|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:09 pm
CoffeeFox Shaviv Diana Vulpes Shaviv You know that some of what are considered the great works of art in the world were commissioned, right? From professional artists who supported themselves through their work?
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.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. You've never spent a day in a laboratory, have you? o_O Basically... you can't succeed if you just nose-to-grindstone your way through college. You need to think creatively, whether or not you're doing independent research (which I was).
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:26 pm
Shaviv 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. Sad isn't it, I had the same problem with college. I took an entire year off of writing. Just didn't have the motivation. It has only been recently that I have started working on my novel and allow myself to fall back in love with creating through words. I still haven't gotten my spark back for drawing. Have done zero traditional art so it has been about a year off of that. Did do some computer art this last year, but very low key. Part of it might also be how hard it is to do traditional art when you really don't have a working space for it though. I can't just leave things out so it takes about half hour to set up and usually even longer to clean up in between working on a piece. Too much energy. @___@
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:37 pm
Shaviv You've never spent a day in a laboratory, have you? o_O Basically... you can't succeed if you just nose-to-grindstone your way through college. You need to think creatively, whether or not you're doing independent research (which I was). I'm not a Sciences major. Whatever time I spend in a laboratory will be minimal and unpleasant. In accordance with the bolded bit, I'm afraid that's untrue. Anyone can get a college degree if all you do is do the work instructors assign and turn it in. You college instructors are not there to care about you. That is not their job. Their job is to present information that you either get or you don't, and to grade you at the end of the semester based on how well that information stayed with you. I don't need to be creative when I write an essay. I state the facts, I write the sources, I turn it in. My instructors have always marked me high for this, because this is what they want. Likewise, when I took my Gen Sci course, I didn't need to think creatively there. College is about work and, if you're interested, learning. If you choose to creatively apply what you've learned to your life, go ahead. I don't know anyone else who does that, though. My point is that you don't need to think creatively if you do what's expected of you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:28 pm
CoffeeFox Shaviv You've never spent a day in a laboratory, have you? o_O Basically... you can't succeed if you just nose-to-grindstone your way through college. You need to think creatively, whether or not you're doing independent research (which I was). I'm not a Sciences major. Whatever time I spend in a laboratory will be minimal and unpleasant. In accordance with the bolded bit, I'm afraid that's untrue. Anyone can get a college degree if all you do is do the work instructors assign and turn it in. You college instructors are not there to care about you. That is not their job. Their job is to present information that you either get or you don't, and to grade you at the end of the semester based on how well that information stayed with you. I don't need to be creative when I write an essay. I state the facts, I write the sources, I turn it in. My instructors have always marked me high for this, because this is what they want. Likewise, when I took my Gen Sci course, I didn't need to think creatively there. College is about work and, if you're interested, learning. If you choose to creatively apply what you've learned to your life, go ahead. I don't know anyone else who does that, though. My point is that you don't need to think creatively if you do what's expected of you. I have a college degree. I needed to be creative every day and think of something new. I needed to get it done by 11am every day. I got graded on everything I made. If something didn't work, I need to find something else that would work the same way, or to the same effect. Just an FYI, classes that are fun and will get you a decent job do exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:45 pm
Forcive Habit CoffeeFox Shaviv You've never spent a day in a laboratory, have you? o_O Basically... you can't succeed if you just nose-to-grindstone your way through college. You need to think creatively, whether or not you're doing independent research (which I was). I'm not a Sciences major. Whatever time I spend in a laboratory will be minimal and unpleasant. In accordance with the bolded bit, I'm afraid that's untrue. Anyone can get a college degree if all you do is do the work instructors assign and turn it in. You college instructors are not there to care about you. That is not their job. Their job is to present information that you either get or you don't, and to grade you at the end of the semester based on how well that information stayed with you. I don't need to be creative when I write an essay. I state the facts, I write the sources, I turn it in. My instructors have always marked me high for this, because this is what they want. Likewise, when I took my Gen Sci course, I didn't need to think creatively there. College is about work and, if you're interested, learning. If you choose to creatively apply what you've learned to your life, go ahead. I don't know anyone else who does that, though. My point is that you don't need to think creatively if you do what's expected of you. I have a college degree. I needed to be creative every day and think of something new. I needed to get it done by 11am every day. I got graded on everything I made. If something didn't work, I need to find something else that would work the same way, or to the same effect. Just an FYI, classes that are fun and will get you a decent job do exist. What job do you have that requires you to be creative?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:51 pm
