FA+
Shop
How furry art gets made (a perspective)
13 years ago
General
I don't talk about myself much here, mainly because I don't really consider myself part of the furry community. I don't participate much, nor am I inclined to do so (for various reasons). I've noticed some things about the community that I feel compelled to write down, because, shit, uh, YOLO? YOLOSWAG? But seriously, some things just strike me as odd.
First are the artists. There are a lot of artists here (duh). This is only to be expected, given how much of the fandom exists because of the work artists do. What surprises me is the way so many people misunderstand what artists do. I've purchased the services of many on this site, so I know how the process works. Many people on this site operate under the illusion that artists offer products, rather than services. I've seen complaints here and there about the price an artist will charge for a picture; reflexively, artists sometimes complain that people do not often enough think highly of the field they work on. Content creators have not helped this perception by offering commissions at set prices. Pricing schedules for different types of work reinforce this way of thinking by presenting services as static, unchanging levels of service, rather than revealing the complexities of working in different mediums.
A more accurate way to charge for services rendered would be to offer work at hourly rates. Doing so would mean that artists are compensated for every hour of work performed. For flat pricing, artists lose money when their estimate of the time for a piece is underestimated; consumers lose money when they overpay for work that takes less time to render than what the artist charges for. Under an hourly rate, the guesswork is eliminated, and this benefits both the client and the illustrator. The pricing scheme is transparent to all, eliminating the misperception that artists overcharge for their work. Given that a fully colored and rendered work takes anywhere five to ten hours to create in some cases, it is not a difficult matter to determine which artists are working for roughly the minimum wage when you consult the price schedule published by the artist. I consider this a great shame. Furry artists achieve success by cultivating a combination of technical, creative, and business related skills. And yet, all too often I see that illustrators sometimes do this highly skilled work with such great passion and such little respect.
I am also inclined to note that artists receive much scorn for auctioning off their work with preposed bodies. In economics, auctions are in one of the more accurate ways of determining the worth of an item--here, the subject being an artist's time. Preposing images is a way to lower the barrier of entry for clients, who may want the services of an artist but are too busy or not sufficiently creative to contribute constructively to the development of a piece. The same amount of work is done by the artist in the end for a fully rendered work--sketching, inking, coloring, shading, effects, text, etc.--but for ineffable reasons, large swaths of people consider the combination of such services to be offered in the pursuit of lazy profit. Indeed, look at the mere mention of a your-character-here auction and you're bound to see comments opining that the illustrators who offer them are lazy or out to make a quick buck. I see nothing lazy about the exercise of skills needed to create an illustration, none of which are diminished by merely preposing its subjects. Rather, artists are being paid at rates typically not seen outside of auctioned services, leading to the misconception that maybe artists are being overpayed for the rare auction, when in reality they may be underpaid for most of the work they do.
Ultimately I think the furry art ecosystem has failed to cultivate a respectful relationship between clients and artists. As the situation stands, prices are obtusely set for work, many artists are underpaid relative to the value of their skills, and efforts to make more money are scorned. At least, that is my interpretation of the situation. As I am not an artist, I do not have a full view of the situation; I can only lend my opinions as a client. Nevertheless, I note down my thoughts not to castigate the furry fandom (as I am in no position cast judgment on anyone), but to encourage the reform of a broken system.
First are the artists. There are a lot of artists here (duh). This is only to be expected, given how much of the fandom exists because of the work artists do. What surprises me is the way so many people misunderstand what artists do. I've purchased the services of many on this site, so I know how the process works. Many people on this site operate under the illusion that artists offer products, rather than services. I've seen complaints here and there about the price an artist will charge for a picture; reflexively, artists sometimes complain that people do not often enough think highly of the field they work on. Content creators have not helped this perception by offering commissions at set prices. Pricing schedules for different types of work reinforce this way of thinking by presenting services as static, unchanging levels of service, rather than revealing the complexities of working in different mediums.
A more accurate way to charge for services rendered would be to offer work at hourly rates. Doing so would mean that artists are compensated for every hour of work performed. For flat pricing, artists lose money when their estimate of the time for a piece is underestimated; consumers lose money when they overpay for work that takes less time to render than what the artist charges for. Under an hourly rate, the guesswork is eliminated, and this benefits both the client and the illustrator. The pricing scheme is transparent to all, eliminating the misperception that artists overcharge for their work. Given that a fully colored and rendered work takes anywhere five to ten hours to create in some cases, it is not a difficult matter to determine which artists are working for roughly the minimum wage when you consult the price schedule published by the artist. I consider this a great shame. Furry artists achieve success by cultivating a combination of technical, creative, and business related skills. And yet, all too often I see that illustrators sometimes do this highly skilled work with such great passion and such little respect.
