New RPG Company needs art!
Anthony Hernandez
relevant bulletin boards.
A new role-playing game company, Galileo Games Studio, needs art for an
upcoming release of a new game. I, for one, think it is a damn good
game, even if I am their unofficial internet representative. :)
For this art, there are two options. First, the company is willing to
purchase your art for $10, or, as another option, you may choose to
retain ownership of the art, but you won't get paid. (This last option
is if you perceive that your art has liscensing in its future, I believe.)
Galileo Games Studio is hoping to go to press by July 1, and all
submitted art is subject to approval.
If you are interested, send your e-mail and snail mail addresses to:
She will then send you an "artist's packet" so that you will have
guidelines for your works of art.
Don't let this offer pass you by; how often do you get a chance to become
a published artist? :)
MAH...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com
Send alond your guidelines. I have only one other art project just now.
Carl D. Cravens
>For this art, there are two options. First, the company is willing to
>purchase your art for $10, or, as another option, you may choose to
Do you realize how insulting this offer is to any artist worth
publishing? If this game is good enough for publication, the authors
should be willing to risk some real money and get some real art. (Bad
art can kill a great game... great art can sell a bad game (once).)
--
Carl (rave...@tyrell.net)
* My reality check just bounced.
Bruce Onder
>Do you realize how insulting this offer is to any artist worth
>publishing? If this game is good enough for publication, the authors
>should be willing to risk some real money and get some real art. (Bad
>art can kill a great game... great art can sell a bad game (once).)
Hi Carl,
I'd agree on principle. OTOH, a small startup really can't afford to
pay anybody that well (this includes the writer/designer, artist, etc).
However, I think some royalty arrangement could be worked out where
anyone involved creatively is getting a stream of income from sales of
the product. Perhaps 1% to be shared among all artists, with another 1%
to be given to the writers.
Of course, the royalty would allow for all costs of the publisher to be
recouped before royalties are due.
Bruce
F. Sullivan Segal
Anthony Hernandez <anv...@lamar.ColoState.EDU> wrote:
>Hello, everybody. Feel free to take this message and put it on other
>relevant bulletin boards.
>
>purchase your art for $10, or, as another option, you may choose to
>is if you perceive that your art has liscensing in its future, I believe.)
>
$1000 per drawing. Alternatively I you could negotiate permission
to publish existing art for a single run for a similar fee, but with
no up front costs.
>Galileo Games Studio is hoping to go to press by July 1, and all
>submitted art is subject to approval.
>
>She will then send you an "artist's packet" so that you will have
>guidelines for your works of art.
>
>Don't let this offer pass you by; how often do you get a chance to become
>a published artist? :)
Followups to alt.talk.bizarre.
--
-F. Sullivan Segal
_______________________________________________________________
_
/V\ E-Credibility: (n -- ME) The unguaranteed likelyhood that
' the electronic mail you are reading is genuine rather than
someone's made up crap.
_______________________________________________________________
GCS d-- p--(---) @c++ u e-(*) m+(-) s/+ @n++ h--- f+ g+(--)
w+(+++) t++(-)@ b5++ yij++ r(dm)+ y+(*)
Mail to: flet...@netcom.com
Joseph Teller
>
>I'd agree on principle. OTOH, a small startup really can't afford to
>pay anybody that well (this includes the writer/designer, artist, etc).
>
>However, I think some royalty arrangement could be worked out where
>anyone involved creatively is getting a stream of income from sales of
>the product. Perhaps 1% to be shared among all artists, with another 1%
>to be given to the writers.
>
>Of course, the royalty would allow for all costs of the publisher to be
>recouped before royalties are due.
>
>Bruce
>
Sorry Bruce, your rates are even more ridiculous. You're still talking
pay rates LOWER than writers were paid for the Pulp Magazines pre-1940!
Like many writers I have enough trouble considering whether its worth to
write for the 5% ceiling found at the big game companies. Understand the
problem - the gaming industry is price gouging via its distributors and
retailers.
Joseph Teller
>
>On 25 May 1995 17:34:45 -0600, anv...@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Anthony Hernandez)> wrote:
>>purchase your art for $10, or, as another option, you may choose to
>
>publishing? If this game is good enough for publication, the authors
>should be willing to risk some real money and get some real art. (Bad
>art can kill a great game... great art can sell a bad game (once).)
