Talented Graphic Atrist Needed
David Knotek
develop our e-commerce site.
If you are a talented artist looking for PAID freelance work please look at
the HEALTH STORE in http://naturalhealthlink.com. Here is what we need.
A new, fresh design that looks more professional and easier to navigate than
what is in the HEALTH STORE now. The new design for the HEALTH STORE, needs
to work with the rest of the site.
Note that, our customers are generally older people with limited computer /
web navigation skills. Your job is to submit a 1 page layout in JPG that we
can look at. If we select your design, you are asked to cut it up into
individual graphic elements so our HTML person can insert it into the
e-commerce engine.
If your design is selected, we will pay you $500 upon completion. After
that, there will be other sections. Total sections that we need to develop
are about 20.
If you have any questions prior to submitting your design, please e-mail
David Knotek at dkn...@naturalhealthlink.com
SCG
not the client. I can't tell the grocery store that I'll pay them $50 for
$500 worth of groceries. You shouldn't expect to be able to do that here
either. When will you scammers go away?
-scg
David Knotek wrote in message <8151s8$l...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net>...
Dave Moon
you'll pay them about $8 an hour to complete the work -- what a deal.
David Knotek <dkn...@naturalhealthlink.com> wrote in message
news:8151s8$l...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net...
D i m i t r i
Am I reading this correctly?
$500 x 20 ?
D
Mike C.
You are not going about this in the right way.
You look at artist's past work and decide on ONE artist to do the job. You
don't call for submissions from artists and then not pay MOST of them for the
work that they do.
You are asking artists to do work on "spec." (speculation) ... it is just not
done to professional artists.
Artist's that don't know any better will respond to your "contest" ... but they
will learn fast enough that co.'s like yours are not worth the effort.
--
Mike C.
* Logo Design
* DHTML & GIF Animation
* Custom Graphics for YOUR Site!
Stop by and see if my skills and talents are up to your standards.
Site at: http://www.artistmike.com
Email Mike at: mi...@artistmike.com
BA
SCG wrote in message ...
>When will you scammers go away?
--------------------------
When there are no more suckers to harvest.
BA
J Kirby Inwood
the one they end up using either.
Do not fall for these con artists. Look at it this way? Would your grocery store
give you your groceries on the condition that you only pay for them if they
taste good?
WOuld this guy give his health food garbage to HIS customers on the basis that
they only pay if they survive ingesting his quack special ties?
Kirby
"Mike C." <mi...@artistmike.com> hypothesizes:
>> David Knotek wrote:
>>
>> > NaturalHealthlink.com is looking for freelance graphic artists to help
>> > develop our e-commerce site.
>> >
>> > If you are a talented artist looking for PAID freelance work please look at
>> > the HEALTH STORE in http://naturalhealthlink.com. Here is what we need.
>> >
>> > A new, fresh design that looks more professional and easier to navigate than
>> > what is in the HEALTH STORE now. The new design for the HEALTH STORE, needs
>> > to work with the rest of the site.
>> >
>> > Note that, our customers are generally older people with limited computer /
>> > web navigation skills. Your job is to submit a 1 page layout in JPG that we
>> > can look at. If we select your design, you are asked to cut it up into
>> > individual graphic elements so our HTML person can insert it into the
>> > e-commerce engine.
>> >
>> > If your design is selected, we will pay you $500 upon completion. After
>> > that, there will be other sections. Total sections that we need to develop
>> > are about 20.
>> >
>> > If you have any questions prior to submitting your design, please e-mail
>> > David Knotek at dkn...@naturalhealthlink.com
>>
_________________________________________________________________________
If you place your site on the web and no one sees it, is it really there?
http://www.kirwood.com/stuff/submit.htm
J Kirby Inwood
Kirwood Advertising and Creative Services
http://www.kirwood.com
All Creative Services from Concept to Completion
ads, brochures, copy writing, design, web site design & repair, marketing and promotion
Vox:(416) 923-1028 kir...@kirwood.com Fax: (416) 923-8458
__________________________________________________________________________________________
BA
J Kirby Inwood wrote in message ...
>In my experience, people who try to get spec work like this, often do not
pay
>the one they end up using either.
----------------------------------------------
Why should they? They have all the "entries," and we have no idea of how
many. They can play with all that free material and then "award" the
"contest" to a stooge, or not at all.
It's the old game "Hey Babe! Wanna come home with me?" As Bloody Kevin
Wilson sang, "I've been spat on an slapped, and kneed in the nackers, but
then I've had a few f***s as well."
BA
glorywest
You are NOT offering paid work. You are asking for spec work. Certainly a
talented artist would not work with you on this project. A talented artist is
paid for services they provide.
Did it occur to you that the elderly are not exactly embracing the internet in
droves like younger people? Perhaps it's not your design that needs help--it's
your marketing. (Although I do see elements of this design that clearly do not
have the elderly in mind, it is reworkable)
A better way to approach your design needs would be to view artists work, choose
several that you feel demonstrate the skills you need and pay a small fee to
each for a rough design. Then go with the artist that provides the best design
solution.
This is the proper way to do business with artists. Pay them for the work they
provide.
Alan Najman
> NaturalHealthlink.com is looking for freelance graphic artists to help
> develop our e-commerce site.
>
> If you are a talented artist looking for PAID freelance work please look at
> the HEALTH STORE in http://naturalhealthlink.com. Here is what we need.
>
> A new, fresh design that looks more professional and easier to navigate than
> what is in the HEALTH STORE now. The new design for the HEALTH STORE, needs
> to work with the rest of the site.
>
> Note that, our customers are generally older people with limited computer /
> web navigation skills. Your job is to submit a 1 page layout in JPG that we
> can look at. If we select your design, you are asked to cut it up into
> individual graphic elements so our HTML person can insert it into the
> e-commerce engine.
>
> If your design is selected, we will pay you $500 upon completion. After
> that, there will be other sections. Total sections that we need to develop
> are about 20.
>
> If you have any questions prior to submitting your design, please e-mail
> David Knotek at dkn...@naturalhealthlink.com
500 for a website - pretty good if you consider that slave labor went out with
the howl hoop
--
sitegeist, Inc.
graphic design+web development
tel +1 305 931 2105
fax +1 305 937 1195
Paul Allen
> A better way to approach your design needs would be to view artists work, choose
> several that you feel demonstrate the skills you need and pay a small fee to
> each for a rough design. Then go with the artist that provides the best design
> solution.
>
> This is the proper way to do business with artists. Pay them for the work they
> provide.
I have seen many threads like this before. I'm sure you have too. Most of these
threads end with the trashing of the original poster, but there is little or no
positive discourse for educating the ignorant.
Maybe we can turn this thread into a discussion of how to find and hire talent over
the internet. So, what is the proper way to do business with artists? Glorywest
gives some good ideas, but from my perspective they are not specific enough.
What is a good way to find artists on the net so you can view their "portfolio" of
web work? Some ideas that come to mind:
- Always look for "Site designed by" at the bottom of sites that work for you.
Bookmark the artist. This is kind of tough to do when you need to find someone soon.
- Search the usual places like Yahoo for we site designers. My problem with this is
you find many artists whose own site is decidedly uninspired or downright poor on
the technical side. Could this be the result of too many people like me who have a
computer, some software, a web site and no trainging?
- Any other suggestions for places to search for artists that we can all bookmark?
Okay, so now you have found a few artists that interest you, some of whom might
actually have time for additional work. Glorywest, then says "pay a small fee to
each for a rough design". What exactly does this mean? How big or small is a small
fee? $100, $250? I just don't know. And what can you expect for this? A mock up of a
site's main page (if that's what you need)? Or something else?
I invite all of you artists to comment and possibly educate those in need of your
services. Also, comments from people who have gone through this process of hiring
artists "the right way" would be helpful.
P.S. Although I have done a couple small sites for others, I am not schooled in
graphic design and I have rarely been paid for doing this type of work. My day job
is as a software engineer and I teach non-credit HTML classes at a local univeristy.
My teaching focuses on the technical side of HTML, as opposed to the artistic side.
Thanks,
Mike C.
I can tell you how I have been hired in the past.
Someone goes to my site, sees my samples, they make a decision, based on my samples of
past work, that I might be able to do their project, they send a $200 start up fee, I
start on the project. If I am not able to supply them with what they want, they stop
the project and find another artist.
The $200 start up fee is not refundable. That is the risk of making a decision on past
work samples. It takes some skill to decide on the correct artist for the job. Some
clients are not up to the task. Some clients ARE able to correctly judge the artist's
style and the project at hand. Such clients get their projects completed and are
successful.
Dave Moon
learn hopefully will not.
Paul Allen <pa...@REMOVETHIS-lollygag.com> wrote in message
news:38395FB4...@REMOVETHIS-lollygag.com...
glorywest
I'd have to say we've had lot's of discussions here in ADG about the proper way to work
with artists and there is also http://www.gag.org for all kinds of information regarding
this subject but I'll try to address some of the points you bring up as they are very
good ones.
I tend to think of this stuff as common sense, but perhaps many people don't think in
these terms when it comes to artists. You'll be happier with your results if you do.
If you were going to hire a contractor to remodel your home you would have an idea of
what you wanted. Then you would start looking around to see whether your idea would be
feasible for your budget.
You have a budget right? Hmmmm. If not figure out what you can afford to invest in your
image. That is your budget. There is nothing wrong with a small budget. Just be
realistic as to what you can afford and be ready to adjust your expectations depending
on what you can afford.
You would not expect to have oak floors put in if you only had enough money for vinyl.
You would want the best vinyl you could afford and the best company for that job.
Then you would start looking at work around your area that impressed you. You would ask
friends and neighbors or colleagues for referrals. You would contact people and keep a
note of who was prompt and professional and who had the best looking work for the price.
You would start to see whether your budget and your expectations were in line. You would
adjust accordingly.
The same applies for an artist. You use their portfolio of work to judge their
abilities. You decide if you like their approach to working with you. You get a quote on
the scope of the work and then compare your quotes.
You can search the net for people to do this work, but I say start in your own backyard
first.
You will find an incredible range of talent and an equally incredible range of prices.
