How do I handle it when someone commissions artwork and then (potentially) rejects it

OK, I'm in this situation, and I need some advice.

I was selected to be one of 20 artists creating pieces inspired by this band's single. The brief was really open ended, my impression of it, was make some work in your usual style or medium, inspired by the single.

So, I started work on it. Now, with only a couple of weeks to go (and I've already put several weeks' work into it) the band leader has seen the sketches/preliminary exploratory work - and decided that he doesn't like it because they "didn't want just artwork, they wanted a piece inspired by the music." I think the sticking point is that the piece involves a portrait of him.

Now I, as an artist, have a very specific style. I am primarily a portrait artist, albeit in a psychedelic style. My reaction to this song (a cover of a 60s psych classic) was to do a very 60s Fillmore style poster involving a portrait, text, etc.

Now the band are turning around and saying, no, this is not what they want because they think I'm designing a single cover, and that's not what they want.

How do I handle this? Do I...

1) say thank you very much but no thanks and withdraw from the whole thing because I really didn't think that my choice of how I express myself was going to be controlled or rejected in this way

2) do I stick my ground, explain that, actually this *IS* my style and my artistic statement, and the reasoning behind it (hello! I submitted a Flickr portfolio that was all portraits and Fillmore style posters THIS. IS. WHAT. I. DO.)

3) do I half-ass a new work, even though I don't really have the time or the energy to do something from scratch

My feathers are quite ruffled right now and my feelings are a bit hurt so I want to discuss this with other people before I reply to them.

Shit, this was supposed to be on I Love Everything. I suppose it doesn't matter, since it is artwork for a piece of music, but still. Could a kind mod move it if they get a chance?

A little from number 2) and then if that doesn't work, go with 1).

yeah - unless there's a serious financial or recognition incentive, 3) is just going to make you miserable and annoyed. would go with 2), stressing that you'd made your aesthetic clear in advance and that they knew about it, don't necessarily threaten 1) but go with the "let's see if we can find some way to make this happen" approach - if they're still hardline and you can't see any way fwd on your terms - then and only then go with 1)

I just feel weird having to defend my art. Like, this was the bit at art school I was the most rubbish about - writing artists statements and all that kind of thing. I kinda feel like "it is what it is, you look at it."

In case you're curious, this is a preliminary of it:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/masonicboomk8/4043070810/

It's going to be a lot more detailed but that's the general layout.

caek otm. it's frustrating to have put the work in for nothing, but i wouldn't take it personally: it doesn't sound at all they like they have a problem with the quality of your work, they've just been a bit casual in communicating what they wanted.

fwiw, i know the band a bit and the singer tends to be uncomfortable posing for pictures etc, so i can see why using a portrait of him for a single cover might be a sticking point. but that's not your fault. if they're dead against it, i think you'll just have to write it off as a misunderstanding.

Agree with caek, assuming that your reputation is too important to you to go with 3). In my line of work it's not uncommon to be rejected for something, even after you've already been engaged on it previously. Often you don't even find out you were rejected, or even in contention to be rejected. Never take it personally. The only thing you can know is that they were quite entitled to reject you for any reason they like, whether that's good or bad - or for no reason at all.

It's NOT a single cover. Sorry, I should be more clear about that. It's a piece of artwork *inspired* by the single.

I mean, I understand if he's uncomfortable to have his face plastered on things. But the fact is, I'm an illustrator who specialises in portraits and Art Nouveau/60s Fillmore style poster art. My *interpretation* of the single is done IN MY STYLE.

x-post to Joe

I am primarily a portrait artist

Just from glancing from your photostream though, you do a lot of non-portraity stuff too. If they came across that stuff, yes it may not have been what you submitted to them as a portfolio, but might fit their particular album cover art aesthetic better.

Yes, it's cool to be a little upset. Especially since you put a lot of work into it, but it's still worth it to try and find some kind of common ground/workaround.

BTW, I think your art is pretty awesome. Wish I had a band. Would absolutely hire you to design a 7" cover.

It's not my reputation that makes me not want to go with 3 - it's the simple lack of time to 1) come up with a whole new concept and 2) work on it, when I've already put weeks of work into this one. There's a very strict deadline involved.

Perhaps it's only that he feels weird about being the focus. Singers always pick the most annoying times to be this way; normally LSD rules apply.

(Also, I didn't just send a link to my Flickrstream, I sent specifically a link to my professional portfolio:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/masonicboomk8/sets/72157611449634506/

which is - when not doing straight logos - mostly portrait-based work.)

I meant reputation as in putting your name to something you knew was going to be half-assed. It sounds like 3) just isn't a possibility anyway, so discount it right now.

BTW, I think your art is pretty awesome. Wish I had a band. Would absolutely hire you to design a 7" cover.

^^^this. As a recepient of your fine artworks (Salcey forest!) I say they're barmy to turn this down, and also being a tad precious (musicians, precious, whatever next...) but there's no pleasing some people, etc.

Aw, thanks for the compliments, guys.

they're covering in the year 2525?

OK, here's my thinking: (all previous compliments to kate also)

1) I would 'possibly' also be 'uncomftbl' if it was me. But I am not a lead singer of a band, thesedays, and it does come down to how the band see themselves as an entity and how comfortable they are with the front guy being the focus. Then again, they should have sorted out that sort of thing way ago.

2) It's one of twenty (that right?) images, so I don't see why any (or indeed all) can't be a different angle.

I do think that it's damn rude to expect the 'commissioned' artist to produce something 'expected', that's not what you get artists to do. Heck, if they'd asked warhol, they should expect 4 coloured images of the singer (even if thesedays they could get one from Prontaprint)...

