# Furry artist and making money.



## lostfoxeh (Oct 13, 2010)

I hear all the time that it is impossible to make a living off furry art and commissions alone. Kinda got me to wondering how much do furry artist make?

I have see many artist charge over $100 for relatively moderate commissions (comparing to the art industry as a whole). And about average for very good quality work it takes 16 hour about for the artist i am watching both on here and deviantart. So putting in 32 hours a week gets you $200+. Then add selling prints on top. It seams possible to make a living. I admit a very hard living, but a living none the less. On top of it it seams that "better" artist commissions are always full, so the business is there if ones style is a popular one.

What is everyone else's thoughts about making money off furry, or even the art and writing scene in general? Can anyone contribute better numbers about how much money a furry artist can make?


----------



## Fay V (Oct 13, 2010)

Well that is the extreme. those are the incredible popular and "talented" (sometimes they are anyway). Now most people do not do commissions like it is a job, they do it in their spare time so they aren't working on 2 a week. Usually this is because real jobs pay better and are far more steady. 
Just because you have commissions now doesn't mean you always will, and when you live on art like that you can very rarely save. 
Remember these are the extreme people. 1 maybe 2% of the artists in furry...tops. Maybe they have a shot if they don't spend too much and like to live balls to the wall with finances, but everyone else...yeah...
the general rule stands. get a real job, you can depend on a paycheck.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 13, 2010)

If you wanna live off your art, do what tailsrulz does, he sells posters and cds of his stuff.

It is a hell of a lot easier than living off solely on commissions.


----------



## Bir (Oct 13, 2010)

You pretty much have to be excellent at what you do. On the forums, it's almost impossible to make a living because nobody ever wants to pay more than a couple of dollars for their artwork. Needless to say, those people aren't going to get any artwork by people who make a living from selling it to them.

Selling your artwork for a living would mean you have to pay more attention and actually care about what you're doing. And thus, becoming better and better. I am slowly working my way up to creating artwork that I think is good enough to live on. Until then, I'll have a regular job.


----------



## Charrio (Oct 13, 2010)

I myself gave it a go, and failed. 

I am a terrible self promoter and never gouged my fans. 

I guess you have to be good and a good self promoter. 

I never made a significant amount to be considered a living on art in furry.


----------



## Heimdal (Oct 13, 2010)

For most it's either a side-job that supplements their main job, or they focus their talents on other kinds of art that is more reliable. If you can use various computer art programs well, graphic design may be a much better field to aim for, for example.


----------



## SilverKarja (Oct 14, 2010)

It's possible, but there's a few things that have to be considered.  Where an artist sits talent wise and popularity wise.  Marketing(not just commissions, but having product in all price ranges is a good thing, because there's going to be people who can't afford what the top artists want).  Doing cds, comics, books, prints.  Getting yourself out there.  And looking outside the fandom.  Where as the general public 98% of the time is not going to be interested in adult anthropomorphic works, a lot are interested in clean pieces I've found(which is why Goldenwolf has a tent at the ren faire we go to every year...grumble grumble...).  And, if you're drawing feral animals for furries, you can easily enough turn that into doing wildlife art and pet portraits outside of the fandom.


----------



## Wolfen Wolf (Oct 14, 2010)

It is possible, but most people do it for fun and side money while having an actual job.


----------



## Smelge (Oct 14, 2010)

Charrio said:


> I never gouged my fans.



Some would say this is a good thing. Very few people like being gouged.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 14, 2010)

You need to have a job in order to fund that second job.
But if you pop out art like the Octuplet mom pops out babies frequently, then you can probably manage to live off of your commissions (Provided if you live with your parents).


----------



## Mare_of_Night (Oct 14, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> The artists who take 100-200 for their "Amazing" work are jewishlike greedy.



The prices are determined by what people are willing to pay, though. They wouldn't be charging that if there weren't a few people willing to pay it to get that specific artist's work. Lots of jobs make way more than that per hour, too.


----------



## cpam (Oct 15, 2010)

I've known a couple of artists who do very well at just selling furry art, but for the most part those who succeed at a making a living don't restrict themselves entirely to Furry art, but include Furry as part of their repertoire.  That is, they also do art in other interests as well, such as Sci-Fi/Fantasy, Anime, Comics, even Fine Art and Portraits.  They endeavor to be Artists and not just Furry Artists; the more well-rounded they are as creators, the more open doors there are.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Oct 15, 2010)

Mare_of_Night said:


> The prices are determined by what people are willing to pay, though. They wouldn't be charging that if there weren't a few people willing to pay it to get that specific artist's work. Lots of jobs make way more than that per hour, too.


 
Greedy, and smart. If they can order so many furries, which are dumb enough to throw wallets at the artists for their mspaint quality art..
Though, you know, I will still not believe, never, that drawing is harder than video editing. If I charged people for video editing, they will think I am insane.


