10 | 20 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 100 per page
Oldest First | Newest First

Open Letter to ArtSpots Applicants

This letter is for those who are looking to apply, or who have been declined in a previous application.

First, I want to apologize to anyone awaiting a reply on an application. I have been wanting to post this out in the open first before allowing the responses to go out.

Lately I have been rolling words around in my head, trying to think of delicate, easy, or otherwise eloquent words to try and describe my thoughts. It is hard. Art is a touchy subject for many, especially artists.

A lot of artists get so tied up in their work than when their work is rejected, for any reason big or small, it is also taken as a personal rejection as well. In my mind, with ArtSpots' philosophy, that is like a plumber feeling sad because a pipe they installed wasn't secured properly and started to leak. Generally, in those cases, it is a feeling of mild anger because of the work that has to come out of their pocket to fix the problem that was their fault, and then a vow to always make sure pipes are secured properly in the future. A lesson is learned. Artists have the advantage over plumbers in that they can practice their trade without much expense, just that of a sketchbook and pencil at its most basic.

The core of what I am getting at is that art is a trade, a skill to be learned. It was treated as a trade up until the last century. I have heard many call people who do art as a trade "sellouts," or reinforce that they are "illustrators" instead, and not really artists. Fine, if that makes someone feel more comfortable, I am talking about illustration and illustrators then. ArtSpots is a place for illustrators who like to do anthropomorphic artwork.

Lets put this into historical perspective. Sargent was an illustrator. David was an illustrator. Reubens was an illustrator. Rembrandt, Caravaggio and Michaelangeo were all illustrators. Just about all of the classical artists were, because that is what they did: work for hire. That is what we see in cathedrals and museums. Work they did for money, for someone else. Even at the tail end and after the Baroque period, when times changed, Dutch had their genre painters and France had the Salons, where artists made paintings with the intent to sell them.

If you have clicked on any of the links above, you have seen the Art Renewal Center website. Their philosophy is one of our guiding lights. I highly encourage you to read Fred Ross' essays about art over the last century. While I do not entirely agree with everything he says, it will give you a better idea of where I am coming from.

Some may argue that this is a different era, a different time with different economics. But, to that I will pose this question: People still want art, including ourselves, no? Custom art or pre-made. Art that they can recognize as being of good skill, rather than being told it is good. We all have eyes, and we all know, as the saying goes, what we like when we see it. Sure, we all may prefer different aesthetics, but we can at least recognize when something was done by a skilled draftsman even if we do not care much for the piece. Much how I can recognize Spielberg's skill as a moviemaker, even if I did not entirely like his recent War of the Worlds.

None of us, if handed a camera, would be expected to make what Speilberg makes, because we do not have the years of learned experience that he has. Just as many of us, even those accepted onto ArtSpots, would not be expected to paint like Sargent if given a paintbrush. We simply need to keep learning and honing the prerequisite skills. All of us.

Many people immediately assume the worst. Perhaps it is a protective measure, or just a natural reaction. I know we are called elitist because we have a standard people must meet before being accepted onto the site. I knew from the start this was inevitable, as such things always are when a standard is set. I will say that we are not actively trying to be elitist, to exclude anyone from a "club." We just have a bar for entry. Anyone can reach this bar if they want to. If someone is declined, it just means they have some more practice and studying to do before reaching it. Sometimes it is a lot, sometimes just a little. If working to get better, even acknowledging that there is work to be done to get better, is elitist, then so be it.

We are still new, and believe me we have been trying to make it clear what our bar is. We have application guidelines, and now a sample portfolio including what would result in a declined over accepted portfolio. We also have a critique group dedicated to prospective applicants, sort of like public reviews but without actually applying. It it tough trying to define what we consider "the basics." I maintain we are not looking for professionals. If we were, all the art would be the calibur of ConceptArt.org. Our basics are relative to that.

We are here to help. Really! If you get declined, it does not mean we never want you on the site. In fact, we want to see more of you on the site, taking part in the collective energy to improve. Like anything, the more studying and guided practice you go through the sooner you will get to the bar we have set, or even beyond it. Think of the critique forums as a big study group. Even the reviewers put work up for critique, because they are constantly learning too. We are all here to help each other. But, every artist first has to realize they need further study.

We look at anyone who approaches our site as a friend. In return, you can view us as friends or adversaries. One is productive, the other is not.

Can this forum software sticky topics? I think this was really well written.

Whisper Panthress said: Can this forum software sticky topics? I think this was really well written.

Yes, and it has now been stickied. You are right, it would be a good thing for any newcomers to the site to see.

I like your signature, too. :)

I understand where you are coming from... but people are going to be disapointed and they really need to get over it.

How long are the applications going to be taking? I was anticipated for the two weeks and now I have lost all hope for a response (not to be rude, it's just been way more than two weeks and I am kinda wondering..)

Joy

Joy said: I understand where you are coming from... but people are going to be disapointed and they really need to get over it.

How long are the applications going to be taking? I was anticipated for the two weeks and now I have lost all hope for a response (not to be rude, it's just been way more than two weeks and I am kinda wondering..)