Yup. Which is half the reason I wanted to do this in the first place, as I love that song. x-post

well i think you should stick to yr guns

abs.

I was gonna try to answer it at lunchtime, but I'm still feeling a bit too emotional about it.

Maybe I should sleep on it.

Good plan.

I'm trying to draft a reply - and something else just occured to me while writing it.

That the complaint is that I've somehow missed the point of the brief because I'm not doing a conceptual think-piece. But the thing is, a lot of my thinking on this *is* associated with and inspired by the idea of the song. That I'm not sitting down and constructing a museum piece poster done with screen printing and presses - I'm doing it in photoshop, using a tracking tablet (something I haven't done before, it's new technology to me) - and I ideally wanted to display it in a digital photo frame with an MP3 backing - because part of the whole idea was taking this idea of Fillmore style posters and thinking... how would these things be rendered in the future depicted in the song?

I don't ever make this part of the thought process clear when I'm describing the art because I think it's frankly wanky. But maybe I should. Maybe I should stand up for myself, and my entire medium and say HEY! just because I'm not a wanky conceptual artist that you need a massive intellectual backpack and a little blurb to understand what the hell I'm on about doesnt mean that I don't have a distinct CONCEPT behind my art, and that I don't THINK quite deeply about what I create.

But then again, I suspect he's picking at these kind of issues (the privileging of fine art over graphic art being a real bugbear in my professional life) because he just doesn't want his face used in the piece.

If that's the case, just say so and be honest about it, instead of dressing it up in this pseudo-artistic thing that the other artists' concepts are somehow better or more fitting to the brief because they're fine artists and I'm a graphic one.

As you say, the problem they have with what you've done has been extremely vaguely stated. I would try to get a little more feedback about what the problem is before thinking about how to respond/defend your approach.

You should spend some time trying to work with them to get them to better express their problem. If all the feedback you have is the sentence in the original post then that's nothing to work with, and you're reading an awful lot of stuff between the lines.

They're not artists or designers, so you're not going to get a response in your language, but you might be able to get a better idea of what the problem is. Then assess whether there is room to convince them they are wrong or meet them in the middle. If not then you have to move on. It's a drag to have people not respond to a commission you've put real time and thought into. I have been there. But it's just not worth your time/energy to persuade people their taste is wrong or make them accept work they don't like, which is what I have ended up doing once or twice.

The BRIEF was quite vaguely stated. It was "create a piece of artwork in your chosen medium that is inspired by this song."

My primary media are portraiture, illustration, graphic design. So that's what I'm doing.

The complaint is that my piece is about the band and the single rather than the song itself. Which is kind of a WTF? comment to make. Isn't that part of the package? I'm not "designing a single cover" which is what they seem to be doing. I'm making a PIECE OF GRAPHIC DESIGN which relates to the single.

It's all just very WTF, and the more I read the email, the more confused I am. Because it very much does seem like the dude has a bee in his bonnet about there being a portrait of him in the piece. When it's like... you commissioned me knowing I was a graphic designer. I work with text and portraits and combining them in pieces of graphic design. Why are you suddenly telling me I have to do something else?

I'm not exactly gonna quote their entire email in this post, but I think the most apt comparison on this thread is "hire Andy Warhol to do a piece then get upset that it's 4 brightly coloured silk screen portraits." Which I might use in the email explaining my position.

I'm starting to get a bee in *my* bonnet now, and thinking "if I have to defend my work to this dude so much, maybe *I* shouldn't waste the time doing it..." :-(

Submit what you're gonna submit. Publish and be damned and all that.

It sounds like you have grounds to be aggrieved based on the way the commission was handled, for reals.

But what do you want to achieve? What is your "position"? Do you want to find out what the problem really is, either in more detail -- or more truthfully if it is the portrait thing? And then decide whether it's something you can respond to be modifying the design? Or do you persuade them that what you have submitted is good? All those, imo, are valid goals and a good uses of time and energy.

Or do you want an apology for mucking you around or for them to admit you correctly fulfilled the brief (such as it was) and they are in the wrong? You no doubt deserve that, but do you really need one? An apology/admission of guilt here is worthless to you, and may cost a lot to extract. You should either continue to talk/work to satisfy them or you can write a short email saying "sorry you don't like my style but it is what it is, I don't think we can work together" or something. All other options are a waste of energy.

And I hope this doesn't sound patronising, but defending what you've done to people who you thought liked/got your work (_they_ commissioned _you_, right?!) is part of working with clients. They put little thought into selecting designers, they specify what they want poorly, and then their response to proposals is often a useless "me like" or "me no like". It is the designers _job_ to work in these conditions, to develop a thick skin for personal criticism and unprofessional behaviour, and to help clients express what they want.

The other option is to be more picky about their clients before getting involved, and be prepared to walk away when the collaboration doesn't work out, knowing that it's no reflection on you.

I guess what I really want is to finish the piece the way I intended it - I suppose that means persuading them that it's good, that it meets the brief.

Because it really is too late and too much effort to go changing it at this date.

If the guy is gonna reject it, then I want him to be honest about that he's rejecting it for personal reasons in that he's uncomfortable with his image being used - rather than the inference that I'm somehow a lazy bad artist that didn't meet their brief.

I mean, it was kind of a contest - the selection process. And the guy said that he selected me because my stuff was so different from all the other artists. And now I feel (unfairly or not) that I'm being punnished for not being like the other artists.

You are certainly not alone in this. The City of Chicago hied Frank Ghery to design their bandshell for Millennium park. He came back with a design that didn't look like a typical ghery and they told him to go away and come back with something that did. You can't win either way

Can you just slap a giant daisy over the dude's face?