I am also inclined to note that artists receive much scorn for auctioning off their work with preposed bodies. In economics, auctions are in one of the more accurate ways of determining the worth of an item--here, the subject being an artist's time. Preposing images is a way to lower the barrier of entry for clients, who may want the services of an artist but are too busy or not sufficiently creative to contribute constructively to the development of a piece. The same amount of work is done by the artist in the end for a fully rendered work--sketching, inking, coloring, shading, effects, text, etc.--but for ineffable reasons, large swaths of people consider the combination of such services to be offered in the pursuit of lazy profit. Indeed, look at the mere mention of a your-character-here auction and you're bound to see comments opining that the illustrators who offer them are lazy or out to make a quick buck. I see nothing lazy about the exercise of skills needed to create an illustration, none of which are diminished by merely preposing its subjects. Rather, artists are being paid at rates typically not seen outside of auctioned services, leading to the misconception that maybe artists are being overpayed for the rare auction, when in reality they may be underpaid for most of the work they do.
Ultimately I think the furry art ecosystem has failed to cultivate a respectful relationship between clients and artists. As the situation stands, prices are obtusely set for work, many artists are underpaid relative to the value of their skills, and efforts to make more money are scorned. At least, that is my interpretation of the situation. As I am not an artist, I do not have a full view of the situation; I can only lend my opinions as a client. Nevertheless, I note down my thoughts not to castigate the furry fandom (as I am in no position cast judgment on anyone), but to encourage the reform of a broken system.
However if artist charge by the hour then inevitably there will be people whining about not having proof of how long it actually took or less honest artists inflating the cost to make extra money. Short of streaming or recording the whole process, there's no way around this.
The artist could charge up front for a set number of hours then only contribute that number of hours to the piece but then that ends in sub-par or incomplete pieces, which wont end well either.
I think this just boils down to if the artist is an ass and not trustworthy or if he or she does conduct fair business.
Many professional illustrators have an hourly fee, estimate how many hours a given project should take, receive at least HALF payment for that work down, then ask for the rest afterwards. Someone may get stiffed a little along the way, but it's the only reliable way for an artist to make sure they get at least a portion of their money without the risk of a commissioner taking the art and running off with it (which seems to be a legitimate problem in some parts of the fandom).
First, let's assume there are 100,000 FA users. Using popufur.com, I estimate that there are 3,500 "in-demand" artists on the site. Let's say that in-demand artists are artists who acquire clients through FA, produce furry work, and have over 1,500 watchers. I chose this number semi-arbitrarily, but if you look at popufur.com I think it works.
So we start with a pool of 3,500 possible artists. Now, let's say I want to commission an artist for some scalie porn. (I know this situation sounds implausible, but bear with me.) To start, let's say 80% of artists will draw porn. Pool is at ~2,800 artists.
Since scalie art could be considered speciality field, fewer artists are experts in it. I would estimate that 35% of artists would draw scalies in a way that I would want to commission them. Pool is at ~980 artists.
We haven't accounted for time yet. Many in-demand artists are busy--that's why they open up commissions in slots, or have a queue of waiting clients. I would estimate that 15% of in-demand artists could give me a slot at this very moment. The most popular artists are all booked up. WFA, for instance, is entirely unavailable to new clients until August. I COULD get a slot for August, though. So rather than using immediate availability as a criteria, I'll use 1-month availability.
That seems like a lot. But even here, we have not factored in price, higher levels of specialization, medium, or type of work.
Let's say I am willing to pay for the prices of 50% of in-demand artists. Pool goes to ~98 artists.
Let's say 90% of in-demand artists work in digital art. Pool goes to ~88 artists.
Let's say I like the style of maybe 40% of in-demand artists. For instance, while I respect
Let's say that I am aware of 75% of artists that I WOULD like, but don't. Unless I spend a lot of time perusing other people's favorites list, I won't discover many artists. Pool goes to ~26.
There are probably more criteria I have not considered. The point is that at any one time, the number of artists I would commission for digital scalie smut within a 1 month window is incredibly small. At this level, I think that it becomes hard to say that artists have a lot of competition. Yes, there are many talented artists on FA, but the number "competing" for my wallet at any given moment is quite small.
However, when you look back and examine those artists who work has not attracted a major following, regardless of talent (which will still vary quite widely), I think you'll find that when they are considered, the number of artists that offer work and commissions and the number of people willing to take them up on that offer is at a disparity - thus they are not able to command as high a price as the artists in the above paragraph and are subject to the effects of competition from similarly skilled/priced artists. Coupled with this is the effect that the more popular an artist is, the more they can ask for their work, given that there is a prestige attached with their name.
Then you go into the less skilled artists who take much longer to do work. All of a sudden, highly in-demand artists go relatively cheaply because they can dish our digital art at a rather fast rate. This could stress them out, and make the less skilled, or similarly talented/skilled artists, who take longer to make an artwork become much less desirable unless their pricing per hour becomes lower than minimum wage.
I am also inclined to say that some artists can be complete assholes to their clients they have, or have this rather snobbish/elitist vibe with them. Not saying it's all of them, but a few of the popular ones do.
Just my opinion. Artists being underpaid? I find some are being paid rather well, seeing how much they can dish out and start commissioning again. Plus it's their choice for their line of work, and they should expect that consequence. To be honest, in my personal opinion, their line of work should be more of a hobby, rather than a main source of income. The more bitching I see from an artist ranting about their clients not appreciating them just makes it seem like they are working a job they don't like, rather than going out and trying to do something they enjoy, or get into something they enjoy. Again, they should've expected this consequence from people, as it will ALWAYS happen, no matter what they charge.