Joe, do you normally see posts from me where I look down my nose at people? (When I'm being serious?) That's really not called for.

I called this thread insipid because in a lot of ways it is. It starts with you lobbing a brick, and a few people laughing and clapping. Then it becomes a series of quick jabs followed by "hey, man, I'm just talking!" Each side, concious of it or no, has really been weighing themselves as the more important end. You've been less guilty of it than others, but you were the one who posted the initial MOCKING yet SERIOUS thread. I notice sometimes that you have a very low tolerance for people who would work for a reduced rate, or even (heaven forbid) for free. I haven't once understood it (on behalf of writers or artists), because comics are a creative field. When you first start out, you get paid in resume lines. Would you get on an actor for doing an off-off-broadway play for free while working around a day job? More importantly, would you insult the director for telling the actors he can't afford to pay them?
Three pages to what essentially amounted to one amateur not treating another amateur like a professional. Yeah. It's insipid.

Mvoid,

First, sorry about the knee-jerk response/attack. At least I'm consitent.

I have nothing against anyone working for free in concept.

The actor/directors example you site is apples to oranges, in my opinion.

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.

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.

As to the stages that the debate took, well you had to get through some of that in order to get to the meat. You have to break a few omlettes...

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.".

Since you asked, how was the below commment meant?

Joe:

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.

Now:



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.



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.)



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.



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.

Dan,
Some posted artist request, including the "Artist Wanted: Four Girls in NYC" seem to be quite well received. But most go unanswered, I think its the approach.

Some of the "jump down your throat " responses you mention, may just be the equivelent poorly written & ill-conceived negotiation tactics to the poorly written & ill-conceived posts.

Kids!

I was really suprised how many "writers" assumed the thread was an attack on collaborating with them. I thought the whole goal in the first place was to get a creative partner, and I was pointing out they were approaching us wrong. I hope that got through eventually.