Topic: How to hire an artist

[Alun]

I wager that the vast majority of people in both camps are amateur learners rather than actively employed in the field, making his response rather knee-jerkish and exaggerated (which was my point).

Sure, the vast majority are amateurs, absolutely, but I don't see what that has to do with his post.  He doesn't say most artists on DeviantArt are professionals (which would be ridiculous); he says he knows many professionals on DeviantArt (which is no doubt true).  I don't see why that makes his response "knee-jerkish and exaggerated"; I think you may be reading too much into it.  He's completely correct that not all artists on DeviantArt are going to be amateurs who will work for cheap as the first post implies (the majority, yes, but not all).

Now, he may be overreacting a bit in other parts of his post (the last paragraph, for instance, may be a wee bit over the top), but I don't see anything exaggerated in saying that there are many professionals on DeviantArt and similar art community sites.  That part is a simple fact.

[InCreator]

First article is an excellent resource.

It describes how to use inexperienced workforce and apply brute force motivation so it would actually work.
It's based on an idea that amateur artist can screw you over and sadly it's mostly true. So that's what's it all about and methods do work.
While I wouldn't work under such anal circumstances (tbh, I DO WORK like this or even worse, but for my employer of big company, not some indie flash game dev), I don't really see anything out of line. Welcome to capitalism.

Getting most bang for least buck is an idea as old as human civilization. Every professional artist knows this. Maybe amateurs don't and that's what caused such outrage. However, it works both ways and artist also tries to do less and quicker for more money! So idea of this article making a revolution of some kind is hilarious.

Of course, same motivation scheme can be applied on positive side of ethics - like offering bonus for quicker or better work, etc.

In the end, quality and sum balance each other into something reasonable. Mostly. Or we'd be all replaced by cheap third-world workforce. Then again, that's exactly the direction western world is thriving to...

Second article is all about being butthurt, however, there's fair share of good points there.

[auriond]

I agree with InCreator that all about the old quality vs quantity (cost) thing.

First article tells you how to get an artist for cheap (something we already know people do all the time, only said in brutally honest terms). Second one tells you how not to burn your bridges so that you can maintain cordial working relationships that is more likely to take you into the long term, not to mention that you'd be more likely to get consistently good artwork for your money. But it'd be more money, for sure.

[vict0r]

Eh, the guy comes forward as a generally very douchy guy, and definitely chose the wrong language to speak to a crowd of artists if I understood the context correctly. He is, however, speaking the truth and although painful to some aspiring artists, it's much more important to understand that this is how the world works and adjust accordingly - taking advantage of the person/firm hiring in the best possible way - instead to get butthurt and learn nothing from it.

[auriond]

No, the context is that he was speaking to other game developers about how to hire an artist for cheap. He just wrote as though no artist would ever see his words, or he didn't care if they did, or he thought they wouldn't care, or something.

[vict0r]

Allright. But still, a pretty douchy style of writing in my personal opinion, even though I don't see anything wrong with it per se.

[Pinback]

Getting most bang for least buck is an idea as old as human civilization. Every professional artist knows this. Maybe amateurs don't...

The problem with this is, I think a lot of pro artists would recognize this guys mode of working as not acceptable in the field.
For instance he proposes payment be made after ALL the work is done- I'm yet to hear from a pro who thinks this
is the way to do things.

I guess if the article helps amateur producers get thier projects done that's a good thing, but I sure as hell wouldn't wanna work with the guy. I can smell the infinite re-drafts already...

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

On large projects there's just no way anyone sane would agree to be paid afterward, and this is what contracts and negotiation are for.  When a person signs a notarized contract they can then be held to it so long as the other party has kept their side of the bargain (pay).  There's a good reason why most countries actively enforce contracts because without them there would be nothing but a handshake and a promise that services paid for will be rendered.  Anyone doing a considerable amount of work or paying for a considerable amount of work should demand a contract outlining exactly what services will be rendered for exactly what pay, and the timeline for both.  This is just good common sense.

[Ascovel]

On large projects there's just no way anyone sane would agree to be paid afterward, and this is what contracts and negotiation are for.

Yeah, but the market dictates if you have the luxury of doing that. Normally (where I live at least), you sign a contract for a specific sum, are paid a percent after your concept gets approved, and get the rest upon delivering the finished work.

However, even contracts are not worth much, when the people who sign them are not truly willing to respect them. I often come upon (or hear of) situations where, after getting the project/work is finished, the client offers a new contract and paying only e.g. 80% of what was agreed in the original contract. The client knows that it is a serious dilemma for the person they hired, if they should go to court and wait a very long time until they get the full sum of their money (or not), or if they should agree to a smaller sum, but receive it right away.