to pass English IV. That is enough of an incentive to be considered along the lines of "pay."

 

However, art was a different thing. I didn't have to pass it, but I did my best in it (with the rare exception of projects I didn't like) because I simply see no point in putting effort into art to not make it my best, even if there are certain standards I had to meet because of the way the teacher graded things.

Both are professional artists and writers, though, so both count : )

 

Of course I create to satisfy myself and my own standards. I am, unfortunately, too often crippled by perfectionist tendencies. Nevertheless, if I am being paid to do something for someone, their satisfaction with what I create absolutely comes into play. You said, "You don't draw to satisfy other people" in the context of explaining why art was a selfish career, in a paragraph describing how a freelancer or self-employed artist might work, so I took it to mean that, if you are paid to do art, you don't take your client's satisfaction into consideration.

 

This post makes it sound like that wasn't what you were saying, however, so it makes me wonder why it was said in that way in that context?

[KageSora]

Huh?  Yes you do.  People don't need to learn the terms, but if they don't learn techniques/strategies, it will turn out terrible.  Doesn't matter how they learn--formal training or self-taught--but they must be learned and put into use.

 

Or, well, yes, someone could bash their hands against a keyboard and call the result "writing"...but it would be a lot better if they learned something about how to write.  Self-taught or not.  Same thing.

Blah, sorry, I mean they don't need formal teaching. You don't need to go to art classes to learn them. Lots of people are self-taught, and can learn what looks right and what doesn't by practice, as you said. That's what I meant when I said "learn". My bad.

 

well i wouldnt be jealous, just a bit...annoyed. if it was my kid id at least give him/her some tips or say "hey this should be here" (ex). i woyldnt say "oh thats terrible you did a bad job!" id say it was good but could use work and give the child some tips or advice gently. that would be a parent who actually cares and wants to help. i cant imagine a kid crying over that.

Oh, there'd be kids who'd cry over that. There are kids who will go into full-blown meltdown mode simply because they were told they have to wait until their parents pay to eat their candy.

 

 

 

I suppose, how I see it, is you don't have to be an "artist" to make art--an "artist" is one who continually comes back to the art, not just makes a few pictures during a phase and then never draws again. Perhaps they were an artist during that phase, but they are no longer an artist once they cease to create art.

 

But who are you to judge what is art? I think Jackson Pollock is just scribbles, after all, but his work sells for millions.

 

Just because someone thought their child's art was better than someone else's doesn't make them liars or the kids not artists, or the scribbles not art.

Yes, this. I have seen some work in galleries that I look and think "Hey, how come this is in a museum?! I could do better than this in my sleep!" because it is just... It literally looks like a child chucked a bunch of paint on a canvas--I've seen the exact same thing done by children. And yet, and adult did it and it's "art" but when a child does something that looks pretty much the same, it's not art. HOW does that work??

[NightLovesFantasies]

Yes, this. I have seen some work in galleries that I look and think "Hey, how come this is in a museum?! I could do better than this in my sleep!" because it is just... It literally looks like a child chucked a bunch of paint on a canvas--I've seen the exact same thing done by children. And yet, and adult did it and it's "art" but when a child does something that looks pretty much the same, it's not art. HOW does that work??

well, the difference i think is that the adult knows how to grasp reality like it is and express how they feel. a child, however, can't do that like an adult can. yes they are capable of expressing themselves but they don't have the proper learning or understanding of reality. before anyone yells at me let me explain, their seeing of reality isn't like an adults. they don't have taxes, or need to keep food on the table. as they get older they realize the world around them isn't always as happy as they thought. there are still happy parts of life, but you have to work for them. it isn't handed to you forever.

 

and what you're basically saying in your post is to be an artist you just need to scribble a unicorn and you're an artist for a day? or however long you draw pictures then when you're done making pictures you're not an artist anymore?

 

see this is what confuses me. you don't give a kid one of those doctor games and say their a brain surgent but to be an artist you can just take a blurry picture? or say a line from a movie? so to be in a mueseum no proper learning is needed? they could put a five year olds picture up there...? but in order to be for an example, a dentist they need to go to medical school?

