"you are not entitled to the same service our clients are entitled to"

[marvelboi77]

Originally Posted by Mark brooks

Well, it was just me saying it, not anyone else. The term 'patron of the arts' has been around for a very long time and refers to the people that pay for artwork for their private collections. That's all it refers to, not the quality of work or the amount of consideration a patron receives. If it rubs you the wrong way then I apologize but you have to understand that the term, as it means to us, doesn't meant he same thing you apparently think it means. Read my original post in this thread. What I laid out is what a patron is and how they should be treated. Nothing more, nothing less.
And if you know of an artist that can produce 100 $600 sketches in a month please let me know. I would love to get in contact with him to get some pointers because I have yet to meet anyone that can accomplish that feat.=)

I'm not saying the person has done it, but if they can draw 4 a night at a convention they could draw 100 in 31 days if they wanted to.

My job is different but I've worked 91 days in a row 12 hours a day before was it pleasant no.. But I was willing to do it for the money. I could not always do it, just like an artist can't always produce, but they could do it one time if they really wanted the cash.. I'm just saying if an artists wants to print some money they can.... Must be nice. Also once that list had been punched out the demand would no longer be as high for the artists work...

[marvelboi77]

Now Mark get off these damn boards and start developing a Spider-Woman statue for Tim Miller to sculpt.

[Mfinn123]

Hi Bill,

....What a great forum and thanks to all of you who have welcomed me here. I will have to make it a point to be more active.

For what it is worth, I love getting commissions -- most of my experiences have been terrific and I've been very pleased by the wonderful artists, art reps and fellow collectors I've met and many of whom I now count as friends. Thanks so much for having me onboard.

Michael

[ratchet]

Originally Posted by kirthew

I was really offended by Mark's comments. I can see them all sitting around a room with their stacks of 'patron' cash. Debating on how many months and years they are going to make the 'patron' wait for their artwork.

It really is sad that we are fans of these artists, yet treated like crap. If we stopped buying their comics, they would have to find a new line of work. They should also consider that we are really their employers as we help fund the books they work on. We buy the statues they get commissioned for.

His whole post put a really bad taste in my mouth.

Originally Posted by Mfinn123

I commission all the time from artists. My theme is One Minute Later in which artists redraw published covers but have the action take place one minute later than that published. I have a few thoughts to share:

1) The Lee/Tim business deal didn't work out the way either wanted. I thought it was a nice move by the artist to offer the 3 finished pieces at a discount. And, it seems the artist is paying back the customer in full which puts the customer in a decent position. Unfortunately, the artist may not earn from eBay what he had hoped to for the commission. An unfortunate situation all around.

2) Convention sketches and at-home commissions are two different creatures. Yes, you will pay less for a con piece as you are getting 10 minutes to an hour normally of an artist's time. The anatomy and other aspects of the drawing may not be as good as the artist is doing a "quick sketch." For a commission done at home and much more expensive, you should expect better.

3) Re: Mark Brooks email -- I don't necessarily agree with Mark on his view of patron versus customer but I have no issue with Mark holding that view for himself. I'm not sure that is the historical view of the term -- I believe artists have constantly bemoaned that they are required to create the kinds of work desired by their patron and therefore I don't believe historically that a patron was one who accepted whatever the artist felt like giving.

On the subject of payment, that too is not a full view of commissions. Some artists don't have enough work to hit their desired income level so they turn to commissions in which case they can do no work or accept whatever the market says their work is worth. Other artists don't have to do commissions or are in huge demand and likely earn more than the company would pay them. I know certain Silver Age artists have been offered FIVE figures to do a commission and turned it down. I have a hard time believing that a customer (eg Marvel/DC) would pay 10,000 or more for a cover (though I would defer to others on that one as I confess that I'm not an expert in that area).

As for timing, these are commercial arrangements and at worst, the artist needs to get the commission done in a reasonable time (whatever a court might think that is) unless the parties have agreed otherwise. I tend to tell the people I commission that if it goes overlong, I will seek and expect a refund and we can both move on to other things. I am not a bank and I don't do loans -- if the artist doesn't want to finish the piece within a year, I usually take my money and spend it elsewhere. No harm and no foul.

I have always paid for my pieces even when some have been subjectively terrible. I might even say objectively terrible as everyone who has seen a few of them (including the art agent) said that the piece was pretty bad. Nonetheless, I preferred to pay the artist, put the piece in the closet, and not commission that artist again. No reason to tell them it was no good -- my view is you win some and you lose some on the commission game ....as long as I actually get the piece.

Hope this of use

I hope these are useful.

Michael

Great idea for the commissions - 1 minute later! Can you post some pics?

Originally Posted by risingstar

At the end of the day, should Brooks make himself available for commissions, there would probably be a long line up of "patrons" more than willing to accept his terms. However, as I believe my money and peace of mind warrants different terms, I'd simply choose to take my cash and conscience elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Mark brooks

And lastly, an artist is never your employee.

Best regards,
-Mark

You don't like being called an employee? Well, some of us don't like being called a patron.

[Underdog07]

Michael's one minute alters are on CAF really some incredible pieces

[ratchet]

Originally Posted by Underdog07

Michael's one minute alters are on CAF really some incredible pieces

Link?

[galactus]

Originally Posted by ratchet

You don't like being called an employee? Well, some of us don't like being called a patron.

employee

Definition

A person who is hired to provide services to a company on a regular basis in exchange for compensation and who does not provide these services as part of an independent business.

Well, I'd say Mark is right, unless you're using him on a regular basis?

[greenjeans1978]

You don't like being called an employee? Well, some of us don't like being called a patron.

Too bad, because that's exactly what we are.

Mr. Brooks' original statement was not, repeat, NOT hard to understand. DC and Marvel, as clients, have the money, the clout, and the authority to nitpick and art-direct an artist's work as much as they please. The artist knows that's part of the deal. An art collector, as a patron, does not have the money, the clout, or the authority to do any such thing. A commission is a one-on-one deal where some give-and-take is essential. Yes, the artist should uphold their end of the deal (deliver the art on or around the promised date, treat the customer with respect), but the patron should (a) respect the artist's commission policies, (b) not expect the artist to sacrifice everything to just to be their personal robot, (c) not nitpick and dictate every little detail of the drawing, and (d) not be so irresponsible as to ignore stuff like prelims and then cry foul over the final art.

Mr. Brooks is 100% right on this. It's his detractors who are in the wrong here. End of discussion.

[Mark brooks]

Originally Posted by ratchet

You don't like being called an employee? Well, some of us don't like being called a patron.

So glad you took the time to read my entire post and realize where I am coming from. You've obviously made up your mind so I'm not going to continue trying to convince you. MarvelBoi and I may not agree but we seem to have come to a mutual respect in our understanding of each other. If you don't want to or can't do the same then I guess it's gonna be on you and there's nothing more I can do.

[ratchet]

Originally Posted by galactus

employee

Definition

A person who is hired to provide services to a company on a regular basis in exchange for compensation and who does not provide these services as part of an independent business.

Well, I'd say Mark is right, unless you're using him on a regular basis?

Do you consider yourself a SF employee? Or glutton for punishment?

Originally Posted by greenjeans1978

Mr. Brooks is 100% right on this. It's his detractors who are in the wrong here. End of discussion.