----------



## cpam (Oct 15, 2010)

"Yeah, that ain't workin'!
That's the way you do it!
Play your guitar on MTV!
Yeah, that ain't workin'!
Money for nothin', 
And your chicks for free!"
     -Mark Knopfler



CynicalCirno said:


> Though, you know, I will still not believe, never, that drawing is harder than video editing.



Then you've never actually tried drawing.  Spent time working out compositions, scribbling off dozens of thumbnails before arriving at the best one -- mastering the techniques of any given media, and coming to gradually understanding that each media has its own peculiarities and pitfalls to overcome -- learning how an object looks from different angles in different light and how to translate that onto a flat 2D surface -- putting in hours on a single drawing in order to get it JUST right, and then having to scrap it and start over because the final image doesn't satisfy that level of quality you keep striving at... or the specific, if eccentric, requirements of the commissioner...



CynicalCirno said:


> If I charged people for video editing, they will think I am insane.


 
So, there are professional video editors who don't draw a paycheck?


----------



## CynicalCirno (Oct 15, 2010)

cpam said:


> Then you've never actually tried drawing.  Spent time working out compositions, scribbling off dozens of thumbnails before arriving at the best one -- mastering the techniques of any given media, and coming to gradually understanding that each media has its own peculiarities and pitfalls to overcome -- learning how an object looks from different angles in different light and how to translate that onto a flat 2D surface -- putting in hours on a single drawing in order to get it JUST right, and then having to scrap it and start over because the final image doesn't satisfy that level of quality you keep striving at... or the specific, if eccentric, requirements of the commissioner...
> 
> 
> 
> So, there are professional video editors who don't draw a paycheck?


There is a limit to art. You gain a technique and stay with it. The drawing does not move - you can draw anything, but it will take years before you'll draw what you truly wanted.

The video editing I talk about is different than what you think. 
This or this  are pretty much moderate examples, and they reflect basically what is my video editing culture. Take a source video, and base music, and craft it by:
1)Timing
2)Pitch shifting
3)Visual effects
4)Name relating in the video(For example, a video with the base "Nuclear Fusion" will have distorted or cropped sound together with nuclear signs).
5)Relating to other memes in the category.
6)Sentence mixing sometimes hooks more views.
7)Blue screen - a really hard tool, and a really beautiful one.

It looks like just a video, but it takes time and concentration nonetheless, feels more alive, and is hard, sometimes harder, than drawing.
People spend years to become masters in this.
Like this guy.

That's what I consider hard work.


----------



## SilverKarja (Oct 15, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> There is a limit to art. You gain a technique and stay with it. The drawing does not move - you can draw anything, but it will take years before you'll draw what you truly wanted.
> 
> The video editing I talk about is different than what you think.
> This or this  are pretty much moderate examples, and they reflect basically what is my video editing culture. Take a source video, and base music, and craft it by:
> ...


 
You're comparing apples and oranges, dude.  And you clearly know little of other forms of art.  There's rules that you can bend, but breaking them can result in an absolute mess, there's not just drawing, but painting...and if you've never mucked around with watercolor, you don't know how much of a bitch they can be to even the most experienced.  Every medium, and every brand within it, acts differently, plays off each other differently.  The techniques are endless, the tools.  Be that video editing can be considered a different form of art, you don't bash other art forms because you find them underneath you or *THINK* they're easy(because they're not), it makes you come off as a high and mighty prick.

Which you already have with your comment about the fandom's pricing.  Outside of the fandom, you won't find good art for cheap, which is what $100-200 is, or even as low as $30.  A FEATHER painting commission from a Western/Wildlife Artist I met in ND starts at $300.  A feather...and that's more than fair!  And oh yes, he's worth every penny.  

But yes, back to the whole bashing other art forms...

It's like saying this herding dog is better than that gun dog.  Not only were they made for two DIFFERENT functions, but it's also a matter of personal preference and what an individual wants and needs.  So get off the high horse.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Oct 15, 2010)

SilverKarja said:


> true stuff


 
In any case, if people 500 years ago had art that today worthes hundreds of millions, I wonder what'll happen in the next 500 years.


----------



## cpam (Oct 15, 2010)

I recall reading an essay some years ago where the writer had run into a 'work ethic' bias one day, where a blue-collar worker, who spent his working day slaving away for long hours at a grueling factory job -- an undeniably physical exercise -- had sneered at the writer, who only had to sit at a desk and type all day.  "That's not _real _work!" the factory worker had scoffed.  But the writer put forward his case on the grounds that he worked the same long hours -- and then some, as sometimes his clients would call at odd hours and demand changes, edits, or additions to the material; his work included a lot of research, some available by internet, a lot more only from the library or special resources not typically available to the public; he also had deadlines to keep, which might result in even more hours at the desk as they came crashing in; he had to deal not only with bosses but with clients, which might mean a lot of telephone or travel time, during which he wouldn't be typing (meaning more lost time as the deadlines approached).  And, as a freelancer, he also had to do his own bookkeeping, invoicing, contacts, etc, on top of everything else.  As a result, though his job was not as physically demanding as the factory-worker, there was still just as much stress.