I mean, this wasn't supposed to be a "working with clients" situation. (Which, trust me, I've had to do before - in those cases, it's comes down to - are you paying me £££££? then I'll do what you like. Are you not paying me? Fuck you, you get what I design and if you don't like it, piss off.)

This was supposed to be a "do whatever you like or are inspired to, based on this song" - and then when I produce what I liked, I'm being told "no, that's not what we wanted."

Assuming this can't be resolved by discussion/minor changes to your design, why do you care if he thinks you're a bad artist or didn't meet the brief? No one is keeping score. You can't be proud when working with these people.

Because I am driven by perversity, I think it would be really fantastic if you kept the obviously-detailed and crafted background you had and threw like a yowling cat head or something similar over the dude's face that was completely incongruous and out of step with the rest of the aesthetic.

Because it makes *ME* look like the loser, when I've gone and talked about this, and blogged about it, and given exposure to the whole project under the understanding that I was gonna be involved with it. Sigh.

x-post

Don't say I can do what I want, then when I DO what *I* want - then turn around and go and say "sorry, your personal expression doesn't meet our idea of what personal expression is supposed to look like."

http://app.icontact.com/icp/loadimage.php/00/04/30/00043097/6eec4aa565bdee7d51b0814b63319be6.jpg

eh?

I mean, if you're just venting then fine (and I will join in too -- we can make this the asshole clients thread!). And I can tell you how I would try to extract info and/or compromise from the him.

But it seems like your actual goal here is to get him to admit you're right and he was vague or even dishonest. Maybe you'll get an email saying this, but he still won't like the design. Unless you want to work with him again (surely not), what's the point?

xp, ah ok. so just put it down to "creative differences" or something. i'm sure he would agree with that, and it doesn't reflect on either of you. i know you're right here, and it seems that right now you want a resolution that (perhaps justly) reflects badly on him, but you want a graceful out more, right?

whatever he's implying at this point, he wouldn't have commissioned you if he thought you were a bad artist kate - it looks like he's just not a good communicator at all, either in the original brief or in expressing his dissatisfaction now. so you need to nudge him towards clarity - defend what you did on the basis that it fulfils the brief as it was put to you, ask *specifically* what he doesn't like about it and see if there are any reasonable changes/compromises you can make in the remaining time (which don't totally go against your own vision, obv) - and if it falls through it's because of their poor communication, not the quality of what you produced.

oh yeah, what caek said re: resolution

that's what i was trying to say, but better.

xp

Picasso did the painting olde-style, then much later on painted out the face and redid it in whatever that other, much harsher style is. Admittedly that was entirely his own choice, but the juxtaposition is pretty cool. It's what Hi Dere's comment made me think of.

I don't WANT to have anything reflect badly on anyone.

I want my piece to be used, in the way that I designed and intended it (when it's finished).

x-posts

^^^^^What Lex said. Otherwise it's just shadowplay.

Were there any contracts/written agreements made in relation to this? I'm not suggesting you argue the "letter of the law," but rather, wondering whether any obligations or processes were stipulated in advance. It seems like the portrait is an idea you feel strongly about, and is what you want to contribute. I'm with caek upthread, saying that you should communicate that to them, with some sort of defense of the work. It should probably not be defensive-sounding. Instead, talk about how excited you were to be chosen, the inspiration for the work, how it relates to the project, and that you are proud of what you have done, etc.

Let them know that you were disappointed that they had a problem with it, because you really like what you did, and were excited to be part of the project (basically the things you've said in this thread), and you'd really like this to work out.

This is a good suggestion, Sarahel.

However, I'm well aware that *I'm* not a very good communicator in this respect - I can rewrite an email 5 times to make it nonconfrontational and non-bitchy and still be told that it's "violent in design" or whatever. (not this person - someone else.)

There are no contracts, but several exchanges of emails.

I agree with the "communicate to them what you've written here and see if a resolution can be worked out" comments. It's incredibly lame for them to insert parameters after giving such an open-ended brief; even if they aren't super-thrilled about your contribution, whether it be because they don't get your artistic voice or because they hate portraits, they still asked for a piece in your style. That sample is, rather unambiguously, in your style.

xp: Maybe have someone proofread yr email off the boards before you send it?

In the email, he kind of listed a whole bunch of things that other artists were doing - and they all sounded very conceptual and "high art" (and really not my kind of thing at all, in mine own personal opinion) - and suggested that I make *my* work more like that.

When he formerly said that one of the reasons he CHOSE me was because my work was so different from the other artists involved.

This seems just very very WTF to me.

xxp, i have a problem like that kate. when i'm angry i write these overlong, overlogical and _completely correct_ emails that doubtless seethe with anger even though i go through them and try to remove all the "caek". the only advice i can give is to not reply for a day or two, and don't spend that time thinking about how to write the email. and then when you do reply, _keep it short_. you want to get the back and forth going.

crucial motto i try to keep in mind when writing emails like that: you want to know what they think, not for them to think you are right.

What types of things are the other artists doing? Is there anything you could incorporate that wouldn't ruin the vibe you're going for? (For example, are the other artists using the band and song name in their work? Is there a way for you to obfuscate that portion to make it seem less like single cover art, preserving the portrait and color scheme?)

Also, FWIW -- and something I've learned the hard way -- context never comes through in emails.

Something that may be intended as fairly mild can come across as harsh in an email.

I'm almost physically incapable of keeping anything short.

