So, THIS is why artists charge the way they do!

[peterabnny]

Found this via Facebook and figured this would be a good place to share it. Reading it gives me a better idea of why studios love having their cartoons made overseas in countries like China and Korea. It also gives me an idea of why some of those A-List furry artists (among others, no doubt) charge the prices they do for their stuff, and it's not because thay have that "I'm popular and I know it!" mentality (although there's probably some of that, too).


http://blog.milowerx.com/?p=594

[Mastermind]

Well, you want it cheap, you get Kick Buttowski and Scaredy Squirrel...

[MixedMyth]

Best explanation I ever heard for why some famous cartoonists charge $40 a sketch at cons-
Guy- "You're charging $40 for five minutes of work!"
Cartoonist- "I'm charging $40 for 30 years of school and professional training that went into developing this skill."

[IVstudios]

You run into the same problem a lot in Graphic Design too. People flip their shit when they hear about a company spending $500,000 for a design firm to do a logo that's just a fancy looking letter "q." They don't seem to realize that a) hundreds of hours of work went into coming up with dozens of different concepts before they arrived at the final product and b) that one logo will be appearing on every single pice of letterhead, business card, website, flyer, poster, email, pen, sign, promotional stress ball, corporate memo and note pad that company produces. With a major corporation, that logo is probably going to be used a few hundred thousand times a year, if not more.

If someone spends 5 minutes in their garage inventing some simple doodad that sells a million copies he's a genius. But a designer charges a few thousand dollars for a logo that's going to appear in a million places and it's a sham.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

True, IV.

My only issue regarding the cost of designs is entirely subjective, and it occurs when I am displeased with the design. I think, all that money and all that time, and this eyesore is what y'all came up with? Puhleeeeeaze. [/armchairgraphicdesigner]

[IVstudios]

Oh yeah, there's hundreds of hideous logo's out there. But I'd hesitate to blame that on the designers themselves. I can't tell you how many times I've given a client a bunch of samples and they pick the worst one.

Actual discussion I've had with a client:
Client: We like the layout, but we want the kid to look happy instead of sad.
Me: Really? Because it's a picture of a sick kid. Why would a sick kid be happy?
Client: The sad kid looks depressing. We don't want our customers to associate [product] with being sad.
Me: But it's a picture of what happens when you don't use [product].
Client: Well, the bosses want him to look happy.
Me: Alright then. *Dies a little inside*

Not that I'm bitter.

[Terotrous]

Well, it should be no surprise to most of us cartoonists that art is a horrible way to make a living. Any art that is fun to do doesn't pay well, and any art that pays even moderately well will be insanely tedious.


This is actually true of virtually any hobby that you can turn into a job. Once you start trying to get paid it will no longer be fun.


Incidentally, I wonder how much longer this article will remain true. 50 years? I can't imagine it will be that much longer than that until we can rip the images straight out of our brains, which could probably reduce the cost of animation down to pennies because the human brain is powerful enough to animate in real-time. They've already invented a device that can capture blurry images of people's dreams. I'm sure someday we'll laugh at the notion that people used to draw by hand.

[Cope]

Man, that kind of attitude is annoying. I once had a guy who, after getting offended that I wasn't going to draw for him for free, apologised and wrote "it's nothing too complicated for what I want". If it was nothing too complicated, you'd be able to draw it yourself! Just because my art is mediocre doesn't mean it's easy.

[McDuffies]

Ugh, I've heard this kind of story relayed so often. I wouldn't say that it goes for all people that they underestimate effort and price of art, because I've had people praise my art much more than it realistically deserves (and much more than any other artist would praise it).
It's people who have to pay for your art that they try to lower it's price. These folks, publishers, producers or clients of other kind, they actually know very well the cost of the art, they just simply want to try and pay for something way below it's price. Caring that other people have to eat too is not how you become successful in business. You can encounter a publisher claiming that 5e is a standard price for illustration, the price that all other illustrators charge, but of course you communicate with other illustrators and know that this is not true, plus this guy has published hundreds of books before, so you know he's not uninformed.

You run into the same problem a lot in Graphic Design too. People flip their shit when they hear about a company spending $500,000 for a design firm to do a logo that's just a fancy looking letter "q." They don't seem to realize that a) hundreds of hours of work went into coming up with dozens of different concepts before they arrived at the final product and b) that one logo will be appearing on every single pice of letterhead, business card, website, flyer, poster, email, pen, sign, promotional stress ball, corporate memo and note pad that company produces. With a major corporation, that logo is probably going to be used a few hundred thousand times a year, if not more.

There's that famous story about how Nike sign was paid 5$ to it's designer back then, and noone would say that it isn't simply absurd.

