Well, maybe. Though that gets into a whole mess of issues relating to the tension between the goals of the artist vs. their fans/customers (who themselves may have disparate goals).
For example: * Does more/better art get made as a result? Better in what sense? * Does it reduce the price of the art product [specific] fans want? * Are topics restricted in some way as a result of print sales?
Prints may decrease the price of originals, because the artist can get back some of the effort in creating the piece through print sales. But making, framing and selling prints also takes time which is not dedicated to the production of original furry art, resulting in fewer pieces being made. On the other hand, the resulting pieces may be technically better, if the sale of prints means that more time can be invested in a particular piece.
An artist may be encouraged by print sales to sink more time into art. But it could again result in the creation of fewer pieces (because the artist can cover their costs with prints), or less-diverse pieces (because some work does not appeal to a large enough group that it can be marketed as a print, or is not even permitted by some print services (https://inkedfur.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/9000004674-what-we-won-t-sell-on-your-behalf)). This may mean prints are bad news for those with specific interests, because the artist has an incentive to charge more for them, or refuse to do them at all.
Some artists do commissions only when they are not able to make money (or enough money) in other ways. This is against the interests of commissioners, who might seek to discourage the artist from seeking to make money through, e.g. Patreon - or even actively undermine them - with the goal of getting them to return to piece-work. This may be selfish, but also logical, because to them it isn't enough that the artist is making art - they have to be making the product the customer cares about. (These issues are similar to those faced by companies, who often can't please all stakeholders while achieving their own goals.)
Of course, it is probably not in the interests of a commissioner to have artists decide that furry art is ultimately unprofitable and spend all their time working at Burger King. But for some, it may not matter if the artist can only afford to eat at Burger King. (Given a large enough market where furry art is a commodity, this may happen in any case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_wages).)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2017-02-19 02:24 pm (UTC)For example:
* Does more/better art get made as a result? Better in what sense?
* Does it reduce the price of the art product [specific] fans want?
* Are topics restricted in some way as a result of print sales?
Prints may decrease the price of originals, because the artist can get back some of the effort in creating the piece through print sales. But making, framing and selling prints also takes time which is not dedicated to the production of original furry art, resulting in fewer pieces being made. On the other hand, the resulting pieces may be technically better, if the sale of prints means that more time can be invested in a particular piece.
An artist may be encouraged by print sales to sink more time into art. But it could again result in the creation of fewer pieces (because the artist can cover their costs with prints), or less-diverse pieces (because some work does not appeal to a large enough group that it can be marketed as a print, or is not even permitted by some print services (https://inkedfur.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/9000004674-what-we-won-t-sell-on-your-behalf)). This may mean prints are bad news for those with specific interests, because the artist has an incentive to charge more for them, or refuse to do them at all.
Some artists do commissions only when they are not able to make money (or enough money) in other ways. This is against the interests of commissioners, who might seek to discourage the artist from seeking to make money through, e.g. Patreon - or even actively undermine them - with the goal of getting them to return to piece-work. This may be selfish, but also logical, because to them it isn't enough that the artist is making art - they have to be making the product the customer cares about. (These issues are similar to those faced by companies, who often can't please all stakeholders while achieving their own goals.)
Of course, it is probably not in the interests of a commissioner to have artists decide that furry art is ultimately unprofitable and spend all their time working at Burger King. But for some, it may not matter if the artist can only afford to eat at Burger King. (Given a large enough market where furry art is a commodity, this may happen in any case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_wages).)