How to hire an artist

[auriond]

Most of us do our own game art, but for those of you thinking of hiring artists or doing art for hire, this might be of interest to you.

This blog post has been going round the DeviantArt circles for its callous attitude towards what I'll call non-professional artists. It's written by a guy who makes Flash games, and it focuses on that.

http://kaitol.com/how-to-hire-an-artist/

It's rather predictably generated a lot of outrage over at DA, but I didn't take much notice of it until I read this response:

http://www.thejonjones.com/2010/08/09/how-not-to-hire-an-artist/

Now there's a position I can respect. Still, there's something to be learnt from both sides.

[LRH]

Interesting read. From my last game on, I'd prefer to have nothing to do with art in my future games. I want to stand out a bit more, and the quality simply won't do. I prefer to just find an artist through more local communities, that way you can for something of a two man team.

[Dualnames]

Honestly what's with all this commotion? You get what you agree for. If people can't settle out their jobs and get exploited its their own fault. I've talked to a lot of artists myself and I've been screwed some times, so please people this has nothing to do with the artists in general. People just tend to get exploited out of their ignorance. I don't support that guy and he may be a dick, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have right.

Paying prior to the completion of the project is a bad idea for several reasons. Only paying for the finished work encourages the artist to finish their job faster, if you pay up front the artist has no motivation to finish quickly. Similarly, if you pay up front the artist could disappear and you may never get what you payed for!
Keep them in the dark:

Now don't tell me you've never heard of a guy that got screwed because he paid his artists up-front?

This relates back to what I talked about earlier. If an artist knows how much their artwork will increase the value of the game they will then feel they deserve that amount of money. This is not how a market economy works, you hire whoever is able to do the best job for the lowest amount of money, anything else is a loss of money on your end.

Nobody would pay more for a job.

I want to clarify that I'm not an asshole, if you believe I am then so be it. But this guy has valid points, regardless of his behavior
. I would never treat persons that way if anyone is thinking that for me.

[Khris]

That was interesting indeed.

To me it looks like the first guy based his article on the assumption that everybody is an egotistical asshole while the response was based on the exact opposite. It's the classic clash of cynicism and idealism.

I guess the truth is somewhere in between.

[Darth Mandarb]

I think if he'd titled the article, How to Hire an Artist [on the cheap] it probably wouldn't have caused such a ruckus. Then again, this is the internet; if you declare that you like puppies you'll get flamed for it by somebody.  People love to bitch, gripe, and claim superiority over others.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with what he said/wrote.  He was just sharing his ideas (that he has found success with before (so he claims)).

[Buckethead]

That guy is an idiot posting this on the web. I'm sure he can't find a proper artist now. He shouldn't anyway.

[Ali]

I'm all for bemoaning capitalism, but I don't see why this caused so much outrage.

I admit that the business about keeping artists in the dark seemed a little unnecessary, and the idea of deducting is draconian, but on the whole this is the way small-time business people behave in order to keep afloat.

In the end, at least it's useful for artists to know what's going through the mind of some of the people hiring.

[Igor Hardy]

That guy might not care too much about people he hires, but I don't understand what is the outrage about. If both you and your client fully respect the contract that you two have agreed on, then there isn't really anything to complain about. You can't blame anyone for the market being very competitive and that you have to take worse contracts than you'd like.

IMO the fairness of subtracting the payment money for delays is relative. It depends on how reasonable is the given time limit and how experienced is the person/company you hire. Which depends on if you're hiring an art studio which prides itself on being solid, or just a single artist, who may be not that knowledgeable in matters of business and (probably) is just a human being like yourself. It's unfair to seek particularly cheap and inexperienced artists and demand from them the same solidity and working pace that you'd from a professional studio, giving penalties if they don't live up to that.

[Jimbob]

I think the beef everyone has with it is that the article basically advises you to try and exploit people, not just negotiate.
True, if you are employing artists you have every right not to tell them everything about forecasts, and not pay money up front, and have a contract about late delivery etc... but he seems to actively target screwing particular people over.

