PDA

View Full Version : Do you work for your art or vice versa?


ashakarc
06-18-2005, 09:35 PM
I had this discussion with a starving artist friend of mine. He has some brilliant work, sells a piece every 6 months for at least $4000 but refuses to change the way he works to be able to sell more and make a better living. My argument is that, the artist makes tremendous sacrifices for his work, and should in return allow his work to sacrifice for him too. The realtionship between the artist and his work should be like a partnership, cannot go one way all the time, because one of them will suffer, which might compromise the relationship severly. The other way around is also undesirable, where an artist makes literally anything that goes to make a living without putting his personality into his work.

In other terms, one cannot survive on pure idealism, nor pure pragmatism, a little of both finely balanced is the way to go. It is difficult, complex, yet more odds to "succeed".

What do you think? Do you work for your art, or you let your art work for you?

Blue-demon
06-18-2005, 09:49 PM
Personaly i dont like those that do art just for money. People should choose what they draw and paint!

Squibbit
06-18-2005, 09:55 PM
ummh ... why does it take him 6 months to make a pic ?

can you show some of his stuff ?
I just wanna see what kinds of pics people pay 4000$ + for :D


better put something on topic too:

*ahem*

if he wants to 'starve' , as you said, good sir, he works the
way he does. He could drive a taxi too, to get some extra bucks,
or maybe teach painting.
I paint to make people happy n stuff, sometimes i paint
to compete and the graphics stuff i do for work is stuff i do for work.
ermh.. I just don't understand your question, haha!

.

.

ashakarc
06-18-2005, 10:15 PM
ummh ... why does it take him 6 months to make a pic ?

can you show some of his stuff ?
I just wanna see what kinds of pics people pay 4000$ + for :D
.
In 6 months, he produces more than 20 paintings, but cannot sell more than one or two. No, I can't show his work for confidentiality reasons, but I can say his work was rented to the set of I-Robot movie, and some pieces are sold to some hollywood celebs.


if he wants to 'starve' , as you said, good sir, he works the
way he does. He could drive a taxi too, to get some extra bucks,
or maybe teach painting.
I paint to make people happy n stuff, sometimes i paint
to compete and the graphics stuff i do for work is stuff i do for work.
ermh.. I just don't understand your question, haha!


Well, he does side jobs to pay the bills, but not through his art. He is a full time painter artist. If I'm not mistaken, if you say you paint to make people happy, then painting is not your main source of income, ;)

Blue-demon
06-18-2005, 10:20 PM
How much did he get for renting the picture out ?

Squibbit
06-18-2005, 10:22 PM
In 6 months, he produces more than 20 paintings, but cannot sell more than one or two. No, I can't show his work for confidentiality reasons, but I can say his work was rented to the set of I-Robot movie, and some pieces are sold to some hollywood celebs.

wow now i really wanna see the pics, haha !

If I'm not mistaken, if you say you paint to make people happy, then painting is not your main source of income, ;)

very true, i does simpul 3D modelations und texturama for works, u humble coyote



.

peachysticks
06-18-2005, 10:25 PM
In 6 months, he produces more than 20 paintings, but cannot sell more than one or two.


Hmm, he can't, or he won't? At $4000 per painting he doesn't need to sell that many to un-starve himself. :p

ashakarc
06-18-2005, 10:32 PM
How much did he get for renting the picture out ?Funny, it paid for its sale value, can't wish more than that

ashakarc
06-18-2005, 10:38 PM
Hmm, he can't, or he won't? At $4000 per painting he doesn't need to sell that many to un-starve himself. :p
Well, the market buyers who appreciate his art, let's say not many. So yes, he can't.

What I'm getting into is that, he should maintain his style, but change the theme to fit a wider market base. Anyway, I am soliciting an in depth discussion to present my ideas on art and artists and how they can fit each other and the world.

