My suggestion is to get Steve Heller in a room with these people for a day.  He'll inspire the hell out of anyone within earshot about the cultural impact of illustration!  Glaser is a good one too, it's a shame that designers can be that complacent...(sigh)

Gary Taxali

P.S.  Good for you Joel, I'm sure you'll see the benefit of your efforts....hopefully soon.

On 2/12/00 6:46:33 PM, Gary Taxali wrote:
>My suggestion is to get Steve
>Heller in a room with these
>people for a day.  He'll
>inspire the hell out of anyone
>within earshot about the
>cultural impact of
>illustration!  Glaser is a
>good one too, it's a shame
>that designers can be that
>complacent...(sigh)
>
>Gary Taxali
>
>P.S.  Good for you Joel, I'm
>sure you'll see the benefit of
>your efforts....hopefully
>soon.
>

I've heard of that tape by Heller and Glaser, I'd like to preview that and see if it's the kind of thing I could show here, I imagine it was produced for limited release to the Illo Conference only and not available. I would love to have either of them here but I wonder if there are some folks who are just out of reach for smaller audiences. Anybody know how I can contact Heller or Glaser?!

Joel         

On 2/12/00 6:46:33 PM, Gary Taxali wrote:
>...it's a shame
>that designers can be that
>complacent...(sigh)

When I think of complacency, I think of listless, lazy, inactiveness. The designers and Ad's I refer to are in a blazing rush sun up to midnight. It's the onslaught of commercialism and client expectations that seems to tax them beyond caring about ideals.

The madness of the mere production of our work is stealing away concern.

Joel         

On 2/12/00 7:23:18 PM, Joel Wilkinson wrote:


 It's
>the onslaught of commercialism and
>client expectations that seems to tax
>them beyond caring about ideals.

Joel, as the design and publications manager at digital imaging firm,
let me assure you that what you just stated is absolutely %100
CORRECT!!!


Mark Lyons

On 2/12/00 8:22:06 PM, Mark Lyons wrote:
>On 2/12/00 7:23:18 PM, Joel Wilkinson
>wrote:
>
>
> It's
>>the onslaught of commercialism and
>>client expectations that seems to tax
>>them beyond caring about ideals.
>
>Joel, as the design and publications
>manager at digital imaging firm,
>let me assure you that what you just
>stated is absolutely %100
>CORRECT!!!

I like to think of ourselves as solution providers for our busy clients. I don't think we should take the approach of making art directors care about our problems and help us out of a since of doing what's right. We need to focus on coming up with solutions that make it easier and easier to work with illustrators. If you're a busy art director it can be a real relief to hand off a large part of the creative work to a creative specialist. It lets them spend more time on the type or on other projects.

In some ways Royalty Free and Stock Houses can be easier for them. We need to come up with innovative ways to make it easy to work with us directly and we have the added advantage of coming up with original content. If the content is not there in RFCD or Stock Houses but we have the content easily available for them they will use us.

In this whole debate I hope we don't lose sight of the fact that we are in the business of pleasing our clients. Not making things harder for them.

Bryan

Stock Kit for the Masses

On 2/12/00 7:06:15 PM, Joel Wilkinson wrote:
>On 2/12/00 6:46:33 PM, Gary Taxali
>wrote:
>>My suggestion is to get Steve
>>Heller in a room with these
>>people for a day.  He'll
>>inspire the hell out of anyone
>>within earshot about the
>>cultural impact of
>>illustration!  Glaser is a
>>good one too,........

>.......Anybody
>know how I can contact Heller or
>Glaser?!

Steve Heller: New York Times Book Review; usually answers his own phone.

Milton Glaser: WBMG in New York city.

I don't want to post their phone numbers here because of the potential for invasion of their tranquility, but you can get the numbers easily from directory information.

RS

On 2/13/00 9:42:17 AM, Bryan Leister wrote:
>
>I like to think of ourselves as solution
>providers for our busy clients. I don't
>think we should take the approach of
>making art directors care about our
>problems and help us out of a since of
>doing what's right. We need to focus on
>coming up with solutions that make it
>easier and easier to work with
>illustrators. . . .
>
>In some ways Royalty Free and Stock
>Houses can be easier for them. We need
>to come up with innovative ways to make
>it easy to work with us directly and we
>have the added advantage of coming up
>with original content. If the content is
>not there in RFCD or Stock Houses but we
>have the content easily available for
>them they will use us.
>
>In this whole debate I hope we don't
>lose sight of the fact that we are in
>the business of pleasing our clients.
>Not making things harder for them.
>
>Bryan

Bryan,

You couldn't be more right.  We cannot expect buyers to work with individual illustrators rather than SIS or Getty because we see it as the morally correct thing for them to do.  They are under tremendous pressure and we have to make the buying of art from individual illustrators as easy as it is to buy illustration from the giant stock and royalty free houses.

I think illustrators have done an excellent job in cutting way back the number of quality illustrations flowing into the SIS operation. However, even if we can achieve the same level of success in keeping quality illustrations out of the hands of Getty, that is not going to produce the desired result.  

