Blurring The Lines

[hive]

Let me first state that i'm not the voice of freelance illustrators. I don't intend to be and i certainly don't incline myself to be.

Freelancing artwork is hard. Very hard. Most time that you spend is actually legwork (making contacts, going after deadbeats, and generally trying to prove yourself to potentials) instead of doing a body of artwork. There are dozens of complications that come into the frame that will steal the light from your shining eyes faster than all get out. Hellish art specs, inconsistent workflow, and those people that fancy themselves as art directors.

You can forget about having a normal life. The good thing is that you get to find out how strong your support network is. You also get to find out why 72% of all institutionalized patients had a prior life in the art field. Joy!

What it usually boils down to is that few illustrators get to do entirely game illustrations, so you have to split your time into going into other art field venues or become a company man. Guess what? Professional companies think that game illustrators are akin to comic book illustrators. Little respect because you do sophmoric art. Think your game art portfolio is your art portfolio? Think again. Now you get to privy yourself into having two portfolios. Don't accidently swap the two and take the wrong one to a job interview. Creative Directors don't want to see how well you can pose an elf ranger.

Let me taper down this rant a little...

I'm a company man. I work for a design firm doing webdesign, graphic design, corp branding, adverts, and media illustration. I do have the advantage of working from my home studio and i make some good money at it. I also belong to Studio Ronin and do project illustrations for some large clients. But to put it simply, freelance RPG illo work is as much a hobby for me as RPG design and playing. I wish that the RPG blood-money wasn't so thin and that more companies could hire on staff artists so that i could spend all day drawing elf rangers. Maybe even elf mages. But that is neither here nor there.

Personally, when it come to RPG work i consider myself well paid not in monetary terms but by the people that i meet during the process. Ron from Adept was great to work with as well as Jason from Key20. I won't forget hanging with Dav and the other Apophis crew members over the weekend called GenCon. The drive of these people is amazing*. Encountering this hunger for something better on the market strikes a cord within me. These people (and many others) are just like me.

Now i want to pose the thread question: Is there a line of distinction between indie creators and freelance illustrators? What's the seperation if any?

-
h
www.internalist.com

*Of course i could have done without the constant badgering of what my real name is.

[Jared A. Sorensen]

I think the main difference is that you're hired by the indie creator to draw for the indie guy's book.

Now an interesting role reversal would be to approach a game dude with pictures and say, "Hey, write a game to go along with these."

[hive]

Actually, i sort have done that before with several pic series (one comic book and two video games). The writers for the most part were a little sceptic but i just used an analogy of connecting-the-dots. You just take the pics, arrange them in an order with each pic a climax in the storyline or arc then flesh out the lines connecting them.

The last series that i did i wanted to create a rpg to revolve around the stories that revolved around the pieces. Complex? Um...yeah. It was too far removed to try and involve other people in the alpha stages so i just resolved to write the setting and mechanics myself. I'll be interested in seeing how you design gurus take to it. Or take it apart.


-
h
www.internalist.com

[Jared A. Sorensen]

The last series that i did i wanted to create a rpg to revolve around the stories that revolved around the pieces. Complex? Um...yeah. It was too far removed to try and involve other people in the alpha stages so i just resolved to write the setting and mechanics myself. I'll be interested in seeing how you design gurus take to it. Or take it apart.

ZERO was created from Steve Stone's artwork, which I think is cool (not the art, the idea...the art is pretty cool though).

[hive]

i know... i can get some artists together and we can post stuff online then have everyone here at the Forge create game systems around them. We could flood the market with indie games, selling via the web, get capital, then wonder what happened 5 years down the road when we can't fit into our leather pants anymore.

Ok...maybe i'm getting alittle ahead of myself. What i would like to see is a setting with several different game systems depending on how you wanted to play the game.

Like Underbelly*, at first i envisioned the game mechanics to be rather gamist with an emphais on intense combat. Underbelly Tactics if you will. Lots of splatter effect with everyone moving in hex squares and people dying everywhere in the streets. Buildings blowing up. Boom! POW!

Then i thought about the players that might want to enliven their characters since many would be anti-heroic in stance. The gritty nature could lead to some great dramatic sequences where characters get revenge for their friend/girlfriend/wife/old army buddy's tragic murder. You could have some serious resolution between the characters and the undead mobs that rule the city.