>
DO you understand the high cost of game design and how little authors
actually get for their creations? Now, the $10 rate is a bit on the low
side, but considering that the artwork is only a small part of a game
value (and a game can indeed stand fine without an artist in many cases)
the artist should not be paid better than the author. An author gets in
gaming at best 5% of the retail price of the book. An artist, who is
producing a lot less content (one page in a 200 page book is 1/200th of
the content of the book) should be paid accordingly. Of course some
authors (like myself) insist that everyone is underpaid except the
retailer and the distributor who are drastically overpaid.
So lets pay artists what they actually contribute in page count. One
picture, in a book that say retails for $20 and consists of 200 pages,
when say 10% of the book's value is to be paid in royalties for all
those who contributed. (That's $2 per copy for the Creators). Of that
$2.00 an artist contributing 1 page should receive 1 cent per page - or
in other words a $10 offer is an offer giving the equivilant rate of
the royalty on 1000 copies being sold. If the press run is for more, pay
accordingly. If its for less then the artist is being paid more than the
writer considerably.
RadioJoe5
> $1000 per drawing. Alternatively I you could negotiate permission
> to publish existing art for a single run for a similar fee, but with
> no up front costs.
I've usually arranged to get use of the art for closser to $80-$120 per
page, drawn to spec,for black and white. Up to $1000 for color, if the
artists retains the originals and gets to sell them for additional income.
There are fanzines that pay - and pay better than this.
However, I'm allowin this may be a new publisher who really believes that
that 'being published' is that big a deal. Eventually we all learn that
bein 'published' means that someone in the loop was able to pay a printer
(or con one).
-========================================================-
Joseph Steven Coleman//Radi...@aol.com//Tale...@dnai.com
Talewind files thru ftp.csua.berkeley.edu/pub/talewind
"Pardon me. Is this your spleen?"
James Wallis
> In article <3q346l$4u...@lamar.colostate.edu>,
> >For this art, there are two options. First, the company is willing to
> >purchase your art for $10, or, as another option, you may choose to
> >is if you perceive that your art has liscensing in its future, I believe.)
>
> $1000 per drawing. Alternatively I you could negotiate permission
> to publish existing art for a single run for a similar fee, but with
> no up front costs.
Hogshead Publishing has recently commissioned around 50 pages of
art at UKP100 (US$160) a page. That's from a variety of artists,
some full-time, some semi-pro, and includes cartographical work.
We consider that a reasonable rate. Commissioning a colour cover,
we'd expect to pay UKP500+ (US$800+) for a no-name artist, or
UKP1000+ (US$1600+) for a name. In all cases, the artist retains
the copyright on their work.
Galileo's offer of $10 per piece for all rights, or nothing for
the right to print the art once, is not just insulting, it's
downright sleazy.
Incidentally, for those who agree with us that US$160 is a
reasonable page rate, we do look at portfolios from freelancers.
We prefer to work with artists in the UK, for logistical reasons,
but we'll consider anyone on one condition: you have to be bloody
good. Email me for more information.
--
James Wallis
Director of Hogshead Publishing <> Any statements and sentiments in
(ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk) <> <> this post should not be taken as
Writing in a personal capacity <> opinions of Hogshead Publishing.
Carl D. Cravens
>I'd agree on principle. OTOH, a small startup really can't afford to
>pay anybody that well (this includes the writer/designer, artist, etc).
I understand small startup budgets... I've looked at publishing my own
material. But I feel that any project worth printing is worth a few
hundred extra dollars for art. A royalty setup might be an option
worth looking into.
--
Carl (rave...@tyrell.net)
* C:\WINDOWS C:\WINDOWS\GO C:\PC\CRAWL
Joseph Teller
Why do artists believe that they are worth so much more than the
writers whoose work they are illustrating? We're not talking a mild
descrepency in the gaming field we are talking an outrageous
descrepency.
$1000 for a page? Do you know how many copies of a book must sell for
an author to see that sort of money? And why are the artists allowed
to demand pre-payment while most writers must wait for royalties (and
in some cases I've been told the publishers do not pay the writer at
ALL until they have paid their publication costs - which means a book
needs to sell thousands of copies before an author sees a single
dollar of return). This is outrageous!
No wonder writers won't stay with the roleplaying market and the
current publishing system - they don't get paid squat AND they get
insulted by what artists are paid.
Gaming writers are getting paid about equal to what pre-WWII Pulp
fiction writers are paid. This while much of the regular publishing
market is paying considerably more.
