[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..!
On 15 March 2011 16:27, ralphchapman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> C'mon Mike, don't misrepresent what Bob and Tess have been saying. There's a
> huge difference between saying everyone should charge a large premium price
> and saying that artists should charge enough to ensure not only that they
> can make a living but that there is the possibility of a profession at all.
OK, it may be that I wrongly conflated Bob/Tess's message with Greg's
plan to establish a minimum fee. If I misunderstood here, and
Bob/Tess were in fact taking the less draconian position that
palaeoartists should seek to charge what they can when working for
commercial (rather than scientific) commissions, then of course I have
no quarrel with that, and I apologise for misrepresenting them.
> For money people - and I learned this straight from Isaac Asimov in a
> conversation I had with him right before he passed away - they value the
> product by what they pay for it and if outlets that are making big sums of
> money on their products think real paleoart is worth next to nothing because
> they found someone who will just throw their stuff at them, that is all they
> will ever pay for it. The first job you took as a programmer at least paid
> you enough to live and progress in your profession, even if it was real
> tight. I know it took a while for me to earn reasonable dollars. That is
> what paleoartists should try and do also, not undercut themselves in the
> long run.
> Further, given that Bob and Tess have not suggested an enforcement bureau
> for art pricing, they are simply advising and requesting that paleoartists
> consider this in their pricing and business practices. It's their bloody
> right to do so and as senior people in the paleoart community, they just
> might know something that is useful to young artists who wish to continue in
> the profession. Tess especially paid for this right by publishing a great
> book that helps aspiring artists learn how to protect their work, establish
> copyright etc. and by their constant helping of young paleoartists. Further,
> Bob and most other senior paleoartists still often work with scientists in a
> way they can afford, or for free, when circumstances require and they are
> not suggesting that paleoartists stick it to scientists.
> So don't distort their message, it muddles the dialog and does you
> injustice. Now I have no idea what Greg is really suggesting, so I'll not
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu [mailto:owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu] On Behalf Of
> Mike Taylor
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:12 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Reductio Ad Absurdum. It is 1984 Dinosaur Time..!
> On 15 March 2011 14:56, Bob Tess <email@example.com> 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' basement
>> 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 as you
> publicly earned the right to?
> When I started my own professional life (as a computer programmer), I
> 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 had to
> 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 family,
> etc.) Happily, it turns out that I didn't "ruin the field" along the
> 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 are
> no entry-level jobs in palaeoart, and consequently no way for
> newcomers to the field to get a foot on the ladder. To speak frankly,
> 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 hope
> 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 most
> certainly have a chilling effect on newcomers to the field of
> palaeoart. I don't think that's something that we as a community can,
> 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 clear
> advantage in the first of these (and, if we take Greg's claims at face
> 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 less
> than I do. Why shouldn't it be the same in palaeoart?
> -- Mike.
>> 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?