http://illustrationart.blogspot.com/2009/0
The charge which is usually leveled at those who have supposedly Sold Out is that we have in some way compromised the quality of our work by doing it for mere money. This is a sensitive topic for me lately - in recent weeks, I've had a few pointed letters come in accusing me of having sold out for mere money because I've chosen to do more Dragons novels rather than complete the long-awaited final chapters of my graphic novel, STARCHILD: MYTHOPOLIS. There have been several different arguments as to why I should have focused on the latter rather than the former, all of which can be trumped by a single response: if there's no money to pay the bills and make a living, then there's going to be no art at all.. And the Dragons novels are selling really, really well.
Like the example given in the above link that Sargent's finer art would not have existed if he had not also painted commissioned portraits, if it were not for the Imaginarium Geographica novels there would not even BE an opportunity for more Starchild material. I would love nothing more than to continue to serialize (and complete) the Starchild graphic novels within the comics Direct Market - but at present, the readership of my illustrated novels outstrips the readership of the comics by a couple hundred to one. As far as I'm concerned, I'm just ensuring that I WILL eventually be able to complete Starchild in some form, because I'm building a global readership that will be interested in reading whatever else I do - which is one reason I illustrated the novels. People who like my art AND stories will (hopefully) also like my comics.
My dear friend Colleen Doran was recently advised by mutual pal Jeff Smith that she should finish HER longtime graphic novel project, A DISTANT SOIL. Trust me, she'd love nothing more - except for making a living. And right now, she is doing very well with her freelance work, and fits in her personal projectsl where she can. Frustrating to longtime readers? Sure. But she's just being pragmatic. And the thing is, the quality of her work (on whichever project) remains stellar.
We haven't sold out by doing work which provides us a living. We're just focused on different projects right now. The perception that I've (largely) moved away from comics is just that - I still love them, I still want to do them. And it's not as if I'm slacking on the IG novels. One a year, fully illustrated, is a decent pace. That's a lot of material. And as I said, I'm building a bigger audience to whom I can sell other work.
I love to create these books. I love the stories I'm telling, and I love it when one of the illustrations simply sings from start to finish. I'm thrilled that so many readers all over the world are enjoying them - and perhaps moreso that I have a publisher that does.
I've largely walked away from reading ANY reviews of or discussions of my books online - an awful lot of opinions out there (and it can make you bats when you find yourself sympathizing with a lousy review of your own work), but it's harder to ignore when someone emails you directly. And in an economic climate like this one, when I am utterly grateful to have a career which lets me live decently, pay my debts, and work on projects I love, it's very hard to hear that I've chosen to "Sell Out" because I'm focusing on something so "obviously commercial" instead of spending an equivalent amount of time and effort on something that, frankly, is just as commercial - but right now, doesn't pay as well.
If anyone else asks why, I'm going to give them the above link. And then I'm going to pray that I never see the world the way Monet did.
Page Summary
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
upstart_crow : (no subject) [+1] - syntart : (no subject) [+1]
- tchernabyelo : (no subject) [+4]
- roninspoon : (no subject) [+0]
- calimac : (no subject) [+1]
- adeluca : (no subject) [+3]
- satyrblade : (no subject) [+4]
- satyrblade : (no subject) [+1]
- kadymae : (no subject) [+0]
- iamheavenrender : (no subject) [+3]
- corvida : (no subject) [+0]
- dirigibletrance : (no subject) [+1]
- scribblerworks : (no subject) [+0]
- jhkimbrell : (no subject) [+0]
- _twilight_ : Havana Nights=political commentary? [+0]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+1]
- compa_mighty : My two cents [+0]
- sharonskinner : (no subject) [+1]
- satyrblade : ...and on that subject... [+0]
- quennessa : (no subject) [+0]
- stillsostrange : (no subject) [+1]
- (Anonymous) : heh [+1]
Comments
If the dragon books are selling and keeping you and your family from starving so you can actually complete the other book, then I don't see what the problem is. I would even hazard to guess that the people who see a problem either are not full-time artists or writers or have no idea what being a full-time artist or writer entails.
Can you imagine telling this to teachers? They love their jobs, there's often a concept of teaching as a vocation instead of just a career, and many teach on a volunteer basis. But calling them sell outs would be universally understood as ridiculous.
The analogy has holes in it, sure, but my point is this: if you're doing what you love, then you haven't sold out. If you're getting paid for doing what you love, then you are living the dream.
Bleah.
