For starters, I'm sorry if you took my post in the other thread as condenscending to you personally. It wasn't meant that way. Someone asked me, essentially, if I considered this thread to be silly. I answered honestly that I felt it was. It was in no way a slam at anyone who participated in it. There are a lot of insipid threads on this board, some of which I have taken full part in.
Originally posted by jollyman:
I have nothing against anyone working for free in concept.
The actor/directors example you site is apples to oranges, in my opinion.
I don't see why. Both are cases of trying to express oneself artistically, in which it is very difficult to make a name for oneself. Building a following is very important, and sometimes it's worth it to do something for free if it can build that following even a little more.
My concerns were over fairness, and a better example of how I was viewing the general request style posts, would be of an architect asking a wannabee construction crew to build HIS design for free, to get the experience.
Different scenario entirely. While there is a certain art to construction, there are totally different needs as to how one eventually earns a living. If you want to construct buildings, there are plenty of ways to do it that will immediately pay. You don't have to have a great rep to make it. (A bad rep can sink you, but not having an amazing rep won't preclude work, or even make it more difficult.)
Another better example might be why would a unknown director and bunch of actors work with an unknown writer on his first play when they could do a revival of a classic by shakespeare, or maybe even The Crucible or Death of a Salesman, all for the same cost. And this was not to say that the collaboration was bad, but just to point out to the writers that artists have options, so you might need to alter your approach.
The assumption being that this kind of collaboration is okay if the other person isn't getting something out of it too? In either acting or comics, everyone brings something to the table. Everyone gets a chance to feed off another person's ideas, and feed them right back. I would say it's much better to work with a person performing an original play, because it creates more of a collaborative effort. A "we're all in it together" sort of scenario.
The meat being that both sides need to respect each others time and skill, and never treat the other as if your doing he or she a favor by allowing them to work on your project. It really isn't about money, and thats were I think you're wrong, "Basically, half are writers, and the other half are artists, and they're all bitching about which side should foot the bill and pay the other one.".
That's the way it came off. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted it. But apply this to creative vision instead of money, and it still stands.
My major problem is that no one seems to be able to post on this board looking for a collaborator without people jumping down their throats. Often with something inane like, "Ten bucks a page? DC pays 200!" or "Exclusive print rights for a year? How dare you?" That's not something exclusive to this thread by any means, and may have been unfair to project.
Last thing, I'd appreciate being called Dan, not Mvoid. No offense taken by calling me Mvoid, but I just prefer my actual name.