Bowiesongs Extras

philsandifer:

anatomicalart:

briannacherrygarcia:

itscourtoon:

bathsabbath:

thorhugs:

compactcarl:

egriz:

im not even an artist and these prices are hurting my feelings 

This is what I have to dig through every time I look for new jobs to apply for.

For non-artists, let’s give you a little perspective.

For me, an illustration takes a bare minimum of 6 hours. Mind you, that’s JUST the drawing part. Not the research, or the communications, or gathering information. Just drawing.

That’s if it’s a simple illustration.

My art deco or more detailed stuff can take 20+ hours each.

Even simple, cartoony things still take at least 3 hours.

Let’s go with the second one. 2 illustrations for $25. Figuring 6 hours each. 12 hours total, for JUST the drawings. That’s approximately $2.08/hour. 

Asking these prices is an insult. But what’s even more hurtful is there are people out there that will take these jobs. Which only encourages rates like this to be acceptable. And there are people who will try to say these are just what you have to do to get started.

I believed that. So my first coloring gigs were just $10/page. The day someone offered me $25/page for just flatting work, I realized just how wrong I’d been. I’m still not making the rates I’d like, but now I refuse anything below $25/page. Because there is value in my time.

In any standardized industry, even ones that pay piece rate over hourly, these numbers are criminal.

Do your fellow artists a favor. Never accept jobs like these. There are others that pay legitimate rates. Or at least closer to legitimate.

Such baby bullshit. Don’t even get out of bed for these rates.

    If you are an artist who wants to make money off their art, I highly suggest you buy The Graphic Artist’s Guild Handbook. It goes in depth about copyright issues and even contains contract and model release templates. The 2013 book *I believe* states the average professional charges $72 an hour. This article calculated that to make a 40k annual salary you would need to charge about $60 per hour.

  After graduating from Art Center in 2012, I think I asked for somewhere between $35-45 an hour and got laughed at by multiple big name clients, which was infuriating, sadly expected, and terrifying with over $100K worth of student loans staring me in the face. If they tell you it will be “great exposure” that’s a red flag. Ask yourself how their exposure can compare to your Tumblr, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Flickr and Facebook pages combined? 

And when you do get a decent paying gig, PROTECT YOURSELF. You have the right to negotiate and revise a contract. Do not start a job until you have a contract signed. If they don’t provide you with one, MAKE ONE. And make sure you have your bases covered. You can specify in a contract that maybe two revisions are included in your cost, and if they ask you to revise the piece more than twice, they will have to pay extra. In terms of payment schedule, I usually do the 50/50 Method (50% before, 50% after) or the 3/3/3 Method (1/3 before, 1/3 in the middle, 1/3 after all work has been received). Both of those are pretty standard in the industry, as they guarantee you will get compensated for your time, even if the job goes bad.

Remember you have a skill, and you have spent time honing that skill and you deserve to be adequately paid for that time and effort. You will have clients dismiss you because, honest to God they think, “Well, I could do that if I wanted. Hell, my five year old does it now.” No they can’t, because they didn’t, they don’t, they won’t and they probably never will. And good luck hiring a five year old. They can’t keep a fucking deadline.

And in a last ditch effort they’ll say, “But that drawing only took you an hour!” Son, that drawing took me 20. fucking. years.

10 Dollars for 1 minute of animation.  Oh my god my heart.  It took my team 6 months and a team of 12 to make a 4 minute short. 

The Graphic Artist’s Guild Handbook

I second this book! I’ve had it for several years now, and it’s been a HUGE help in my work as a freelance artist. It gives great advice on what to charge for different areas of art!

Please remember. Your art is worth a respectable payment! Accepting ridiculously low prices actually hurts the arts/illustration/animation communities because it makes employers believe they can employ people without offering decent pay.


Check the internet if you need help figuring out what you should be charging for your commissions. Invest in the books that will inform you professionally, and put your foot down if you think someone is trying to cheat you out of your time and hard work.
You have a right to refuse a job, and/or request decent payment. If your employer denies a you decent pay, well then they’re probably not a very good employer.
Do not undersell your skills. it is bad for the art community and you are worth more then that.

Whenever things like this come up, I feel obliged to offer thanks for the people who have contributed work for Eruditorum Press stuff at well below market rate.

So. Thank you to Alison, Chris, Millie, and James, all of whom have worked at way below market rates for no reason other than that they like me, my work, or both and want to help. My appreciation knows no bounds. I could pay twice as much for editing than I do and get someone who’s half as good as Alison, Chris, and Millie, and I could pay five times what I do and get covers that are wildly less good than the stunners James gives me. (And seriously, the Williams book is amazing. His best cover yet. It is impossible not to smile while looking at it.) 

It’s an honor to call all of them friends. 

well, thanks, Phil. back at you. There is a great difference between offering your services for relatively cheap for someone whose work you enjoy (& for something you know has a legit. v. limited budget) & someone who sends me a note (not long ago) suggesting that I “migrate” some Bowie writing to their platform. Not for any money OF COURSE, HOW GAUCHE but for…wait for it..”exposure.”

when we live in a world where the NFL is trying to get pop stars to work for free (& even pay!) at the Superbowl for “exposure” you’ve gotta pick your battles.

"Sister Midnight" bass

First, play this:
G|————————-|————————-|
D|————————-|————————-|
A|————————-|————————-|
E|-3~———————|-5~———————|


Then the rest of the song goes like this:
G|————————-|————-2-4——-|
D|————————-|——————-3-5-|
A|————————-|————————-|
E|-3—-331-3———-|-3—-331————-|


Sometimes you skip that little fill and just play this:
G|————————-|————————-|
D|————————-|————————-|
A|————————-|————————-|
E|-3—-331-3———-|-3—-331-3———-|

And that’s pretty much it.”