Basically, what SilverKarja said is fundamentally correct: you're comparing apples to oranges when you say one job is harder or more demanding than another.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 15, 2010)

cpam said:


> I recall reading an essay some years ago where the writer had run into a 'work ethic' bias one day, where a blue-collar worker, who spent his working day slaving away for long hours at a grueling factory job -- an undeniably physical exercise -- had sneered at the writer, who only had to sit at a desk and type all day.  "That's not _real _work!" the factory worker had scoffed.  But the writer put forward his case on the grounds that he worked the same long hours -- and then some, as sometimes his clients would call at odd hours and demand changes, edits, or additions to the material; his work included a lot of research, some available by internet, a lot more only from the library or special resources not typically available to the public; he also had deadlines to keep, which might result in even more hours at the desk as they came crashing in; he had to deal not only with bosses but with clients, which might mean a lot of telephone or travel time, during which he wouldn't be typing (meaning more lost time as the deadlines approached).  And, as a freelancer, he also had to do his own bookkeeping, invoicing, contacts, etc, on top of everything else.  As a result, though his job was not as physically demanding as the factory-worker, there was still just as much stress.
> 
> Basically, what SilverKarja said is fundamentally correct: you're comparing apples to oranges when you say one job is harder or more demanding than another.


 problem is, the other often relies on anyone knowing you to do the job as its possible to end up in a dry spell cause everyone is going to someone cheaper (something currently going on right no in the furry fandom.) I seen artist who live on their commissions bitching about folks who charge less than them being the problem for their lack of commissions to live on really.
Its fine for artist who DO live on their commissions to up their price base on hourly wages, just dont demand those who doing fine on their paychecks from their job to do the same.


----------



## Fenrari (Oct 15, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> If you wanna live off your art, do what tailsrulz does, he sells posters and cds of his stuff.
> 
> It is a hell of a lot easier than living off solely on commissions.


 
Blotch does the same. Though I admit the year studying wildlife art in Africa must have added to their art's general appeal.

It's plausible. But like most things furry, more of a weekend thing than something that's stable.


----------



## cpam (Oct 15, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> Its fine for artist who DO live on their commissions to up their price base on hourly wages, just dont demand those who doing fine on their paychecks from their job to do the same.


 
Why not?  Why should the more dedicated semi-professional or full-time professional suffer being undercut or undervalued by an unschooled dilettante?  If anything, the latter should bring his prices up to within the same range as the former's.  It's one thing to price competitively, and another to undercut the competition.


----------



## BlauShep (Oct 15, 2010)

Draw porn. You can be rich if you draw porn.
If you don't, you're screwed.


----------



## Zenia (Oct 15, 2010)

It can be feast or famine. Since I started trying to sell art... years ago, I have only made about $300 on art.


----------



## Aaros (Oct 16, 2010)

I've followed the sucessful artists to see what they do right for a while, and basically it's all about a) making tons of art and b) making really amazing art. Which are difficult things to reconcile since the better the art is, the longer it takes to make...
Also, the people who tend to get noticed are the ones who make friends with people and go around commenting and faving on everyone else's art.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 16, 2010)

cpam said:


> Why not?  Why should the more dedicated semi-professional or full-time professional suffer being undercut or undervalued by an unschooled dilettante?  If anything, the latter should bring his prices up to within the same range as the former's.  It's one thing to price competitively, and another to undercut the competition.


 So you are telling me you are willing to sit next to a person who does a considered lesser grade work but takes just as long as you?

I mean I get paid more as a Dishwasher cause I can do more things than just dishwash, but by gawd that the other dishwasher who just does just dishwashing to get paid just as much as me cause he works the same hours.

I actually talked to some artist who live on Commissions, some of them do believe that someone of lesser quality were getting paid the same as them, they would flip as it would be sadly a waste of money.


----------



## slydude851 (Oct 16, 2010)

I can't provide numbers, but this community is very very large and many people are artists competing to make a living just off of art.  Because of this competition and inflation, the prices and quality can really vary between artists.


----------



## cpam (Oct 16, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> So you are telling me you are willing to sit next to a person who does a considered lesser grade work but takes just as long as you?
> 
> I mean I get paid more as a Dishwasher cause I can do more things than just dishwash, but by gawd that the other dishwasher who just does just dishwashing to get paid just as much as me cause he works the same hours.


 
Presumably, even though he doesn't have the same range of chores as you do, he's still working just as hard for his paycheck as you are.