I've never done a job that did not requires a bit of creativity to solve unique problems. Being a creative employee is also a better way to move on up the ladder because businesses like to promote people with initiative over those that only do what they are told.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 9:44 pm
CoffeeFox Forcive Habit CoffeeFox Shaviv You've never spent a day in a laboratory, have you? o_O Basically... you can't succeed if you just nose-to-grindstone your way through college. You need to think creatively, whether or not you're doing independent research (which I was). I'm not a Sciences major. Whatever time I spend in a laboratory will be minimal and unpleasant. In accordance with the bolded bit, I'm afraid that's untrue. Anyone can get a college degree if all you do is do the work instructors assign and turn it in. You college instructors are not there to care about you. That is not their job. Their job is to present information that you either get or you don't, and to grade you at the end of the semester based on how well that information stayed with you. I don't need to be creative when I write an essay. I state the facts, I write the sources, I turn it in. My instructors have always marked me high for this, because this is what they want. Likewise, when I took my Gen Sci course, I didn't need to think creatively there. College is about work and, if you're interested, learning. If you choose to creatively apply what you've learned to your life, go ahead. I don't know anyone else who does that, though. My point is that you don't need to think creatively if you do what's expected of you. I have a college degree. I needed to be creative every day and think of something new. I needed to get it done by 11am every day. I got graded on everything I made. If something didn't work, I need to find something else that would work the same way, or to the same effect. Just an FYI, classes that are fun and will get you a decent job do exist. What job do you have that requires you to be creative? I don't because the course I took isn't an industry I ended up wanting to be in. I just said that I have a college degree. It's in culinary arts btw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 10:29 pm
Professors at my university loved creative ideas for papers and discussions. Can you imagine how dull it would get to be a professor leading a lecture or discussion, or reading a lot of papers every semester that all say the same things? It's always refreshing to see something new and out there for a paper, even if it's crap. I've had that happen to me a lot. Professors liked the topic idea and subject, just everything else about the paper needed work (Sources, sentences, etc. Was not a good paper).
You should not expect to be punished for thinking outside the box, but you should be expected to back up your ideas just the same. Now, if you were in metaphysics...Then you might get made fun of for new ideas >.>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:02 am
Afina Maslow Professors at my university loved creative ideas for papers and discussions. Can you imagine how dull it would get to be a professor leading a lecture or discussion, or reading a lot of papers every semester that all say the same things? It's always refreshing to see something new and out there for a paper, even if it's crap. I've had that happen to me a lot. Professors liked the topic idea and subject, just everything else about the paper needed work (Sources, sentences, etc. Was not a good paper). You should not expect to be punished for thinking outside the box, but you should be expected to back up your ideas just the same. Now, if you were in metaphysics...Then you might get made fun of for new ideas >.> What exactly was the paper you're speaking of about? Was it a research paper? I don't know how you can liven up a research paper. It's dry, composed of statistics, facts, and history, and doesn't leave much room for creativity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:12 am
You can't just state the facts and cite the stats and have a paper. You have to draw a conclusion. Sometimes it's glaringly obvious and you have basically no creative work to do. Sometimes the facts are less clear in their implications.
I got a sciences-heavy degree, but I loved history and expository writing classes because I had to read whatever and come up with my own ideas of what was going on. Even in the sciences, though - my favorite course was in Fall 07, a graduate-level review of cognition through case studies, experiments and animal models. We had two papers to write, getting our own sources, on things like interpreting the case studies of patient H.M. (who's very famous, an interesting if sad story) in light of etc. You can't do that if you have no imagination about how different pieces fit together.
Writing an essay is like piecing together a puzzle. If you have no imagination you can't, or won't, do puzzles.
