Post by thehush on May 5, 2006 13:11:30 GMT -5
I'm making my next point in a separate post, because my last post was already running long. Please forgive me, but I wanted to make it easier on people following this thread.
I've noticed a lot of talk lately about equality of work between artists and writers. I'm honestly surprised this debate is even taking place.
The value of individual work is NOT equal in this industry. To get down to the basis of this argument- money- a single script put to page by a writer is of lower monetary value than a single script put to page by an artist. It is not an equal one-for-one trade. Period.
I have already gone over the bare basics of what each member of the team does. For clarification, read my prior post to this thread.
Now, while it is incredibly difficult to put a monetary value on something as abstract as putting a story to the page, it is still possible to justify higher value of an artist's work. This is, of course, assuming that the writer and artist are of equal calibre in their respective fields.
A writer must do research in order to properly craft a story. No offense, but an uneducated, ignorant writer is going to write crappy stories. So it is assumed that a writer will take the time to research necessary materials that he may need, if he doesn't already have that knowledge. A writer must then determine the plot, map out the plot, and put the plot in writing. He must properly format the script so the artist can follow it, and must accomplish the goal quickly so the artist has time to create the book.
But the writer generally only has to do the research once. Once he has done it, he should have sufficient notes or references available to jog his memory, if that much is even necessary. He doesn't have to go back and research the entire topic again from ground zero. Also, a writer can save his script in electronic format and email it to the editor or artist. It requires no materials beyond his computer.
An artist, however, always begins with a blank page. In the case of the inker or colorist, this translates to an uninked or uncolored page, but you get the idea. So not only does the paper elevate value, simply by being a required material, the artist does not have the benefit of having already drawn the page and just building from there. The artist has brushes, pencils, inks, erasers, straight edges and a million other possible tools that he must use. For our purposes, we will only consider the disposable materials, such as paper, ink, and things of that nature. Brushes, pens and pencils need to be replaced, but not as often, so do not contribute to this factor.
Where the writer can take a day or two to get the script together, the artist has a great deal more to do per page than a writer does, so that extends the amount of time spent on the book as a whole.
In today's industry, it's possible to produce a book with just hi-res scans of the original images, but I do believe a number of writers still want the original sheets, at least until publication. That is an additional cost the aritist often incurs to transport the art to the writer, if that happens on a particular book.
So, it's pretty simple to see how an artist's final work is generally granted higher monetary value than that of a writer.
With all that said, I want to answer a previous post that asked how it was fair for a new artist to get paid but a new writer does not and will foot the bill. It's pretty simple, really. With art, an editor or publisher can look at it and know if they like it. While there are a million artists out there, it's still pretty easy to decide from a few quick glances. With writers, an editor actually has to read the work. There are as many would-be writers as there are artists, and since it takes longer to decide if a writer "has it," an editor needs to KNOW the writer has it. Being published means you're going to get looked at. Artists don't have to be published.
Getting an artist on your script means you're going to increase your chances of getting looked at. That's why I'm actually paying to have my book drawn, inked, colored and published. I'll never get anywhere if I don't. There's not a company out there that will care about my work unless I have something VISUAL to show them. The visuals make it easier for them to read my story. If they like it, they can see the script. From there it goes up.
Very well. I'm done, for now.
I've noticed a lot of talk lately about equality of work between artists and writers. I'm honestly surprised this debate is even taking place.
The value of individual work is NOT equal in this industry. To get down to the basis of this argument- money- a single script put to page by a writer is of lower monetary value than a single script put to page by an artist. It is not an equal one-for-one trade. Period.
I have already gone over the bare basics of what each member of the team does. For clarification, read my prior post to this thread.
Now, while it is incredibly difficult to put a monetary value on something as abstract as putting a story to the page, it is still possible to justify higher value of an artist's work. This is, of course, assuming that the writer and artist are of equal calibre in their respective fields.
A writer must do research in order to properly craft a story. No offense, but an uneducated, ignorant writer is going to write crappy stories. So it is assumed that a writer will take the time to research necessary materials that he may need, if he doesn't already have that knowledge. A writer must then determine the plot, map out the plot, and put the plot in writing. He must properly format the script so the artist can follow it, and must accomplish the goal quickly so the artist has time to create the book.
But the writer generally only has to do the research once. Once he has done it, he should have sufficient notes or references available to jog his memory, if that much is even necessary. He doesn't have to go back and research the entire topic again from ground zero. Also, a writer can save his script in electronic format and email it to the editor or artist. It requires no materials beyond his computer.
An artist, however, always begins with a blank page. In the case of the inker or colorist, this translates to an uninked or uncolored page, but you get the idea. So not only does the paper elevate value, simply by being a required material, the artist does not have the benefit of having already drawn the page and just building from there. The artist has brushes, pencils, inks, erasers, straight edges and a million other possible tools that he must use. For our purposes, we will only consider the disposable materials, such as paper, ink, and things of that nature. Brushes, pens and pencils need to be replaced, but not as often, so do not contribute to this factor.
Where the writer can take a day or two to get the script together, the artist has a great deal more to do per page than a writer does, so that extends the amount of time spent on the book as a whole.
In today's industry, it's possible to produce a book with just hi-res scans of the original images, but I do believe a number of writers still want the original sheets, at least until publication. That is an additional cost the aritist often incurs to transport the art to the writer, if that happens on a particular book.
So, it's pretty simple to see how an artist's final work is generally granted higher monetary value than that of a writer.
With all that said, I want to answer a previous post that asked how it was fair for a new artist to get paid but a new writer does not and will foot the bill. It's pretty simple, really. With art, an editor or publisher can look at it and know if they like it. While there are a million artists out there, it's still pretty easy to decide from a few quick glances. With writers, an editor actually has to read the work. There are as many would-be writers as there are artists, and since it takes longer to decide if a writer "has it," an editor needs to KNOW the writer has it. Being published means you're going to get looked at. Artists don't have to be published.
Getting an artist on your script means you're going to increase your chances of getting looked at. That's why I'm actually paying to have my book drawn, inked, colored and published. I'll never get anywhere if I don't. There's not a company out there that will care about my work unless I have something VISUAL to show them. The visuals make it easier for them to read my story. If they like it, they can see the script. From there it goes up.
Very well. I'm done, for now.