By the way, if someone thinks this is me, then no. I am just an art enthusiast and do it to sharpen my philosophy in design and architecture.

Kargokultti
06-18-2005, 10:56 PM
A good question. I'm an ideologist so of course I think he ought to stick to his thing. Consequently, I think success in the art world doesn't depend as much on what's depicted in the paintigs, but on how well the artist is connected within the business, and how well he's able to win over the buyers. There's a public for anything out there.

I wouldn't advise an artist to change the way they work or the work itself, but to pay attention on the way they sell the work.

ashakarc
06-18-2005, 11:05 PM
I think success in the art world doesn't depend as much on what's depicted in the paintigs, but on how well the artist is connected within the business, and how well he's able to win over the buyers. There's a public for anything out there.
Well, there is a sensitive line between art and commercial art among idealists. To win over the buyers, you need to find what they like to see to pay for, right? That's why I am saying the style of the individual artist could be maintained intact, but the choice of themes need to be inclined to sell. It's a difficult equation to solve.

Kargokultti
06-18-2005, 11:19 PM
Naturally I can't say this applies to your friend, but sometimes I've had lots of trouble from trying to guess what people want. Mostly when I don't go with a gut feeling of what's right and how things ought to be, I end up with calculated, stilted fluff. I think I even lost an illustration gig that way. Either it was the fluff or then they just suddenly lost my contact info and forgot all about me.

So I'd say it's better to go with gut, but only because it applies to my own self.

Junkdata
06-18-2005, 11:26 PM
Personaly i dont like those that do art just for money. People should choose what they draw and paint!

Yeah if someone makes art only for money...that aint "real" artist

ashakarc
06-18-2005, 11:30 PM
So I'd say it's better to go with gut, but only because it applies to my own self.
Personally, I think there are key issues the artist could tackle to know her/his market. I don't want to be philosophical about it yet, but the two big ones are:

Politics
Culture

fabianv
06-18-2005, 11:52 PM
Being an artist sometimes involves doing things youre not really wanting to do.. like my girlfriends brother... he is doing portrait painting but thats not his field... he is a dark artist.. it pays the bills so thats why he does it.

Unfortunately most artists lack business sense, I myself lack it.. but I am going to force it down on myself and recommend anyone else that wants to do well in this job should do so aswell.

peaches
06-19-2005, 03:12 AM
thats why i choose to NOT study in the art domain. at least not for a real career anyways. i'd feel too insecure to 'live' off my art. i think i'm too much of a realist, theres always someone better than me so theres no point blahblah.
its too bad people dont necessarily recognise the talent your friend has. i do think that he should maybe let his art sacrifice for him a bit like you said, but maybe he just needs a bit more exposure to the public? good luck to him though. (:

ashakarc
06-19-2005, 09:41 AM
Thanks Peaches for your comment. I wouldn't be pessimistic and discouraged from an art career as you characterized it. You can't tell if you are good until you try it and for years. Even that is not enough. The more you mature in it the more you figure you know less. This is the great thing about art, it is very personal journey that one would take with all its pros and cons, and only then you will be able to find success. Success is not necessarily measured by being the best of the best. Like any other profession that requires creative mind, you need to find the balance that suits you between your career and your life aspirations.

Also, I want to add that recognition is not granted, it is earned. Not only hardwork can do that, but being smart and flexible to be able to click fit.

One of the things that could plague artists is when they draw walls and boundaries to their principles and/or ambitions. Being an idealist is no different from being a realist, they both are confined to their meaning. A world of both would fit better the journey through.

I just hope you change your mind about studying in the art domain and look forward to new challenges.

fabianv
06-19-2005, 10:37 AM
i think i'm too much of a realist, theres always someone better than me so theres no point blahblah.