(from the Stooges forum)

inkhornterm:

Originally posted 8 September 2008. Spotify is missing the orig. “Day In the Life,” Wire’s “Reuters" and Henley’s "Dirty Laundry.

(I’ve never done good things) (I’ve never done bad things) (I never did anything out of the blue) (Woah-oh)

automatic reblog

One simple way of grasping the magnitude of what has happened to London over the last thirty years is to compare the introductions to the first and most recent editions of Edward Jones and Christopher Woodward’s Guide to the Architecture of London.

In 1983, they wrote of a city in decline, its population down by about a sixth from its postwar height. ‘London is cleaner and uglier than it was at the beginning of the century; but it is still cosmopolitan, multiracial and – thanks to its scattered structure – easy to live in.’…

Thirty years later, in 2013, the calm, slightly rueful optimism has gone. London’s population is near its peak, its skyline mangled by ‘the erection of tall buildings, especially if they are of eccentric or self-promoting “iconic” design’, its scattered structure filled in through ‘central government’s quite gratuitous policy of “densification”’, ease of living made all but impossible for anyone other than the very wealthy, with a property bubble that ‘shows no signs of abating.’

Owen Hatherley, “Serried Yuppiedromes.”
philsandifer:

ununnilium:

Ironically, this feels like exactly the kind of complaint about the world a baby boomer would make - that that stuff kids today watch has gotten dumb. The problems with media today are legion - among them, lack of representation, stereotypes on the people they do represent, and a reliance on the idea that the world is dark and scary and dangerous (especially in our critically-acclaimed media) - but I wouldn’t say it’s any more shallow than it was in 1994, or 1984, or 1974, or 1964, or 1954.

I hereby sentence anybody who talks about the dumbed down media of the present day to attempting to sit through entire episodes of Romper Room without their eyes bleeding. 

"Vapid Music" = what someone in their 40s thinks of today’s pop music, as if George Michael or James Taylor had been revolutionaries. & what is a "Top Ten Pop Station" anyhow? It plays ten songs only, or only songs that crack the top 10? Has the poster-maker listened to the radio since 1995?
and TV in general, even reality shows, is far better crafted than it was in whatever fucking halcyon period this poster pines for. Sit down and watch a season of the most revered, “serious” TV program of the 1980s (say, “Hill Street Blues”) and put it up against, say, “True Detective.” Get back to me. Some things actually improve. (Another example: go back to the 1970s and order a beer in an American bar.)
Appealing to generational solidarity is a mug’s game. The Boomers actually were something of a threat—-something like one in every third person in West Germany was under 20 at one point in the ’60s—-and despite this they were catered to, set against each other, and due to various reasons, including the fact they were fallible human beings, many eventually became placid and compromised. Others are still pissed off and remain radical activists, and painting them as part of some cabal to Oppress the Youth is rather fucking defamatory.
"They cut off your Art," although you can see any masterpiece in Western art whenever you’d like on-line, which something nobody except a handful of rich eccentrics were able to do for most of human history. "They took away your music"  except that that you can listen to seemingly any piece of music ever recorded now. If they Took It Away, they did a piss-poor job of it, as you can still find It pretty easily.
If I have accrued any wisdom at age 42, as the son of Boomers, it’s that setting people against their parents and grandparents does not work. Building a political coalition based on people staying 25 forever does not work.

philsandifer:

ununnilium:

Ironically, this feels like exactly the kind of complaint about the world a baby boomer would make - that that stuff kids today watch has gotten dumb. The problems with media today are legion - among them, lack of representation, stereotypes on the people they do represent, and a reliance on the idea that the world is dark and scary and dangerous (especially in our critically-acclaimed media) - but I wouldn’t say it’s any more shallow than it was in 1994, or 1984, or 1974, or 1964, or 1954.

I hereby sentence anybody who talks about the dumbed down media of the present day to attempting to sit through entire episodes of Romper Room without their eyes bleeding. 

"Vapid Music" = what someone in their 40s thinks of today’s pop music, as if George Michael or James Taylor had been revolutionaries. & what is a "Top Ten Pop Station" anyhow? It plays ten songs only, or only songs that crack the top 10? Has the poster-maker listened to the radio since 1995?

and TV in general, even reality shows, is far better crafted than it was in whatever fucking halcyon period this poster pines for. Sit down and watch a season of the most revered, “serious” TV program of the 1980s (say, “Hill Street Blues”) and put it up against, say, “True Detective.” Get back to me. Some things actually improve. (Another example: go back to the 1970s and order a beer in an American bar.)

Appealing to generational solidarity is a mug’s game. The Boomers actually were something of a threat—-something like one in every third person in West Germany was under 20 at one point in the ’60s—-and despite this they were catered to, set against each other, and due to various reasons, including the fact they were fallible human beings, many eventually became placid and compromised. Others are still pissed off and remain radical activists, and painting them as part of some cabal to Oppress the Youth is rather fucking defamatory.

"They cut off your Art," although you can see any masterpiece in Western art whenever you’d like on-line, which something nobody except a handful of rich eccentrics were able to do for most of human history. "They took away your music"  except that that you can listen to seemingly any piece of music ever recorded now. If they Took It Away, they did a piss-poor job of it, as you can still find It pretty easily.

If I have accrued any wisdom at age 42, as the son of Boomers, it’s that setting people against their parents and grandparents does not work. Building a political coalition based on people staying 25 forever does not work.

Elizabeth Warren, 1970.

Elizabeth Warren, 1970.