ps i am a puzzle addict
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:54 am
CoffeeFox Afina Maslow Professors at my university loved creative ideas for papers and discussions. Can you imagine how dull it would get to be a professor leading a lecture or discussion, or reading a lot of papers every semester that all say the same things? It's always refreshing to see something new and out there for a paper, even if it's crap. I've had that happen to me a lot. Professors liked the topic idea and subject, just everything else about the paper needed work (Sources, sentences, etc. Was not a good paper). You should not expect to be punished for thinking outside the box, but you should be expected to back up your ideas just the same. Now, if you were in metaphysics...Then you might get made fun of for new ideas >.> What exactly was the paper you're speaking of about? Was it a research paper? I don't know how you can liven up a research paper. It's dry, composed of statistics, facts, and history, and doesn't leave much room for creativity. If it's a unique subject you're researching, it can be very interesting. My professor was really excited about my senior research paper because I was investigating a subject not done before in her history. I was looking at video game addiction and denial. She thought that was a really cool idea and was excited to see my results. My results were s**t unfortunately, but I made a passable paper out of it at least. Any paper you write for college, depending on the class you're in, demands sources and statistics and what have you. I was always told by my first english professor that, if it's your opinion alone, no one wants to hear it. Of course, I ended up working with APA because I'm a psych major, and that format is much different than MLA you might use if you're an english major. Still, working with APA, a LOT of your paper is filled with other research and that can seem boring, but really, if it relates to your research in anyway, it can be really interesting to see how it all influenced your own research. That's the point of APA papers, it's to show what others have done and how you've done them differently for your research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:13 pm
I'M GOING TO GO SEE LINKIN PARK!!!!!! heart heart heart heart
I'm going to the Projekt Revolution show at the Tweeter Center in Mansfield Massachusetts, and I am SO excited!!!!! blaugh
On a less-thrilling note: I have no internet at my new apartment yet....It may take me a bit to work that one out... sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:59 pm
Diana Vulpes 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. Sounds more like a rant against the economics of today compared to...a long a** time ago. >.> Even during the 1800s people began trying to mass produce art for profit. The invention of the camera helped speed this up as well. I am not saying that photographers "just point and shoot", but the camera made getting an image easily and cheaply that could be reproduced anywhere for anything. Suddenly the average person could afford art, which changed a lot of things. For one, the biggest change was the economic system that had been around for a long time. Cheaper "mass produced art for profit" became a big business. Furniture is another example that I can think of as well. Used to be that nice quality furniture could only be afforded by the wealthy. The furniture was made out of hard high quality woods, and it was exquisitely decorated and design. (Compared to some of the furniture of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, it looks fit for kings and queens, given how tacky some things looked...) However, once furniture was more mass produced for the commoner, it became better to use cheaper woods that still looked good, because you could turn a higher profit, churn out more goods in a period of time, and you didn't have to sacrifice the looks much. Another thing that was affected however was the detail. Furniture still had attention put into it, but it wasn't almost overly extravagant (Some pieces before mass production are almost ugly from how busy they look). Generally, the "quality" was reduced for profit. However, consider where we would be without that. We'd either be sitting on virtual boxes or we'd be sitting in those hideous egg chairs... Okay, a little exaggerated, but it kinda applies here too. What I meant by all this is that while there is a large chunk of the art world pretty much dedicated to profit, it is that dedication that has given the common man art in the first place. Sure, we could have kept things the way they used to be, where art was expensive and often reserved for the upper class. However, everything would -really- look "communist" in style. (It's a style all its own, with function the only real concern usually. Very minimalist like things from Ikea, but strictly made to get the job done and last. It's like this, only more salmon and sea green...and not so colorfully cheerful.) So anyway, most people wouldn't have anything that looked nice if it weren't for this "mass production of cheap art". And this makes me remember a quote I found before... "Good art is in the wallet of the beholder." - Kathy Lette I used that in an art class for a project once...class and teacher liked it quite a bit. razz ------------ Other replies of interest! :O -------------- CoffeeFox I say it's better to be a bad artist than a starving one. I disagree. The more artists starving to death out there then the more I will be in demand for my craptacular skills. (Although I am improving!) 3nodding (To be honest, I think I have far better skills in the 3D than the 2D...but I haven't had any practice with professional programs so my -real- skills are non-existant.) Krissim Klaw 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. [...] 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. You mean to tell me it's going to take 20 years of sex for me to get good at it?! gonk But I've been practicing for it for years! I'm going to have to -actually- get a hump buddy to get good at it?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 6:13 pm
Well guys we were just talking about commishes....i wish people would pay me real money for my art cause i need to move...but i know no one will want to do it so i shouldn't even get my hopes up/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:36 pm
Well, good to know that my brother learned no lesson and took the huge break I gave him for granted. b*****d stole money out of my wallet. When I confronted him about it and reminded him that he still owes me money, he just gave me a huge ******** attitude. stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