Realist? Sounds more like youre pessimist and also dont have much ambition if you already think someone will always be better than you. Even if there is, you are not to compare.. comparison is only relevant when you want to strive to become better than you are.

paintbox
06-19-2005, 12:23 PM
I would also love to able to live by means of my free work, but alas I cannot. Fortunately I can work part-time (designer/illustrator) and I take on free-lance assignments and it are the latter which fund my free work. I think I have to best of both worlds. Ive got time and money to work on my art, visit exhibitions and such. Which I couldnt if I was a 'starving' artist.

I think the idea an artist should starve comes from the romantic era (early 19th century) The artist as a 'bohemian'. Before this all artists worked for a patron or for a commission. Why can't you, as an artist, both have both profound and commercial work ? And allthough you will be hoping your profound work lasts the ages, there is no way of telling it will. Only when time passes art is re-valued. And the best works and names of a particular era will survive. (This story only applies to art which is meant to last the ages/be profound...there are artists who don't give a damn about either profoundness or if their work lasts)

JeffB
06-19-2005, 12:57 PM
Great thread.

Some artists I've known don't care about making money ("gasp"). They'd rather starve then compromise.

Art is something we do because its inside of us. If I wanted a career to make money, I'd have been an accountant, or doctor or lawyer... That said, some of us need to eat so we compromise and do commission work.

True this is a very 20th century notion, art as art with little commercial aspect. But on the other hand, this allows such a huge range of artistic expression, much greater than anytime previous. Just look at the huge number of art shows, etc. and one can see all types of artist's expression.

And, IMHO, this is true for most artistic expressions, music and writing included. Remember most artistis die broke.

Jeffrey Baker
Dancing Bear Graphics, Inc.
"What ever happened to Mozart's money..."

fabianv
06-19-2005, 01:24 PM
Most artists died broke, not die broke.

Why doesnt anyone see that the new generation of artists cannot be compared with the old.
Also, NO single artist can be compared with another.. we are ALL unique and have different stories to tell..

Artist A might be very succesful and make lots of money
Artist B might be very succesful and have bad business sense and waste his money
Artist C might be average but be good at investing his money
Artist D might be unlucky but succesful and still enjoy his life as an artist
Artist E might be unskilled and make lots of money with his lame cellphone adverts.

Dont compare artists of today, dont compare artists of today with artists of before.

If you dont make money, its either your lack of luck or business skill..

This is a job like any other and thats that.

paintbox
06-19-2005, 02:12 PM
Dont compare artists of today, dont compare artists of today with artists of before.

If you dont make money, its either your lack of luck or business skill..

This is a job like any other and thats that.


I have to disagree here. I don't know, but in the english language the term 'artist' can probably mean both a commercial artist ( illustrator, designer, architect etc) or a 'free' artist, someone works to express himself, not by assignment (and without knowing if his work will be sold!) Not all work on this board is what I would call 'art' , they are illustrations, designs etc, done so out to get paid, or to get a chance to be paid. They are made because there is a demand for it. A free artist isn't interested what the demand is, work is made available through galleries and exhibitions and the public can choose to buy it or not.

I think these two types of work couldnt be more apart, in fact the only thing they truly have in common is creativity. The commercial artist can look at his work much more as a 'job' than the free artist, who often doesn't know where his work will take him.

fabianv
06-19-2005, 02:25 PM
What the hell are you actually dissagreeing on...

I said not a single artist can be compared.. so what is your point?

paintbox
06-19-2005, 02:53 PM
Ah ok, I agree that no artist can be compared, no disagreement there. But that it is 'is a job like any other and thats that.'

All I am saying that a free artist doesn't have a job like anyone else. Thats the disagreement part.

Or could a surgeon say in the morning "well let's see now, I feel creative, lets operate the ears instead of the appendix" ?

-EDIT- or take it closer to CG-Talk, could a modeller for Blizzard say "I am through with Orcs ! I want to model monkeys for the next game !" He can't --he has to do the art he's been assigned to do.

fabianv
06-19-2005, 03:51 PM
Yeah youre right... but I was referring from a business perspective.. he can still be free and do his own thing whilst doing his job,.. whatever it is...