At any rate, I wasn't saying that all artists should have the same exact rates, but rather should be within the same range.  Not some pricing at two or three hundred a painting while someone else is only charging ten or fifteen for the same kind of work; rather all should be charging within a range of a hundred dollars or so, with some reasonable variance.  The market should then determine where within that range any individual artist should be setting his price.

Realistically, any artist who sells for less than what it cost him to produce the work is directly hurting himself, hobby or not -- and his dragging down the prices of the artists actually trying to make or supplement their living wages hurts everybody else.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 16, 2010)

cpam said:


> Presumably, even though he doesn't have the same range of chores as you do, he's still working just as hard for his paycheck as you are.
> 
> At any rate, I wasn't saying that all artists should have the same exact rates, but rather should be within the same range.  Not some pricing at two or three hundred a painting while someone else is only charging ten or fifteen for the same kind of work; rather all should be charging within a range of a hundred dollars or so, with some reasonable variance.  The market should then determine where within that range any individual artist should be setting his price.
> 
> Realistically, any artist who sells for less than what it cost him to produce the work is directly hurting himself, hobby or not -- and his dragging down the prices of the artists actually trying to make or supplement their living wages hurts everybody else.



Actually pointing again we have the same exact hours, I'm doing more things in those same hours. Just that asshole been taking more and more days off leaving me to work more and him to bitch about me getting paid more cause of not realizing he is giving me more days.

Also note that most artist start their prices lower due to not being known which artist living on their commissions can understand as they too had to start off at a lesser pricing and build it up once they got a good reputation.
But these days artist who are living on commissions are being paid on how long the work take as traditional artist would cost more than a digital really as digital the more taken resources are time, while traditional its resources is on the supplies.


----------



## Random_Observer (Oct 16, 2010)

Join Sexyfur or Clubstripes.

Get paid to trace porn.


----------



## Tanginello (Oct 17, 2010)

Selling furry art isn't easy. They want things cheap, fast, and brand name (kind of like every other commodity, really).

People who manage to sell art as a living are a lucky and often hungry few who live with family or friends and generally don't have to pay rent.
I do this kind of stuff on the side and don't make a lot of money off of it (granted, I am a mediocre artist at best and moreover an unknown one). I think most furries only see a couple commissions a month and generally only sell a couple bucks worth of art.

Stick to your day job. Being able to buy food is awesome.


----------



## cpam (Oct 17, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> Actually pointing again we have the same exact hours, I'm doing more things in those same hours. Just that asshole been taking more and more days off leaving me to work more and him to bitch about me getting paid more cause of not realizing he is giving me more days.



Well, if someone's goofing off and not producing, that's a different issue altogether, and not really analogous to the subject.



Crysix Fousen said:


> Also note that most artist start their prices lower due to not being known which artist living on their commissions can understand as they too had to start off at a lesser pricing and build it up once they got a good reputation.



Starting lower is understandable, but that does not mean he has to start in the basement.  If one is truly ignorant as to how to price, then he needs to do his homework and research the market.  If he starts out at charging really, really low prices, then it is always going to be expected of him and it will be resented if he tries to charge higher and more reasonable rates.  Better to start high and adjust lower if he needs to; people will think they're getting a deal then.



Crysix Fousen said:


> But these days artist who are living on commissions are being paid on how long the work take as traditional artist would cost more than a digital really as digital the more taken resources are time, while traditional its resources is on the supplies.



Digital has its expenses as well: hardware (computer, scanners, backup drives, tablets, thumbnail drives, discs, modems, routers), software, maintenance,  training, power, research (books on specific subjects or how-to's on specific techniques), ISP service, etc.


----------



## full-on-zombie (Oct 18, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> problem is, the other often relies on anyone knowing you to do the job as its possible to end up in a dry spell cause everyone is going to someone cheaper (something currently going on right no in the furry fandom.) I seen artist who live on their commissions bitching about folks who charge less than them being the problem for their lack of commissions to live on really.
> Its fine for artist who DO live on their commissions to up their price base on hourly wages, just dont demand those who doing fine on their paychecks from their job to do the same.



This whole situation is kind of sticky. I have also seen a lot of other commission artists griping about how much competition they have with other artists having lower prices than them, because then it makes it harder for _them._ 

It seems kind of self-centered to me on one aspect, because everyone has a right to sell their art...and a lesser known, lesser skilled artist is not going to get any commissions if they market themselves for the same price that the highly skilled/popular artist is. 

However, if it's a case of both artists are highly popular/skilled, and one is undercutting the other (both whom try to make a living on their art without a day job), then that's where I think they have a right to complain. Imo.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 18, 2010)

cpam said:


> Starting lower is understandable, but that does not mean he has to start in the basement.  If one is truly ignorant as to how to price, then he needs to do his homework and research the market.  If he starts out at charging really, really low prices, then it is always going to be expected of him and it will be resented if he tries to charge higher and more reasonable rates.  Better to start high and adjust lower if he needs to; people will think they're getting a deal then.