It's the tone of the message really, the content works just as well for both parties concerned.

[Calin Leafshade]

"Art" has a unique position because no one really knows what it's worth and non-artists tend to think that the market has priced it wayy too high.

If I were to walk into a car garage and ask them to fix my car for £20 and they agree then I would not be accused of exploitation. The mechanic has the choice to decline.

If I were to go to the DevArt forums and offer £20 for a portrait then I would be flamed for not offering enough.. Well if it's not enough then don't accept the job.. I don't understand this attitude at all.

The fact of the matter is that the internet is a global stage. £20 is worth far more to some countries than others so to say it's 'not enough' is a completely worthless thing to say.

[straydogstrut]

I didn't find anything wrong with the article myself. Nothing outrageous anyway. I didn't get the predatory tone from it that some people did, it seemed pretty plain speaking to me. You have to spend efficiently on an indie budget and recruiting aspiring artists is a good thing, I feel.

That said, personally I would put more value on the artist and choosing the right art style, than the cost of the artwork itself. I wouldn't want money to affect developing a positive working relationship. If I want to work with you, it usually means I like what I see (and I totally admire you and will bend over backwards to even get my name on the same page as you )

The 'keeping them in the dark' comment was the only part that didn't sit right with me, but I understand where he's coming from. Personally, I don't want to make a profit with any of my endeavours (hence why i'm always so poor!), I just want to work with interesting people and enjoy it, but in the real world you have to watch the books if you want to survive. I'm an idealist. I would always want to give everyone an equal share, but it can't always work like that.

I have no immediate plans to hire any artists (i'm still happily churning out crap on my own) but I wouldn't know where to begin putting a value on artwork (some of the stuff on the boards here is mind blowing, never mind on actual artist communities). Allowing artists to pitch for a job sounds fair to me. Isn't that the way it works in 'the real world' anyway?

[Baron]

I thought both the original post and the response had valid points.  The first guy basically said "This is how not to get screwed by an artist" and the response basically said "this is how artists get screwed".  Obviously the ideal situation is for both parties to have their expectations satisfied by the other, but life's a messy thing so it's unrealistic that this will always be the case.  I guess the lesson here is to be very clear about each party's obligations in a contract from the outset, and also have an exit strategy clearly outlined if things go south. 

Most people on this board seem to think that if both parties agree, how can it be exploitation?  I agree with this stance.   I don't think the sweat shop analogy is very apt, since a sweat shop worker would be geographically and perhaps socially tied to the exploitive employer in a way that makes no sense on the internet.  Granted some young but talented artists probably are doing some work for less than they might bargain for, but the beauty of the open market is that they can hold out for better terms the next time around.

I must say that the folks that come out of this looking like jerks are the shoot-from-the-hip flamers who responded to the original article. 

[kaputtnik]

Well, not that this would be an attitude that completely outrages me, but I am not sure why people would want to work with anybody on that basis. Sure, Indie developers, stay afloat, be able to take on bigger projects with reasonable budget planning - but why the heck does that guy make games? Why doesn't he just sell used cars or build supermarkets, own a coal mine, buy NASDAQ shares or cook really unhealthy food and sell it to people way too expensive?

The sad thing about this business model is not that it's unethical or unfair, it's that it's all over a - basically - creative business. I really want to play games that have been created out of a desire to use to the medium to give the player an experience he has not had before, or to tell a story that can not be told with any other medium, or simply to make more games [(c) Ben Chandler], but not out of a desire to make money only.

And you may regard me as hopelessly naive now, but I completely agree with the second article. That's a person I would like to work with. And I wouldn't even mind to be exploited by that kind of person, haha. Well. I guess the happy fun fantasy dream island of video games is not what it used to be back then when the people were sitting around stoned in Atari's headquarters, trying to come up with a worthy sequel for Pong...Which does not seem like a valid business model as well, of course.