Joy

I apologize for the long delay. You are right, it has taken a lot more than the 'two week' estimate we originally put in the FAQ. Sometime around January, I think? You will get a response, as a matter of fact your application is towards the top.

Part of the delay of the applications -- In looking at the system in place because it is flawed, otherwise there would not be such a backup -- is because redlines are mandatory on applications that have the redline bit set when someone applies. So what we are probably going to do is just eliminate that option altogether and if someone wants a redline to clarify something, we can do them over email or they can visit the critique forums. (Which, honestly, is where I would like reviewers to focus their redlining energy.)

You will get a response, and soon. Again, I am sorry it is taking so long.

I'm somewhere on the list, but I don't mind waiting.

Even so, would it be easier to have those of us waiting with the redline bit turned on and are willing to restart the process to cancel the application and reapply without the redlining option?

DarkWolfie said: I'm somewhere on the list, but I don't mind waiting.

Even so, would it be easier to have those of us waiting with the redline bit turned on and are willing to restart the process to cancel the application and reapply without the redlining option?

That's a ditto here. Personally I don't mind if I don't get redlined, I just figured if my app was declined and the reviewers wanted to give suggestions on improving for reapplication, it would help me out. (I love good advice! It helps you do better!)

A rejection really shouldn't be seen as a big deal; after all industry king Todd McFarlane received over 700 rejection letters before landing a bit job with Marvel. Getting bent out of shape about it is, for lack of a nicer word, unprofessional and immature.

Well considering the kinder stance the place has taken, while still enforcing at least a goal and standard for everyone to work towards, and beyond is a good thing, although I am hoping it does not crush under the weight of carrying the responsibility, because the people who do want to create work like this, or love it, need it.

Someone needed to say! Hey lets work toward something better, greater then what we have done before, but also let us learn the path towards accomplishing that.

.. I'm not sure if that made any sense, lets say I agree instead lol

I have heard a couple people complain about this - and Yerf's, way back in the day - site's standards as saying "All they want is Pro! I just do this for fun, so why should I HAVE to work so hard to meet their standards?"

Thats like saying you have a pocket camcorder and make films with your friends and then get mad when Miramax or MGM or Disney won't pick up your movie.

There's nothing wrong with having art as a hobby. And neither Artspots OR Yerf say "HOBBYISTS SUCK, WE HATE YOU"; heck, I'm sure there's tons of people on this site who don't make a dime off their art, or have any intention on making it their soul source of income. But if you draw for fun, and don't care necessarily how technically "good" your work is, than there are other places for your work; DA, FA, Jaxpad, etc.

There is nothing WRONG with not really caring about improving and just drawing for fun. AND there is nothing wrong with a site saying "Hey, we'd like to showcase the best we have to offer!" Those things just don't mix.

If you get rejected, there's a couple ways you can react (not including throwing a "its my STYLE!!!" tantrum). You can say "well, I like this site, and I like the artists here, and it would mean a lot to me if I could have my work up among them. I will practice and learn all I can and get better", or you can say "I don't care that much about getting better just for this site, I just do this for fun. I can post my work somewhere else."

Art, on one hand, IS subjective. But there are also things such as color balance, emotional stimulation, anatomical correctness, perspective, technical skills and knowledge of mediums that really DO show "hey, this guy knows what he's doing." Sites like Artspots value that kind of skill and craftsmanship. If someone is rejected, it's because reviewers feel they need more practice in these areas, not because they think the applicant is stinky and has an ugly face.

Needing more practice is NOT a bad thing. Heck, there isn't an artist on this site who DOESN'T need more practice in something. It's just a matter of getting to a peek.

Artspots isn't the end-all of "good art", just like Yerf never claimed to be. It's just a goal on the way.

I got rejected from YERF way back when. Twice. I just saw it as a goal to reach for, and each rejection just told me I had a little farther to reach. It isn't a kick in the head telling you to quit, it's a hand reaching out saying "come on, just a little more practice and you've got it."

.....ok I ranted way too much :)

I agree with Liz. :) ArtSpots, to me, is community. It's a place where I can post my art alongside people with like-minded tastes in content (anthro animals) who are all at a skill level I can actually artjam and chat with.

And by that, I mean they're not all OMG HOW YOU DRAW GOOD, in my face, all the time. We can have discussions about our inspiration, art supplies that rock and those that suck, problems with commissioners and how to deal... TONS of things I'd be lost on if I didn't have people who do similar stuff, to talk to about it.

It's not a competition. It's a community. We learn and bounce off of one another and create new and better things as we go. It's an awesome feeling. <3

The more I read posts on this forum like this one, the more I want to work on building a portfolio to submit, and the more faith I have in people and other artists. Everything Lizardbeth and others have said is spot on. Cheers to all the creators for making such a sweet space, and cheers to everyone who upholds that core ideology.

One question, and I know I'm probably sabotaging any effort I have for reapplying, but...is Artspots looking for relatively good art, or is it simply looking for sell-able art print-wise. Reason I ask is that I've seen other people's art that are comparable or better than some artists on Artspots, and they've been rejected outright in a sort of form-letter format with little information on why they've been dumped. If it's salable works Artspots is looking for, then knowing that information would make it easier for applicants to tailor their application portfolios to fit the admission criteria.

