WILLCRAFT @ when you go to graphic designer , you going for helping ...if you dont know about graphics and you just imagine something that not means you have a good idea , if your graphics designer said not good means not good
You are being paid to perform a service. If you do not want to perform that service, do not make a contract with the person who wants you to do so. This is like your client saying, I am a client, not a piggy bank, I am not a simple tool to enable you to acquire currency. When you design for someone, they ultimately have authority.
Wow. I thought this was pretty funny, but would never have guessed all this... tension... would come of it.
I suppose this piece may contain some commentary about the quality of the ideas that come from the people the artist works for - everyone has opinions about their jobs, as anyone doing the same thing for hours a day would - but some of the rest of the interpretations are nothing what I was thinking at all when I read it.
All I got out of it was that the artist doesn't like to be treated like a thing, and would rather be treated as a person. People who provide services are often seen as a means to an end, not human beings. I should know, I fix computers for people who don't know how they work, don't know anything about how they got so broke, love free pornography, don't believe in antivirus software, and want them fixed five minutes ago, but don't feel like they should pay for my knowledge and expertise because - you know - computers, right?
So it goes.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your work with us xyphid. I enjoyed your piece. I hope your today was a little better.
Well, see, you are a tool to execute your clients' ideas. You're paid to do what other people tell you. If they want you to execute their ugly ideas, you had better execute their ideas if you want to eat that night. I'm getting a little bit tired of workers feeling more and more entitled to more and more stuff. I'm with the Occupy and Other 98% movements when it comes to higher wage, fair treatment and equal pay, but I am NOT with them on the notion (especially with creative workers) that they ought to be able to just create and design beautiful, inspired art all the time. No, that's not what you do. You're paid to bring others' visions to fruition. Do that job, or leave a space for someone else who IS willing to actually do WORK.
He's not obligated to take certain jobs. If he can get by with what he's paid, that's good for him. The person who wants their thing designed probably isn't gonna give up on it just because one artist doesn't want to, and thus the job goes to someone else. Art isn't just a labor, it's a passion. And art might not be his only job. I agree with you that the 99% doesn't deserve what they have and needs to share, but that doesn't mean this guy is part of the problem, or even relevant to the problem. Stop trying to push your political agenda in places where it doesn't belong. This is a guy's right, and his subjective opinion, and hardly related to corporations owning most of the wealth. This is an artist working alone, not some CEO exploiting the system.
Please, just stop. You're making Liberals like me look bad.
I wasn't trying to push a political agenda? I was simply disagreeing with the message in the image. I appreciate the effort to make debate, but I think you misinterpreted what I said. If he can pick and choose his jobs, that's fine. He is belly-aching about a problem that he ought not have, then, and if he can barely live on what he makes, he should start taking more jobs or not being picky. The picture either seems like:
A.) The artist is complaining about having to do a job as he's asked and not being able to do what he wants, or... B.) He is complaining about too many people who try to commission his work aren't the kind of clients he prefers to do business with.
His options for either of these are:
A.) Stop complaining, buckle down and do the work that he needs to do so he can get his money and eventually get better commissions, or... B.) Quit taking business from clients he prefers not to work with.
So he is either complaining about a problem that EVERYBODY has, or he's sort of "First World Artist" complaining, meaning that he's well-known enough that he can live off his art, yet he can't see that such a condition is a dream come true for most artists and finds something to gripe about even in happiness and luxury. Work is work. If he can't realize that he won't be able to just do whatever he wants all the time, then he ought to just go live on an island somewhere. Because everywhere you work you're going to have to do what others say. Commissioned artwork is no different. The only difference is that with commissions, your bosses change more frequently.
So, you're telling him he can't vent and let other artists that feel the same relate to him? He probably doesn't take those jobs, and the people trying to hire him probably pitch a fit over it, hence this picture. I've been there.
I still have NO IDEA what this has to do with the Occupy movement. Still seems pretty irrelevant.
It has to do with workers who feel slighted and kept down by means of work. It's highly relevant in all things. Everything is connected in a deep way. Yes he is allowed to rant, but gods be damned if this isn't whiny milk-drinker stuff. Part of being a professional is NOT letting it all hang out on a professional stage. I envy him if he can belly-ache about his customers in front of his customers.