4 ms·
The difference between you and I is that we both fund our art habits via our day jobs in tech but I didn't make the change...I started this way from the get go
by zeruch 5y ago
The difference between you and I is that we both fund our art habits via our day jobs in tech but I didn't make the change...I started this way from the get go intentionally so that I could make my art career the way I wanted (a compulsion, not an occupation).
You don't only "lose" artists to commercial art. Many choose it intentionally, because it can be its own reward. Whether it's fine artists who do comics, storyboards and magazine illustration (e.g. Bill Sienkiewicz, Kent Williams, Geof Darrow) or classic illustrators like Syd Mead, Bob Peak, Fuchs Norman Rockwell and sleeve designers like Saul Bass, Hugh Syme or Storm Thorgerson on down to weird mutant hybrids like the Emigre font house or Vaughn Olivers' v23 or the Bill Smith Studio....the line between "artist" and "commercial artist" is a blurry one.
I've moonlit as a commissioned painter and illustrator (whose work often enough ends up licensed for commercial purposes, usually book cover or musician-packaging) and I find zero issue bouncing between the two spaces. I know that is not necessarily for everyone, but its also not a small slice of folks either.
- dorkwood 5y agoI don't disagree with anything you've said. I'm not trying to argue that all commercial art corrupts artists. So many of the artists I look up to are commercial artists themselves. I'm more attacking the idea that an artist who learns to code is something to be sad about, because it will presumably sap them of their creative energy. My counterpoint is that an artist who has to turn their work into a commodity is at risk of losing their creativity as well.