But one more thing, since it has been mentioned quite a lot: The "If both parties agree, how can it be exploitation" argument is just not valid in a globalized economical system. Read "The Grapes of Wrath". There will always be someone to work cheaper, unless everybody capable of this work agrees on a certain minimum and refuses to work for less. There can be no agreement, though, since different currencies and geographical situations alone set advantages and disadvantages, and there can be no communication either, because anybody with talent and the necessary equipment can provide the work, completely independent of all external factors.

Since there is no "minimum wage" for freelance artists/writers/musicians, and those are (mostly) people who are passionate about their work, there is lots of space for exploitation on part of the client.

[Calin Leafshade]

I completely agree about wanting to work with someone who does it purely for the thrill of making games. I would not want to work for someone who considers their art to be a means to an end or merely something to "grab the punters"

However I don't see how exploitation is even possible with regards to a creative industry.

The sweatshop analogy doesn't hold water simply because the results are always the same.. essentially you are paying for the same thing regardless of the cost.

With an art studio however everyones work is totally unique and thus can only be priced on an individual basis.

assume 2 artists: Artist A and Artist B.

Artist A offers their services for £20.
Artist B offers their services for £30.

If Artist A's work is what I want they I use Artist A because Artist B had priced themselves out of the market.

If B's work was good enough to warrant the extra 10 quid then obviously the hypothetical me would choose Artist B.

Now assume Artist C comes along and offers their service and are excellent but they only charge £5

How could I possibly be considered exploitative for choosing Artist C.. It would be stupid not to.

[Baron]

But one more thing, since it has been mentioned quite a lot: The "If both parties agree, how can it be exploitation" argument is just not valid in a globalized economical system. Read "The Grapes of Wrath". There will always be someone to work cheaper...

Following this argument to it's logical conclusion, it is just a matter of contacting enough people before the price of any project drops to exactly $0.01 (because anything less than that would be working for free, not cheaper).  I will agree not to utilize this strategy to create my next game (and thereby unleash an unstoppable wave of community destroying exploitation) if you agree to give capitalism just a bit of credit as a means of determining the value of labour.

[Pinback]

While I think the article devalues artists to a degree, I believe artists undercutting each other- especially at DA- to be
a much bigger potential problem.
For instance,- and I see this all the time there- is an employer will advertise a $50 commission, then
artists will come into the thread undercutting each others prices. "Hey I can do that for $20" kinda thing.
The guy can afford $50, why screw each other over for a chance to get the job?

[kaputtnik]

While I think the article devalues artists to a degree, I believe artists undercutting each other- especially at DA- to be
a much bigger potential problem.
For instance,- and I see this all the time there- is an employer will advertise a $50 commission, then
artists will come into the thread undercutting each others prices. "Hey I can do that for $20" kinda thing.
The guy can afford $50, why screw each other over for a chance to get the job?

Yep, that's more or less what I wanted to say. As long as the situation is like this - an artist has to feel lucky if he gets work - there will always be people undercutting each other and working below their value just to work at all.

And to prevent the biggest AGS project of all times, created by 6000 freelance slaves from all over the world:

I agree that capitalism does adjust the value of labour and goods, but I doubt that this really works with "art" (whatever that may be). I agree that if you need somebody to get a job done, then you will pay him accordingly, not more and not less than what his work is worth - but if you want to hire somebody who is passionate about his work, who identifies with a project and who wants to use all his artistic potential to inspire people...how much should you pay them? 

There's such a big crowd of highly talented people out there who don't have any idea what their work is worth - add that to the people who live in countries with emerging economies, who are equally qualified and motivated but can charge much less, and you've got the downside of global networking - I've been working on a freelance basis on lots of projects, and there were lots of people who did (obviously, because their clients always gave them excellent grades and recommendations) great work for almost no money. How could I possibly work for $2 an hour? But once there is a huge crowd of people trying to "get a foot in the door", this is what you get.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I just feel rather dubious about SMARTist's claim that there are so many 'professional artists' in the Newgrounds and Deviantart communities.  First off, who defines 'professional artist'?  The individual, usually an interested employer.  Your peers can grant you that label, but aside from making you feel good it has no real weight in the real world until and unless you're being hired by the big boys and paid some good change for it.  Professional literally means of or pertaining to a profession, meaning you are doing this for a living.  