Opening that can of worms, i started thinking about a game system where you get to switch between different people that actually live in the Underbelly city. Each one is tied to a central antagonist and trying to take him down. One of the players would be the central antagonist and destroying the others lives. Lots of room for Narrativist & Sim stances.

In the end it turns out there was no beginning. I was pulled in too many directions for gameplay because of the setting. But it still excites me to think that maybe a strong enough setting could be setup as a storybook/corebook then have game systems as the supplements.

I guess this is kinda off topic but just something i wanted to talk about. Trying to bridge that gap between illustrator & designer messes with your thought processes.

-
h


* Gritty film noir comic about a guy, a gun, and a dead city filled with undead mobsters. Below is a panel shot.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi hive (do you want me to use your Name-name?),

And wonderful welcome to the Forge. Folks, give respect; this guy is someone you should all know, because you've seen a lot of his art even if you didn't know it.

I'm thinking that the indie-pub equivalent for an artist is to own your own work. That's one of the reasons, beyond expense, that I don't buy artwork but rather lease it. That way, the indie publisher and the indie artist are both helping one another.

Some folks, like Dave Sim, take a very hard-line approach to this and insist that an artist owns all of anything he or she contributes to, and the author or other creators do as well. In other words, if his partner-illustrator on Cerebus, Gerhard, decided to do a total 180-degree turn and start publishing his own Cerebus, tomorrow, he could! Meanwhile, Sim would keep doing the original book.

I'm not as hard-line as Sim in this case, but then again, I don't do this for a living and there's a hell of a lot less profit in RPG publishing than there is in comics.

Best,
Ron

[greyorm]

Hive asks: Is there a line of distinction between indie creators and freelance illustrators? What's the seperation if any?

To be honest, the first response I had to this question was a big, dumb: "Huh?"

However, after some thought on the issue, done while running around doing the housework, I realized the answer is yes, there is a line of seperation. The line is at the same place it is for freelance game designers and those of the indie variety: control and ownership of one's work.

And in fact, this ties in with a comment made in the nearby art thread (Whither the Art?).  That comment, paraphrased, was an admonition to artists who want to retain the rights to and control of their work to either give away their art for free or settle for a small fee.

I can scarcely begin to describe the feelings of horror that rushed over me upon digesting this statement, but a thread I contributed to quite some time back (The Cost of Art) holds part of the answer.

Another part of it is simply this, to those who complain or believe they are paying too much for artwork, consider the reply, "Well, then go fill your book with your own stick-figures." (or with less hostility) "Well, then, do it yourself."

Artistry isn't unskilled labor, yet I've noticed a real tendency for artists to be treated as such by those who use their services and purchase their labor.

To diverge from the subject of art for a moment, yet stay on topic, I get paid $25 per hour to sit in front of a computer monitor and repair the innards of the beast it's connected to.

Why?  Because the person hiring me couldn't do it themselves and has no idea where to start.  I do.  I do because of extensive training, field experience and a knack for it.

Further, in today's age, without a working computer, business goes "ka-put" -- or it loses a heck of a lot of time (and thus money) running things by hand -- hence, without me to fix problems, again, business goes "ka-put."  Thus, a business is more than happy to pay me a decent wage to keep things running smoothly and effortlessly.

Similarly, we all know that art/graphic design is one of the main selling points for an RPG.  It's been established and is well known that poor or no art means fewer sales; good or exceptional art means more sales.  In essence, for the game designer, the artist is their computer tech...without him and his product, their business doesn't achieve the levels of sales it could, or fails miserably...in either case costing the designer money.

(Tangent: cripes, here I am, a self-avowed communist, talking about business theory...sheesh)

Point: I get $25/hr for skilled labor, because my work keeps the business from losing money, because they can't do it themselves.

Now, how many gamers can do their own art...no, I mean quality art, professional level art that will sell, that will make folks go, "Wow!  Damn!" and sells their books?  How many gamers can "do it themselves?"

Alright, point made, I trust.  Now, check out that other thread, see how much time I put into the image spoken about there, do the math.

So...give away your paycheck to keep the rights to your work?
Give me that crackpipe! <break!>  Don't even think of it!