My only issue regarding the cost of designs is entirely subjective, and it occurs when I am displeased with the design. I think, all that money and all that time, and this eyesore is what y'all came up with? Puhleeeeeaze. [/armchairgraphicdesigner]

I think like that of advertising in general. 95% of adds on tv or anywhere are something any of us could come up with in five minutes. People get paid to write that stuff, so I only hope they're paid very little.

Oh yeah, there's hundreds of hideous logo's out there. But I'd hesitate to blame that on the designers themselves. I can't tell you how many times I've given a client a bunch of samples and they pick the worst one.

Is this what you were thinking of?

Incidentally, I wonder how much longer this article will remain true. 50 years? I can't imagine it will be that much longer than that until we can rip the images straight out of our brains, which could probably reduce the cost of animation down to pennies because the human brain is powerful enough to animate in real-time. They've already invented a device that can capture blurry images of people's dreams. I'm sure someday we'll laugh at the notion that people used to draw by hand.

You'll still need animation. And some brain effort, I guess.

[IVstudios]

Oh yeah, there's hundreds of hideous logo's out there. But I'd hesitate to blame that on the designers themselves. I can't tell you how many times I've given a client a bunch of samples and they pick the worst one.

Is this what you were thinking of?

Oh god, it's giving me flyer flashbacks!

Before this thread becomes one big bitchfest though (not that I don't love to bitch) I think the real reason people have trouble valuing art is because there is no direct correlation between the value of a piece and how much work goes into it (or is perceived to go into it.) As people who spend a lot of time doing art, I think we just take it for granted that the we can look at a piece of art and have at least a rough idea of how much work went into making it, but for a non-artistic person it's much harder to gauge.

The best personal example of this I can think of was a time I was watching some animated thing-or-other (I think it was The Secret Of Kells) and my father asked me how I could enjoy watching such a poorly drawn show. I responded by saying that I enjoyed it because even though the drawing style was simplistic, it had some really amazing animation, to which he replied "what's the difference?" At which point I tried to explain to him the difference between how the characters were drawn and how they moved on screen and such and he just couldn't wrap his head around how the two were separate things. In his mind, cartoons were cartoons and he had never given a moments thought to what went into making them. He just thought it was worthless because the characters didn't look like they came from a Norman Rockwell painting.

We all have things that we think of like that, probably without realizing it. That we judge their worth without having any real understanding of what goes into it, just what we get out of it. Nascar comes to mind for me. I can't really wrap my head around why anyone would give a crap about that. It's just driving around in a circle, amiright? But in reality it's a very dangerous, physically and mentally taxing activity that takes a huge amount of skill and precision. (I still can't fathom why anyone would pay to watch it, though.)

[Cope]

Before this thread becomes one big bitchfest

TOO LATE.

[Dutch!]

Before this thread becomes one big bitchfest though (not that I don't love to bitch) I think the real reason people have trouble valuing art is because there is no direct correlation between the value of a piece and how much work goes into it (or is perceived to go into it.) As people who spend a lot of time doing art, I think we just take it for granted that the we can look at a piece of art and have at least a rough idea of how much work went into making it, but for a non-artistic person it's much harder to gauge.[/quote]

And it doesn't just come from those outside of artish circles. I was told in no uncertain terms fairly recently that I should be putting more time and effort into my work. Because it looked cartoony and not realistic enough. And apparently three strips a week, up to two hours on each, and seven years worth is not enough time and effort. I just guess they were looking for something other than what I enjoy creating, so I fobbed them off (as much as still having that comment in the back of my head, anyway! )

I was also told recently that I didn't need fancy art materials like good pens and pencils and colours and stuff because I... wasn't making fine art. I said I thought mine was pretty damn fine as it was and they responded by telling me I was not treating their comment with respect. I laughed at the irony.


I find that nothing is more defensive than a brittle artist trying to make it.

[RobboAKAscooby]

And it doesn't just come from those outside of artish circles. I was told in no uncertain terms fairly recently that I should be putting more time and effort into my work. Because it looked cartoony and not realistic enough. And apparently three strips a week, up to two hours on each, and seven years worth is not enough time and effort. I just guess they were looking for something other than what I enjoy creating, so I fobbed them off (as much as still having that comment in the back of my head, anyway! )

How dare your cartoons be cartoony!

I'm finding that us cartoonists get the least respect for our effort and time put in. I'm guessing it's because cartooning is (in most cases) about simplification of form so our art looks "easy" to those who don't know better - I've even encountered people who think there's no difference between their mis-proportioned scribbling and actual decent cartoons.

I also blame professional "TV cartoonists" like Bruce Blitz who sell how to books/dvds and make appearances on TV shows (mostly for kids but sometimes morning talk shows) and show how "easy" it is to draw a cartoon in a couple of minutes - not mentioning that it takes years of practice to be even as mediocre as some of them are.

I was also told recently that I didn't need fancy art materials like good pens and pencils and colours and stuff because I... wasn't making fine art. I said I thought mine was pretty damn fine as it was and they responded by telling me I was not treating their comment with respect. I laughed at the irony.