Especially when it comes to discussing artwork. There's a huge amount of intellectual and aesthetic thought that goes into why I create the way I do, and if someone asks me to defend that, it's hard to put it succinctly.

x-post Dan, I think that it's *everything* about it that's wrong. The fact that I used text, the fact that I used a portrait. The fact that it is a direct reference to a single by a band. Take those things away, and you have some paisley and some peacock feathers. Like, what was I supposed to do? Draw a comic book based on the lyrics to the song? I thought about that and almost immediately dismissed it as being simplistic and lame and not a lot of fun to do. Yet I think they would have been happier had I done something like that.

xxxp - I would then suggest getting a friend or someone to help you with the correspondence. I know I am susceptible to coming across as argumentative, domineering, etc. in correspondence, and I will edit and re-edit things like that in sensitive situations, though sometimes I will pass off the task to my partner, who is innately more diplomatic, conciliatory, and loathing of confrontation.

From my - not terribly extensive, mind you - experience being in the commissioning position, it is a lot harder to reject someone enthusiastic and eager than someone defensive intimating that you've screwed them over somehow.

honestly i think your best bet is to drop the whole thing. you were asked to do some work for this guy's show, you did some work, he doesn't like it.

You really know how to tap into my most self-destructive impulses, Goole.

What if, instead of the band name and song title, you surrounded the portrait with either the first few lines of the song or the text from the chorus? You still retain the portrait, you'd still be using text (but in a different manner) and the focus would then shift from looking like a single cover to looking like a piece of art inspired by the single. You could even play around with psychedelic colors on the face to downplay the portaitness of the portrait, as well.

Mind you, I am not saying they are right in rejecting what you've done; I'm just brainstorming ways you could modify what you're doing to preserve your style and produce something with a different impact.

Goole's take is too harsh, but it does point up the problem. It's all but impossible to convince someone that they should like something that they don't -- especially when it's a portrait of that person. Think you might be best advised, instead of trying to argue yr case, to do something like HI DERE suggests: recast the piece without compromising its essence (if possible).

Because it took about 8 hours to do that text the way it is.

I should just give up. I mean, who am I kidding? This isn't my world, these aren't my people, it's some kind of superpretentious wanky high concept art thing of the kind that I've been excluded from since high school because my stuff is too "accessible" etc etc blah blah waaaah etc.

Feeling very discouraged now and never want to get excited about anything ever again. :-(

This isn't my world, these aren't my people, it's some kind of superpretentious wanky high concept art thing of the kind that I've been excluded from since high school

so are they looking for some sort of high concept/art crit defense of the work? Or rather, would that help sell the piece you did?

it's just one guy's opinion! i think you made a great piece fwiw. dunno why a band would cover zager and evans and then want something "conceptual." like what, a "long black tube" with embryos in it? i think you took the right approach, don't feel bad!

it does seem to me - and maybe i'm projecting here, because i've been in similar situations - that some of this is about saving face, and not wanting to feel like a fool for being excited about the project, broadcasting one's involvement in this great thing, and then - rejection.

Isn't that human nature?

Especially when you feel like you were misled about the kind of artistic freedom you were going to be allowed to have?

No one likes feeling or being rejected. No matter what the circumstances.

yeah i'd be really pissed and hurt if i'd done some work and then got the cold shoulder about it. unfortunately the guy you're dealing with has his "artistic freedom" too

Actually, tell you what:

Maybe it's a bit of a shock to the guy, to get stuff that's as 'direct' as that.

Maybe a day or two later, he can realise the context/style and suchlike.

In the email, he kind of listed a whole bunch of things that other artists were doing - and they all sounded very conceptual and "high art" (and really not my kind of thing at all, in mine own personal opinion) - and suggested that I make *my* work more like that.

When he formerly said that one of the reasons he CHOSE me was because my work was so different from the other artists involved.

Take this bit, and change 'he' to you, and it's just about succint and to-the-point enough without being confrontational. (I think)

^^ that sounds a bit too snippy for me.

I guess I find it kind of weird - to refer to something else that was in the email - to commission artwork based on a single, but then remove anything about the band or the artist from that inspiration/concept of single. Like the band, or their representation are not part of the package, or off the menu? That's just weird. Like, what, did this music just spontaneously errupt into being with no humans involved? It's just really quite alien to my way of thinking about music.

Removing the parenthetical section would make it less so. (xp)

Any discipline, any media, the package, the artwork and the decisions are totally up to the artist.

From the band's Facebook page, ftr.

I should really just quote that and email it right back to them.

In fact, that looks to me right now like the really most pragmatic and diplomatic way forward. "this is what you said"

Like the band, or their representation are not part of the package, or off the menu? That's just weird. Like, what, did this music just spontaneously errupt into being with no humans involved? It's just really quite alien to my way of thinking about music.

this is actually a good start in terms of an "arty" defense of your work, actually - that for you, the musicians - their physical existence as human beings is a significant part of its appeal. While the physical artifact of the record presents music as an abstracted experience devoid of its human origin, the physicality of the musicians that created it are a vital part of your experience and love of music. Your piece calls to mind the psychedelic poster art of the 60s and 70s, a time where musicians experimented with and created their own images and iconography, that were powerful and new.

^^ this isn't all that well-written, i apologize ...but say something about how you think of music/musicians, etc. or something like that.

is your ultimate goal to get your work into this show? if you are going to have to fight uphill through the person running the show to do so, it seems like that might be impossible. "artistic freedom" is really neither here nor there in this case, you were doing this artwork as a commission in the first place, so from the outset it was done for someone else's purposes. you were free to do what you thought was best and he is equally free to his opinion of it.

i'd stick by your original artwork, but ask him to give you a firm decision on its inclusion. if he doesn't think it fits, that's that, and it doesn't have to make sense or be fair. but he has to give you an unambiguous y/n, not complain vaguely about what he "thought" he would get, or lecture you about what nice things all these other people are doing. that's also really here nor there. but he is jerking you around, tbh.

if he says no, then you've got two options: say thanks for the wasted time, best of luck with your show. OR, ask him if he'd rather you take another crack at it. the second option then depends entirely on your willingness to do something else. if you aren't, don't offer to.

based on what you've written it sounds like he is unlikely to become more positive about what you've done, and you're unlikely to want to do something else. these things happen.