Distributors and Publishers need to stop gouging authors and teh
public. Authors need to get out of the Distributor & Publisher loop
and self publish so they can 1) Get more for themselves 2) Give their
public more for a better price.
Shawn Halayka
>Incidentally, for those who agree with us that US$160 is a reasonable page
>rate, we do look at portfolios from freelancers. We prefer to work with
artists
>in the UK, for logistical reasons, but we'll consider anyone on one
condition:
>you have to be bloody good. Email me for more information.
>Director of Hogshead Publishing >ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk)
James, I sent you an Email message with an 800k zip file attached to it...
it contains some computer art. I hope you receive it in good shape!
Cya!
Shawn
Alice Holt
Lea Crowe says :
>Tell me again how much Hogshead pays for text? It's not US$160 per page,
>is it? Not even slightly (and, to be fair, you described it in the
>writers' guidelines as a "pittance"). And in return for that, writers
>had to hand over all rights, no matter how often the material was reprinted.
This is hardly a fair comparrison. The effort that goes into a page of good
quality art work is far, far greater than that spent on a page of written
material. You also have to consider that more editorial and layout work is
required for text than arwork, ie there are more people to pay.
$10 might be ok for art apearing in an amateur, non profit making fanzine,
if it were prepared to pay at all. It is insulting for an all-rights deal.
Simon Hibbs
yfc...@castle.ed.ac.uk
Michael W. Lucas
Alice Holt <yfc...@castle.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
<cost figures deleted>
>This is hardly a fair comparrison. The effort that goes into a page of good
>quality art work is far, far greater than that spent on a page of written
>material.
I'm sorry, I have to interject here. A page of *good* written material
can take just as long as a page of good art. It can take more. I spent
over three thousand hours on a hundred thousand words on the latest game
project I've done. The book will be about two hundred pages. How many
artists spend fifteen hours on one page of art? Some do. Most don't.
It's quick and easy to churn out a page of crap. There are companies out
there who publish crap. A good page of text can take several hours or
*days* of work. Yes, days.
>You also have to consider that more editorial and layout work is
>required for text than arwork, ie there are more people to pay.
As someone who's done game publishing, I have to disagree with this
statement. If you have good writers, the amount of time you need to spend
editing is very minimal. Assigning art, getting artists to get their
assignments in on time, pasteup, layout, and so on. Text, on the other
hand, can be done entirely on computer. I've laid out the text for a
200-page book in ten hours. It took two weeks to get all the art fitted,
however.
>$10 might be ok for art apearing in an amateur, non profit making fanzine,
>if it were prepared to pay at all. It is insulting for an all-rights deal.
A commercial artist of any sort (writer or illustrator) should charge
whatever he can get for his work. If a prospective customer can't meet
your rates, then *don't*work*for*him.* I've turned down writing jobs that
promised publication simply because they couldn't meet my rates. The
people that they eventually got were, IMHO, not as good as me. Then
again, I'm certainly biased with respect to them.
If the only customer you can find pays $10 a piece, then take it. Learn
from it. You can't live on it. Very few people can like on their art
nowadays. There's too many talented people out there.
Yes, you won't make you much money on your investment. If you're trying
to break into the role-playing game business for money, you're in it for
the wrong reason. For example, if I had spent the amount of time working
at McDonalds that I spent on the last game book, I'd make about ($6.00 x
3,000 =) $18,000.
Will I make this much on a freelance-written game book?
HA! No offense to the publisher (who reads this group), but I don't
expect it to sell *that* well. I think it's good. I think it's quite
funny and original. I think I charged everything I could, and got a very
good deal on the package.
But I do this because I love it.
Perhaps, some day, I'll be good enough and well-enough known to make a
living at this. Maybe. If you're looking for RPGs to provide a living,
though, you're probably barking up the wrong tree. You have a better
chance of becoming a Space Shuttle astronaut than you do of becoming a
professional game author or illustrator who relies on his writing for his
whole income.
If you're serious about making a living, however, go into magazine
illustration, tech drawing/writing, or novelism. Gaming isn't the path to
riches; it's the path to Ramen noodles and boiled rice.
--
Michael Lucas mwl...@vela.acs.oakland.edu
If an infinite number of rednecks fired an infinite number of shotguns at
an infinite number of road signs, they would eventually recreate all of
the world's great literary works in Braille.