Perfect response Dutch!

Yeah people don't get why I slap their hands away from my expensive pens and don't understand why I'd pay that much for a pen (or paper for that matter).

[MixedMyth]

I was also told recently that I didn't need fancy art materials like good pens and pencils and colours and stuff because I... wasn't making fine art. I said I thought mine was pretty damn fine as it was and they responded by telling me I was not treating their comment with respect. I laughed at the irony.

Perfect response Dutch!

Yeah people don't get why I slap their hands away from my expensive pens and don't understand why I'd pay that much for a pen (or paper for that matter).

Yep! As I always say, it takes respect to get respect.

[Dutch!]

I should possibly mention here that I don't spend lots of money on awesome art supplies. But that doesn't mean it would be a waste of money if I did!

I've only just in the last few months started using Sharpie pens instead of whatever fine liner I could find (probably because the fine liners I liked (the cheap ones) seemed to go out of production, or at least stopped turning up on Kmart shelves!). Otherwise it's still the same HB pencil grade and cheap rubber and sharpener.

But they didn't have to know that.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

(probably because the fine liners I liked (the cheap ones) seemed to go out of production, or at least stopped turning up on Kmart shelves!).

I always take it personally when materials I use go out of production. What other reason would they do that except to hurt my feelings and make it more difficult for me to do my drawings???

[MixedMyth]

Yeah, that's one reason I went to rapidiographs. They are the very definition of Not Cheap, but at least they last for freakin' ever and you can refill them with readily available, affordable india ink. Point being I'll always have pens I can use...they just need refilling, which is easy. Although I still use felt tipped pens for some things...like adding weight to lines.

[Killbert-Robby]

Eh, its sorta the same deal with movies, to speak from my point of knowledge. People will happily pirate away without an inkling of guilt because "Hey, they didn't need millions and millions to make this movie, it must have gone into the pockets of some greedy producer!" without realizing the people losing work to make up for it are the carpenters, electricians, drivers, cooks, etc etc working 12 hour days to get movies made. Why?
Because that stuff's not on screen
People who don't understand art or the process only see the final product, and are only capable of qualifying it by that standard, rather than thinking of all the stuff going on "behind the curtain. Which is why people hate art thats made through imagination and endless hard work because it seems rough or different from what theyre used to, and love cheaply made crap that's engineered to tap into their YAY senses for as little money as possible. (Or expensively made crap designed to rape their YAY-brain-center into money-forking-over-submission)

However, I feel its also important to remember a lot of crapmongers throw themselves in the "struggling artist" section, and not every person who mopes "I SPENT A BILLION YEARS LEARNING TO DO THIS I AM AMAZING WHY DONT YOU SEE THAT ITS NOT REPULSIVE TO LOOK AT ITS JUST MY STYLE" is in fact a misunderstood genius, and may in fact just be, well, bad.

[robotthepirate]

without realizing the people losing work to make up for it are the carpenters...

That was my sister's boyfriend for The Dark Knight. Not sure what he did for it.

Which is an interesting point, my sister works behind the scenes in "the theatre" so I know a little bit about what's going on behind the scenes (not a lot), but for those of you that go to see productions do you ever considered what's going on in the background? (You all might, I'm just curious).

I think everyone feels underappreciated in what they do for a living, even the footballers (or [insert prefered sport of home country here]) being paid more money than I could spend in a lifetime in a week probably feel that the people who say they're paid too much don't understand the pressure they're under.

My job is basically the nursing equivilent of the foot soldier so naturally I like to grumble about the managers who... well lets just say it's best not to open that flood gate.

Anyway, back on topic. That article makes me feel better about when I've thought of animating some things in the RTP style and been overwhelmed by the prospect of so much drawing. Though as a style it must be a lot easier to animate because of its 2d-ness (but still not easy).

I do sometimes wonder at the people who decide they need a new company logo (though its ok if its keeping our IV fed), it's not just the money the company spends on designing the new logo that they're losing but there's also millions of preprinted letter-headed paper, feedback slips, membership forms etc. that all have to go for scrap because they have the old logo on. That's just bad for the environment.

Makes me wonder how much time "Simon" spends animating his cat. http://www.youtube.com/user/simonscat

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

I do pay attention a bit to "behidn the scenes" type things when I go to see a performance, only because in high school when I would do the plays I would sometimes help out with background building and props and such. So when I go and see a truly phenomenal backdrop, I think of the hours it took to design, find materials for, paint, prep, et cetera. Even a not that good background, I can see where people were really trying to make something great.

But it's one of those fields where you have to go into it knowing that, by and large, your efforts are not going to be the prime focus and you will not get a lot of (if you get any at all) recognition for what you do. It's kind of an inverse thing- you'll notice if there are bad stagehands, but if they are doing their job right you won't notice them at all. This is true of many other professions as well.