It just requires discipline.

paperclip
06-19-2005, 11:00 PM
Why doesn't expressing other people's ideas and visions 'count' as art?? Concept designers/illustrators do this, they get money for it and ihmo they count just as much, if not more, as artists because they are giving more of themselves- they are giving both their own creative force, their technical excellence and also their interpersonal skills in order to understand and meet the client's needs. Why is this not regarded as 'proper' art? Don't start being beatniks, boys! You do not have to 'suffer for your art'. Your ideas are not as amazing as you may think you are-- unless other people can relate to them, they do not mean anything to anyone but yourself. It's like writing in your own journal. Why would you expect other people to pay to read your journal? Are your personal feelings worth 4,000 euro more than someone else's??

Really? I mean.....sheesh....

Tryn
06-20-2005, 12:00 AM
only after you're dead is your journal worth 4000 more than everyone else's :)

Schwinnz
06-20-2005, 01:07 AM
He should definately draw a line between personnal and commercial work. Good for him if he gets 4000$ every 6 months and works in a grocery store, but he would benefit doing some commercial artwork too. It doesn't mean he's a sellout, it depends on how he does that.

ashakarc
06-20-2005, 01:09 AM
Why doesn't expressing other people's ideas and visions 'count' as art?? Concept designers/illustrators do this, they get money for it and ihmo they count just as much, if not more, as artists because they are giving more of themselves- they are giving both their own creative force, their technical excellence and also their interpersonal skills in order to understand and meet the client's needs. Why is this not regarded as 'proper' art? Don't start being beatniks, boys! You do not have to 'suffer for your art'. Your ideas are not as amazing as you may think you are-- unless other people can relate to them, they do not mean anything to anyone but yourself. It's like writing in your own journal. Why would you expect other people to pay to read your journal? Are your personal feelings worth 4,000 euro more than someone else's??

Really? I mean.....sheesh....
Well, that's another discussion Paperclip, but since we are at it, let me say that , sure you can define art as you wish but, no one will ever pay for commercial art as much as for the type of art that is universally acknowledged to be Art. What you referred to as a personal diary, is truly commercial art. Drawing meaningless beautiful faces and wonderful cityscapes is indeed commercial. That doesn't make it any less or more than other forms of expressions, it just won't stand the test of time and will never be on the high shelves of history books.

I mean, come on, do you really think there is no difference between Art and Commercial art?
At least from my side of the world, there is a great difference between architecture and building, between poetry and lyrics, between symphonies and sound tracks, between Rodin and Muppet show, and between Chomsky and Friedman..

fabianv
06-20-2005, 11:16 AM
Why doesn't expressing other people's ideas and visions 'count' as art?? Concept designers/illustrators do this, they get money for it and ihmo they count just as much, if not more, as artists because they are giving more of themselves- they are giving both their own creative force, their technical excellence and also their interpersonal skills in order to understand and meet the client's needs. Why is this not regarded as 'proper' art? Don't start being beatniks, boys! You do not have to 'suffer for your art'. Your ideas are not as amazing as you may think you are-- unless other people can relate to them, they do not mean anything to anyone but yourself. It's like writing in your own journal. Why would you expect other people to pay to read your journal? Are your personal feelings worth 4,000 euro more than someone else's??

Really? I mean.....sheesh....



Exactly! exactly! exactly! damn I couldnt have said it better.

paintbox
06-20-2005, 03:36 PM
Paperclip, so you would claim, if I follow your last post, that any creative work made for the market is art ? So people have a demand for a certain kind of pic and the creative people in the industry create it, and everything poured onto the market (from Pokemon to Crazy Frog) is art ? So you would equal the McDonalds logo with something a van Gogh ? Both is art ? So what are your standards for a great work of art and a not-so great work of art ?