Charge what you're worth, what the designer's use of the work is worth.  If they want the rights to that work, sell it to them...for what such rights and your skilled labor are worth (and for those who didn't do the math above: that's a big damn chunk of change).

Whew.

All that was, of course, the long answer to the question of "what's the difference?"  The freelancer creates and gives away the rights for possibly less than they and the labor are worth.  The indie creates and keeps the rights, keeps creative control of their own work...just as the designer does, for the reasons stated above.

I could say a great deal more about working with clients, but it is likely terribly off-topic, so I'll quit there.  Comments, thoughts, etc, Hive?  Other artists?

(BTW, Hive, same question as Ron: would your prefer I use your actual name or not?)

[hive]

One of the biggest notions that i've seen is that freelance illustrators follow the rules of the system. The rules of business that are already setup so to speak. They acknowledge that there is a form to do things and they do them in that manner. They accept the fact that companies have a rate ceiling when hiring out to them. They accept the fact that there will be art specs to follow or the company will simply not use them.

Indie illustrators think that there is a better way than what's in place. They try to keep creative control of what they do and typically will have to wind up selling their artwork in galleries and prints.

Now let's say a company wants to commission artwork for their product. They can choose between a freelancer who will listen to them or an indie that think that they have a better way. Right. Uh huh. Ok.

Now we all know that the company is going to hire the freelancer. I would hire the freelancer. Removing the value and the rights from the equation you have someone that will listen to what you want from them. If companies could remove the value and rights tangent by paying well and having contracts for rights as priority then that would leave them with an illustrator that is both happy and will listen.

Ok. Does this ever happen? Not often since outsourcing is all the rage today. It's cheaper that way and most companies (including most indie designers) are going to look at the bottom line. That's business.

So illustrators can't always charge what their worth. The value of artwork is too wonky to be set but what a freelancer can do is place a value on herself. This is often interpreted to be the name game where any piece that you do is good as long as it has your signature on it. To illustrate the point, I once sold a sandwich wrapper with Post's signature on it for $12. I have even sold my own signature using Brom's name for $20. Note that this is a misunderstanding of value. Name is not clout. If an illustrator really wants to place value in herself then she needs to go out and learn her craft. She has to go in different directions and bring more to the table. Illustration is such a specialty field that it constricts those that operate in it. The illustrator has to learn to adjust...if she can't get paid what she's quoting per piece then she should see if it's in line with what all she can offer.

Now comes the next notion between indie and freelancer. The indie is the one that places their values high enough to the point to where they have to control what they do. Freelancers give up this control in order to do work. It's entirely possible that this is true also. But is it possible for someone to be both indie and freelance? Or do they have to adhere to their class?


-
h
www.internalist.com

*Note to all: You can call me whatever you want but just don't call me late to dinner.

*Note to those with ??? over their heads: My nickname/alias exists in the real world so don't think that i'm just some gamer like GreyWulf or Morgania005 just trying to be cute and anonymous.

[greyorm]

They accept the fact that companies have a rate ceiling when hiring out to them. They accept the fact that there will be art specs to follow or the company will simply not use them.

So does the indie, in my experience.  And I think the indie understands it more than the freelancer, for precisely the example of the name-napkin you gave above.

Thus this, and much of what you have to say following, are non-issues to me.  In fact, there seems to be an entirely different subject being mixed into the concept, and I'm not sure how they're connected in your mind.  Those subjects appear to be professionalism and artist-client interaction, as opposed to rights and contracts.

As well, you make semi-vitrolic mention of a couple other things which give me pause, which, upon reflection, are all centered around the above notion.  In summary: an indie artist won't listen to their client or try to please them.

Unh...

...

...What!?

Listening to your client, whether a freelancer or indie, is simply good business, and moreso, it's the only professional way to work.  Not doing so is simply...well, nothing short of stupid...and I'd never advocate it.  (Indeed, two paragraphs I cut from the above message were about this very thing).

Thus I must ask, since when does creative control entail lack of client empathy?

The logic of the argument posted (and feel free to correct me if I've not followed you) appears to be: This artist who wants to retain rights to their work will also ignore your needs as a client, and you'll like what they give you or else.

There is a connection between ideas being made when the ideas aren't connected.  Rights have nothing to do with professionalism.