You have to learn how to judge what you are getting for your money so you will have to
do research to learn what you are buying. There are companies and one man shops that
specialize in small budgets. There are companies that specialize in small sites (not
necessarily small budgets). And there is everything in between. You will find so many
how would you know? Look at their work. Ask for referrals. Don't jump into a deal with
the first company. DO YOUR RESEARCH. Teach yourself.
I have a tough time finding contractors sometimes for the work I need to get done. But I
follow this process regardless of the type of work I need to have performed. From
plumbing to refinishing floors or programming, I try to understand enough about the work
I need so that at least I know what I am buying. Then I am able to determine a fair
price for the work I need to have done.
One thing about business that I have learned is that you can always find someone do do
it for less. Less is not always better. So the same judgments you use to decide whether
or not to buy your website from Joe's Websites or Joe Schmoe & Associates, Inc. you can
apply to this process.
What do I need?
What do I want?
What can I afford?
Who supplies this?
What are the price ranges for this? (there is usually a range depending on quality,
service, turnaround, location)
What are the payment terms?
Make sure you have a contractual agreement which spells out both parties obligations. Be
sure and check references before starting any work and make sure you are clear on what
your objectives are and so is your artist.
You'd be surprised at how many people don't get themselves clear on what they need.
Or they are unable to communicate what they need. If they can't communicate it to the
artist how will the artist be able to design or create a piece that addresses those
needs?
As far as paying a small fee, that depends entirely upon the budget and the scope of the
work. If you are unable to decide on one artist then you could ask several to submit a
design for approval and then decide. The fee should cover the cost of the work being
performed. It is usually a smaller fee as you are getting work that is in a very rough
stage rather than a finished concept.
When I have had clients ask for spec work I decline and offer them the option of
providing a rough for a fee depending on the work involved. I couldn't give a set price
for you because it depends on what the job would entail. I base my fees on my hourly
rate. I estimate the time required to produce the rough and that is the price I give
them. I may add other costs into the fee. It depends. In some cases a mock up could be
all the work needed and a small fee may not be appropriate as there could be many hours
put into getting that mock up together.
There are many like you who hang up a shingle and become "web designers" or "graphics
designers". You have little knowledge of the profession of design. You may have talent
or a real eye, or hey, you may suck. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be paid for your
work. Work is work. You will learn what you are worth and you will ask for it. If your
work really sucks, you may have a tough time earning any real money for it. If your work
is incredible you may earn a great deal. It just depends on what your market will bear.
And what your skill level is.
If you have no work your prices may be too high. If you have too much your prices may be
too low.
I hope this helps some.
Paul Allen wrote:
> glorywest wrote:
>
> > A better way to approach your design needs would be to view artists work, choose
> > several that you feel demonstrate the skills you need and pay a small fee to
> > each for a rough design. Then go with the artist that provides the best design
> > solution.
> >
> > This is the proper way to do business with artists. Pay them for the work they
> > provide.
>
> I have seen many threads like this before. I'm sure you have too. Most of these
> threads end with the trashing of the original poster, but there is little or no
> positive discourse for educating the ignorant.
>
Ron Leigh
in the visual arts has little value. Now, having made 3 assertions that are
likely to inflame the NG, I can honestly tell you that if your an Artist,
you are probably diluting yourself by thinking that maybe some day, you'll
be discovered and revered for your talent. Granted those personal
impressions of self are legitimate. However, the Market Place really doesn't
care. It's how cheap can you do it. The sooner that is internalized and that
dillema resolved, the sooner you'll be able to generate a fair income.
Everybody can call themselves an artist! Artists use to rise above the
general population in creative and intuitive abilities however, the PC has
given the general population a step ladder by which they can now stand eye
ball to eyeball with any artist and accurately say, "I can do that" The only
thing that is diminished is not the creativity of the Artist but the EGO.
Paul Allen wrote in message <38395FB4...@REMOVETHIS-lollygag.com>...
Dave Moon
Plumber has not put plumbers out of business, the PC will not put designers
out of business.
Art has little to do with Commercial design.
You are skimming the surface of the industry without looking underneath.
No true designer looks for grandeur and stardom. Like any working stiff,
our success comes from marketability, the supply and demand of our unique
services. Challenge is our mainstay.
Ron Leigh <mega...@tir.com> wrote in message
news:94339072...@news.tir.com...
glorywest
The computer is a tool.
Creativity and skill at executing ideas has great value.
It's why I get paid what I do. It's why Joe Blow graphics can't get paid what I
do because he can't show the same quality of work that I can. It has nothing to
do with my ego. It has to do with my skills and talent.
See Joe try to get $75 per hour. See company Pres. laugh his *ss off at the idea
of that after seeing his portfolio. See Joe go bankrupt waiting for that $75 an
hour job. Now if Joe lowers his price to a rate that is commensurate with his
skill level (say $25), Joe will have all kinds of work. As Joe works and learns
he builds his skill level and can charge more. And maybe in 5-10 years he can
charge $75 per hour (or more!). And by that time he will know he deserves it and
will not work for less.
That is how the market works.
Jim Ricca
Ron Leigh wrote:
> Artists are a dime a dozen. The computer is the Artist now. Human creativity
> in the visual arts has little value. Now, having made 3 assertions that are
> likely to inflame the NG, I can honestly tell you that if your an Artist,
> you are probably diluting yourself by thinking that maybe some day, you'll
glorywest
But I felt compelled to reply.
I guess that makes me silly.
Jim Ricca wrote:
> This is ridiculous.
drewpatterson
Ron Leigh wrote:
> Artists are a dime a dozen. The computer is the Artist now. Human creativity
> in the visual arts has little value. Now, having made 3 assertions that are
> likely to inflame the NG,
I am not inflamed, just dumbfounded.
> I can honestly tell you that if your an Artist,
> you are probably diluting yourself by thinking that maybe some day, you'll
> be discovered and revered for your talent. Granted those personal
> impressions of self are legitimate. However, the Market Place really doesn't
> care. It's how cheap can you do it. The sooner that is internalized and that
> dillema resolved, the sooner you'll be able to generate a fair income.
Quality work demands quality funds.
> Everybody can call themselves an artist! Artists use to rise above the
> general population in creative and intuitive abilities however,
Computers are not intuitive nor are they creative.
> the PC has
> given the general population a step ladder
Foot stool.
> by which they can now stand eye
> ball to eyeball
Sorry to be redundant, but Bull Shit.
> with any artist and accurately say, "I can do that"
Thus, I can lay brick, cut hair, and pave a road.
> The only
> thing that is diminished is not the creativity of the Artist but the EGO.
My ego is the kindling that starts the fire that warms my family.
Drew
Jim Ricca
a link to your work. I would love to see what the work, (of a designer
or Illustrator) looks like, who makes the statement "the PC has given
the general population a step ladder by which they can now stand eyeball
to eyeball with any artist and accurately say, "I can do
that"...........I can't imagine.
j van der valk
say it is not much of a challenge. I'd just like to say to the individual that
made that comment. Game on...you want to see who can effectively design a piece
of work. Your grounds, your topic, your rules, I thee challenge. There are tons
of people to put you and myself to shame..but I guarentee if you can make those
statements I can beat you.
Jason van der Valk RGD
(Registered Graphic Designer)
Wizard of Draws
>
> Artists are a dime a dozen. The computer is the Artist now. Human creativity
> in the visual arts has little value. Now, having made 3 assertions that are
> you are probably diluting yourself by thinking that maybe some day, you'll
> be discovered and revered for your talent. Granted those personal
> impressions of self are legitimate. However, the Market Place really doesn't
> care. It's how cheap can you do it. The sooner that is internalized and that
> dillema resolved, the sooner you'll be able to generate a fair income.
> given the general population a step ladder by which they can now stand eye
> thing that is diminished is not the creativity of the Artist but the EGO.
>
How odd then, when people come to me and ask if I can do better than
their secretary's nephew did with his pirated copy of Photoshop. And
then...they pay me a few hundred or thousand dollars to do it, when
anyone in "the general population" would do it cheaper! Perhaps they've
found out something that you don't know?
Anyone can *call* themselves an artist and present themselves to the
world as such, but real skill and talent brands the artist.
Your step ladder is an illusion and you have been fooled.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Original Free Cartoon Clipart at http://www.wizardofdraws.com
sistercarol
okay -- maybe for some people they do. I can't think of very many
graphic artists who got into this for grandeur and stardom. "Rent
money" comes to mind, though.
--Carol
Dave Moon <dm...@ijersey.com> wrote in message
news:hHD_3.6670$Aq.4...@typhoon3.tampabay.rr.com...
> "A" market doesn't care -- the market that pays the bills do
care. Liquid
> Plumber has not put plumbers out of business, the PC will not
put designers
> out of business.
>
> Art has little to do with Commercial design.
>
> You are skimming the surface of the industry without looking
underneath.
> No true designer looks for grandeur and stardom. Like any
working stiff,
> our success comes from marketability, the supply and demand of
our unique
> services. Challenge is our mainstay.
>
>
> Ron Leigh <mega...@tir.com> wrote in message
> news:94339072...@news.tir.com...
glorywest
I didn't post the original ridiculous stuff. Just replied to it. I am a
designer though.
I figure the poster is a wannabe.
Jim Ricca wrote:
> Not silly, just misinformed. Are you a designer? If you are please post
> a link to your work. I would love to see what the work, (of a designer
> or Illustrator) looks like, who makes the statement "the PC has given
> the general population a step ladder by which they can now stand eyeball
> to eyeball with any artist and accurately say, "I can do
Ron Leigh
who--idiot. It's about how fast and cheap can you make it! Artists no longer
enjoy the plateau of creativity they now have company, it's called the PC.
The PC has effectively diminished the status that artists formerly enjoyed
as being unique and gifted. If you cannot deal with that, then you have some
denial issues to resolve.
j van der valk wrote in message <81fbs6$1c...@edrn.newsguy.com>...
Ron Leigh
tell you and you've heard it, " I have a (Daughter, Sister, Cousin, Etc.)
that has a computer and they do that stuff" Reality Check! Their is no
button you can push, No software that you can by, No keystroke that you can
make, No file you can import, No clip art you can manipulate, that ANYONE
else can't do. Now what so hard about admitting that?