Lea Crowe
ja...@hogshead.demon.co.uk "James Wallis" writes:
> [ I queried James' attack on Galileo for their artist rates, using
> Hogshead's text rates as a comparison. ]
>
> I calculated our payment rates so that they'd work out as paying
> a living wage to someone doing the job full-time, based on a "daily
> rate".
Hmm, I did my sums on the basis of "area of paper covered." I guess
it *does* take longer for an artist to cover the same page space as
a writer -- I'll happily accept your estimate of two days for a full-page
illo, in which case the rates (going by my experience as a not-that-fast
writer) work out about equal. (I've never been clear how fast my
artist friends work, let alone whether you'd consider their work of
"reasonable quality"!)
Fair enough, then. Different rates of work. I was misled by the fact
that two days' worth of words would cover about five times as much
paper as two days' worth of art.
> In what way is paying freelance writers and artists a living wage
> comparable to a company which, in exchange for printing your work,
> will let you keep the copyright on it?
I *didn't* say anything nice about Galileo's "offer" not to pay for
work in return for giving it back. I agree with you that that is
decidedly off.
> And, since you posted your challenge publicly, might I tack on a
> final rider about hands that feed, and not biting them?
This intemperate volatility does you no favours.
I recall signing a disclosure agreement. I don't recall promising to hang
on your every word. And frankly, I don't recall issuing any sort of
"challenge". I recall criticising you for your attack on Galileo. I
accept that my criticism was unjustified, but that doesn't make it any
sort of challenge to or attack on your company. In fact, I stated quite
clearly -- and equally publicly -- that I *wasn't* complaining about the
rates you offered.
--
l...@hestia.demon.co.uk "Well, *you* shouldn't have been in the West Wing!"
(trust you recognise the reference?)
Curtis Shenton
>In article <801734...@hogshead.demon.co.uk>
>
>Tell me again how much Hogshead pays for text? It's not US$160 per page,
>is it? Not even slightly (and, to be fair, you described it in the
>writers' guidelines as a "pittance"). And in return for that, writers
>had to hand over all rights, no matter how often the material was reprinted.
I hardly think that's a fair comparison. One page of good art takes far
more time and effort than one page of text. I know someone who writes
for Hogshead and he's quite happy with his contract with Hogshead.
>
--
Curtis Shenton cur...@netcom.com internet & 4@3091 WWIVnet
"Remember the story of Burt and the Piano" -Stan Ridgway
Joseph Teller
>Tell me again how much Hogshead pays for text? It's not US$160 per page,
>is it? Not even slightly (and, to be fair, you described it in the
>writers' guidelines as a "pittance"). And in return for that, writers
>had to hand over all rights, no matter how often the material was reprinted.
>
>it was all you could afford, and I'm not complaining. And I know that you
>were required to buy all rights, so you had no control over that aspect
>either. I don't think your offer was insulting or sleazy: it was the best
>you could afford, and I accept that.
>
>So, perhaps $10 per piece is all Galileo can afford. You've chosen, with
>your limited budget, to pay artists better than writers. Galileo, probably
>also on a limited budget, have taken the opposite course.
>
>I must say, though, that, as someone who reads the words rather than looking
>at the pictures, I think they've spent their money more wisely.
Also comes up the question. After spending all that money for the art,
if the product fails to sell is he going to blame the writer, the
artist(s), his marketing or the distributors? Nine Times out of ten they
blame the author for the result....the low man on the totem poll who
gets the low end dollar.
As a fellow writer I agree with you completely - the market needs to
wake up and realize that artwork is NOT why people buy games. If it is,
then they should be in the business of art portfolios and the like, not
game production.
Michael Sellers
: Why do artists believe that they are worth so much more than the
: writers whoose work they are illustrating? We're not talking a mild
: descrepency in the gaming field we are talking an outrageous
: descrepency.
Maybe because it's easier (takes less time, effort, and built-up skill)
to write *acceptably* well for a game than it is to create acceptable art
for the same game (and yes, I've been involved with both ends of this,
and am even now). Or maybe it's just unfair. Well -- no one ever said
life would be fair. I know, that stinks. But it's the truth.