Conversely, I've found that freelancers tend to listen to their clients less than indie artists...why?  Because freelancers tend to have "the name," as you pointed out, and do ridiculous things like sell napkins with their signatures for $20 and assume their client will pay them for the work they've contracted for, like it or not.

I personally, as an indie, bend over backwards to make my clients happy with what they get.  That I wish to retain rights to my work as well has nothing to do with the level of committment I have to a project for a client.

So...trying to get us on the same page here...what is all this about?  What does the question really have to do with working in the industry?

The indie is the one that places their values high enough to the point to where they have to control what they do. Freelancers give up this control in order to do work. It's entirely possible that this is true also. But is it possible for someone to be both indie and freelance? Or do they have to adhere to their class?

If I were to answer the question with the defintions given, I would have to say that all indies are already freelancers, but thus we come to the crux of the issue:  I disagree with the definitions of freelancer and indie put forth, and so find the question to be moot.

[JSDiamond]

Hive, here is my attempt to answer your first question: "Is there a line of distinction between indie creators and freelance artists?"

I think that the freelance artist is more of a hobbyist when it comes to his (or her) art.  Not that they don't take it seriously, -but more like they draw when they feel like it (and/or feel like they need/want the money).

The indie creator is interested in retaining the ownership of their work.  They may sell its use to someone, but unlike the freelancer they are always aware of the potential worth or use of the piece in question.  They have invested their spirit into what they create.  They are disciplined and push themselves for more than money.

I also believe that regardless of our good intentions the saying "pearls before swine" is always looming (e.g., the freelancer knows what 'will do' to achieve the least amount of revisions and payment thereafter).  The art direction is adhered to and nothing is added (even if we think of something better).  When I'm working on someone else's project I become somewhat mechanical in my execution.  I do *exactly* what's asked of me.  My wife finds this amusing.  She asks me every once in a while: "If someone wanted you to draw a pumpkin wearing basketball shoes while swinging on a swing and folding time and space, -could you draw that?"  

"Color or ink?" I reply, -the image is already blue lined in my head and I'm picking out colors...,  My wife laughs at that everytime.  I answer so deadpan.  She knows me, I'm a machine when the money comes in.    

Then there's the indie creator.  For the indie creator it's moreso a labor of love, -he (or she) is *not* concerned about the meeting the minimum requirement.  The indie creator has their eyes on how much better it can be and will set aside a finished piece (and not even use it) if they think of something better.  My wife looks at some of the stuff I'm working on.  "This is pretty," she says.  "What's it for?"  I reply that it's not for anything *now* because I thought of something way better.  "So what are you going to do with this?" she asks.  I tell her it's going into the morgue, maybe I'll use it later.  She exclaims that I've gone mad (again) and walks out of the studio.

Finally, Hive, to answer your last question: Essentially, "Is it possible to be both?"  

I'd say a person is one or the other, but not both.  Money is great.  Get all you can get and make things comfortable for you and yours.  That's as honorable and respectable as providing any service.  But if you still feel a sense of amazement at the things you create then you're definitely not in it for the money.  

Think about your craft (whatever it is).  If a feeling of contentment, happiness or 'how you love doing it' is the first thing you think of, you're an indie creator.  If money comes first to mind, then you are a freelancer at heart.
   

Jeff Diamond

[hive]

Smoothing some ruffled feathers-

First let me start by saying that the two notions that i put up were notions put up for the sake of debate. I was only offering them to bring up points of how the freelancer and the indie might be catergorised as different. I never said that they were my definitions of any sort. In fact, i was pooling the thoughts of several other illustrators and non-illustrators in hopes of getting a clear definition. So on with the quotes:

Thus I must ask, since when does creative control entail lack of client empathy?

I don't believe that it does. But i do believe that artists granted more creative control produce higher-grade work because they have been given more freedom in the production. I also believe that companies that don't grant more creative control to their artists will in turn not get the higher-grade work.

The logic of the argument posted (and feel free to correct me if I've not followed you) appears to be: This artist who wants to retain rights to their work will also ignore your needs as a client, and you'll like what they give you or else.

If an artist is too busy worrying about their rights then they are going be less than enthusiastic about doing work for the client. All artists want their rights or compensated for those rights, some just show it more than others.

There is a connection between ideas being made when the ideas aren't connected. Rights have nothing to do with professionalism.