Jim Ricca wrote in message <383B358F...@mediaone.net>...
glorywest
get creative. So that still makes the PC a tool. Like paintbrushes or pencils.
Whether they are any good (and how good) is up for the market to decide. If a
company thinks your work is good enough to pay you money then you are good (at
commercial art anyway).
I don't believe for a minute it has diminished the status of artists. It has
enabled more people to try and be artists. We can't all be great at this. Take
an art class sometime. You'll see what I mean. If you have 15 students there
will always be a few whose work is stellar. Not to say that the other work is
not good. But there is a difference. The rest of us do the best we can because
we love this work.
glorywest
architects.
And the abominations they make their neighbors live with when they remodel.
Just because someone can do a "thing" does not make them good at it nor does it
diminish the value of those who can do the "thing" well.
Mike C.
> And 90 cents will get you a cup of coffee! It's not about who can beat
> who--idiot. It's about how fast and cheap can you make it! Artists no longer
> enjoy the plateau of creativity they now have company, it's called the PC.
> The PC has effectively diminished the status that artists formerly enjoyed
> as being unique and gifted. If you cannot deal with that, then you have some
> denial issues to resolve.
Chuckle.
Let me see your site. Lets see if you can put your artwork where you mouth is.
:^) ®
Mike C.
> You get challenged with it "all the time" The typical PC\Software owner will
> tell you and you've heard it, " I have a (Daughter, Sister, Cousin, Etc.)
> that has a computer and they do that stuff" Reality Check! Their is no
> button you can push, No software that you can by, No keystroke that you can
> make, No file you can import, No clip art you can manipulate, that ANYONE
> else can't do. Now what so hard about admitting that?
You seem to have left out the artistic talents and skills needed for the job.
You are right that anyone can push the buttons, but that is not ... NOT ... all
that is necessary.
Ron Leigh
encroachment of technology attitude, is an illusion. Yeh! you got em lined
up. Sure! their even gonna name a School after you. Technology hasn't made
dent in your service because your so unique and gifted, Yeh Right! The only
thing you need to be an artist TODAY is to say you are one. Granted their
are REAL artists that do indeed stand above the rest of the world, of
legitimate artists. Nevertheless, the majority of our artless, cultureless,
profit oriented society really doesn't give a hoot. AND YOU KNOW THAT! You
have obviously immersed yourself into your work so deeply, that you havn't
paid attention to the world around you. BTW, You can thank that fiasco Art
Exhibit in New York recently for the Enhanced, desireable, reputation Art &
Artists have been saddled with. I looked at your work--------Not bad. Your
rather young 25-30 and provide a little too much embelishment on some of
your Logo's. Sometimes Less is more, and only experience can get that for
you.
Wizard of Draws wrote in message <383B56...@mindspring.com>...
>Ron Leigh wrote:
>>
>> Artists are a dime a dozen. The computer is the Artist now. Human
creativity
>> in the visual arts has little value. Now, having made 3 assertions that
are
>> likely to inflame the NG, I can honestly tell you that if your an Artist,
>> you are probably diluting yourself by thinking that maybe some day,
you'll
>> be discovered and revered for your talent. Granted those personal
>> impressions of self are legitimate. However, the Market Place really
doesn't
>> care. It's how cheap can you do it. The sooner that is internalized and
that
>> dillema resolved, the sooner you'll be able to generate a fair income.
>> Everybody can call themselves an artist! Artists use to rise above the
has
>> given the general population a step ladder by which they can now stand
eye
only
>> thing that is diminished is not the creativity of the Artist but the EGO.
>>
>
JLamb
Mike C.
> I would suggest to you that your self assured, insulated from the
> encroachment of technology attitude, is an illusion. Yeh! you got em lined
> up. Sure! their even gonna name a School after you. Technology hasn't made
> dent in your service because your so unique and gifted, Yeh Right! The only
> thing you need to be an artist TODAY is to say you are one. Granted their
> are REAL artists that do indeed stand above the rest of the world, of
> legitimate artists. Nevertheless, the majority of our artless, cultureless,
> profit oriented society really doesn't give a hoot. AND YOU KNOW THAT! You
> have obviously immersed yourself into your work so deeply, that you havn't
> paid attention to the world around you. BTW, You can thank that fiasco Art
> Exhibit in New York recently for the Enhanced, desireable, reputation Art &
> Artists have been saddled with.
Chuckle. A true silly person wrote the above.
Nice to see that there is a never ending supply of peasants for my empire.
:^) ®
"Mike Christy" ® -- "King of Plastic-Looking Shiny Letters AND Emperor of
Silly People" ®
JLamb
Ron Leigh wrote:
> You get challenged with it "all the time" The typical PC\Software owner will
> tell you and you've heard it, " I have a (Daughter, Sister, Cousin, Etc.)
> that has a computer and they do that stuff" Reality Check! Their is no
> button you can push, No software that you can by, No keystroke that you can
> make, No file you can import, No clip art you can manipulate, that ANYONE
> else can't do. Now what so hard about admitting that?
>
But can they create something original?
Dave Moon
statements? Golly, I guess I'm kidding myself!
I happen enjoy what I do, I place no particular status on it -- 12 year old
hacks do not effect my buisiness.
You are a outsider looking in with only a narrow consumer perspective. You
are not a fair prospect and are unimportant. You think VERY small. The
market is not in the Joe Shmo's like you, it's in companies that budget --
expect quality -- need it on time and demand response. This market will
never change, NEVER. However the Internet has opened a new market of
opportunist cheap asses like you -- this emerging market does not diminish
existing markets.
Again you confuse art with design - idiot. You cannot even use the right
terminology, go back to your MLM newsgroup.
Ron Leigh <mega...@tir.com> wrote in message
news:94346330...@news.tir.com...
> And 90 cents will get you a cup of coffee! It's not about who can beat
> who--idiot. It's about how fast and cheap can you make it! Artists no
longer
> enjoy the plateau of creativity they now have company, it's called the PC.
> The PC has effectively diminished the status that artists formerly enjoyed
> as being unique and gifted. If you cannot deal with that, then you have
some
> denial issues to resolve.
BA
Ron Leigh wrote in message <94346330...@news.tir.com>...
>...... It's about how fast and cheap can you make it! Artists no longer
>enjoy the plateau of creativity they now have company, it's called the PC.
--------------------------------------
A skilled artist with a PC can make it faster, cheaper and better than a
layman.
If you receive e-mail forwards, you may have noticed that the PC has
also made everybody an editor. Joke-&-Wisdom editor, typically.
In the sign trade, we noticed early that CAS can make ugly signs
perfectly.
Digital is only another medium for graphic arts -- as in their times so
were the codex, paper, oil paint, photography and spray cans. Historically,
we see that the more media there are, the more opportunities for real
artists. I'd guess that a larger proportion of the people make and sell art
today that 100 years ago.
BA
2Cents
I was under the impression that creativity doesn't usually depend upon
a computer. People were creative long before computers. Maybe computers
just enable people to throw lines, curves, and flares on a screen at a
high rate of speed without much if any thought and snow some into
thinking its good illustration because it looks "neat".
A PC does not increase creativity; it can only enhance it to a certain
degree. There will always be a market for good illustration and design,
because there are some who see value in creativity. There is no magical
software "Instant Artist In A Box Ver. 2.0".
2Cents
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Wizard of Draws
>
> I would suggest to you that your self assured, insulated from the
> encroachment of technology attitude, is an illusion. Yeh! you got em lined
> up. Sure! their even gonna name a School after you. Technology hasn't made
> dent in your service because your so unique and gifted, Yeh Right! The only
> thing you need to be an artist TODAY is to say you are one. Granted their
> are REAL artists that do indeed stand above the rest of the world, of
> legitimate artists. Nevertheless, the majority of our artless, cultureless,
> profit oriented society really doesn't give a hoot. AND YOU KNOW THAT! You
> have obviously immersed yourself into your work so deeply, that you havn't
> paid attention to the world around you. BTW, You can thank that fiasco Art
> Exhibit in New York recently for the Enhanced, desireable, reputation Art &
> rather young 25-30 and provide a little too much embelishment on some of
> your Logo's. Sometimes Less is more, and only experience can get that for
> you.
Whether or not the world gives a hoot about artists is of no
consequence.
We go on regardless.
The fact remains that any creative implement, Photoshop software or
ruling pen hardware, does not make an artist.
The mere possesion of the the tools of the trade are no certificate of
authenticity.
I do thank the New York Exhibit, BTW. The contrast between the CRAP
shown there, and my work on the web, merely bolsters MY argument.
I have heard people (non-artistic types) say that "If I can do it, it
isn't art".
Slapping a handfull of elephant dung on a canvas and putting a price tag
on it, doesn't require an artist by any stretch of the imagination. At
least the public is smart enough to know that much.
Paolo
> Ron Leigh wrote and wrote and wrote and came up with nothing...
Say, Ron... I could give you a six-shooter, doesn't mean you'd be the
quickest draw in the west. Doesn't even mean you could hit a target or even
fire the damn thing.
Maybe you need to step back and reevaluate.
Paolo.
glorywest
Or a troll Paolo.
Dan
>>>Whether or not the world gives a hoot about artists is of no consequence.
We go on regardless.<<<
Absolutely correct.
>>>The fact remains that any creative implement, Photoshop software or
ruling pen hardware, does not make an artist. The mere possesion of the the
tools of the trade are no certificate of authenticity.<<<
Correct again.
>>>I do thank the New York Exhibit, BTW. The contrast between the CRAP shown
there, and my work on the web, merely bolsters MY argument.<<<
The ice cracks right here.
>>>I have heard people (non-artistic types) say that "If I can do it, it
isn't art".<<<
This is merely people's low self-esteem combined with a complete lack of
understanding and/or no awareness of what art is. They CAN do it.
>>>Slapping a handfull of elephant dung on a canvas and putting a price tag
on it, doesn't require an artist by any stretch of the imagination.<<<
You are confusing technical ability with vision.
You are confusing commercial viability with guts.
You are confusing YOUR definition of art with someone else's definition.
There are no rules.
