[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Reductio Ad Absurdum. It is 1984 Dinosaur Time..!
Lowering prices can be a valid method of competing. It can be a blunt
destructive act of desperation, but it can also be a productive method.
In the automobile industry this is done by upping efficiency... hence
lower price per unit. Someone who can turn out 10 reconstructions a
month can charge less than someone who does 5. In illustration, this is
most likely achievable via toolset... digital tools enable re-use and
replication, efficient texturing, etc.
The lower wage could be offset by multiple exploitation... say the
traditional artist who sells still images on various licensing schemes
and then the original painting to boot. Or a sculptor can make a series
instead of one unique model.
The lower wage can be workflow oriented... in advertising it's common to
work for an "Aufwandsentschaedigung" - a risk wage. The artist works
cheaply with the agency on a pitch - but charges enough to cover costs,
an retains all rights. If the job goes through, they get the job at
full rate. This enables the producer to pitch quality work.
The lower wage can also be a result of living cost differences... the
vfx industry has given up bemoaning the fact that hordes of chinese,
phillipines and indians are now doing virtually all of the industry's
rotoscoping. Interestingly enough, after all the outrage, we've seen
that there are actuallymore jobs out there as a result because these
markets are now making films for their own huge markets. And they've
begun to differentiate between quality standards.
The inverse of this is targeting deluxe segments... this involves
educating the client about why price is justified and requires a
longer-term relationship. Sure this is happening as well.
I suspect that any demands for wage standards that do not reflect these
options will remain demands. On the other hand, I'm sure that there's a
wealth of opportunity in all of these options - particularly the last.
And that requires community outreach and a meaningful interaction
between the scientists, artists and distribution channels.
I feel what you're calling out is the very real destructive element, but
with out a realistic distinction I'm afraid the discussion won't lead to
the desired wave of solidarity.
How will they make a living by undercutting prices?
Do they think they can have a mortgage by going cheap?
No, all they can do is ruin the field and live in their parents'
basement the rest of their lives.
On Mar 15, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Mike Taylor wrote:
On 15 March 2011 14:41, Bob Tess <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I have become sickened by this thread. I can think of no other
besides art where people feel justified in telling other people they
not be allowed to make a living.
I assume you're referring here to Greg's telling young artists that
they're not allowed to establish themselves in the profession by
charging less than him?