On 15 March 2011 14:56, Bob Tess <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
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'
the rest of their lives.
Really, Bob? Really? When you first entered the field, did you
charge then what you charge now? Before you had a reputation and a
portfolio to lean on? When you didn't have such heavy financial
responsibilities as you do now? Or did you start at the bottom,
charging lower fees to get your early work, and then escalating
publicly earned the right to?
When I started my own professional life (as a computer
didn't apply for jobs that pay what I am earning now; in fact, in my
first full-time professional job, I was paid less than a quarter of
what I earn now (and I couldn't afford a mortgage on that -- I
rent a room to live in.) Over time, as my experience and expertise
increased, I was able to apply successfully for more prestigious and
lucrative jobs (and eventually to get that mortgage, support a
etc.) Happily, it turns out that I didn't "ruin the field" along
Isn't that how it works in every profession?
In insisting that people starting out in palaeoart not undercut your
prices, you and Greg are trying to effectively make it that there
no entry-level jobs in palaeoart, and consequently no way for
newcomers to the field to get a foot on the ladder. To speak
whatever your and Greg's actual intention, this comes across as a
self-serving attempt to erect a barrier to entry into the field, and
to keep all the work for a small number of Boys' Club members. I
and trust that I am misreading your intentions, but that's how it
LOOKS, and if I see it that way then you can bet that lots of the
up-and-coming palaeoartists will see it the same way.
And whether you intend it or not, a mandatory minimum price would
certainly have a chilling effect on newcomers to the field of
palaeoart. I don't think that's something that we as a community
in good conscience, support.
Competition for work in the field of palaeoart is by reputation,
quality and price. You, Greg and other established names have a
advantage in the first of these (and, if we take Greg's claims at
value, in the second, too). You can't just legislate that the third
isn't to be a factor. When I apply for programming work, I have to
compete on quality against less experienced candidates who charge
than I do. Why shouldn't it be the same in palaeoart?
On Mar 15, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Mike Taylor wrote:
On 15 March 2011 14:41, Bob Tess <email@example.com> wrote:
I have become sickened by this thread. I can think of no other
besides art where people feel justified in telling other
not be allowed to make a living.
I assume you're referring here to Greg's telling young artists
they're not allowed to establish themselves in the profession by
charging less than him?