--
Michael Sellers Terra Nova Interactive Corp. mi...@terranova.com
(503)538-2745 URL: http://www.teleport.com/~sellers
Email me for info on UI Design seminars: Next one is in SLC June 26-27
James G Currie
ORIGINAL artists involved in the creation of Magic) were/are paid
little... but, there was the factor of incentives (in the example of
Magic, company stocks... :), of which being "published", and exposed to a
new audience/media was a small part. :)
*************************************************************************
** u...@freenet.mb.ca ** Sanity is conceptual...Normality is relative. **
** ** And I am neither. :) **
*************************************************************************
Michael Sellers
: >Of course, the royalty would allow for all costs of the publisher to be
: Of course costs being marketing lunches, launch parties, fast cars,
: hookers at CES ...........
: We wouldn't want any of that lovely money actually ending up in the hands
: of those greedy artists & programmers would we.
How venal of you. If I were to enter in to a relationship like this, I
would provide (or expect, were I the artist) open financial books --
under non-disclosure, of course. Business expenses are a terribly real
thing. It makes no sense to pay royalties out of revenues, when you
don't even know if you've turned a profit yet!
That means you may not get paid if you don't turn a profit. Horrors!
This is precisely what business owners go through all the time -- and is
also the reason that those who are successful are wealthy. You wouldn't
want a chance to share in that?
James Wallis
You made a direct comparison between the rates Hogshead pays FRUP
artists and the rates Hogshead pays WFRP writers, with the words
"This is a bit naughty". That's a complaint, no matter how much
you claim it isn't.
We don't demand slavish obedience and abject admiration from our
free-lancers, nor do we expect it. But we do expect a little
professionalism from people we are treating as professionals.
You have recently done some work for the company I run and (I
believe) are interested in doing more. The last thing I expect to
see from someone in that position is a public attack, particularly
one that hasn't bothered to check its facts or do its maths. I
felt I was justified in warning you that you were behaving
unprofessionally. If you choose to interpret that as "intemperate
volatility" on my part, that's up to you.
Now shall we put this silly argument to bed and get on with what
we're supposed to be doing: creating bloody good games?
--
James Wallis
David Wainwright
>recouped before royalties are due.
Of course costs being marketing lunches, launch parties, fast cars,
hookers at CES ...........
We wouldn't want any of that lovely money actually ending up in the hands
of those greedy artists & programmers would we.
David
Kevin Maroney
James G Currie <u...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
> You seem to have forgotten that in some cases, (such as the
>ORIGINAL artists involved in the creation of Magic) were/are paid
>little... but, there was the factor of incentives (in the example of
>Magic, company stocks... :), of which being "published", and exposed to a
>new audience/media was a small part. :)
The artists on Magic: the Annuity were paid a damn sight more than $10
per illustration.
--
Kevin J. Maroney|k...@panix.com|Proud to be a Maroney|Proud to be a Yonker
At night, the ice weasels come.
RadioJoe5
underground publishing in the culture.
The best way to get any cooperation from talented people is to give them a
part of the pie. Most films now produced offer percentages on the film
(hopefully on Gross and not on Net), and a lot of publications have
succeeded based on little-bit-of-money-up-front and
royalties-as-long-as-it-makes-money. The bookkeeping needs to be honest
(look at Forest Gump) but it is a legit way to encourage cooperation, to
get the product to produce and it encourages people to make their best
work available.
From Bitter Experience.
F. Sullivan Segal
Joseph Teller <tel...@silvercaw.pn.com> wrote:
>
> Why do artists believe that they are worth so much more than the
> writers whoose work they are illustrating? We're not talking a mild
> descrepency in the gaming field we are talking an outrageous
> descrepency.
>
of them imagine or even care if their work is worth more than the
writing 'whose work they illustrate'.
Two factors probably most strongly influence the value of artwork relative
to that of writing:
1. Art sells books.
2. Art sells independently of books.
Artists generally set the prices for their own work. Art is worth what
the artist says it is, and if an artist sells their work inexpensively,
then their work is worth less. This is the reality of the art world.
In addition, artists have little trouble selling their own artwork
individually if no one cares to publish it, at least from a logistics
standpoint. A limited run of a thousand prints would cost about $2000,
and when numbered will probably sell fairly quickly at $80ea/framed,
even if the artists is only of average talent, and is unable to get
a studio to display the work.
For purposes of comparison, a publisher of magazines with a run of
about 20,000 and one or two color flats in 128 pages will incur a
printing cost of about $1-2/ea., and will be able to sell their stock
fairly quickly at a cost of about $7/ea, if the cover art is attractive,
of which at least 50% would go to the retailer, and a negotiable amount
would go to the distributor. Retailers do not pay for unsold stock, so
about 10-20% would be returned if the publisher was willing to pay
reshipment, or destroyed otherwise.