Just interested in your view on this.

fabianv
06-20-2005, 04:06 PM
paintbox - Paintbox.. sadly, yes. That is what art is.. because...


ART IS WHAT MAN DOES.

That is the only rational answer you can get when you ask ''What is Art? Can a mcdonalds sign be compared to a Van Gogh?'' etc... It is simply the human ability to create something to express himself/herself, whether it is proffesional or hobbyist. Such expression is what makes us different from other Animal species.

Art is everything ... if you want to differentiate ''art'' you would have to relate to a Mcdonalds design as ''Commercial Design'' and a Van Gogh as a ''Classical Painting''...
If you WANT to compare the two under the banner of art.. then they are both the same.

daspetey
06-20-2005, 04:17 PM
ashakarc

this is a very good topic for discussion. this is something i think every artist asks himself regularly. and as much of an idealist as i can be about art, i think your simple idea about 'working for your art or having your art work for you', hits the nail on the head. you are exactly right, there must be a balance.

we speak of the great masters, and we speak of having patrons, in an idealized (idolized?) sense, but the truth of the matter is, they were in most cases complete slaves to their patrons. how many artists do you think wanted to paint portraits of cardinals.. so really, art for art's sake didn't evolve as an ideal until maybe the sixties (i'm stretching here, as i don't really know much about this).

but as someone in this thread already pointed out, when you make art completely for someone else -- completely for money -- then that art is not coming from the right place. in contrast, art made completely for yourself, it can be argued, has no business being shown to other people. so the balance there is, making art that you want to make (that you feel compelled to make?), but always with an eye/ear to the audience.

this is especially true if you are trying to make a living as an artist. saying 'screw you world! i'm gonna do what i want whether you like it or not!' is a great way to starve.

-pete

ashakarc
06-20-2005, 04:43 PM
ART IS WHAT MAN DOES

Sorry, that is a very short definition to what art is. Not everything a man does is art. It is work done through a creative process. But, in effect, I know what you mean exactly. You are right, all creative work fall under the umbrella of art, but the difference is not in the labeling !! For human societies, art with greater influence and in a positive way (constructive, inspirational, uplifting) is unquestionably bear a heavier weight. I don't see how Macdonald's logo is influential to our psyche other than a coded message that signifies the existence of a beef eater haven that is cheap and fattening. Do you really get inspired by that logo the same way you are inspired by the work of Enayla or Olijosman? I don't think so.

but as someone in this thread already pointed out, when you make art completely for someone else -- completely for money -- then that art is not coming from the right place. in contrast, art made completely for yourself, it can be argued, has no business being shown to other people. so the balance there is, making art that you want to make (that you feel compelled to make?), but always with an eye/ear to the audience.

Absolutely, getting commisioned to do art work does not automatically fall into a commercial art category. Even doing a portrait as a commission if given to serious artists, they will eventually put their "heart and soul" onto it and present it in the way they see it, not how the rest of the world see it. So, yes art of high esteem reflects who the artist and how influential their creativity is.

The differentiation between Commercial art and Art ironically is not about money.

Thanks for responding, :)

fabianv
06-20-2005, 04:45 PM
ashakarc (member.php?u=116283) - In the broad picture it has nothing to do whether you are inspired or not.

ashakarc
06-20-2005, 04:50 PM
ashakarc (http://member.php/?u=116283) - In the broad picture it has nothing to do whether you are inspired or not.
Fabianv: I am not sure what do you mean by that and I don't like making assumptions here, I would appreciate you clarify more :)

fabianv
06-20-2005, 04:52 PM
paintbox - Paintbox.. sadly, yes. That is what art is.. because...


ART IS WHAT MAN DOES.

That is the only rational answer you can get when you ask ''What is Art? Can a mcdonalds sign be compared to a Van Gogh?'' etc... It is simply the human ability to create something to express himself/herself, whether it is proffesional or hobbyist. Such expression is what makes us different from other Animal species.