So far as I know, ArtSpots doesn't take into account saleability, since not all artists use the prints/originals service.

ArtSpots is after work that fulfills a certain criteria. http://www.artspots.com/apply/guidelines I know of artists that get denied that have wonderful art, but the anatomy may be wrong, or there is no perspective, or something. I think it helps for people to ask in the critique forum for advice or help. There are several people around who want to help (like me! I try to help whenever possible), although sometimes it's a bit slow.

It'd also make no sense if they did since prints and such came at a much later date than the actual site. Artspots has always been keen on the fundamentals of drawings which are really what gives the people the freedom to create without requiring to hide any mistakes or pretern it's perfect like so many do.

I'm nowhere near the standard myself, my anatomy among other things is still pretty... wobbly but thats probably an understatement which is why I'm quite happily on Jax where I can still post my art round here as I slowly build my confidence in my weaker areas and eventually find what I really can do :)

DarkWolfie said: One question, and I know I'm probably sabotaging any effort I have for reapplying, but...is Artspots looking for relatively good art, or is it simply looking for sell-able art print-wise. Reason I ask is that I've seen other people's art that are comparable or better than some artists on Artspots, and they've been rejected outright in a sort of form-letter format with little information on why they've been dumped. If it's salable works Artspots is looking for, then knowing that information would make it easier for applicants to tailor their application portfolios to fit the admission criteria.

The application process has always had some confusion because of the criteria we look for. I will say that the saleability of artwork is not one of them. The prints system is just a way for helping cover costs of running the site while offering a unique service to artists. We are a site primarily by artists, so when investigating what we would like, affordable fine art prints was just one idea. We also want a site that is not subject to outages, withstands hardware failures, and does not disappear because of inability to keep up with the costs of serving.

That said, what we do look for is very illustrative in nature. Someone could have beautiful rendering, amazing color sense, but if the anatomy is off or perspective is a big problem—as much as it pains us sometimes to do so—we decline the application. Artists are welcome to reply to their emails or post in the critique forum and we will try to help. Admittedly, this is a confusing point because many art schools do not teach illustrative principles, which were the foundation for art all the way up to the early twentieth century. We are not ones to judge whether art is good or bad, just whether or not it fits the illustrative principles of anatomy, perspective and lighting.

But who is in charge of determining if a body is in perfect perspective. In art, nothing truly can be perfect. No body is the same and if an arm is in a slightly different position a judge would determine would be better in a different position, or if a pose is turned in a way a judge deems inappropriate and he rejects it, or if a judge just doesnt' like an artists' style, where is the recourse, other than re-applying and awaiting sometimes months for a response?

DarkWolfie said: But who is in charge of determining if a body is in perfect perspective. In art, nothing truly can be perfect. No body is the same and if an arm is in a slightly different position a judge would determine would be better in a different position, or if a pose is turned in a way a judge deems inappropriate and he rejects it, or if a judge just doesnt' like an artists' style, where is the recourse, other than re-applying and awaiting sometimes months for a response?

There is more than one judge for one, so the if there are any gray areas this can be addressed. Also for this same reason having multiple judges should keep people from being turned down because of personal dislike, and if you HONESTLY feel that's what happened, you can always talk to a mod about it.

Personally I don't know what the big deal is, you're acting as though ABSOLUTE PERFECTION is being asked, and this is hardly the case. Honestly you seem to have a very pessimistic attitude, as though you are expecting to be turned down.

But who is in charge of determining if a body is in perfect perspective. In art, nothing truly can be perfect. No body is the same and if an arm is in a slightly different position a judge would determine would be better in a different position, or if a pose is turned in a way a judge deems inappropriate and he rejects it, or if a judge just doesn't' like an artists' style, where is the recourse, other than re-applying and awaiting sometimes months for a response?

There are several judges, but the guidelines are somewhat in the spirit, apparently, of the ARC. Though not up to those lofty goals, they at least show that the approach is more towards a representational direction, rather than a heavily stylized one. All art is an abstraction. Simply making a 3 dimensional scene from life rendered onto a two dimensional picture plane is a large level of abstraction. What they are looking for is evidence of an understanding of what lies beneath a character's fur and skin, and understanding of the various forms of perspective and how to apply them properly. The use of Light and shadow not only to portray volumes, but also to aid in leading the viewer's eye around the work to heighten a mod, thought or Idea. Using color to enhance the work, and as with lighting to attract and lead the eye. Finally Composition , that brings the work into a seamless whole, that clearly communicates the thought or idea to the viewer with clarity and strength of vision. That might be a bit strong for general character illos but it does show the site has a goal that they are working towards. The bias would be towards more representational works, but also falling into a set of clear stylistic abstractions most commonly seen in Animation, or Comics. Consistent but amusing distortions ans stylization. does this make things clearer? Tht's the way I read it.

Scott

how do we put in an application? is it joining the site an putting our work up that automatically puts forth an application? If not, how do we put one in?