One of the things that worries me to a significant extent about the anti-DRM, anti-copyright protests - not that they are without some merit - is that they tend to forget that the CREATOR of the art needs recognition. 4Chan may attack youtube, Pirate Bay may attack Apple or Sony, but there's another step beyond that. Someone recently, talking about artists being paid (might have been Nick Mamatas, might have been Tim Lieder) recently said "no-one would expect a carpenter or plumber to work for free", and it's true. But art? Art is for some reason considered almost sacred, and should not be"sullied" by commercialism - even though the entire HISTORY of art has been commercial.
The ideal is to write exactly what you want to write, and have it sell in bucketloads. For a very few people, that happens (but, as noted, mostly it happens only AFTER they have "created" a situation where anything they do WILL sell - Neil Gaiman or Alan Moore can do it, for example, but Gaiman's Sandman was effectively work for hire at DC, for all that he put his own take onto those creations, they are NOT "his"). For most, there's a degree of compromise to be had.
Those who cry "sell-out" are those who simply don't understand the reality of art, and its commercial underpinnings.
No SHIT!
It's amazing - and infuriating - just how many people think that an artist should just produce his or her work "for the love of it," sharing it with whomever might desire it just... well, because that's what artists do. I had to point out, once, to a now-former business partner why we needed to pay the artists something for their work. "But aren't we promoting them by having them in our books?" he said. "Why do we need to pay them, too?"
"Because, " I countered, "they pay their rent with their work. And it is work."
"Oh," he goes, like it hadn't occurred to him before.
And for so many people, it never does.
Not really, but that's what some people think.
Hello? Look at history -- the government/ruling power has always been the most powerful patron of the arts.
Ditto that for the Dutch Masters. And the Romantic/ Gothic era, wherein many of the artists were either bored aristocrats (Byron, Shelly) or commissioned by the religious and governing authorities (as were Mozart, Bach, Goya and Beethoven).
Others find that if they can sell work that they haven't worked hard at, then why bother working hard? And then when they do try to work hard, they find they no longer know how. (And that's the answer to Apatoff's claim that "selling out" is rarely irreversible.)
I'm an un-apologetic Starchild fan from day one. I want so very, very much for Starchild to come back. I also LOVE the IG books, and I completely understand and embrace why you're able, now, to do one thing and not the other.
Peter David wrote about this really well once. Remember way back when Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman and Dave Sim each wrote an issue of Spawn? All of them wrote the stories they wanted to write. Dave went on to write a column explaining why he did it and that he donated all of the money he made to charity. To me, it seemed, he was explaining why he sold out and what he was doing to make it better.
Peter David was interested in this take and had a few things to say about it: One thing was that if Dave bought a Rolls Royce with his money, it wouldn't have been selling out, and that making money is not at all an evil thing. Peter came up with a scenario in his own writing where, maybe, it would've been considered a comprimise of his craft. Peter did not want to write the "dumb" hulk. He told Marvel. If Marvel had said "we'll quadruple your pay if you write "dumb" hulk stories" and then Peter said yes, basically doing something he utterly loathed, just for money, things would've been different. Like syntart wrote so well above, if you're doing something you LOVE, and are getting paid for it. . . you're doing the right thing.
No James. You're not a sell out. Your smart, and creative, and a good father, husband and friend, but absolutely not a sell out.
Now where's my Starchild! ;o)
Uh. Yes. Yes. If I could successfully write a stammering response I would (I'll leave that to you writer types!)
Oh James. That would be an appropriate response!
Yeeeaaaahhhhh!
Alex
William Shakespeare
Leonardo daVinci
Michaelangelo Buonarroti
Edgar Allen Poe
William Blake
Georgia O'Keefe
Amadaeus Mozart
Pablo Picasso
John Waterhouse
Christina Rosetti
In fact, some of the greatest masterpieces ever produced (including Henry V, the Sistine Chapel murals and Mozart's Requiem) were professionally commissioned works.
In art school, I grew disgusted with what I term the "green mohawker" mentality - that is, the idea that the only valid works of art were produced by nameless dudes with green mohawks laboring obscurely in some New Jersey basement. Bullshit! The idea that a "pure" artist lives only by the rare air of REAL ART(TM) and never that filthy demon, commerce, is a product of Industrial Era wannabe's who preferred to sit in taverns and drink all day (then go home with barmaids, give them syphilis, and soon die) than to work with Art as a trade. The proclamation "But I'm a real artist!" gives lazy sods an excuse to sit around all day and do nothing but chase the Muse... or, conversely, to produce shit no one understands, then staple one's hand to one's forehead while moaning about how "the common masses" just don't understand their great work.
As I teach my students, Art, ideally, exists on a spectrum between expression and communication. The Artist expresses, and (hopefully) the Audience understands. A work that resonates with that Audience (no matter how large or small it may be) helps them grasp the expression. Too much communication, and the work is simply information, not art; too much expression, and it's masturbation - it might be good for the Artists, but it doesn't do shit for anyone else.