 Thus why its a gradual rise in price, these people slowly get the respect and a lot more known on their skill to be able to raise their prices without much conflict. Starting off High has its own backlash of being overlooked somewhat now and not easier as then instead of customers bitching about your high prices, you now get artist complaining about you lowering yours. Its smarter to start lower (that is on par with one's skill level) than start higher. Pricing levels is a no win situation, its a Lesser of evils one.



cpam said:


> Digital has its expenses as well: hardware (computer, scanners, backup drives, tablets, thumbnail drives, discs, modems, routers), software, maintenance,  training, power, research (books on specific subjects or how-to's on specific techniques), ISP service, etc.


 Those dont outcost the Traditional still as many folks would have their computer for 5+ years with little to no changes while traditionaly have to constantly restock on their supplies, flawed example is flawed.



full-on-zombie said:


> This whole situation is kind of sticky. I  have also seen a lot of other commission artists griping about how much  competition they have with other artists having lower prices than them,  because then it makes it harder for _them._
> 
> It seems kind  of self-centered to me on one aspect, because everyone has a right to  sell their art...and a lesser known, lesser skilled artist is not going  to get any commissions if they market themselves for the same price that  the highly skilled/popular artist is.
> 
> However, if it's a case  of both artists are highly popular/skilled, and one is undercutting the  other (both whom try to make a living on their art without a day job),  then that's where I think they have a right to complain. Imo.


Its mostly actually artist living on their commissions complaining about those that aren't, but it does show they do care about themselves only as its THEIR livelyhood on the line. I once asked an artist who was complaining about this if they were actually caring about the other artist at all or just their own livelyhood, I got blocked for that.


----------



## cpam (Oct 18, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> Those dont outcost the Traditional still as many folks would have their computer for 5+ years with little to no changes while traditionaly have to constantly restock on their supplies, flawed example is flawed.



Don't you believe it.  Apart from the fact that computers _and_ software need constant upgrades and maintenance, is the fact that the upfront costs are enormous compared to traditional art supplies, even though the number of purchases are fewer.  (The average low-end PC runs about four to five hundred; something with more quality starts at a grand, never mind the cost of a Cintaq.  A decent Mac starts at a thousand.  A Strathmore pad and a #2 pencil will only cost you about $20.)

Point being that all media, traditional or digital, have their expenses and within a five-year period digital and traditional are going to be roughly the same.


----------



## WTFurious (Oct 18, 2010)

This whole argument can be applied to art anywhere, not just within this fandom.

People who make their living off of commissions don't have another job.  Art IS their job.  As such, they charge the appropriate amount for a piece, and these pieces cost much time and man-power (man-...arting...? lolol) to create.  This leaves little time to do other things like have a full-time job with a guaranteed paycheck.  For them, it's not "art for art's sake", it's "sell your art to make rent or get kicked out on your ass.  And good luck buying groceries!"

Also, those living the dream of being a "starving artist" don't market art.  They market themselves as a person.  That's how you make money off of art.  You have to market YOURSELF on top of advertising your wares.  People that always have their commission slots full are often people that are already well-established in the fandom, and are a name that almost everyone knows in passing REGARDLESS of how good they are.

Go visit the Black Market segment of the FAF.  Tons of "(Selling)" commission threads with no replies unless the poster is already prolific, plenty of people "(Hiring)" that either want to spend below $20 for fourteen characters or "maybe you could draw me something for free...?"


Art is a tough world and few will survive.  It's why I have two jobs.  Can't buy insulin with no replies to your "selling commissions!" thread, and the same goes for 90% of my fellow artists.


----------



## Random_Observer (Oct 18, 2010)

I like how furries pay arms and legs for art that would never make it in a professional artist's portfolio.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 18, 2010)

cpam said:


> Don't you believe it.  Apart from the fact that computers _and_ software need constant upgrades and maintenance, is the fact that the upfront costs are enormous compared to traditional art supplies, even though the number of purchases are fewer.  (The average low-end PC runs about four to five hundred; something with more quality starts at a grand, never mind the cost of a Cintaq.  A decent Mac starts at a thousand.  A Strathmore pad and a #2 pencil will only cost you about $20.)
> 
> Point being that all media, traditional or digital, have their expenses and within a five-year period digital and traditional are going to be roughly the same.


