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?

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.