 

i'm all for "art isn't proper learning, its whatever inspires you" but i don't think i'd be taking art tips from a seven year old any time soon. mabye a proffesional with years of experience who may or may not be in a mueseum. but then again, that seven year old may exceed in something i can't. who knows it just depends on the child. if they can draw horses better than i can yeah i'll take some tips or call it art. but if i can draw the horse better i'll say it's cute, but i won't say "hey i can draw that better, thats not art!" because that'd hurt them. i just wouldn't mention the word art in the sentance. that'd put me in a confusing position...

[7Deadly$ins]

So to be art they have to be better than you at it?

[NightLovesFantasies]

So to be art they have to be better than you at it?

that's not what i meant it was an example.

 

if they are better than me at any form of art that i try hard in but not very good at, i would take tips or pointers.

 

but it depends on the child, as i said before. some will say their an artist and act like it for a week then drop it all together and never draw again or bring it up. they were never an artist.

some will say their an artist one day and continue up to older ages. they were always an artist.

 

it ranges from the childrens personalities. art isn't for everyone.

 

drawing every day doesnt make an artist either, you can draw whenever you want and take time and be good at art. the pictures are art and the person is an artist.

 

drawing just to be cool or sound cool, and you never take time on the pictures, that isn't art. and the person isn't an artist.

 

you can translate drawings to any other form of art, again they are examples

[rayden54]

"Looking for a graphic artist to do some color artwork based on my sci fi screenplay. There is no pay. We are looking for investors to have a graphic novel done. If we like your artwork we may hire you."

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see what the example has to do with the topic.

 

Asking an artist to do a concept before deciding if they want to hire them for a graphic novel sounds no different than asking an actor to do an audition. I don't see the harm in it.

 

Yes, you could show them samples that you've already done, but it still doesn't tell them anything. They want to know that you can create what they want based on their concept.

[7Deadly$ins]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see what the example has to do with the topic.

 

Asking an artist to do a concept before deciding if they want to hire them for a graphic novel sounds no different than asking an actor to do an audition. I don't see the harm in it.

 

Yes, you could show them samples that you've already done, but it still doesn't tell them anything. They want to know that you can create what they want based on their concept.

There's nothing about a concept in there. They MAY get hired but they may not... what they are asking is for someone to do some art for free, and they may get hired LATER.

[Princess Artemis]

well, the difference i think is that the adult knows how to grasp reality like it is and express how they feel. a child, however, can't do that like an adult can. yes they are capable of expressing themselves but they don't have the proper learning or understanding of reality. before anyone yells at me let me explain, their seeing of reality isn't like an adults. they don't have taxes, or need to keep food on the table. as they get older they realize the world around them isn't always as happy as they thought. there are still happy parts of life, but you have to work for them. it isn't handed to you forever.

This has nothing to do with art.

[Obscure_Trash]

but thats exactly what i was trying to say!! the ones who are truely artists will develop a style and continue drawing and they can be called drawings. the ones who dont have that same interest but draw every once in a while, but just for amuesment or to sound cool cant be called artists. the ones who draw from time to time, but not everyday can be called artists because i assume they spent time on it.

Ah, see, here's a problem.

 

Are you arguing that their art is not art or that they are not artists just because they've done some art? Because those are two completely different conversations.

 

the only difference is with children you wont know if their "scribbles" will one day become art or not.

 

Their art is art.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+...iw=1283&bih=595

 

noun /ärt/ 

arts, plural

 

    The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power

        - the art of the Renaissance

        - great art is concerned with moral imperfections

        - she studied art in Paris

 

    Works produced by such skill and imagination

        - his collection of modern art

        - an exhibition of Mexican art

        - an art critic

 

    Creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture

        - she's good at art

 

    The various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance

        - the visual arts

        - the art of photography

 

    Subjects of study primarily concerned with the processes and products of human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects)

        - the belief that the arts and sciences were incompatible

        - the Faculty of Arts

 

    A skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice

        - the art of conversation

 

Just because you may not find it to be art doesn't mean it isn't art.