Look, no. Either they *mean* "Any discipline, any media, the package, the artwork and the decisions are totally up to the artist." or they don't.

I shouldn't even *have* to explain my reasoning behind why I've done my artwork the way I have.

I'm willing to do it, in order to show that no, I've not misunderstood or misread the brief. There was a thought process behind why I did what I did. But you don't go and promise an artist that they can do it their way, and then revoke it when you decide you don't like what they've come up with. That's really not cricket.

If things get too balled up to untangle, there's always small claims court where you might salvage something for the time and effort you put in. Otherwise, keep trying to work it out.

yeah, is any money supposed to change hands here?

there's always small claims court where you might salvage something for the time and effort you put in

I would love for this to end up on Judge Mathis.

No money yet. The idea was that there would be an exhibition as part of their release party, and then the artworks would all be auctioned off or eBayed.

It's more a prestige thing than a money thing. I think. At this point I think I've got it all wrong. :-(

I mean, the main reason I did it is because I actually *LOVE* the song, and thought it would be fun.

Plus, well, I thought it would be good exposure. I mean, if I wanted to make money from my art, I could sign up for Etsy or sell prints on eBay or whatever. There's certainly a market for that sort of thing, as people ask me all the time for prints on Flickr. It's just kind of a hassle when I already have a full time job.

I dunno.

really? from what you've said it looks like you've got it right - it's just a question of untangling a mess which isn't your fault. it may even be easier to get your piece exhibited than you think, even despite this dude's opinion - the brief couldn't be more clear, plus he may have expressed his misgivings to you under the impression that you'd be able to turn around a different piece. if you explain why that won't be possible, he may well be fine with accepting your artwork. bad communication has tangled up the lines so far - you don't want assumptions and second-guessing to cloud the communication any further.

xp explain that! sarahel's advice to emphasise your enthusiasm for the project was v otm.

basically i think there's more discussion to be had before any sort of final decision on either their side or yours.

otm x 100000

I guess.

But there's a big part of me that feels I shouldn't be needing to *have* this conversation.

I brought it on myself by asking to DJ at the record release party. He asked how the artwork was coming on, I directed him to Flickr, he flipped out. If I'd said nothing, I'd have just turned up at the show with the finished piece and it would have been too late for him to have a fit about it at all. :-(

If I were you, Kate, I would want to emphasize that the work was purposeful and well-conceived and not a total misunderstanding of the project. It's entirely possible that they looked at your work and immediately thought, "Whoops, I guess she thought we wanted a cover design," in which case you might be able to remedy the situation simply by explaining that, no, this is indeed your artistic interpretation of the song, and that you're inspired by singers' personalities or by the notion of songs as objects or whatever might allow them to see it as equally "conceptual" as the other submitted works.

it would have been too late for him to have a fit about it at all. :-(

ha this might not be true either!

xpost (I guess I'm rehashing what Sarahel already said above.)

But there's a big part of me that feels I shouldn't be needing to *have* this conversation.

you can either get mad about the (very real) injustice/incompetence you're being subjected to, or you can work with the situation you've got. the first option is extremely unlikely to yield anything good and will make you miserable in the process.

i don't know how this works in your field, but in music and theater, works are commissioned with the understanding that they may not be produced, which is not to say that they are not valid works and may not be produced elsewhere down the line, but the commissioner generally holds right of first refusal to produce (or, in your case, display) the work. in my last job, we had commissioned some art for a brochure that ended up being very much in the artist's style, but not at all usable for us, so the woman got her pieces back and some parting $ (i assume) and we went in a different direction.

i guess my point is, commissioning does not guarantee anything, so either work with the dudes or walk away. what do you lose (besides being part of the show) if you do walk away? and at least that way you maintain your artistic integrity.

That I'm not sitting down and constructing a museum piece poster done with screen printing and presses - I'm doing it in photoshop, using a tracking tablet (something I haven't done before, it's new technology to me) - and I ideally wanted to display it in a digital photo frame with an MP3 backing - because part of the whole idea was taking this idea of Fillmore style posters and thinking... how would these things be rendered in the future depicted in the song?

btw this is an excellent explanation of what you were going for and you could basically c+p it into your response to the dude.

i understand it's not a debate you want to be having, but hey, nothing's ever easy right? fuck of a lot better than giving up imo.

No, it's not like that in this case. It was very much...

Call for entries -> short list -> 20 artists selected for show

It's much more like something like the Turner Prize, where, once they've decided you're worthy of inclusion, you're allowed to go off and produce whatever it is you think represents you (and in this case, the single) best.

x-post

hmm, then it just seems like they are making a huge deal out of nothing!

x-post basically what it means is that I'm going to have to write an artists statement AGAIN (despite already providing one for myself, write another one defending the piece) even though I freaking hate artists statements and think they're pretentious pieces of wank, and that the artwork should stand on its own.

Though I guess, clearly it doesn't, if we're having this conversation.

you kind of wrote the artists stmt in this thread!

i mean i agree in principle, but you kind of have to deal with the situation as it is, not as you thought it was going to be or wish it was. your entry is actually quite conceptual per the point you made that i just c+p'd, you should have no qualms explaining this to the dude and if he still doesn't like it fuck him.