Rights and compensation have everything to do with professionalism. Artists create a body of work which become righted to them upon that creation. The artist then delegates use of that body of work in the terms of rights usage or compensation of those rights. That money that you get from web design/artwork/whatever are from you consigning how those rights are used or forfeited. That money or salary that you get denotes you as a professional because you get paid. Profession = getting paid for what you do.

ridiculous things like sell napkins with their signatures for $20

It is ridiculous. But it happens.

If I were to answer the question with the defintions given, I would have to say that all indies are already freelancers, but thus we come to the crux of the issue: I disagree with the definitions of freelancer and indie put forth, and so find the question to be moot.

The whole point of the question was to see what others thought. Is there a difference between indie and freelancers? You say no. I agree. I think that it's possible for someone to be both given almost any definition. Other people will think differently and that's what i what wish to find out here...what other people think...or at least to spur others into thinking.

Look, it would be easy to have a one-sided opinion about everything, but to me that doesn't seem to be the way of the world. You say its moot to you but trust me there are people in this industry that aren't privy to what you know.

-
h
www.internalist.com

[Eugene Zee]

Hive,

I would tend to agree that the differences between freelance artists that retain the right to their work and freelance artists that bargain them away are small enough to not merit another category.

I would like to insert some notes to the conversation.

But i do believe that artists granted more creative control produce higher-grade work because they have been given more freedom in the production. I also believe that companies that don't grant more creative control to their artists will in turn not get the higher-grade work.

I agree with you but I think that there is a balance for every artist and company paring.  I find that some artists need strong creative leading from a company creative person.  I think there is, in some situations, such a thing as too much creative control in the hands of an artist and it produces infrerior work not correctly in line with your concept.  I think that although artists need their freedom we as designers need to be smart enough to see which artists need our input more.

If an artist is too busy worrying about their rights then they are going be less than enthusiastic about doing work for the client. All artists want their rights or compensated for those rights, some just show it more than others.

Rights and compensation have everything to do with professionalism. Artists create a body of work which become righted to them upon that creation. The artist then delegates use of that body of work in the terms of rights usage or compensation of those rights. That money that you get from web design/artwork/whatever are from you consigning how those rights are used or forfeited. That money or salary that you get denotes you as a professional because you get paid. Profession = getting paid for what you do.

I hate to be a voice of dissent but I disagree with you here.  Professionalism is a bearing, a behavior.  For instance I know many consultants and regardless of how much they get paid, even if the rates are strongly different for the same job, they behave with professionalism.  I don't think professionalism has anything to do with compensation, except that individuals with a higher level professionalism get paid more because of it.  It is the same with the rights quote just before here.  An artist with a high level of professionalism would NEVER allow a compensation or contract issue to affect their work.  They just would not take the job.  An artist that allows resentment or unhappiness over a contract that they negotiated and agreed to, consciously or unconsciously, affect their work has a poor work ethic and is hurting themselves in the process.  An artist lives and dies by what people think of their work and if it sucks, people don't care if you were mad when you made it.
Now the term professional I more or less agree with you about.[/code]

[hive]

JSDiamond-

I'm a machine when the money comes in.

When it comes to freelance work, i feel the same way. Slip right into work mode.


Eugene Zee-

I don't think that rights & comp are the only bearings that reside in professionalism. But i do think that every creator needs to be aware of his or her inherent rights in order to be professional. They don't have to be standing on the hill declaring what's theirs but they still need to know.

All this talk about rights and comp and i'm feeling like an ambulance chaser.


-
h
www.internalist.com

[Eugene Zee]

Hive,

I hear you and totally agree.  In order to be a true professional and behave with true professionalism every artist needs to try to be aware of every aspect of business that can affect them.

You ambulance chaser, you.  ;)[/i]

[greyorm]

Hive,

No smoothing is necessary, there's not a misplaced feather on this little black bird.

Obviously, we disagree on a few points, but such is the way of the world.  Such as your definition of a professional...I personally don't believe money has a damn thing to do with being professional.  You hold to your conclusions and I'll hold to mine.

As it is for you, this is all "purely for the sake of argument," though I do hold to most of it as my actual position, and I hope it helped provide you with more insight into the thoughts of other artists (or at least this one).