>>>At least the public is smart enough to know that much.<<<
You have come full circle and are now in complete disagreement with your
first sentence. Are you suggesting that the public decides what art is? The
public only decides what is popular. Many artists create with the very
purpose of commercial acceptance. Others do not.
Dan
--
To reply, remove ooo from address
D i m i t r i
undeserved status as 'doctors' will no longer be able to charge patients
their exorbitant rates because there is a new software program coming
out that will give consumer's the necessary information to make
qualified diagnosis and suggested treatments for themselves and others.
It will make the common person into a qualified medically trained
individual. After six months of intense book study using the samples
files included, you can apply for the Brain Surgeon Certification
program. This is all spelled out in the guarantee on the box.
You medical people who think you are 'special' are going to be in for a
shock as you will all be exposed as mere humans, no more talented than
the rest of us. We have the power, we have the software.
You have nothing.
Ron Leigh wrote:
>
> And 90 cents will get you a cup of coffee! It's not about who can beat
> who--idiot. It's about how fast and cheap can you make it! Artists no longer
> enjoy the plateau of creativity they now have company, it's called the PC.
Wizard of Draws
>
>
> >>>I have heard people (non-artistic types) say that "If I can do it, it
> isn't art".<<<
>
> This is merely people's low self-esteem combined with a complete lack of
> understanding and/or no awareness of what art is. They CAN do it.
>
They can do it only after devoting decades of work to hone their skills
like I have,
and that they are not willing or able to do.
What they are really saying is that if it doesn't take training and a
certain amount
of skill, it can't be worth that much. Personally, I have to agree.
Just using the term "art" in reference to something doesn't mean it
truly is.
The same goes for artists. Just because they call themselves one,
doesn't mean squat.
I know what E=MC2 essentially means, but that doesn't make me a rocket
scientist.
> >>>Slapping a handfull of elephant dung on a canvas and putting a price tag
> on it, doesn't require an artist by any stretch of the imagination.<<<
>
> You are confusing technical ability with vision.
> You are confusing commercial viability with guts.
> You are confusing YOUR definition of art with someone else's definition.
> There are no rules.
>
Flinging a wad of sh*t takes technical ability? Or vision? Pleeese.
Plastering a wad of sh*t on a canvas is commercially viable?
Not in my circles. Hollywood, maybe. But not here in the real world.
Definitions of art *are* different for different people I suppose. I'll
give you that.
> >>>At least the public is smart enough to know that much.<<<
>
> You have come full circle and are now in complete disagreement with your
> first sentence. Are you suggesting that the public decides what art is? The
> public only decides what is popular. Many artists create with the very
> purpose of commercial acceptance. Others do not.
>
Wrong. I did not say that the public was wholly ignorant.
Even a lab rat gets it right once in awhile.
Waldrondeb
>likely to inflame the NG, I can honestly tell you that if your an Artist,
>you are probably diluting yourself by thinking that maybe some day, you'll
>be discovered and revered for your talent
----
As much as I hate to admit it, this is true. But.... if you are an artist, you
also know that we are 'compelled' to create.
Yes, its nice when my work gets published, very interesting feeling. Moreso, I
love the feeling of completing a piece that I did just for the 'heck' of it.
I work with webmastering and graphic design for the money part of it, and if I
do not make a dime with my art, I can live with that.
But to me, 'not' being able to draw would shatter me beyond belief.
I have carpal tunnel in my hands, the right hand has nerve damage and I wear a
brace whenever I draw.
So, I do not draw to make a quick buck, I draw because that is just who I
am....
I don't really think that true artists 'chose' art - I believe that 'art'
choses them.
take care... ;)
deb..
<a href="http://members.xoom.com/doodler">Deb's Art</a>
Ron Leigh
which he can now cross over into a world of creativity, art and design. A
world formerly reserved for the truly talented. So-called original designs
are merely a cut and past method of Key strokes, buttons and clip art.
Furthermore, software power tools provide for some instantaneous awesome
special effects that previously could have only been created by artists.
Corel 9, Quark, Casemate, are for the most part "Artist in a Box" It's just
a question of mastering the Software.
2Cents wrote in message <000b8d9b...@usw-ex0107-042.remarq.com>...
Ron Leigh
reality. Look at where we were before the PC. Look at how far we have come,
Now please, look at where we are going. The PC is a double edge sword, It
allows very good artists the opportunity to become GREAT artists easier. It
allows the marginally skilled the chance to sit in the chair of "Notariety"
and claim they are Artists. A chair formerly occupied by good artists.
Everyone has taken a step upward. Those formerly unable to board the Ship
called USS Talented Artist, are now climbing on board. Much like a Tahitian
migrant vessel loaded to the gunnels.
D i m i t r i wrote in message <383C9F5F...@the-spa.com>...
Paolo
Ron Leigh wrote:
<snip>
> Furthermore, software power tools provide for some instantaneous awesome
> special effects that previously could have only been created by artists.
> Corel 9, Quark, Casemate, are for the most part "Artist in a Box" It's
just
> a question of mastering the Software.
Quark is an "Artist in a Box"?! Do you even know what Quark is?
There are people who have mastered Flash4 and can't make it do anything
half-way attractive and so work WITH designers to bring motion to good
design.
There are those who have mastered 3DSMax but aren't artists and rely on
artists and designers to make their talent shine.
There are those who have mastered Photoshop and their work is far from
creative or attractive.
What's your point?
Never mind, I really don't want to know.
You can master a program but it can't make you talented and no plug-in can
replace pure talent. It can't even come close. You may not think so now but
one day (I guarantee this) it will strike you. You will see what many of us
have tried to show you.
You'd think with your logic that by using your brain for many years it would
make you an automatic genius but you're proof that even having such a
sophisticated thing as a brain doesn't make you an expert human being. Why
then should a computer make a hack an artist or a designer?
I'm just sorry you persist on inflaming our newsgroup with this. I'll be
invoking my filter upon you now as your ignorance attracts the angry in me.
Ta ta for now! ;)
Paolo.
Ron Leigh
don't mean the select few that would appreciate a good shot, but what if the
majority was so conditioned to the notion, that all I needed was the six
shooter itself. Now, because I own it, and wear it, and can be seen using
it, I could legitimately run for Sheriff. I'm saying that, "The PC has
altered Societal definitions of Human Skill." and because of that,
additional burdens are placed upon the Truly gifted and talented.
Paolo wrote in message ...
Ron Leigh
Ron Leigh
has your skill level risen above it?
Jim Ricca wrote in message <383B0F0B...@mediaone.net>...
>This is ridiculous.
>
>Ron Leigh wrote:
>
>> Artists are a dime a dozen. The computer is the Artist now. Human
creativity
>> in the visual arts has little value. Now, having made 3 assertions that
are
>> you are probably diluting yourself by thinking that maybe some day,
you'll
>> impressions of self are legitimate. However, the Market Place really
doesn't
>> care. It's how cheap can you do it. The sooner that is internalized and
that
>> dillema resolved, the sooner you'll be able to generate a fair income.
>> Everybody can call themselves an artist! Artists use to rise above the
>> general population in creative and intuitive abilities however, the PC
has
>> given the general population a step ladder by which they can now stand
eye
>> ball to eyeball with any artist and accurately say, "I can do that" The
only
>> thing that is diminished is not the creativity of the Artist but the EGO.
>>
<38395FB4...@REMOVETHIS-lollygag.com>...
>> >glorywest wrote:
>> >
>> >> A better way to approach your design needs would be to view artists
work,
>> choose
>> >> several that you feel demonstrate the skills you need and pay a small
fee
>> to
>> >> each for a rough design. Then go with the artist that provides the
best
>> design
>> >> solution.
>> >>
>> >> This is the proper way to do business with artists. Pay them for the
work
>> they
>> >> provide.
>> >
>> >I have seen many threads like this before. I'm sure you have too. Most
of
>> these
>> >threads end with the trashing of the original poster, but there is
little
>> or no
>> >positive discourse for educating the ignorant.
>> >
>> >Maybe we can turn this thread into a discussion of how to find and hire
>> talent over
>> >the internet. So, what is the proper way to do business with artists?
>> Glorywest
>> >gives some good ideas, but from my perspective they are not specific
>> enough.
>> >
>> >What is a good way to find artists on the net so you can view their
>> "portfolio" of
>> >web work? Some ideas that come to mind:
>> >
>> >- Always look for "Site designed by" at the bottom of sites that work
for
>> you.
>> >Bookmark the artist. This is kind of tough to do when you need to find
>> someone soon.
>> >
>> >- Search the usual places like Yahoo for we site designers. My problem
with
>> this is
>> >you find many artists whose own site is decidedly uninspired or
downright
>> poor on
>> >the technical side. Could this be the result of too many people like me
who
>> have a
>> >computer, some software, a web site and no trainging?
>> >
>> >- Any other suggestions for places to search for artists that we can all
>> bookmark?
>> >
>> >Okay, so now you have found a few artists that interest you, some of
whom
>> might
>> >actually have time for additional work. Glorywest, then says "pay a
small
>> fee to
>> >each for a rough design". What exactly does this mean? How big or small
is
>> a small
>> >fee? $100, $250? I just don't know. And what can you expect for this? A
>> mock up of a
>> >site's main page (if that's what you need)? Or something else?
>> >
>> >I invite all of you artists to comment and possibly educate those in
need
>> of your
>> >services. Also, comments from people who have gone through this process
of
>> hiring
>> >artists "the right way" would be helpful.
>> >
>> >P.S. Although I have done a couple small sites for others, I am not
>> schooled in
>> >graphic design and I have rarely been paid for doing this type of work.
My
>> day job
>> >is as a software engineer and I teach non-credit HTML classes at a local
>> univeristy.
>> >My teaching focuses on the technical side of HTML, as opposed to the
>> artistic side.
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >
>
Ron Leigh
D i m i t r i wrote in message <383D43B6...@the-spa.com>...
>
>
>An island native draws a symbol in the sand that pleases him. A foreign
>visitor happens across a design on the beach and thinks it's beautiful.