Art is everything ... if you want to differentiate ''art'' you would have to relate to a Mcdonalds design as ''Commercial Design'' and a Van Gogh as a ''Classical Painting''...
If you WANT to compare the two under the banner of art.. then they are both the same.





Here is my elaboration :)

The topic of being Inspired or not is a whole different area. :thumbsup:

ashakarc
06-20-2005, 05:04 PM
That is the only rational answer you can get when you ask ''What is Art?

This might be the only rational answer you can get. I wonder what rationale is that!!


Here is my elaboration http://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

The topic of being Inspired or not is a whole different area. http://cgtalk.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif



Fair enough, I will stick to my assumptions then.

fabianv
06-20-2005, 05:08 PM
Ive had far too many ''What is art?'' discussions in my life so I believe firmly in my view of this. Eventually after having so many discussions over this you do lead to conclusions.. Its not like im pushing to a tight conclusion.. mine is rather broad. Inspiration and effectiveness of execution and all those factors are damn important but it does not make something ''more'' art or ''less'' art.. because that leads to endless rambling, so you have to give a broad dead end to it or people will talk about it for centuries.

ashakarc
06-20-2005, 05:13 PM
Ive had far too many ''What is art?'' discussions in my life so I believe firmly in my view of this. Eventually after having so many discussions over this you do lead to conclusions.. Its not like im pushing to a tight conclusion.. mine is rather broad. Inspiration and effectiveness of execution and all those factors are damn important but it does not make something ''more'' art or ''less'' art.. because that leads to endless rambling, so you have to give a broad dead end to it or people will talk about it for centuries.
Lol, that makes more sense to me.

fabianv
06-20-2005, 05:17 PM
Ah good! Then Im happy.. :applause:

paperclip
06-20-2005, 05:56 PM
This is really sort of a pointless discussion, since both sides of the fence maintain that their own side is right. TECHNICALLY both sides are art. TECHNICALLY the McDonald's logo is art. Just because you don't like McDonald's, does that that make it any less 'art'? It obviously worked, since the McDonald's image did exactly what THEY wanted it to- to pervade the culture. It worked for them. For me- art is just getting images to work for you. It's whether or not they WORK that make them successful. Why are some paintings worth so much more than others? It's not because they are intrisically better- I know tons of painters who aren't famous, but that doesn't make them worse. What it DOES do is reduce their market value. Art, from the viewpoint of the WORLD, has to be successful in order to make it work for you. This is what I mean by the market value of art. If it does not appeal to other people, then it won't be succesful. It's as simple as that. If you want to only create works for yourself, only make things that you yourself like, fine, but don't whinge when you have to reduce your food intake. The simple fact is that unless you're working to improve other people's lives, they are not about to pay for it. You should NEVER expect your personal works to pay for your food and house. That's just not the way the world works. If you want to express yourself, fine, but don't expect to make megabucks off it.
Nothing irritates me more than people who can't paint technically worth a cent, creating paintings all about their own personal view of life and emotions and then pushing huge price tags on it. People who buy these paintings buy them for one of 2 reasons:

1) They like the LOOK of the painting.
2) They like the explanation behind the painting='conceptual' art.

The BEST work, i.e the ones that cost the most- are usually popular for a number of reasons:

1)The artist is notorious-i.e also famous for something apart from art (Da Vinci), crazy (Dali, Van Gogh), had an interesting life (Caravaggio) or was well known in his own time- had good contacts, etc (Michaelangelo, Raphael, Bramante).

2)Technical excellence (Caravaggio, Hals), or able to create moods within their art that people can relate to (Vermeer). This is why people love still lifes, landscapes and architecture) De Oude Kirk (I forget the artist) is a good example of this.

3)The work has a story behind it (most biblical work, works based on mythology, etc-(Botticelli, Perugino) which people have found interesting through the ages.

4) The painting evokes a mood that you relate to (Monet).