Fine you want to fight in the computer area I'll even BREAK that down too using my friend who I work with Synxirazu-niam
He utilize a Waccom Bamboo as he knows/Believes "I don't need to buy the most fucking expensive item to do my work"
His computer he is using is a fairly decent midrange that I built only costing 239 to put it all together, he recently sending it back for me to do a lil bit more upgrading which probably wont cost me no more than 75 USD. "Its cheaper to buy the part you need instead of a whole complete computer"

Software updates are free, software upGRADES would yes cost, then again from what I see, artist would rather pirate the program or use the free/paid version of Sai as the paid version is only 65USD give or take compared to PS 600+USD.

maintenance, for one it varies depending on the usage. I only do maintenance for mines every two years mainly to see which parts I need to switch out if they have worn down or replace out right. My friend on the other hand just did her maintenance after 5 years only cost her 75US for a new Video card and RAM.

A computer taken well cared for and used will last quite a long while without any real upgrades. Expensive =/= Better

but thanks on insulting traditional artists, your flawed example is still flawed.


----------



## xombiehamster (Oct 19, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> but thanks on insulting traditional artists, your flawed example is still flawed.



As a traditional artist I have to say I'm not insulted and you should stop putting words in my mouth.

Powering a computer isn't free.  A digital artist can't do like I do and find a sunny spot and work for free after having paid for their materials.  Their cost continues increasing through the entire time they're working.  My materials cost is flat, and I can purchase even my more expensive materials in bulk to reduce the initial price.  It makes sense to me that digital art and traditional art will cost about the same in the long term.

Don't be insulted on my behalf.  You just don't know what you're talking about.  It's not a competition.


----------



## SilverKarja (Oct 19, 2010)

cpam said:


> Don't you believe it.  Apart from the fact that computers _and_ software need constant upgrades and maintenance, is the fact that the upfront costs are enormous compared to traditional art supplies, even though the number of purchases are fewer.  (The average low-end PC runs about four to five hundred; something with more quality starts at a grand, never mind the cost of a Cintaq.  A decent Mac starts at a thousand.  A Strathmore pad and a #2 pencil will only cost you about $20.)
> 
> Point being that all media, traditional or digital, have their expenses and within a five-year period digital and traditional are going to be roughly the same.



That really depends.  Working in digital a little, you can do so with minimum cost and updates and software and still have fantastic results.  You're also not constantly buying things you run out of due to your work.  Where as with traditional, yeah, you can go the cheap route, but it's going to make your life more difficult with the way the cheap stuff acts and those pieces are NOT going to last for years and years without good quality papers, paints, pastels, and so on.  But then again, I've noticed most furry artists don't understand much about light fastness.


----------



## yiffytimesnews (Oct 19, 2010)

If you want to get yourself known for the right reasons, I say go down next time a fur convention is in your area and show off your work there. Other than that, I will suggest either starting or hooking up with someone who has a blog and submit some of your work with them.


----------



## Carenath (Oct 19, 2010)

cpam said:


> It's one thing to price competitively, and another to undercut the competition.


 Welcome to the /real/ free market. If artists wanted to drive their competition out of business by undercutting them and charging next to nothing to the point where their competitors can no longer afford to lower their prices any further and have to give up to seek other forms of income.. that's just "good business". This is the _real_ free market, the freedom to run your competitors out of business then raise the prices as you see fit to corner the market and make a nice bit of cash at the same time.

And this doesn't just happen in the furry artwork area.. look at any other business market and you'll see everyone trying to do the same thing.. so long as there's no market regulations to set the bar.



cpam said:


> The market should then determine where within that range any individual artist should be setting his price.
> 
> Realistically, any artist who sells for less than what it cost him to produce the work is directly hurting himself, hobby or not -- and his dragging down the prices of the artists actually trying to make or supplement their living wages hurts everybody else.


 That would only work, if there was a legal framework, of regulation to control how low an artist could charge and force the prices to level out, or, all the various furry artists decided to form a coalition and agreed to fix the prices to within a range. Neither are likely to happen anytime soon.

No, realistically, the artist is only hurting themselves, if they're not drawing down a paycheck as a primary income. If they're doing this as a hobby for supplemental income, the only thing they're doing is hurting artists trying to make a business out of their artwork. But this is precisely what happens in an unregulated market, whining about it won't change anything. If it encourages artists to stop charging too much for their work, when it's clearly not worth it, then that's fine with me. For myself, I comission artists that meet my quality standards and I let them set the price, if I think the price is reasonable given the medium used, and the quality of their work, I'll be happy to pay it. If I think they deserve a bit more for exceptional work, I've no problems giving them a bit more. If I think an artist is overpriced, I won't comission them.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 19, 2010)

xombiehamster said:


> As a traditional artist I have to say I'm not insulted and you should stop putting words in my mouth.
> 
> Powering a computer isn't free.  A digital artist can't do like I do and find a sunny spot and work for free after having paid for their materials.  Their cost continues increasing through the entire time they're working.  My materials cost is flat, and I can purchase even my more expensive materials in bulk to reduce the initial price.  It makes sense to me that digital art and traditional art will cost about the same in the long term.
> 
> Don't be insulted on my behalf.  You just don't know what you're talking about.  It's not a competition.


 in a 5 year long run, no, traditional would still outcost digital but I'll change it cause its truely depends on the traditional artist used items. BTW thats sad when you thought I was making it a competition.