Games can obviously sell for more than this, but it is easy to see
why magazines count on advertisers for profit. A typical magazine
gets all of its profit from advertisement, with distribution just
breaking even. FWIW, this is why you get good discounts for
subscriptions.
> $1000 for a page? Do you know how many copies of a book must sell for
> an author to see that sort of money? And why are the artists allowed
> to demand pre-payment while most writers must wait for royalties (and
> in some cases I've been told the publishers do not pay the writer at
> ALL until they have paid their publication costs - which means a book
> needs to sell thousands of copies before an author sees a single
> dollar of return). This is outrageous!
>
A $1000 piece of artwork would probably be commissioned for cover art.
Most authors writing textbooks can get more than $1000 up front (to be
paid from royalties until royalties exceed the amount.) Authors writing
books of general appeal can get many times that amount. I don't know
what game designers get, having never worked with them.
> No wonder writers won't stay with the roleplaying market and the
> current publishing system - they don't get paid squat AND they get
> insulted by what artists are paid.
>
Bizarre!
> Distributors and Publishers need to stop gouging authors and teh
> public. Authors need to get out of the Distributor & Publisher loop
> and self publish so they can 1) Get more for themselves 2) Give their
> public more for a better price.
>
>
David Nalle
pretty smalle RPG and boardgame publisher. We have been paying for both
art and written material for about 10 years and our rates have incresed
over time, but are still fairly low because we have relatively small
print runs and circulation.
'
Here's what we pay:
B&W Interior Based on $75/Page
B&W Cover Based on $100/Page
Color Cover Based on $150-$250/Page
Text: 1 cents to 3 cents per word
We generally buy one-time use rights at that rate, sometimes with a
rider covering reprints of the same work.
BUT...we've found that a far better way to do things on a small scale
for all concerned is to offer a royalty, which is what we now do for
any project where a single artist or writer makes a substantial
contribution. Our total royalties on a project can go as high as 15% of
the gross for that project, though that is split between writers and
artists.
Paying by royalty with a reasonable advance helps the publisher's cash
flow and ultimately brings greater profits for the artist or author,
even with a small print run.
For example, if we were publishing a heavily illustrated game (say a
collectible card game). We might offer an artist who did a third of the
art a 2% royalty plus $10 advance against royalties for each piece he
did, assuming he did at least 30 pieces (approx 2x2 inches). That would
get him $300 up front (equivalent of $200/page), plus assuming a small
print run of 4 million cards he would eventually receive about $4,000
for his work based on royalties, which is far better payment than he
would get with a flat rate. This rate assumes that there would be 3
or 4 artists working on the project.
At rates like this we have been able to get good artists involved in our
projects. Many seem to prefer the direct involvement which we offer and
the creative freedom which we encourage. For our projects which use a lot
of art we like the artists to have a lot of input.
One of the problems which currently exists with artists and publishers
in the game industry is the massive inflation of payment rates caused by
the success of Wizards of the Coast. They started out paying artists
way above the industry standard and the result has been that artists have
started to expect payments like that. The problem is that most publishers
can't afford to pay the equivalent of $5000 per page even for the best
color art. The result is that artists who are going to make it in this
industry have to get used to working at widely varying rates of payment
and under different sorts of payment arrangements, and be happy when they
hit a gold-mine like doing some Magic the Gathering cards, but not coplain
when they get paid at a more normal rate.
BTW...we ARE looking for artists for all sorts of projects. If your work
is unusual, drop me a line.
Dave
Ragnarok Games
j
RadioJoe5
"One picture is worth a 1,000 words"
I've done both jobs. I find writing less painful, to turn out a good
piece of art is far more difficult. That's why I don't do art unless
there is absolutely no budget for it. Writing be honed and edited,
re-written and refined bit by bit. With art, if you draw a crappy leg in
an otherwise nice piece, the crappy leg will still look crappy and can't
be easily corrected.
I like to work with a radical concept: respect for the other people
involved in the final product.
-========================================================-
Joseph Steven Coleman//Radi...@aol.com//Tale...@dnai.com
Talewind files thru ftp.csua.berkeley.edu/pub/talewind
"I could never have just twenty."