I say this because unlike SIS, Getty offers a huge selection of both royalty free and stock photographs.  They also have developed a website that is far superior to any other model I have seen in terms of simplifying the searching and purchasing process for the buyer.  So while blocking the inflow of quality illustrations into SIS may encourage the buying of more assignment illustration, in Getty's case, its effect will frequently likely be to encourage buyers to purchase photography rather than illustration.

The use of stock images is going to continue to grow.  If illustrators want to maintain their market share relative to photography, we must make sure that the buying process for illustration keeps pace with the improved models for buying stock photography.  Getty's website probably represents an investment of millions of dollars. That is one reason that they have very few serious competitors in the photographic arena.

Whether it is here on Theispot-Showcase or through a new illustrator's licensing agency, I believe we need to move forward as quickly as possible in a unified effort to meet this challenge.  Illustration is a small industry.  If we splinter our resources, we just will not be able to muster the financial base necessary to keep pace with the likes of Getty.

JERRY RAPP
g e r a l d  &  c u l l e n  r a p p, I n c.  
http://www.theispot.com/rep/rapp
gerald@rappart.com
   

Art directors I've spoken to about this say
they're too busy to hunt through gigantic
directories of stock to get just the right
picture.  For what their time is worth, how
much they would spend on stock and the cooler
'look' they'd get, it's a better value to
call an illustrator and say: do something
with this.

I guess someone must be using stock though.  
Or I inhabit an alternate universe.

Irene

-----------------------------------

On 2/13/00 8:58:22 PM, Gerald Rapp wrote:

>I think illustrators have done an
>excellent job in cutting way back the
>number of quality illustrations flowing
>into the SIS operation. However, even if
>we can achieve the same level of success
>in keeping quality illustrations out of
>the hands of Getty, that is not going to
>produce the desired result.
>
>I say this because unlike SIS, Getty
>offers a huge selection of both royalty
>free and stock photographs.  They also
>have developed a website that is far
>superior to any other model I have seen
>in terms of simplifying the searching
>and purchasing process for the buyer.
>So while blocking the inflow of quality
>illustrations into SIS may encourage the
>buying of more assignment illustration,
>in Getty's case, its effect will
>frequently likely be to encourage buyers
>to purchase photography rather than
>illustration.
>
>The use of stock images is going to
>continue to grow.  If illustrators want
>to maintain their market share relative

I've looked at the Getty site and I think for illustration it is still lacking in some areas. One area that we do have an edge over stock photography is that it is pretty easy to mix and match different photography styles and still produce a coherent brochure but it is much harder to do that with illustration. If I was an art director looking to do a whole brochure with the same illustration style I would not be able to do that very easily with Getty's site. There actually is not enough of the same artists work on there. Many of the stock jobs we get are because there are so many pieces of our own art available that the art director can put together 4 or 5 inside spots along with a commissioned cover and it will all pretty well match. That would actually be a pain to do on the Getty site. Some artists in SIS have hundreds of images so an art director can use SIS for this purpose but of course the SIS artist is getting a small pittance of a return since the SIS prices are so low, and losing regular clients to boot! Royalty-Free also provides for this kind of a unified look, but the CD's get used so much that they very quickly evoke the feeling of last weeks leftovers.

I think if we can get on the ball quick enough with this stock, as a group we can meet our clients needs without giving away our field to a couple of large corporations and exploitative hucksters out there.

As far as losing the market to photography, I just don't think we need to worry on that front. Our art is very different than photography and there are many conceptual ideas that illustration can get across better than any photo. If a client is going to use photgraphy, especially RFCDs, there is very little we can do to change their minds. I just hope we don't ever get in a situation where there is as much Royalty-Free illustration as there is of photography. If that ever comes to pass, I would imagine the ranks of working illustrators will be 25% of what it is today, and believe me, it will only be the top 25% with very little room for young and beginning artists. It's a wonder that the top people in the field now are fighting so hard to make sure this doesn't happen.


Bryan

Stock Kit for the Masses

On 2/13/00 8:58:22 PM, Gerald Rapp wrote:

>You couldn't be more right.  We cannot
>expect buyers to work with individual
>illustrators rather than SIS or Getty
>because we see it as the morally correct
>thing for them to do.

Bryan, Jerry, I agree with you that solutions are needed that make it easier and easier to work with illustrators. Regarding my post “Long row to hoe”, I’m sorry that you concluded that my interest is taking the approach of merely making art directors care about our problems and help us out of a sense of doing what's right. I'm NOT trying to be warm & fuzzy here.

With my area organization, my interest is to highlight not only the value of illustrators but original creativity in general. We are solution providers for our busy clients, but I look around me and I see not many are looking for our solutions. They aren’t having to look much because SIS and Getty stock options are landing all around them. They are being dominated and I’d like to counter that through influence, which has to include appealing to them to do the right thing, at least in a subtle way, but it’s not my focus.


Joel