I think a lot of people confuse talented and professional.  They do NOT mean the same thing.  I've been called a 'professional' artist by many people and it's simply not true.  In the final analysis, I have yet to make a livable wage from what I do and must resort to multiple jobs to even hint at that possibility.  I have never said I was an artist at all, though, but that's another story .

Point being, I think this is more mountains from molehills, especially for the Deviants who feel they're often unjustly panned as amateurs.  The reality of it is that if you're not established and fairly well known (take Bill Tiller), you ARE an amateur.  I am an amateur and my name is on several indie and freeware games.  Few people outside of this community know my work, and the same goes for hundreds of Deviants and Newgrounders.  I wish some people could learn to set aside ego and accept reality as it is, but the overreaction to the article shows me there are lots of people who vastly overrate and overvalue themselves.

Edit:  I'd just like to address the 'capitalism doesn't work with art' argument.  That strikes me as an extremely sour grapes argument.  Of course it works.  The person willing to do the job for the right combination of skill and pay gets the job from the employer.  Saying that 'it's not fair' is just complaining and I really have no desire to argue about that.  The main argument seems to be they're desperate for whatever money they can get but as someone who knows people who have done it that's rarely true.  A lot of starting artists/musicians with the long view of employment see Industry Credit as their short-term goal, so they'll typically take on smaller design jobs for little pay so they have their name displayed on mobygames,etc.  When they get enough of these Industry Credits to feel confident, they approach a big designer for a full time job and show all their work experience in the field.  To those people, the credit is worth far more than the money because it leads to bigger things.  The short-view people see only the money as valid and aren't specifically looking to expand their footprint in the field.  I don't begrudge either method but it's important to realize that not all people take a job cheaply because they're desperate for any money at all.  

I've learned a great deal about teamwork and deadlines and compromise (and a dozen other things), all of which I apply and improve upon in the next project.  And the next.  Each job taking me a bit farther up the ladder in pay scale and in terms of what I learn and can offer.

[Alun]

I just feel rather dubious about SMARTist's claim that there are so many 'professional artists' in the Newgrounds and Deviantart communities.  First off, who defines 'professional artist'?  The individual, usually an interested employer.  Your peers can grant you that label, but aside from making you feel good it has no real weight in the real world until and unless you're being hired by the big boys and paid some good change for it.  Professional literally means of or pertaining to a profession, meaning you are doing this for a living.

http://arsenal21.deviantart.com/
http://imaginism.deviantart.com/
http://cmcc.deviantart.com/
http://ariokh.deviantart.com/
http://jrfaulkner.deviantart.com/
http://francis001.deviantart.com/
http://namesjames.deviantart.com/
http://sc4v3ng3r.deviantart.com/

The above are links to the DeviantArt accounts of a few professional artists -- artists who make their livings from their art.  Their art has appeared on book covers and in video games; the first one, for example, is the art director for a major computer game company (Blizzard Entertainment), and the second worked on the concept art for a number of major motion pictures, including the recent Tim Burton version of Alice in Wonderland.  The third is the creator of a couple of well known cartoon series (The Powerpuff Girls and Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends).  Admittedly, the rest of the people on the list aren't so high-profile, but still, they're all professional artists.  These are just a few I was able to find in a quick search; there are many more.  I don't think smArtist is confusing "talented" and "professional" -- I think he knows what "professional" means, and he's quite right; there are many professionals who post their art on DeviantArt.  (Most if not all of them also have their own websites in addition to their DeviantArt accounts, of course, but that's beside the point.)

[Edited to correct a typo in the last sentence]

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

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).