>He finds the native whom he believes drew it and asks to hire this
>'artist' because he liked his 'art'. The native doesn't know the terms
>art, or 'artist'. He is getting excited however as hears his future laid
>before him. They both walk back to the beach. The foreigner says "now
>THIS is great stuff here"- admiring the artwork. The native
>embarassingly points out to him that what he is looking at is where the
>sea turtles have mated in the sand, whereas the native's 'art' is the
>simple swirled groove made by his urination in the sand 5 feet away.
>
>Who then defines art?
>Who defines the artist?
>
>The public, through confirmation or acceptance.
>
>Otherwise it's nothing more than paint on canvas, pixels on a screen, or
>a smudge of dirt from sea turtles.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Dan wrote:
> Are you suggesting that the public decides what art is? The
>> public only decides what is popular. Many artists create with the very
>> purpose of commercial acceptance. Others do not.
>>
Mike C.
>
> Wrong. I did not say that the public was wholly ignorant.
> Even a lab rat gets it right once in awhile.
Glad to see you jumping in with your point of view.
Don't be shy.
:^) ®
Brian Mays
Ron Leigh wrote:
> Artists are a dime a dozen. The computer is the Artist now. Human creativity
> in the visual arts has little value. Now, having made 3 assertions that are
> likely to inflame the NG, I can honestly tell you that if your an Artist,
> you are probably diluting yourself by thinking that maybe some day, you'll
> be discovered and revered for your talent. Granted those personal
> impressions of self are legitimate. However, the Market Place really doesn't
> care. It's how cheap can you do it. The sooner that is internalized and that
> dillema resolved, the sooner you'll be able to generate a fair income.
> Everybody can call themselves an artist! Artists use to rise above the
> general population in creative and intuitive abilities however, the PC has
> given the general population a step ladder by which they can now stand eye
> ball to eyeball with any artist and accurately say, "I can do that" The only
> thing that is diminished is not the creativity of the Artist but the EGO.
Good thing I don't call myself an artist, huh?
(Or does no one recall the times I've said "designers and artists are two
different beasts"?)
:-)
Brian Mays
Brian Mays
Ron Leigh wrote:
> And 90 cents will get you a cup of coffee! It's not about who can beat
> who--idiot. It's about how fast and cheap can you make it! Artists no longer
> enjoy the plateau of creativity they now have company, it's called the PC.
> The PC has effectively diminished the status that artists formerly enjoyed
> as being unique and gifted. If you cannot deal with that, then you have some
> denial issues to resolve.
That's why I think most designers should have strong pen and pencil
thumbnailing skills...that's where design is done.
I can out design any pc any day.
And I have too :-)
Brian Mays
Brian Mays
Ron Leigh wrote:
> You get challenged with it "all the time" The typical PC\Software owner will
> tell you and you've heard it, " I have a (Daughter, Sister, Cousin, Etc.)
> that has a computer and they do that stuff" Reality Check! Their is no
> button you can push, No software that you can by, No keystroke that you can
> make, No file you can import, No clip art you can manipulate, that ANYONE
> else can't do. Now what so hard about admitting that?
Nothing hard about admitting that...if that's what you do...which is NOT what I
do :-)
There's thought, marketing skills, research...I have told clients in the past
when they work with me that they are not working with a button pushing computer
user, they're working with a problem solver.
Brian Mays
Brian Mays
JLamb wrote:
> Ron Leigh wrote:
>
> > You get challenged with it "all the time" The typical PC\Software owner will
> > tell you and you've heard it, " I have a (Daughter, Sister, Cousin, Etc.)
> > that has a computer and they do that stuff" Reality Check! Their is no
> > button you can push, No software that you can by, No keystroke that you can
> > make, No file you can import, No clip art you can manipulate, that ANYONE
> > else can't do. Now what so hard about admitting that?
> >
>
> But can they create something original?
NO! At their BEST they're David Carson imitators!
Brian Mays
Brian Mays
Paolo wrote:
> Ron Leigh wrote:
> <snip>
> > Furthermore, software power tools provide for some instantaneous awesome
> > special effects that previously could have only been created by artists.
> > Corel 9, Quark, Casemate, are for the most part "Artist in a Box" It's
> just
> > a question of mastering the Software.
>
> Quark is an "Artist in a Box"?! Do you even know what Quark is?
>
> There are people who have mastered Flash4 and can't make it do anything
> half-way attractive and so work WITH designers to bring motion to good
> design.
>
> There are those who have mastered 3DSMax but aren't artists and rely on
> artists and designers to make their talent shine.
>
> There are those who have mastered Photoshop and their work is far from
> creative or attractive.
Paolo, I have a neat little analogy I use when talking about people like this:
Anyone can put a spiffy paintjob on a beatup old Pinto. But...it's still gonna
be a Pinto :-)
Brian
Brian Mays
Ron Leigh wrote:
> Those formerly unable to board the Ship
> called USS Talented Artist, are now climbing on board. Much like a Tahitian
> migrant vessel loaded to the gunnels.
Not commanding a salary as high as me :-)
Brian
Dave Moon
You confuse tools with intellect.
Ron Leigh <mega...@tir.com> wrote in message
news:9435506...@news.tir.com...
> A little extravagant but your close! Self diagnostic medical software IS a
> reality. Look at where we were before the PC. Look at how far we have
come,
> Now please, look at where we are going. The PC is a double edge sword, It
> allows very good artists the opportunity to become GREAT artists easier.
It
> allows the marginally skilled the chance to sit in the chair of
"Notariety"
> and claim they are Artists. A chair formerly occupied by good artists.
> Everyone has taken a step upward. Those formerly unable to board the Ship
> called USS Talented Artist, are now climbing on board. Much like a
Tahitian
> migrant vessel loaded to the gunnels.
> D i m i t r i wrote in message <383C9F5F...@the-spa.com>...
> >I hear that by this time next year, people formerly enjoying their
> >undeserved status as 'doctors' will no longer be able to charge patients
> >their exorbitant rates because there is a new software program coming
> >out that will give consumer's the necessary information to make
> >qualified diagnosis and suggested treatments for themselves and others.
> >It will make the common person into a qualified medically trained
> >individual. After six months of intense book study using the samples
> >files included, you can apply for the Brain Surgeon Certification
> >program. This is all spelled out in the guarantee on the box.
> >
> >You medical people who think you are 'special' are going to be in for a
> >shock as you will all be exposed as mere humans, no more talented than
> >the rest of us. We have the power, we have the software.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >You have nothing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Ron Leigh wrote:
> >>
> >> And 90 cents will get you a cup of coffee! It's not about who can beat
> >> who--idiot. It's about how fast and cheap can you make it! Artists no
> longer
> >> enjoy the plateau of creativity they now have company, it's called the
> PC.
> >> The PC has effectively diminished the status that artists formerly
> enjoyed
> >> as being unique and gifted. If you cannot deal with that, then you have
> some
> >> denial issues to resolve.
Steve Rindsberg
Dan
>>>They can do it [art] only after devoting decades of work to hone their
skills like I have, and that they are not willing or able to do.<<<
I understand what you are saying; I have this same attitude, but only as it
applies to "commercial" art. All bets are off when it comes to "fine" art (a
woefully inadequate term BTW).
>>>What they are really saying is that if it doesn't take training and a
certain amount of skill, it can't be worth that much. Personally, I have to
agree.<<<
This is very narrow thinking, applicable only in a commercial sense. "Art"
is much bigger than technical skill or training. You admire technical skill,
that's okay. But technical skill is not a required component of great art.
>>>Just using the term "art" in reference to something doesn't mean it truly
is. The same goes for artists. Just because they call themselves one,
doesn't mean squat.<<<
To YOU. There isn't anyone who decides what art "truly" is. In the
commercial world, "art" has certain pre-defined objectives that must be met.
If they aren't, the "art" can be termed "crap" and the artist can rightfully
be told he does not have the skills and/or training to meet those
objectives.
However, if someone chooses to call themselves an artist, Jeff, then they
ARE an artist. You needn't agree, or support their efforts or buy their
work.
>>>I know what E=MC2 essentially means, but that doesn't make me a rocket
scientist.<<<
Bad analogy.
>>>Flinging a wad of sh*t takes technical ability? Or vision? Pleeese.
Plastering a wad of sh*t on a canvas is commercially viable?<<<
You are all confused on these points; possibly my fault; doesn't matter.
>>>Not in my circles. Hollywood, maybe. But not here in the real world.<<<
Well, there you go. Not in YOUR circles. And your circles are no more "real"
than the real world. I still think you are trying to mix "commercial" art
with "art." These are often two very different things.
Dan
>Who then defines art?
>Who defines the artist?
>
>The public, through confirmation or acceptance.
>
>Otherwise it's nothing more than paint on canvas, pixels on a screen, or
>a smudge of dirt from sea turtles.
If the art is valuable, as ART, to the creator, and means nothing to
everyone else, is it not art? If someone finds that accidental swirls in the
sand are inspiring and declares them "art," are they wrong?
Dan
--
To reply, remove ooo from address
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Leigh wrote in message <94355151...@news.tir.com>...
BA
Dan wrote in message <81kb58$7ro$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>If the art is valuable, as ART, to the creator, and means nothing to
>everyone else, is it not art? If someone finds that accidental swirls in
the
>sand are inspiring and declares them "art," are they wrong?
To everyone else? Van Gough sold only 1 canvas in his life. If could
have hung on for another 60 years, he'd have had it made. A prophet is not
without honor, except...
BA
Wizard of Draws
>
>
> This is very narrow thinking, applicable only in a commercial sense. "Art"
> is much bigger than technical skill or training. You admire technical skill,
> that's okay. But technical skill is not a required component of great art.
>
I disagree wholeheartedly.
Whether we are talking about Van Gogh, or some ancient Egyptian
sculptor,
technical skill and a creative eye was required, inherent or learned, in
order to create a masterpiece. Technical skill was required if only to
choose the medium best suited for the job. The creative eye was
necessary for obvious reasons.
> However, if someone chooses to call themselves an artist, Jeff, then they
> ARE an artist. You needn't agree, or support their efforts or buy their
> work.
>
Again, I disagree. I think the word artist means something. It is more
than a label.
To call a chimp an artist simply because he can dip his fingers in paint
and swirl them around on a canvas, is ludicrious. Sure it may look
pretty, but I suspect that in instances like this, people are simply
afraid to say that the Emperor has no clothes. They are afraid they will
be considered "out of it" or not "hip", or even "species-centric".