I freaking hate artists statements and think they're pretentious pieces of wank,

they can be, and i've read plenty of horrible ones, and even written parodies of them. They also can be useful and interesting pieces of writing. One of the best outcomes of the process of writing the artist statement, is that it can help you articulate stuff about yourself and what you do, and even, evaluate the work itself. But I'm someone that has a really easy time writing them and like writing about myself and my work, because i'm self-absorbed and pretentious.

I think my thing is... why should something have to be *conceptual* to be any good? Isn't it enough that it be beautiful (and hopefully engaging)?

Yes, I know that's hopelessly naive, and yes, I know, I've read the Painted Word and all. But seriously. It's a picture. Look at it.

yeah i mean again i agree but you have the ammo to address his specific issue (however valid it is) and try to get into the show--don't be afraid to use it!

i think the beauty of art is that each person can look at it, hear it, experience it and take away something different, but at the same time i love to read an artist's statement and view it through their lens as well, so i can try to understand the creative process.

if this ends well you'll totes forget about having to discuss shit with some dork from a band and remember how cool it was to get yr piece in an art show and then put on ebay, right?

also i don't know if anyone else brought this up but maybe you should take off the dig at the singer on your flickr page so as not to stoke the fire any more.

in some ways, the artist statement is kinda like a director's commentary on a movie. sure, it's sufficient to look at the work itself, but sometimes people want to know what's behind it, or what the person behind it wanted to accomplish with it, inside info about process, etc.

Since this is a cover song, I wonder if maybe the band wanted artwork inspired by the song's music/lyrics but not directly connected to their specific version? I mean, they obviously didn't make that explicit, which is their fault, but it's not hard for me to imagine that this might have been what they intended -- that is, wanting the art to be a tribute to the song in the same way that their cover is a tribute to the song.

It wasn't a dig, it was totally a joke - since before this most recent big email, we were joking about it on email, and he was complaining about the "mug shot" - hence why I'm convinced that this is actually about his vanity and not liking the portrait (or indeed the idea of being represented) far more than it's about any aesthetic or philosophical argument.

I dunno. I never, ever watch directors commentaries.

And if I go to an exhibit of a modern artist, I always make a point of looking at the art *before* I read any artists statement about it. I do believe that's a mark of good art - that it doesn't need one.

But I know that I'm pretty old fashioned - I can't imagine William Blake writing an artists statement. I was raised with that whole "have nothing in your house that you do not know to be useful or believe to be beautiful" idea - that art needs no excuse or justification beyond the fact that you find it ... beautiful.

There's a part of me that thinks that whole thing about "modern technology as applied to 60s poster art" is actually a load of bullshit that I've come up with after the fact to justify the fact that when I sat down to paint - or Tablet or whatever I should call it - that's what came out.

But that's kind of more to do with mine own process of art-making. That it's one of the places I don't *have* to think about or justify what I'm doing it. I work as a freaking data analyst - I spend my whole life analysing things and intellectualising them and overthinking them. Drawing is the one place I don't HAVE to do that. I just sit down and paisley and pretty boys come out. And I resent someone trying to tell me that I have to have a "concept" in order to justify that. It is its OWN justification.

I guess I just have a different way of thinking about art, and what it's *for*. I didn't sign up to do some big conceptual piece.

Maybe I'll get a photo of a mushroom cloud and superimpose it over his head like Dan suggested, and say it's a deep contemplation of world destruction. When really it's me giving in to Dan's perverse suggestions.

unless there's a serious financial or recognition incentive

kate, i mean this in the nicest way possible, but would it really be that hard to crank out 300 words of bullshit about your drawing? seriously, youve already written 800+ words on this thread that you could put into a statement. if you think what he wants is for you to justify the picture, just justify it. if your art "stands on its own," it "stands on its own"; an artists statement isnt going to "take away" from that.

I probably will end up doing exactly that.

I'm just blowing off steam about the fact that I have to do it at all.

I mean, Max, do you have to provide an artists' statement before you do an album cover or something?

(though, that said, 1. I bet you actually get paid properly for your design and 2. you go into it as an actual collaborative effort, that the artist tells you what they want, rather than telling you "do whatever you like" and then telling you that wasn't what they wanted)

though this is kinda how I feel about the whole thing right now...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2585/4047391741_db8c01cca6_o.jpg

srsly fuck this band I vote 1

actually, I really quite like that version there ^^^^^^^^^

Dan, you may have hit on a really visually arresting idea. ha ha

:-) I am only here to inspire, and hopefully make ppl giggle

the date thing reminds me of

http://a7.vox.com/6a00cd970e4cda4cd500cd9710410f4cd5-500pi

You have a lot of other nice pictures on your Flickr. You could probably submit one of the non portrait based ones and come up with a quick bullshit explanation as to how it is your response to the song.

I realise you've been put in an irritating position by this guy being inarticulate, and you shouldn't have to do this, but it might be the quickest way to resolve it for you without giving more effort than he maybe deserves.

Also "Any discipline, any media, the package, the artwork and the decisions are totally up to the artist."

The thread title says "How do I handle it when someone commissions artwork and then (potentially) rejects it"

If the lead singer doesn't like it, is that the same as it being rejected? Does it definitely mean they won't use it? He might not like all of the other 19 artworks either. Have they said "you can't do this" or just expressed a vague dissatisfaction? The brief does suggest the decisions are completely up to you.

Well, in this case, sleeping on it and not responding immediately was actually the WORST thing I could have done.

Hi Kate,

We saw what you wrote on the internet, and it's a shame to read...

firstly in response to your post, this is what it actually states in the brief:

The pieces can be whatever the artists want them to be, whatever form, shape, and size, as long as it is inspired by the song and concept of In The Year 2525.....