Carenath said:


> Welcome to the /real/ free market. If artists  wanted to drive their competition out of business by undercutting them  and charging next to nothing to the point where their competitors can no  longer afford to lower their prices any further and have to give up to  seek other forms of income.. that's just "good business". This is the  _real_ free market, the freedom to run your competitors out of  business then raise the prices as you see fit to corner the market and  make a nice bit of cash at the same time.
> 
> And this doesn't just  happen in the furry artwork area.. look at any other business market and  you'll see everyone trying to do the same thing.. so long as there's no  market regulations to set the bar.


I only notice only artist who are living on commissions are going after those that don't live on their commissions, only recent times that artist that are living on Commissions are telling other artist that live on commissions to not undersell themselves as they probably see that those that aren't tend to take off a work load or act like fillers as they themselves dont take a very large list of commissioners.




Carenath said:


> That would only work, if  there was a legal framework, of regulation to control how low an artist  could charge and force the prices to level out, or, all the various  furry artists decided to form a coalition and agreed to fix the prices  to within a range. Neither are likely to happen anytime soon.
> 
> No,  realistically, the artist is only hurting themselves, if they're not  drawing down a paycheck as a primary income. If they're doing this as a  hobby for supplemental income, the only thing they're doing is hurting  artists trying to make a business out of their artwork. But this is  precisely what happens in an unregulated market, whining about it won't  change anything. If it encourages artists to stop charging too much for  their work, when it's clearly not worth it, then that's fine with me.  For myself, I comission artists that meet my quality standards and I let  them set the price, if I think the price is reasonable given the medium  used, and the quality of their work, I'll be happy to pay it. If I  think they deserve a bit more for exceptional work, I've no problems  giving them a bit more. If I think an artist is overpriced, I won't  comission them.


I have done the same thing, even when they did a big job for me I would pay them extra, but by gawd I'm not gonna give up a full paycheck for a single page of a comic. My business or lil charity on FA is me paying for arts for others, They have no say on who they want as I want to show them, "There is other folks other than the top 10 artist folks ALWAYS commissioned, you know". Is it bad to be proud when those I gift would give up saving up for the expensive artist and started seeking out the lower priced or reasonable to their budget.

On the artists getting together, I wouldnt mind that but I see most of the big names either try to be the ones in control or choose to remain out of that group.


----------



## cpam (Oct 19, 2010)

Carenath said:


> That would only work, if there was a legal framework, of regulation to control how low an artist could charge and force the prices to level out, or, all the various furry artists decided to form a coalition and agreed to fix the prices to within a range. Neither are likely to happen anytime soon.



You don't need for regulation for this to occur.  If someone charges basement prices for his work, at a rate that wouldn't even compensate for his expenses, he forces competitors to price lower in order to compete, but they can only go so far before they fall into the same pit, and then face the dilemma of underselling or not selling at all.  The more professional won't sell below a certain point because they won't recoup their expenses that way, and will usually have a back-up strategy for selling their art; like taking it to a different market.  As in a different con, a different online auction site, a different clientele... if Furry isn't profitable enough, they'll gladly migrate to a different fan outlet/interest.



Carenath said:


> No, realistically, the artist is only hurting themselves, if they're not drawing down a paycheck as a primary income. If they're doing this as a hobby for supplemental income, the only thing they're doing is hurting artists trying to make a business out of their artwork. But this is precisely what happens in an unregulated market, whining about it won't change anything. If it encourages artists to stop charging too much for their work, when it's clearly not worth it, then that's fine with me. For myself, I comission artists that meet my quality standards and I let them set the price, if I think the price is reasonable given the medium used, and the quality of their work, I'll be happy to pay it. If I think they deserve a bit more for exceptional work, I've no problems giving them a bit more. If I think an artist is overpriced, I won't comission them.


 
But that's the real question, isn't it?  How does one determine if an artist is overpriced?  Fans determine by their wallet and whether or not the art is, in their opinion, 'good', and that is all entirely subjective.  The artists determine the value by the effort and time they put into it, as well as by factors of customer interest, subject matter, artistic quality, etc.

I remember fans screaming a few years back when one painting was sold at a furry con auction for somewheres near $5,000 (I forget the actual price, but it was in that neighborhood), and the shocked comments were along the lines of 'no furry art is ever worth that much money!!' and such.

Someone thought it was and paid for it; apparently several others did as well, or else it would not have gone that high in an auction.  Therefore, the painting was worth five grand.  I doubt the artist could have asked and received that much outside of an auction, but I think it justifies pricing his works at anywhere from five hundred to a thousand if he wanted to.