Dan
>>>I disagree wholeheartedly. Whether we are talking about Van Gogh,...<<<
Van Gogh?? Let's talk about Van Gogh in reference to your earlier comment:
>>>They can do it only after devoting decades of work to hone their skills
like I have,...<<<
Decades?? Van Gogh only worked as an artist during the last 10 years of his
life, from the age of 27 to 37. He sold exactly ONE of his paintings during
his life. Was he doing great art before the "art world" validated his
efforts decades after his death, or was he a no-talent hack with a sad story
who became one of the "art darlings" of the 20th century? Or is he just a
flat-out exception to your "it takes decades of devotion" rule?
>>>...technical skill and a creative eye was required, inherent or learned,
in order to create a masterpiece.<<<
Most of what we agree are great masterpieces did require tremendous
technical skill. It is in our nature to admire technical prowess, for it is
generally gained through hard work. You are stuck on this point, as are many
art buyers. And suffering, let's not forget suffering -- a segment of the
art-buying public loves to hear that their favorite artist suffered for his
work. That makes it even MORE valuable.
These are the people (and I put you in this category) who can't stand the
thought of someone spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a so-called
"artist" who possesses a bare minimum of traditional technical skills; on
someone who has the goddamn GALL to paint with elephant dung, or throw
dishes into a plaster of paris mixture, or sign their name to "art" they
never lifted a finger to create. But Jeff, it is still ART, with a capital
A-R-T.
>>>To call a chimp an artist simply because he can dip his fingers in paint
and swirl them around on a canvas, is ludicrious.<<<
Now where did this come from? Nobody said anything about chimps. You seem to
want to equate art that you don't approve of with chimps. I think you insult
chimps.
>>>Sure it may look pretty, but I suspect that in instances like this,
people are simply afraid to say that the Emperor has no clothes.<<<
Well, if it looks pretty -- is it? Or is it only pretty until you find out a
chimp did it? Then what is it...bad art? If it succeeds as art, does it
matter who did it, or how it was produced, or what the artist's so-called
level of skill is?
>>>They are afraid they will be considered "out of it" or not "hip", or even
"species-centric".<<<
You've come full circle again, which is why it is so much fun to respond to
your posts (I mean it, I like you, I have enjoyed your posts in the past, I
appreciate your accomplishments, I value your input. And yes, I'm having
some fun at your expense -- bill me!). Back to Van Gogh and other artists
who achieved fame after their death: You talk about people (today) wanting
to be "hip" or "with it" -- look at the prices an artist's "early work" is
fetching, and I'm talking about work that was never intended to be taken as
art, even by the artists; doodles, grocery lists, sketches on the edges of
an ancient French menu. "It's a Van Gogh."
"Ooouuuuuuuuu, a Van Gogh...niiiiice."
At some point, the legend and mystique of the artist overshadows the "art."
Van Gogh's crappy living room chair that he got out of a dumpster because he
didn't have any money to buy one will fetch top dollar today because the
master himself "approved" of it. "If it was good enough for Van Gogh's ass,
it is good enough for mine -- but not your's -- stay the hell off my Van
Gogh!"
Dan
>>>At that point why bother with labeling? Call it "gargonzola" for all it
matters.<<<
Or "octopus" or whatever kitty was talking about before he went over the
edge.
>>>Like I said, my opinion is that the artist is not qualified to define
their own work as ART.<<<
Owwww! That's cold, man. I contend that the artist is THE MOST qualified to
make that call. It is, after all, his heart, his vision and no one else's.
How far would Picasso have gone if he had listened to people who told him
that his work was not art, and that he was not an artist? This went on
throughout his entire career, incidentally. He knew BETTER, Dimitri.
>>>They CAN call it art, but that remains to be confirmed by others,...<<<
OH - MY - GOD, this is sooooooo wrong. Fuck "others." If you create
something that you think is art -- it's ART, and there are NO qualifications
on that.
>>>...along with their level of skill that determines their value as an
artist.<<<
You sound like a frickin' CPA or a purchasing agent -- or a battered woman.
I'm not picking on YOU, understand, I'm picking on your thinking. You
probably can't help it. You do not now, nor have you ever, needed the
approval of others to do ANYTHING, especially, and I mean ESPECIALLY, to
create art.
Your lawyer analogy is so off-base it boggles the mind. I can't even begin
to tell you how wrong THAT is.
>>>What you seem to be saying is that everyone is inherently an artist and
whatever they scribble is art-if they so believe.<<<
YES. Except for the "whatever they scribble" part. Your words, not mine.
>>>I don't agree.<<<
*sigh* I know. I'll just have to keep hammering on you. You think I enjoy
this? This is not pleasant for me, either. It makes me seem "crass."
>>>Hope you had a great Thanksgiving. I'm stuffed.<<<
Me too! See? On this "surface" level of conversation, we could be great
friends. Enjoy the holiday :-)
Steve Rindsberg
this:
>
>Anyone can put a spiffy paintjob on a beatup old Pinto. But...it's still
gonna
>be a Pinto :-)
>
Oh great, now you've cranked up all the Pinto fans. This thread could rage
on forever. Ah well, let that pass.
But more to the point, and to extend the analogy a bit:
And if you haven't any taste/design talent, it's going to be an ugly Pinto
too ...
D i m i t r i
the first horsehair paintbrush could.
If I buy a saw and start building houses, I could claim, like you, that
my saw made me a skilled builder of homes. Not true. My desire, inherent
skill, ability to learn , or natural talent brought me this end.
You are insisting that a software program can infuse creative skills and
talent into people which is ludicrous, similar to your unsupported
opinion.
You evidently maintain a wide and loose definition of art and artist,
because you do not intellectually understand creativity and how this
alone differentiates artists from other's. If you are creative with your
digital software, it's because you had this talent all along. You only
insult yourself by your claims of 'artist born of software'.
Your envy is unwarranted and your insecurity in finding the artist
within yourself is obvious.
Ron Leigh wrote:
>
> A little extravagant but your close! Self diagnostic medical software IS a
> reality. Look at where we were before the PC. Look at how far we have come,
> Now please, look at where we are going. The PC is a double edge sword, It
> allows very good artists the opportunity to become GREAT artists easier. It
> allows the marginally skilled the chance to sit in the chair of "Notariety"
> and claim they are Artists. A chair formerly occupied by good artists.
> Everyone has taken a step upward. Those formerly unable to board the Ship
> called USS Talented Artist, are now climbing on board. Much like a Tahitian
> migrant vessel loaded to the gunnels.
D i m i t r i
that. You know how I am..
Dan wrote:
>
> Super-duper turtle story, Dimitri. How-evah...
>
>
>
> If the art is valuable, as ART, to the creator, and means nothing to
> everyone else, is it not art? If someone finds that accidental swirls in the
> sand are inspiring and declares them "art," are they wrong?
>
> Dan
At that point why bother with labeling? Call it "gargonzola" for all it
matters.
Like I said, my opinion is that the artist is not qualified to define
their own work as ART. They CAN call it art, but that remains to be
confirmed by others, along with their level of skill that determines
their value as an artist.
Just as I CAN profess to be a lawyer, but other's (education/ diploma,
public )will decide my value through confirmation as such- not I.
Therefore would I be wrong in assuming I'm a lawyer, because I THINK I
am?
Of course, and so with artists.
What you seem to be saying is that everyone is inherently an artist and
whatever they scribble is art-if they so believe.
I don't agree.
Hope you had a great Thanksgiving.
I'm stuffed.
Dimitri
JLamb
Ron Leigh wrote:
> Good point! nevertheless, the computer has given "Joe Normal" a bridge by
> which he can now cross over into a world of creativity, art and design.
All the "Joe Normals" I know can not create art and design on their computers
and readily admit it.
> A
> world formerly reserved for the truly talented. So-called original designs
> are merely a cut and past method of Key strokes, buttons and clip art.
So called by whom? You?
>
> Furthermore, software power tools provide for some instantaneous awesome
> special effects that previously could have only been created by artists.
> Corel 9, Quark, Casemate, are for the most part "Artist in a Box" It's just
> a question of mastering the Software.
I can master Wordperfect. But I don't expect to create a best selling novel.
J Kirby Inwood
machine. The chicks line up for it.....
"Steve Rindsberg" <drop...@rathole.nul> hypothesizes:
_________________________________________________________________________
If you place your site on the web and no one sees it, is it really there?
http://www.kirwood.com/stuff/submit.htm
J Kirby Inwood
Kirwood Advertising and Creative Services
http://www.kirwood.com
All Creative Services from Concept to Completion
ads, brochures, copy writing, design, web site design & repair, marketing and promotion
Vox:(416) 923-1028 kir...@kirwood.com Fax: (416) 923-8458
__________________________________________________________________________________________
D i m i t r i
I can't help what I think...yes you're right, and we all share that
dilemma.
Now to the rebutts.
Dan wrote:
>
> Dimitri wrote:
>
> >>>At that point why bother with labeling? Call it "gargonzola" for all it
> matters.<<<
>
> Or "octopus" or whatever kitty was talking about before he went over the
> edge.
>
Okay, agreed, on both points.
> >>>Like I said, my opinion is that the artist is not qualified to define
> their own work as ART.<<<
>
> Owwww! That's cold, man. I contend that the artist is THE MOST qualified to
> make that call. It is, after all, his heart, his vision and no one else's.
> How far would Picasso have gone if he had listened to people who told him
> that his work was not art, and that he was not an artist? This went on
> throughout his entire career, incidentally. He knew BETTER, Dimitri.
>
What did he know better? All you're saying again is that everyone is an
artist, and all their work is art-if they so believe. Some people
persevere and gain public acknowledgement. Some people persevere and
make art for themselves. So you have defined art as anything we create
that pleases US, and those creations are unequivocally and categorically
considered 'art'.
Within your definitions, I would agree with you.
But I don't agree with your use of these words ART or ARTIST as blanket
coverage terms.
> >>>They CAN call it art, but that remains to be confirmed by others,...<<<
>
> OH - MY - GOD, this is sooooooo wrong. Fuck "others." If you create
> something that you think is art -- it's ART, and there are NO qualifications
> on that.
okay...
within your definition.