5) The art is often reproduced and recognised- (Logos, i.e McDonald's logo, Coca-Cola logo), thus spreading it further throughout the culture. This also counts for the Mona Lisa. If you'd never seen the image before, how likely would you be to stop before it in a museum, really?

The most successful art, the art that 'works for you' (VERY different to personal art, the art that you work for) contains a blend of the above principles.

I personally don't like Tracy Emin's stuff. I can't see why people would pay for it. Nevertheless, it's considered 'art', because people will pay for it. Yes, seriously. The limit of 'art' today is only what people will pay for under the banner of art.
That's why Tracy Emin's unmade bed is 'art', but my nephew's picture of his family isn't.

fabianv
06-20-2005, 06:03 PM
Thanks for the thoughtful contribution Paperclip.. I hope you understand from what point of view I was coming from... yours is perfectly understandable and I agree with you 100%

ashakarc
06-20-2005, 06:15 PM
This is really sort of a pointless discussion, since both sides of the fence maintain that their own side is right.

Au contraire! you have made such a nice summary of how you value art, and I don't completely disagree on that. But let's get back to the issue of market value. If we really know what makes the big buck in art, we would be all rich. Market forces are not always logical as it may seem. Market value sometimes is derived from demand of rare work, other times from popularity as you mentioned, other times from the "intrinsic" qualities of the artwork, yes. This is key, because denying the inherent superiority of an artwork is just misguided and does not help art and art community at all.

The price you put on a painting means nothing. The only way to know its money value is to throw it in the market and see. The issue with logos are completely different. Macdonald did not get big because of its logo. The brand is what makes these companies successful. An excellent read is No Logo, by Naomi Klein.

paintbox
06-20-2005, 07:32 PM
Thats much clearer Paperclip, thank you. And I agree with the 5 points you mentioned. I am as yet still undecided if commissioned or 'free' work should be judged differently. Ill probably get back to that later, when I can say something that adds to the discussion :-)

I also read a book months ago, and I think I am going to read it again, it's called "But is it art ?" by Cynthia Freeland. It talks about different angles to what is considered art (commercial, cultural, ritual etc.)

peaches
06-22-2005, 06:18 PM
Realist? Sounds more like youre pessimist and also dont have much ambition if you already think someone will always be better than you. Even if there is, you are not to compare.. comparison is only relevant when you want to strive to become better than you are.


i'm not pessimistic, i think i'm a great deal more talented than some other 'aritsts' of my age, not to be a show-off or anything. i guess i do have ambition as well, because i plan to study both science and art, but i'm basing myself more on science. i do plan on perfecting my skills, and selling some art hopefully. of course i'm comparing myself to become better. i'm not some emo fatalist kid. i'm sorry if i gave the wrong impression, but i think i do have ambition, just not as much as some others. but i still have some!

Gord-MacDonald
06-22-2005, 06:41 PM
I personally think that someone doing "non-commercial" art that has a low financial return, would be best off supplimenting their income by doing work which will give them the time and money to sustain their artistic enterprises. I don't think it matters what that is.

I know there are some artists who believe that the purity of their work will be compromised by doing commercial art. I think this boils down to personal sensibility - some can do both and not feel compromised, others cannot.

Gord

fabianv
06-22-2005, 07:33 PM
i'm not pessimistic, i think i'm a great deal more talented than some other 'aritsts' of my age, not to be a show-off or anything. i guess i do have ambition as well, because i plan to study both science and art, but i'm basing myself more on science. i do plan on perfecting my skills, and selling some art hopefully. of course i'm comparing myself to become better. i'm not some emo fatalist kid. i'm sorry if i gave the wrong impression, but i think i do have ambition, just not as much as some others. but i still have some!

I really wish you luck in your future as an artist and I hope you are happy in whichever occupation you eventually go into.

CGTalk Moderation
06-22-2005, 07:33 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.