----------



## cpam (Oct 19, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> in a 5 year long run, no, traditional would still outcost digital but I'll change it cause its truely depends on the traditional artist used items.


 
I work in both digital and traditional.

Over the past five years I have acquired four computers - two desktops and two laptops.  Two of these, thankfully, were gifts, otherwise I'd be up to my ears in hock.  Those and a few assorted peripherals come to around roughly four grand, give or take, and that doesn't include any software purchases I also made; plus the electric bill, since a significant portion of it covers powering the computers.  (The gifting of the two computers greatly eased the blow to the wallet.)

I've also purchased a great deal of art supplies, mostly specialty papers, markers and pens, drafting equipment and the like but also other supplies (boards, sketchbooks, paints) as I've needed them.  And the accumulated expense, while notable, doesn't come close to the expense of the computers.

Now, that ratio may differ among different artists, depending upon their specific interests and artistic pursuits, but I believe the overall would still average out.


----------



## Carenath (Oct 19, 2010)

cpam said:


> You don't need for regulation for this to occur.  If someone charges basement prices for his work, at a rate that wouldn't even compensate for his expenses, he forces competitors to price lower in order to compete, but they can only go so far before they fall into the same pit, and then face the dilemma of underselling or not selling at all.  The more professional won't sell below a certain point because they won't recoup their expenses that way, and will usually have a back-up strategy for selling their art; like taking it to a different market.  As in a different con, a different online auction site, a different clientele... if Furry isn't profitable enough, they'll gladly migrate to a different fan outlet/interest.


That is the point though, you'll drive them out of business, or out of the market, leaving more of it for you. It's like, if Sprint decided to charge just $20/mo for unlimited calls, data and texts. Can AT&T and Verizon compete with that?



cpam said:


> But that's the real question, isn't it?  How does one determine if an artist is overpriced?  Fans determine by their wallet and whether or not the art is, in their opinion, 'good', and that is all entirely subjective.  The artists determine the value by the effort and time they put into it, as well as by factors of customer interest, subject matter, artistic quality, etc.


Well, that's the thing, it does come down to how much one is willing to pay and what you're getting out of it. I think most furries don't realise what a good deal they're getting from some of the better artists who draw for the fandom, and I think a lot of artists are pricing themselves within a range they recognise a lot of furries can still afford given the large number of students and young people in the fandom that don't have career jobs yet.



cpam said:


> Someone thought it was and paid for it; apparently several others did as well, or else it would not have gone that high in an auction.  Therefore, the painting was worth five grand.  I doubt the artist could have asked and received that much outside of an auction, but I think it justifies pricing his works at anywhere from five hundred to a thousand if he wanted to.


And if he priced his works that high, he'd price himself out of business.


----------



## Verin Asper (Oct 19, 2010)

cpam said:


> You don't need for regulation for this to occur.  If someone charges basement prices for his work, at a rate that wouldn't even compensate for his expenses, he forces competitors to price lower in order to compete, but they can only go so far before they fall into the same pit, and then face the dilemma of underselling or not selling at all.  The more professional won't sell below a certain point because they won't recoup their expenses that way, and will usually have a back-up strategy for selling their art; like taking it to a different market.  As in a different con, a different online auction site, a different clientele... if Furry isn't profitable enough, they'll gladly migrate to a different fan outlet/interest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I stopped at auction, in other words furs was instead FIGHTING over to get said art piece
Tis why some artist even use this as instead of opening for commissions they would open an auction to which various furs would try to outbid each other to just get a commission by said artist.
That tend to kill off the mid to lower groups of furs who buy commissions leaving those who can shell out large amount of funds to go at it.
There is somewhat a small saying "See Betawolf Bid on something, give up, he WILL easily beat you unless you can get past the 2000USD range."

The upside about commissions thru auctions it allows the lesser need to have a large commission list as it brings quite a bit of money as one person might pay for the equivilant of 2-3 commissions slots for one piece of art.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Oct 19, 2010)

Carenath said:


> And if he priced his works that high, he'd price himself out of business.


 
It's all about knowing what you can do to make the most money.


----------



## Inkydoodle (Jun 23, 2018)

Im an artist myself. im not very good, but i spend 2-3 hours of my own time to create something new, just for it to be ignored and not wanted. ive given up on so many occasions. ill get a comm. every now and again, but its fucking hard. i just want to quit. but i love to draw so much. ive learned if your not falvie, or twilight saint, you will get nothing in return for your hard work.


----------



## Summer (Jun 24, 2018)

slydude851 said:


> I can't provide numbers, but this community is very very large and many people are artists competing to make a living just off of art.  Because of this competition and inflation, the prices and quality can really vary between artists.



This is something I wonder about, if being an artist is undesirable career and not recommended, why are so many people doing it?.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Jun 25, 2018)

Closing this due to necro.


----------