And so I understand that because I decide to place a rock on another
rock and call it art, and myself therefore an 'artist', therefore it is,
and I am.
>
> >>>...along with their level of skill that determines their value as an
> artist.<<<
>
> You sound like a frickin' CPA or a purchasing agent -- or a battered woman.
> I'm not picking on YOU, understand, I'm picking on your thinking. You
> probably can't help it. You do not now, nor have you ever, needed the
> approval of others to do ANYTHING, especially, and I mean ESPECIALLY, to
> create art.
>
In your world we go merrily along existing on internal approval. I don't
agree. Read up on this.
Why am I always the battered person? Why can't you play one for a
change, I'm tired.
> Your lawyer analogy is so off-base it boggles the mind. I can't even begin
> to tell you how wrong THAT is.
It's not wrong, it's my opinion. Now 'I' am being your 'artist', and
you're unknowlingly playing the public. Don't see the my point yet do
you?
>
> >>>What you seem to be saying is that everyone is inherently an artist and
> whatever they scribble is art-if they so believe.<<<
>
> YES. Except for the "whatever they scribble" part. Your words, not mine.
Oh, I see that scribbling doesn't count. Are we now finding some
limitations to your definition?
>
> >>>I don't agree.<<<
>
> *sigh* I know. I'll just have to keep hammering on you. You think I enjoy
> this? This is not pleasant for me, either. It makes me seem "crass."
I like my rendition of the 'battered-woman' better. Anyone have a
violin?
:-)
>
> >>>Hope you had a great Thanksgiving. I'm stuffed.<<<
>
> Me too! See? On this "surface" level of conversation, we could be great
> friends. Enjoy the holiday :-)
I found this surface a long time ago, and I forgave myself and you at
the same time.
I'm honored that you would even mention that.
Take care Dan.
Dave Moon
Kelly Blue Book.
J Kirby Inwood <kir...@kirwood.com> wrote in message
news:fo8t3s0j44tj9rusf...@4ax.com...
D i m i t r i
they are not.
I would never contribute creativity or talent to software programs, or
any other tool.
You have singularly defined some sort of "Creativity Machine" theory
that defies sensibility.
Maybe you could point out an example of this non-creative-non-artist who
has emerged as commercial artist strictly through software control?
I'd think you'd only find a hidden artist beneath. Has software brought
more artists out of hiding, has it allowed an easier path to creativite
accomplishment for some people?- probably. But that's no big revelation
is it? And it's far from this guaranteed homogenous-equilibrium merging
non-artists and artists that you profess to exist.
I believe that artists and designers DO need to keep ahead of the
commonality perception among the public. It's necessary to continue to
push and pull the envelope, and to test the unexpected and uncommmon.
The only thing we may agree on is that artists will risk getting churned
into some amorphous mix , indestinguishable from the production work
done by the 'component assemblers' of Ron Leigh. That may signal
arrogance to you, it's not. It's individualism at it's finest.
Dimitri
Ron Leigh wrote:
>
> AHHHHHHHHH! Finally! Someone who can think. :)
> D i m i t r i wrote in message <383D43B6...@the-spa.com>...
> >
> >
> >An island native draws a symbol in the sand that pleases him. A foreign
> >visitor happens across a design on the beach and thinks it's beautiful.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Dan wrote:
> > Are you suggesting that the public decides what art is? The
> >> public only decides what is popular. Many artists create with the very
> >> purpose of commercial acceptance. Others do not.
> >>
Wizard of Draws
>
> Decades?? Van Gogh only worked as an artist during the last 10 years of his
> life, from the age of 27 to 37. He sold exactly ONE of his paintings during
> his life. Was he doing great art before the "art world" validated his
> efforts decades after his death, or was he a no-talent hack with a sad story
> who became one of the "art darlings" of the 20th century? Or is he just a
> flat-out exception to your "it takes decades of devotion" rule?
>
I was not there, but I find it hard to believe that Van Gogh ever said
(like the people I was referring to) "I can't draw". Van Gogh had
inherent talent. He had the technical expertise. He had the creative
eye. He was driven to do what he did by the same internal "thing" that
drives us. Don't ask me to define it, I can't. As I said before, it can
be *inherent*. The Van Gogh example was an example of that. Me? It took
practice. Decades of practice. Others can do what I do if they work at
it and practice.
Did I mention practice?
> These are the people (and I put you in this category) who can't stand the
> thought of someone spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a so-called
> "artist" who possesses a bare minimum of traditional technical skills; on
> someone who has the goddamn GALL to paint with elephant dung, or throw
> dishes into a plaster of paris mixture, or sign their name to "art" they
> never lifted a finger to create. But Jeff, it is still ART, with a capital
> A-R-T.
>
We'll have to disagree what is and isn't art. Elephant crap isn't art
and putting it on a canvas and calling yourself an artist is an insult
to me. You may not consider it an insult. Perhaps you have thicker skin
in this regard than I. More power to you.
I truly don't care what price tag a "so-called artist" can command for
his work. More power to them.
It is not my business to look into anyone else's wallet. At no time have
I ever made any disparaging remark about the money aspect. If anything,
I'm jealous. They were astute enough to fool someone into paying a lump
of cash for elephant crap. You gotta admire that.
> >>>To call a chimp an artist simply because he can dip his fingers in paint
> and swirl them around on a canvas, is ludicrious.<<<
>
> Now where did this come from? Nobody said anything about chimps. You seem to
> want to equate art that you don't approve of with chimps. I think you insult
> chimps.
>
On a number of occasions, some zoos have given a set of paints and
canvas to elephants and chimps, framed the results and sold it as art.
(Someone will have to back me up on this, I can't cite the specific
zoos). They made no pretense of the origin, but it was still presented
to the public as art. I consider that an insult to "real" artists. Sure
it was done to finance the zoo exhibits, but I found it no less of an
insult.
> >>>Sure it may look pretty, but I suspect that in instances like this,
> people are simply afraid to say that the Emperor has no clothes.<<<
>
> Well, if it looks pretty -- is it? Or is it only pretty until you find out a
> chimp did it? Then what is it...bad art? If it succeeds as art, does it
> matter who did it, or how it was produced, or what the artist's so-called
> level of skill is?
>
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I don't really care
for abstract "art".
One reason is the lack of skill that it takes to create. My opinion.
YMMV.
>
> You've come full circle again, which is why it is so much fun to respond to
> your posts (I mean it, I like you, I have enjoyed your posts in the past, I
> appreciate your accomplishments, I value your input. And yes, I'm having
> some fun at your expense -- bill me!). Back to Van Gogh and other artists
> who achieved fame after their death: You talk about people (today) wanting
> to be "hip" or "with it" -- look at the prices an artist's "early work" is
> fetching, and I'm talking about work that was never intended to be taken as
> art, even by the artists; doodles, grocery lists, sketches on the edges of
> an ancient French menu. "It's a Van Gogh."
> "Ooouuuuuuuuu, a Van Gogh...niiiiice."
>
> At some point, the legend and mystique of the artist overshadows the "art."
> Van Gogh's crappy living room chair that he got out of a dumpster because he
> didn't have any money to buy one will fetch top dollar today because the
> master himself "approved" of it. "If it was good enough for Van Gogh's ass,
> it is good enough for mine -- but not your's -- stay the hell off my Van
> Gogh!"
>
Please point out specifically where I have contradicted myself and come
full circle.
Price is not, and never has been an issue for me. You are mistaken if
you think it is.
The issue is what is art and who can truly call themselves artists.
Van Gogh's chair isn't art simply because it was his. If anything it is
the art of the carpenter that fashioned it. But in the context of Van
Gogh, it is a historical object, no more.
That is the reason people will pay a goodly sum for it. The same
reasoning accounts for the value placed on an artist's doodles on a
grocery list. To think otherwise is silly.
Dan
>>>I can't help what I think...yes you're right,...<<<
Good enough. No need to add:
>>>and we all share that dilemma.<<<
Because we don't.
>>>All you're saying again is that everyone is an artist, and all their work
is art-if they so believe. Some people persevere and gain public
acknowledgement. Some people persevere and make art for themselves. So you
have defined art as anything we create that pleases US, and those creations
are unequivocally and categorically considered 'art'.<<<
You are drawing the wrong conclusions with your first sentence, but
everything else you say is correct. You can lose the word "considered" in
the last line and make that statement more accurate.
>>>Within your definitions, I would agree with you. But I don't agree with
your use of these words ART or ARTIST as blanket coverage terms.<<<
Good point. We may be getting locked in by the language. Because snow is so
intregal to Eskimos, they have over 20 ways to say "snow," and each
communicates a different kind of snow: drifting, blowing, blowing sideways,
hard, soft, old, new. You and I would no doubt benefit from having a more
expansive way to describe art.
>>>And so I understand that because I decide to place a rock on another rock
and call it art, and myself therefore an 'artist', therefore it is, and I
am.<<<
Odd you should bring up this particular thing. Was that accidental or on
purpose? There are cultures (some American Indian tribes spring to mind, but
there are others throughout the world) who regard this act as profoundly
spiritual. Oh yes, I would say this definitely qualifies.
>>>In your world we go merrily along existing on internal approval. I don't
agree. Read up on this.<<<
You give me a slight twinge when you say "existing on internal approval." It
looks accurate, but it doesn't feel accurate to me. I actually WOULD welcome
more clarity, but I'm not sure what you mean. Feel free to post references
to your way of thinking here, or email me. I WOULD like to build a bridge to
agreement.
>>>Why am I always the battered person? Why can't you play one for a change,
I'm tired.<<<
Highly simplified: Because you're operating on external approval and you
will compromise your internal principles to get it.
> Your lawyer analogy is so off-base it boggles the mind. I can't even begin
> to tell you how wrong THAT is.
>>>It's not wrong, it's my opinion. Now 'I' am being your 'artist', and
you're unknowlingly playing the public. Don't see the my point yet do
you?<<<
Lawyers MUST operate within a set system, they MUST be licensed, they MUST
pass the bar in order to practice (legally). Artists have no such
constraints. Again, bad analogy.