I'm sorry to see that my attempt to re-explain the parameters of the project was received so badly, but this is something we are all currently agreed on in the band, and it's a shame to see that the whole thing has turned quite so negative as this is something we wouldn't wish anyone involved to feel, nor is it something that we ourselves would want to feel.

We've talked it over and from not hearing back from you and from seeing your public exaltation we recognise that it has become an inherently negative situation, so we think it's best to draw a line under this and are going to withdraw from working together on this project.

I am so angry right now I could fucking spit.

I don't know what "internet" thing he read, but I've sent him a link to this complete thread.

He can come here and justify his decision if he wants. But I don't see how he's going to do that without a hell of a lot of backtracking.

I'm completely dispirited and upset over the whole experience, and have come away from the whole thing with a really distasteful view of this guy.

I'm sorry that this has turned out this way for you. That really sucks.

So basically I've just had a month's worth of work totally gone to waste because of this guy's vanity.

Feeling like printing a bunch of cheap posters and eBaying them to cover my time.

Thank fuck I have a really understanding boss, because I am pretty much sitting here crying and shaking with anger and disappointment in the office. I've told him what's just happened.

And this whole fucking bullshit "oh, negativity... oooohhh..." thing REALLY fucks me off. It's like... you have just totally jerked me around, wasted my time, INSULTED my art and completely changed the rules and moved the goalposts - and then you turn around and say "oh, no, negativity" when I might actually be a bit upset about that?

You want "negativity" ? Go fuck yourselves. Seriously.

We saw what you wrote on the internet

For some reason this seems an odd thing to say, and slightly childish.

Anyways their loss Kate (although losing your time, etc is crappy obviously).

You are second from the top search result for [google search] on google.

i really want this guy to show up here

I... don't.

How do I handle it when someone commissions artwork and then (potentially) rejects it

1. Don't tell the whole internet who they are.

well yeah

I didn't. I tried to keep the name of the singer and the band off this thread - but that's kind of impossible when you're trying to show the artwork in question, and that's got their name in it.

Their loss really. Seriously.

I tell you. This is going to give me serious pause about *ever* doing artwork for a band again. In any way shape or form. It isn't worth the headache.

In fact, Kingkongvsgodzilla was the first person to mention it, please could that be deleted? Thanks.

Deindex the whole thread? I can see future bands making the wrong "if we reject her artwork there will be a hate campaign about us" conclusion (I know that's not what happened, but people conclude the wrong thing from TL;DR articles/threads all the time)

Yeah, that might be a good idea, actually. :-/

Though seriously, this wasn't intended as any kind of campaign, I wanted to get some perspective on the whole thing as clearly my impulses were wrong.

I've deleted or made private all the pics on Flickr now. I just wanna put this behind me.

Though seriously, if I EVER say I am doing any artwork for any band that is not mine own, point me in the direction of this thread.

This is just 1 bad experience. Bad experiences can make you stronger. Never working with other bands anymore = too harsh. You'll never let this same thing happen again.

Not the first bad experience. I've had more experiences with bands than anyone else...

The Irish bands who comissioned a gig poster - KNOWING my style, having seen what I did. So I drew them this beautiful poster which was actually a double headed playing card so that either band could be seen as the headliner, really detailed and carefully planned out. And then they turned around and said "uh, nah, that's not really what we wanted, we just wanted our names written in, like, psychedelic letters..."

::beats head against desk::

I once got a pissy e-mail from the lead singer of the band I used to be in for basically bitching about him and the band on ILX. I'd gone to the trouble of googleproofing names and everything, but people have a way of finding things (ha, I should know). Lesson learned: don't write stuff in a public forum unless you don't care who reads it.

btw thread has been deindexed

Also possible: turn rejection into an art form like this.

I sent him a link to the thread, because I'm guessing that he only saw what I wrote on Flickr or twitter and did not see the whole reasoning behind *why* I was upset. (I don't know.)

I'm more concerned about him getting irate than about ruining mine own reputation, which can't get any worse compared to much, much more controversial stuff I've shot my mouth off about on ILX.

Actually, I just realised I have had more negative experiences with bands because I've done more art for bands.

There are actually LOADS more bands that I've worked with and had fun and fabulous experiences with, that have been great for everyone involved. So I should think about them, rather than the two or maybe three negative experiences I've had, which are by far in the minority.

^ Hooray!

aw this sucks, but that's a good attitude to take kate - also, remember that this fell through b/c of bad communication (and, yeah, the internet's annoying habit of being public...ilx has a ton of lurkers) - not your art.

Oh, like calling a portrait painter's work a "mug shot" isn't supposed to be taken as a reflection on their talents?

But whatever. I'm not going to let one man's vanity destroy my confidence.

good idea!

A+++ for the new screen name! :-)

...especially considering the reactions on Flickr and Twitter and my blog and everywhere else that I posted the work in progress were overwhelmingly positive.

i doubt this guy found this thread--the first google result is of your flickr page w/ the incendiary caption

I've deleted or made private all the pics on Flickr now.

Oh for a minute there I thought you meant ALL yr pics, which would have been v. bad. Although I still think world should see nuclear bomb head.

I think that was the one that may have sent him over the edge of not wanting to work with me. Although it was quite funny in the context of the thread, and as a response to Dan's suggestion - I can understand how, out of context, it might have looked very, very bad.

Also, I've checked Google - 1) the second result which points to my pic (now deleted) was NOT the "incendiary" caption, it was an old draft WHICH I SENT HIM A LINK TO when I did it. 2) the "incendiary" caption was NOT my words - it was a direct quote of HIS WORDS. (which were actually far more insulting to me as an artist than they ever were to him.)