 

if it was my kid id at least give him/her some tips or say "hey this should be here" (ex). i woyldnt say "oh thats terrible you did a bad job!" id say it was good but could use work and give the child some tips or advice gently. that would be a parent who actually cares and wants to help. i cant imagine a kid crying over that.

 

Depends on the age of the kid and why they are doing it. There are lots of kids (and adults) who don't want crit. They are sharing their inner thoughts in some way they can think of. Just like when I rant. Sometimes I need someone to be honest with me and get me to buck up and look at the situation differently or see that I may have been wrong or overreacting. Sometimes I just need someone to listen to what I'm saying; to just nod like they understand and let me get it out. Sometimes people are going to want crit for their drawings and sometimes they just need to share.

 

When I share my writing, I always ask for crit, because while I did it for myself, I also did it for others and to improve and maybe to be heard. Now, when I want to write a story just for myself, I can do that and not need to share. Sometimes I even want that to be terrible, just because. But a lot of kids haven't developed this yet - they want to share their joy and hopefully make someone happy, even though they did the art for themselves and not to really improve. ^^

 

Another thing I'm saying is that, if you write something, and your audience doesn't like a character or the attitude of that character, why should you change that character? It's yours, after all. You created them, so you know them better than anyone else. That'd be like asking someone like JK Rowling to change Harry because you don't like or think it's the "right" way for that character to act. If all authors did this, some of the greatest series out there wouldn't make any sense, or they wouldn't be some of the greatest series at all.

 

So, an audience should be kept in mind, but not catered to. Imo, at least.

 

The first few times Michael Crichton wrote The Lost World, he wrote it from the perspective of Tim, a child. That was his vision for the book. None of his friends liked it. They hated it and found it boring. They couldn't relate to the perspective. They wanted it from the perspective of an adult. So he finally re-wrote it from the perspective of Grant, an adult, though he was still fond of the version by Tim. His friends loved it. It sold well and became an awesome movie, being picked up almost right away, from what I recall.

 

It really depends on what you're trying to write for and how far you want to go. Do you want to just publish someplace like fictionpress or are you trying to publish a book with a publisher? Popular writers may have the power to argue with the publisher, have them say 'okay', and that be that - then they can do so. They have the sales to back that up. But a new or aspiring writer trying to do the same thing has a long battle ahead of them.

 

well, the difference i think is that the adult knows how to grasp reality like it is and express how they feel. a child, however, can't do that like an adult can. yes they are capable of expressing themselves but they don't have the proper learning or understanding of reality. before anyone yells at me let me explain, their seeing of reality isn't like an adults. they don't have taxes, or need to keep food on the table. as they get older they realize the world around them isn't always as happy as they thought. there are still happy parts of life, but you have to work for them. it isn't handed to you forever.

 

What I got from this is that adults are too jaded. =p

 

Just because their art reflects different things doesn't make something not art? If an adult does a happy painting, is that not art just because it's happy and doesn't show that adults have to pay taxes?

 

and what you're basically saying in your post is to be an artist you just need to scribble a unicorn and you're an artist for a day? or however long you draw pictures then when you're done making pictures you're not an artist anymore?

 

As I said earlier:

 

Are you arguing that their art is not art or that they are not artists just because they've done some art? Because those are two completely different conversations.

 

I thought we were just talking about whether or not their art was art. I hadn't said anything about them being artists or not. I didn't see anyone else talk about that, either, though I could have easily missed it!

 

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see what the example has to do with the topic.

 

Asking an artist to do a concept before deciding if they want to hire them for a graphic novel sounds no different than asking an actor to do an audition. I don't see the harm in it.

 

Yes, you could show them samples that you've already done, but it still doesn't tell them anything. They want to know that you can create what they want based on their concept.

 

It has everything to do with the topic. o.o

 

They're basically looking for free art that they can make money off of. Why should the artist get shorted like that?