>>>Oh, I see that scribbling doesn't count. Are we now finding some
limitations to your definition?<<<
Well, it might count. We are struggling with language again. I think my
definition of art is much broader than yours, but I am certain that way out
on some of those ragged gray edges I'm going to start saying, "Yes, but..."
And then we're into "exception land," which gets into the type of
hair-splitting that isn't productive.
>>>I found this surface a long time ago, and I forgave myself and you at the
same time.
I'm honored that you would even mention that.
Take care Dan.<<<
You too, Dimitri. Keep safe.
Dan
>>>I was not there, but I find it hard to believe that Van Gogh ever said
(like the people I was referring to) "I can't draw". Van Gogh had inherent
talent. He had the technical expertise. He had the creative eye. He was
driven to do what he did by the same internal "thing" that drives us. Don't
ask me to define it, I can't. As I said before, it can be *inherent*. The
Van Gogh example was an example of that. Me? It too practice. Decades of
practice. Others can do what I do if they work at it and practice.
Did I mention practice?<<<
I agree. I regard Van Gogh as a shining example of what can be accomplished
in a short time when you apply yourself. In Betty Edwards' excellent
"Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain," there is a Van Gogh pencil sketch
made 10 years before his death, when he was teaching himself to draw, and
another made two years later. The differences are astounding. Looking at the
first drawing, you would never think, "Oh yeah, this guy will be
internationally famous -- for his art!"
>>>We'll have to disagree what is and isn't art.<<<
That's what it sounds like, which makes it hard to get together on the other
points. I DO agree with you when you are talking in a commercial vein, but
that is a very small slice of what art is.
>>>At no time have I ever made any disparaging remark about the money
aspect. If anything, I'm jealous. They were astute enough to fool someone
into paying a lump of cash for elephant crap. You gotta admire that.<<<
I do, whether or not it's considered "art." Any way you slice it, it is very
creative.
>>>On a number of occasions, some zoos have given a set of paints and canvas
to elephants and chimps, framed the results and sold it as art. (Someone
will have to back me up on this, I can't cite the specific zoos). They made
no pretense of the origin, but it was still presented to the public as art.
I consider that an insult to "real" artists. Sure it was done to finance the
zoo exhibits, but I found it no less of an insult.<<<
I am fascinated by this type of thing, and I am familiar with your examples.
I am curious as to why you would be insulted by it. I would think that if an
elephant stole your wife, well, NOW you can be insulted. But animals with
paint brushes...? C'mon.
>>>Personally, I don't really care for abstract "art". One reason is the
lack of skill that it takes to create. My opinion. YMMV.<<<
Therein lies the root of our disagreement. There is good and bad art in
every genre. I can admire and appreciate the skills required to produce, as
an example, photorealism. It is harder for me to see the "heart" in those. A
nice abstraction, however...oooooooh. Sometimes I weep, they are so
beautiful.
>>>Please point out specifically where I have contradicted myself and come
full circle.<<<
This was in reference to the chimp art, after all of your points about art
requiring technical skill and decades of devoted study: "Sure it may look
pretty,..." Well, then it IS pretty, isn't it? A rose by any other name,
etc.?
>>>The issue is what is art and who can truly call themselves artists. Van
Gogh's chair isn't art simply because it was his. If anything it is the art
of the carpenter that fashioned it. But in the context of Van Gogh, it is a
historical object, no more. That is the reason people will pay a goodly sum
for it. The same reasoning accounts for the value placed on an artist's
doodles on a grocery list. To think otherwise is silly.<<<
Agreed.
Steve Rindsberg
>well a Pinto is nothing compared to my Corvair. That is one mean pick up
>machine. The chicks line up for it.....
>
ROFL!
Your Corvair, my old Pintos ... we're a two person disaster waiting to burst
into flames, ain't we?
JLamb
J Kirby Inwood
at the first turn.
"Steve Rindsberg" <drop...@rathole.nul> hypothesizes:
>> J Kirby Inwood wrote in message ...
>> >well a Pinto is nothing compared to my Corvair. That is one mean pick up
>> >machine. The chicks line up for it.....
>> >
>>
>>
>> ROFL!
>>
>> Your Corvair, my old Pintos ... we're a two person disaster waiting to burst
>> into flames, ain't we?
>>
_________________________________________________________________________
J Kirby Inwood
JLamb <j.l...@gte.net> hypothesizes:
>> I wish I had my 72 Gremlin.... I wanna cruise with you guys!
>>
>> Steve Rindsberg wrote:
>>
Steve Rindsberg
too ugly to be permitted any longer and stomped it.
JLamb wrote in message <383FF21A...@gte.net>...
GeorgyGirl
normally goes off and I fall out of bed.
GeorgyGirl
P.S. Anyway, I'm sticking with glamour. It's cheaper. Certainly is when *I*
do it: har! har! har!
--
"A verbal contract to support a football team may not, in Sam Goldwyn's
memorable phrase, be worth the paper it's written on, but in the minds of
millions of us, it is as binding as one written in blood."
sistercarol wrote in message <81gjmd$fbi$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>Grandeur and stardom, eh? They don't pay the bills. Well,
>okay -- maybe for some people they do. I can't think of very many
>graphic artists who got into this for grandeur and stardom. "Rent
>money" comes to mind, though.
>
>--Carol
>
>Dave Moon <dm...@ijersey.com> wrote in message
>news:hHD_3.6670$Aq.4...@typhoon3.tampabay.rr.com...
>> "A" market doesn't care -- the market that pays the bills do
>care. Liquid
>> Plumber has not put plumbers out of business, the PC will not
>put designers
>> out of business.
>>
>> Art has little to do with Commercial design.
>>
>> You are skimming the surface of the industry without looking
>underneath.
>> No true designer looks for grandeur and stardom. Like any
>working stiff,
>> our success comes from marketability, the supply and demand of
>our unique
>> services. Challenge is our mainstay.
>>
>>
>> Ron Leigh <mega...@tir.com> wrote in message
>> news:94339072...@news.tir.com...
>> > Artists are a dime a dozen. The computer is the Artist now.
>Human
>> creativity
>> > in the visual arts has little value. Now, having made 3
>assertions that
>> are
>> > likely to inflame the NG, I can honestly tell you that if your
>an Artist,
>> > you are probably diluting yourself by thinking that maybe some
>day, you'll
>> > be discovered and revered for your talent. Granted those
>personal
>> > impressions of self are legitimate. However, the Market Place
>really
>> doesn't
>> > care. It's how cheap can you do it. The sooner that is
>internalized and
>> that
>> > dillema resolved, the sooner you'll be able to generate a fair
>income.
>> > Everybody can call themselves an artist! Artists use to rise
>above the
>> > general population in creative and intuitive abilities
>however, the PC has
>> > given the general population a step ladder by which they can
>now stand eye
>> > ball to eyeball with any artist and accurately say, "I can do
>that" The
>> only
>> > thing that is diminished is not the creativity of the Artist
>but the EGO.
>> >
>> > Paul Allen wrote in message
><38395FB4...@REMOVETHIS-lollygag.com>...
>> > >glorywest wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> A better way to approach your design needs would be to view
>artists
>> work,
>> > choose
>> > >> several that you feel demonstrate the skills you need and
>pay a small
>> fee
>> > to
>> > >> each for a rough design. Then go with the artist that
>provides the best
>> > design
>> > >> solution.
>> > >>
>> > >> This is the proper way to do business with artists. Pay
>them for the
>> work
>> > they
>> > >> provide.
>> > >
>> > >I have seen many threads like this before. I'm sure you have
>too. Most of
>> > these
>> > >threads end with the trashing of the original poster, but
>there is little
>> > or no
>> > >positive discourse for educating the ignorant.
>> > >
>> > >Maybe we can turn this thread into a discussion of how to
>find and hire
>> > talent over
>> > >the internet. So, what is the proper way to do business with
>artists?
>> > Glorywest
>> > >gives some good ideas, but from my perspective they are not
>specific
>> > enough.
>> > >
>> > >What is a good way to find artists on the net so you can view
>their
>> > "portfolio" of
>> > >web work? Some ideas that come to mind:
>> > >
>> > >- Always look for "Site designed by" at the bottom of sites
>that work for
>> > you.
>> > >Bookmark the artist. This is kind of tough to do when you
>need to find
>> > someone soon.
>> > >
>> > >- Search the usual places like Yahoo for we site designers.
>My problem
>> with
>> > this is
>> > >you find many artists whose own site is decidedly uninspired
>or downright
>> > poor on
>> > >the technical side. Could this be the result of too many
>people like me
>> who
>> > have a
>> > >computer, some software, a web site and no trainging?
>> > >
>> > >- Any other suggestions for places to search for artists that
>we can all
>> > bookmark?
>> > >
>> > >Okay, so now you have found a few artists that interest you,
>some of whom
>> > might
>> > >actually have time for additional work. Glorywest, then says
>"pay a small
>> > fee to
>> > >each for a rough design". What exactly does this mean? How
>big or small
>> is
>> > a small
>> > >fee? $100, $250? I just don't know. And what can you expect
>for this? A
>> > mock up of a
>> > >site's main page (if that's what you need)? Or something
>else?
>> > >
>> > >I invite all of you artists to comment and possibly educate
>those in need
>> > of your
>> > >services. Also, comments from people who have gone through
>this process
>> of
>> > hiring
>> > >artists "the right way" would be helpful.
>> > >
>> > >P.S. Although I have done a couple small sites for others, I
>am not
>> > schooled in
>> > >graphic design and I have rarely been paid for doing this
>type of work.
>> My
>> > day job
>> > >is as a software engineer and I teach non-credit HTML classes
>at a local
>> > univeristy.
>> > >My teaching focuses on the technical side of HTML, as opposed
>to the
>> > artistic side.
>> > >
>> > >Thanks,
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
PuppySmurf
and u only choose one, and the others lose money and time. Hehe, you don't
have all that power, you are under us. We're not some kids in high school whom
u want to use as contests, or as cheap labor. You are clients, I SAID CLIENTS,
not contest companies
Puppy
RUGuufy2
not used, and use them all for free.........
as usual, remove (NOSPAM) when emailing.
**I dont do Win-doze......... **
Just Do It............ Buy a G3!