Welcome to Gaia! ::

I am not talking about the fact that there is a fee for commissioned work. I expect that if someone draws for another person they are going to get compensated in some way, unless it was done as a gift.

What I am talking about is that when I first started being a part of the art communities the majority of artists drew for themselves and merely shared their creations with everyone. Only a few actually did commissions and even then it was in limited numbers, most simply sold prints and folios of their work.

I know that there are still some artists that draw for themselves, draw for fun and to improve their own talents, but I swear the majority of the works posted on FA now are either commissions, pieces that were drawn for furbid/furbuy or drawn just to help increase the artist's popularity.

When I start seeing the talent of artists regressing and hearing them complain about how they are disappointed in their own work because they are mostly drawing for others than themselves and yet refuse to stop because they will loose some popularity points, it both sickens and saddens me. Unlike what some people may think, I do believe artists should be able to make money off their work. However, there is a difference between an artist that draws for art's sake and is able to make some sales off their truly original work and an artist who's main goal is to make money from their craft. At that point it is no longer about the artwork and more about sales.

Not that anyone cares about sell outs anymore. To clarify, yes, if your major concern is about how much money you can make versus actually being a good artist and improving, then you are a sell out in my eyes. Some might argue that one can improve while still focusing on sales, to them I must tactfully disagree. An artist that draws for them-self, draws for the sake of art and to practice to become better takes their time and can spend hours, days focusing on a single piece. Commercialized artist will crank out as much work as they can in the shortest amount of time, leading to lazy and sloppy style. Even if still looks good to some, the truth is that these works are not as good as they could of been, they do not reflect the artist's true potential. It is that fact that saddens me.

Very large difference between classic artists that would spend sometimes years working on a commissioned piece till they themselves were satisfied with the work versus a furry artist that will turn out several new pieces in a matter of days.

I do note that most of the commissions I have gotten for myself, the artists spent months if not over a year just working on what I asked for while still doing other projects. There is also no problem with waiting that long for me, because it tells me the artist is taking there time to do it right over getting it done as quickly as possible.

Thinking about it, the problem is also with the consumer. A lot of artists have had problem with people complaining that they are taking too long on a commission and want it done sooner. What is an artist suppose to do in that situation of they want to keep customers happy? The only thing they can do, cut corners and sacrifice quality so they can produce a product faster.

Yes but another big difference between classic artists is the commissioner would largely support them while they worked on finishing those huge time consuming pieces. Besides the fact that commissioners often want art done as soon as possible, most wouldn't be willing to pay enough for an artist to work for months on a piece. I know if I was spending a year plus on a piece, steadily working on it I would want to be paid in the thousands for it. If your only paying $10-$100 bucks for a piece than you should be expecting the artist is only going to spend a few days on it.

Doesn't mean it is bad art just don't expect something an art gallery is going to want to hang up. A lot of people are pleased with their commissions and would be sad if the only way they could get art was commission some long time consuming picture they could never afford in the first place.

I wouldn't consider an artist who uses their skills to do commissions, web design, make video games, cartoons, or any other number of paying occupations anymore of a sell out than anyone else who works. I mean how many people who work are going to be remembered or create something really important through their job? Most people work so they can live, not live to work, although it is always nice to combine the two. Sadly we don't live in a perfect world so it is not always that easy.

Diana, drawing to improve your skills is all well and good, but I think that most artists think otherwise.

Time is a precious commodity. Time spent trying (possibly failing) to improve your art skills might not be as profitable as the time spent doing ten commissions at ten bucks a pop. Besides, the better an artist you are, the less people are going to commission you. Not every average Joe has the funds to blow 50 dollars on a piece of artwork, you know.

If it's a choice between money, which you can do nothing without, and pride, which you can do everything without, I think most artists will choose money.

You can say that if you like, but I personally think you should take a look at your priorities. Sustaining yourself in whatever way possible should come before anything else in your life. After all, if you can't sustain yourself, your quality of living is going to drop dramatically.

Having pride in your abilities is good, yes, but beyond that, what good does it do you? If you draw, paint, compose music only for yourself, what pleasure do you take out of it? That you did it, and did it well, even though you knew you already could? That seems a hollow triumph. It seems...pointless to me.

I say it's better to be a bad artist than a starving one.

Eh.

I used to be able to turn out a story pretty quickly, if someone told me some interesting things about their original character, I could write a short story involving said OC in a central role. In return, I asked for graphical art. I never got quite what I wanted, but I did get, as they say, good s**t.

I was really disappointed in myself when I lost that spark. I feel like going to college sucked away all that creative energy.

But that's because college is work. Unless your major involves the arts to a heavy degree, you college experience will not be about how innovative, original, or creative you are. No, college is about getting done what needs to be done, and that's the bottom line.

Fog, first off it is hard not to improve by simply drawing. That is how artists get better. Even little doodles would slowly get better over time by the constant practice. There was one study that found for the average person to get really good at anything (sports, music, art, ect) it takes about 20 years of practice.

As for what is the point of doing art for yourself? It is the same thing as playing a video game, getting a massage, keeping a pet, having sex, and just about anything else humans do that they derive pleasure from. It is a self reinforcing action.