And some greatly talented creative people do live in squalor because they don't know how to market their work--might not even try to sell it--but they invest vast amounts of time and effort into creating and refining their work. Or they do good work that isn't "for the masses," but they never put the work into finding out who their audience is and selling to that audience.
I was referring to the attitude some people (especially boho wannabes and art students who think they're being bold and original by ripping off Maya Deren) have toward the combination of art and commerce (hello, Andy Warhol, Peter Max and Aubrey Beardsley!), not toward the financial success or stability artists may or may not enjoy.
I was elaborating on the "bitter" comment I made and forgot to adequately transition into that tangent. Some people I've seen with that attitude are talented, skilled, and regularly produce work. They're disappointed that the short story they've never submitted anywhere hasn't made them rich and famous. They're angry that people haven't bought the pile of competent manuscripts that maybe five people have ever seen. They're hurt that no popular magazines want to run their photographs, when they don't even look at submission guidelines or believe in agents. They're furious that fancy galleries snub them when they showed up without appointments, dressed like transients, smelling like rotten garlic, and with no portfolio in hand.
That group of people is different from the initial group, which sits around believing that punctuation, like, inhibits creativity and bongo drums were cool until they became all trendy and mainstream.
America touts itself as the land of the free, but the number one freedom that you and I have is the freedom to enter into a subservient role in the workplace. Once you exercise this freedom you've lost all control over what you do, what is produced, and how it is produced. And in the end, the product doesn't belong to you. The only way you can avoid bosses and jobs is if you don't care about making a living. Which leads to the second freedom: the freedom to starve.
So yeah, if you want to avoid "bosses" and "jobs", you'd best think about your plan to cope with the 2nd freedom.
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/05/e
But, from one random internetter who loves books, let me say: Whatever pays the bills, pays the bills.
Authors are no different from musicians or artists. Sure you love your work, what you do, like making people happy with it. But you also love not starving!
Nobody gives musicians much grief for seeking after gigs, and everyone gives them a good pat on the back when they get signed to a major label and have "made it". I don't think it should be any different when an author it asked by a publisher to keep writing a certain series of books. If people are willing to buy them, there's nothing wrong with it.
The "sell out" chanting crowds are blind to the reality of life, that you are a person you don't exist *merely* to entertain them, you need to take care of yourself first.
So, don't pay too much attention to what they say.
But that sensitivity does leave one open to the stings planted by the clueless crit-ticks. The ones who will bite and hold on and not go away, no matter how annoying they are. And that is how you should think of them: ticks who are detrimental to your health.
Scripturally speaking, "the worker is worthy of his pay". That should be enough for the crit-ticks. If the pay is really, really good, more power to the worker. How can that possibly be "selling out"?
You are a wonderful storyteller, both visually and verbally. You deserve every penny that falls into your pocket - and all the dollars as well! And I, for one, do not regret a single penny I have spent on your work (and you know how much that is! ;-) ).
And now that I've buttered you up, Mr. Wonderful Artist and Writer, where's that cover piece I'm waiting on---?
:D
Anyone who accuses an artist (or writer) of selling out needs to pick up a pen, pencil, or brush, (or word processing program) and try their hand making a living at it. Then they can come back and talk about "selling out" with a real perspective on it.
Monet's wiring was off. Just WAY off. Fantastic artist with his head up his wazoo and his priorities wacked.
Just because something is commissioned or commercial work does not mean the artist doesn't find some joy in creating it. If there's joy in the creation, and pride in the quality of the work, it's not selling out. Same goes for choosing to work in a genre that has more commercial potential than another. If your heart is in it, then there's no selling out. Try to do something you absolutely don't want to for a quick buck. . . that's the other side of the coin. . . but most artists will initially attempt to take work that they know they can put their heart into. I don't think Monet ever figured this out.
Frank Lloyd Wright. . . took architecture commissions and was so proud and egotistical of the homes he designed that when you moved in, you couldn't rearrange the furniture without him returning and moving it back where he originally put it. His heart was so deep in his creations that he was rather on the extreme side of not-selling-out where he couldn't let go of his "babies".
I went to a fine arts college in which the majority of my art professors encouraged abstract art. I'm not crazy about abstract art (well, depending on what it is). I preferred comic and other types of illustrative art, to which said "fine artists" snubbed their noses because it was considered commercial, never mind that it was inspiring for me as as individual, and that is what should matter. Those non-commercial sensibilities of theirs didn't stop them from hoping to sell their own work in the galleries down town because they had to eat and support families, too. So, on the whole, we all end up in the same boat, don't we?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor
ex: My problems with Disney and people like Hannah Montana don't stem from their commercialism. Despite the dearest wishes of my English teacher, I love me some animated princesses, and "See You Again" is rather catchy. My problem comes when Hannah starts acting like she's, well, the word that comes to mind is "legitimate," but I don't think that's right. What I mean is that she's been popped up so much that there's no artist left. I sincerely doubt she writes her own Hannah songs, which, considering everything else, makes her little more than a puppet for a corporation. Of course, someone has to write those songs, and it doesn't detract for their "song-ness", but I think the difference comes in when people put her on the same level as other well-established artists who made it the hard way and have been writing songs since before she was born.
