At 2/17/10 04:10 AM, Kinsei01 wrote:
I really Don't see where outsourcing work of a animation is really any different than outsourcing your work to assistants.
Because the artists tend not to mention assistants ANYWHERE, and its generally assumed that the artist did everything themselves, and its work that could be done by a single person (and is when other artists do it) but in these cases isnt. There are varying degrees of outsourcing. In the case of jeff koons and the artist couple, the artist does none of the actual visual work, all they do is open their mouth and then get credit for a visual product and NONE of the actual artists are ever mentioned or receive any credit. I am more bothered by those types than say the assistants who help prep a piece and dont receive credit, because while important the overall appearance of the piece isnt altered by their acts to much.
Another huge thing to consider is this. If the artist is capable of creating the piece, but delegates the task or set up details to others is it less bad than the artist NOT being able to actually produce the product (do to lack of skill) and delegating the elements to others. If you can paint a painting, but choose to let someone else do the underpainting, then you finish the piece and make no mention of them its not as horrible in my mind as you getting someone to make an entire piece because you lack the skills to do it then you take all the credit.
I still think that regardless of the medium that assistance work, delegated work, and outsourced work is very underplayed. I'm sure we can agree on that.
True, but when it comes to single art works that where credit only goes to one individual that is messed up. If artists who do outsource their work or rely heavily on assistants started calling themselves something like " *artist's name* collective" or " *artist's name* group/inc/and company" than at least they would be indirectly acknowledging that not all the glory goes to them, but rather them and the group they work with.
At 2/17/10 09:11 AM, J-qb wrote:
Consider the chef of a good restaurant. He will take credit for the work of his assistants, because he taught them how to cook and he made the recipes; but he will also receive credit for the meat. He did not raise/nurture the cow, he probably didnt slaughter the cow.
And the painter doesnt MAKE the paints, the ingredients for food are closer to the medium and tools that an artist uses. You dont need to give credit to the paper mill (although mentioning the brands of products you use is appropriate, and chefs will do the same with brands of food and ingredients). So its not the same. As for taking credit for his assistants it goes back to the argument that he could do it, but doesnt have the time or need to when its a trivial but important task that can be delegated to someone else and not effect the overall outcome to drastically.
You could see the asian studios as farmers; they provide 3d animation to the big companies.
When its stock footage or models then credit is forsaken by the artist when they made their art public use. And if you look close in movies, they mention which studio did what, always. Artists dont mention it.
delivers good stuff, it matters that the big companies know. I pay the big companies, the big companies pay the smaller studios.
Im not saying that you as a consumer or viewer need to pay your dues to each individual. Its like you said where the employer pays the employees. In the case of the artist consider the artist as the big company and the assistants of outsourced studios as the small companies. With movies the little guy gets credit as well as payment. With artists the little guy might get paid, but they dont get credit. And not only do they not get credit, but the artists who do these types of things tend to see nothing wrong with that and will vehemently argue that the helpers don't deserve it.