Argh, why do I keep posting in this thread.

Every time I start to think about it, I just get angrier and angrier and feel more frustrated and hard-done-by. Which is really not how I want to be feeling. I don't want to waste any more of my life being upset about this. :-(

What a twat. I can think of a magazine that won't be writing about his band because of this.

seeing your public exaltation...

This is twat-talk. Sorry, kate.

But I think it would be better to shrug it off than to keep getting angrier. Anger helps out when there is something you can do, because the anger powers you to get it done. But I don't see what you can do about their being twats except acknowledge it and walk away.

Also 'exaltation' WTF? You were not exalting him, exactly.

Yeah, I don't know what that's about. I'm assuming it's some kind of malapropism that he meant to use another word because it doesn't make sense.

But I really don't want to clue into the negativity of trying to work out what his beef is, and I don't want to degenerate into insults.

I'm gonna salvage what I can from the artwork and use it for something else. It's still a good design. I guess in a way it's good that there was very little in writing and I didn't sign anything, so I *am* free to go ahead and use the design for something else. (Like maybe promoting myself instead, ha ha.)

How does this sort of artist/band contract generally work? My friend is in a band that had an artist work on an album cover idea, but ultimately the band scrapped it because they didn't like it even though it was clearly in the style of the artist. It just didn't feel right, and they ultimately went in a different direction. If I'm in the shoes of the band, and an artist makes me something that I don't like, am I obligated to use it anyway? Or is the real issue that there is an implied/explicit contractual obligation to pay you for your work?

If I'm in the shoes of the band, and an artist makes me something that I don't like, am I obligated to use it anyway?

not unless you've signed something to that effect.

This is a totally difference case from what you're describing above.

It was not a case of designing album art that everyone was happy with, it was a case of commissioning 20 artists to do something individual to them as interpretations of the single, rather than "cover artwork" or whatever.

In the case of, where I'm working with a band to design a cover (or t-shirt or poster or whatever) - I expect much more of a clear brief - and will talk to them about what they want, ask them to provide examples of stuff they like. Then it's a question of working with them to get something you're both happy with.

For example, when I did the t-shirt for the Asteroid No. 4 - I did a set of designs that was going off in the wrong direction. The woman sent me some photos she'd taken, sent me some links to some Aubrey Beardsley illustrations - I redrew the artwork - provided a selection of about 4 mockups, they picked the one they liked the best, and they (and I) absolutely loved it.

I've had occasional things where I've done stuff on spec, and the work has been rejected. (Usually it's because they've requested pitches from a few other artists at the same time, and liked someone else's better.) That's par for the course when you're on a shortlist and doing pitches. (But in this case, I was through the shortlist and selected.)

I don't think a band is *ever* under obligation to use cover artwork that they don't like. (Unless of course you're saddled with it by a record company - this has certainly happened to me before.) However, if you have a contract with an artist, you probably will have to pay them, even if the artwork doesn't get used.

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

What a twat. I can think of a magazine that won't be writing about his band because of this.

― fake plastic butts (suzy), Tuesday, 27 October 2009 17:07 (4 hours ago) Bookmark

this is pretty pathetic tbh.

I'm sorry you feel that way, cheers for the unsolicited opinion.

it's a messageboard, they're all unsolicited opinions.

i liked it.

Can we please leave this out, guys?

I feel shitty enough about this whole thing without infighting like this.

x-post

Though seriously, if I EVER say I am doing any artwork for any band that is not mine own, point me in the direction of this thread.

Only if you'll make an exception for the next time I need a big show flyer.

Dude, you have permanent flyer rights!

Firstly, coz your're awesome, and secondly because we have similar aesthetics that I don't see it ever being a problem.

As cold comfort as it is, saying "I told you so" when faced with being excluded from something you really wanted to do, I have actually found the proof (in an old email from the day before all this went down) that it was his not liking the "mugshot" that resulted in my being removed from the exhibition, rather than the "you didn't meet the (really open ended) brief" bullshit:

not the one with my mugshot on it.
i'm afraid tat would be far too embarrassing and i'd have to veto like a facist fascist

ah vanity, thy name is indie boy.

At least I can put my mind at rest and stop worrying about the quality of my work now.

You can definitely stop worrying about that. I'm particularly enjoying your Broadstairs stuff at present.

Thanks! Thing is, there's a couple more Broadstairs pics that I did but have not scanned/edited yet because - well, I was working on that that picture. Dammit. I'll work on them this weekend. There's a really nice one I'm quite excited about, where I tried to draw the breakers crashing over the pier, which I'm hoping will be quite special when it's finished. So I'm really glad that you liked those, I'm really proud of them. :-)

They are excellent. Just looking back over your flickrstream reminds me that your interior design skills are also second to none. Which got me thinking about no-one ever seems to know what to do with shop facades when the shop is empty (of which there are currently quite a few around the country) so, anyway they should use you to paint murals on empty shop fronts, because that would be awesome.

Haha, that would be my dream job. Goin' about the country painting murals in shop fronts. I should put in a request to the Arse Council.

Actually, yay, Ned, you have totally restored my bounce today. Thank you.

i think cambridge is doing something like this at the moment?- empty shops are being used as free public gallery spaces.

Yeah, I read a thing in the Lite or something about artists collectives taking over an empty building in Leicester Square and turning it into a gallery. Which made me really kinda wish I was an art student in London with nothing to lose.

Well, it's good that you found that 'fascist fascist' comment, it does bear out what I thought (and you did too, obv)

the moral of the tale is:

WHY COULDN'T THEY HAVE BEEN HONEST ABOUT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

sheeh.