What I mean is, I don't see how she has earned the right to host or present at all those awards shows and stuff like that. Her music and persona aren't really hers. Her threat to destroy Radiohead is an example of how she's getting too big for her britches. In those terms, "selling out" constitutes "compromising your dignity by pretending your work is not what it is, usually for money."
*cough*
That wasn't supposed to turn into an anti-Hannah rant. What I mean is, "selling out" becomes an issue when the artist tries to act like that commissioned piece isn't just that. There's nothing wrong with it being commissioned that takes away its legitimacy as art, but the artist shouldn't pander to their patron and then act like their art is somehow purer than that of the artist next door. The development of a "holier-than-thou" complex is when an artist goes from "making money" to "selling out".
Of course, the fact that I'm not really an artist myself, and therefor don't really have a right to butt in on this conversation. probably robs my whole argument of its validity.
It bothers me that, as a society, we're sometimes so focused on style that substance is tacked on as an afterthought. I don't care about celeb breakups or which former star has a tiny bit of cellulite. Ew.
So if there's no money, there's no art. The artist has needs just as any other human being, and unless he finds the rare mecenas, he has to be his own, or find a job that pays for meals.
Perhaps you're not doing Starchild as many people would want you to... but your "commercial" venture is incredibly valuable artistically. You're creating an incredible story and helping people get to know the classics. That is priceless.
I do not call what Monet did having principles... that's just plain stupidity (I'm sorry) But letting your loved ones suffer just because you're stubborn is plainly irresponsible.
Personally, I am very glad you're able to earn a living from your creativity, and that the rest of us have an opportunity to experience and gain pleasure from your art. May it ever be so.
Gods forbid we should feed our families with our art! Gods forbid we should actually be recompensed for our labor and our artistic intelligence! Gods forbid we should have the damned temerity or arrogance to believe that we deserve to be remunerated for our contributions!
GAH!
Oh no. We should struggle and labor in obscurity because then our art is "pure!"
Bite me, you Bastard Art Elite Intelligentsia Jerkoffs.
I live and pray for the day that I can "sell out". So I can actually spend my days doing what actually matters to me, rather than pushing paper and answering phones. Having a dayjob doesn't make my damn art pure or higher or anything. It just makes it art.
*stabbystabbystabbystabbitystab*
To the specifics here, Starchild will get done. Nothing will stop you from finishing that. It's your heart. Anyone with a heart of their own can't miss that, when they hold an issue or copy of one of the graphic novels in their hands. The impatient ones can go soak their heads. You have responsibilities and commitments. And somehow comparing the Dragon books to Starchild and saying that the Geographica books are *lesser*???
GAH!
*stabstabstabstabstab*
I love Starchild. Fool's Hollow is one of my indelible memories from an SDCC years ago, when you and I had not actually met or knew each other in life. I just remember standing and staring at it and losing myself in the lines and detail.
But the Imaginarium Geographica is something that I'm going to get to share with my girls as they get older. I'm not necessarily going to get to share the feeling I had with Fool's Hollow. But these books? They're a gift.
I, for one, am grateful for the gift.
The Haters and Impatient Ones can go and soak their heads. You and I have more important things to do.
Sorry for the rant. I just can't stand that anyone even remotely thinks they can even dare to give you crap like that.
The irony of this kind of situation hit home personally when my City of Saints & Madmen came out from Bantam Books. It'd come out from an indie press originally, at which time it'd been seen as strange and quirky and surreal and most definitely not-commercial.
When it came out from Bantam and I had success getting it even more visibility, suddenly I was getting emails and comments from people either implying or directly saying I'd somehow sold out. Erm, on the same book that when it was just this cult thing fewer people knew about was hip and cool and different. So I think it's all b.s. re selling out, for the most part. And I'm not exactly known for having commercial tastes. jeffv
Yeah, I know what you mean. I got that when Starchild moved from my own imprint to Image - as if going with a publisher that took no ownership stake, while providing all the production, solicitation, and distribution somehow cheapened the work. Made it more 'common'.
There's a larger post brewing here somewhere about the perception that struggling somehow equates to creative credibility. (He said calmly drawing his pistol...)