(UPDATE May 30, 2009: I realize that after I wrote this article, I turned around and started working on a lot of so-called “purposeless art.” This article sort of represents the last death throes about my old opinions about art, and the last time I use this argument as an excuse not to work. I still hold the premise- that there’s nothing wrong with pitching a concept, getting paid for it, and THEN developing it; but there is also and equally nothing wrong with drawing for yourself and wasting materials and NEVER getting paid for it. And so, I give you my whiny rant:)

Neil Gaiman posted a link to a review of Coraline on his Twitter feed on Sunday from what looks like a conservite Christian blog of some sort. I have a fundamental disagreement about how the reviewer read the film (which makes sense, seeing as how I’m not a conservite Christian, but there are plenty of Christian reviews who disagree with this one as well), and there is already a discussion in the comments of the article.

But I’m deeply offended by the suggestion that Coraline is not a cohesive story with a moral because the development process went from concept to contract to outline, and then to finished novel, rather than having the story finished before he tried to sell it. Here we go again with the very foolish notion that art must be done for its own sake, and getting paid for it must always be incidental to its creation for it to count.

Art has deep roots in business. The art of the rennaisance exists largely because rich patrons paid people to make it. My favorite example is that the Sistene Chapel was a commission, and I like to think that Michelangelo had a contract in hand before he had the final sketches down, if not a nice fat advance.

I don’t particularly like being called an artist because of the image it conjures of being some flighty, flaky, beret-wearing, loft-living, starving waif. I’ve setteled on “illustrator,” or “designer” because at least there’s an implication that I’m a businesswoman there. At one point I wanted “art mercenary” printed on my business cards, but a buddy of mine who is better at marketing than I am talked me out of it (”I don’t care how cool is sounds, you say ‘mercenary,’ and people think Blackwater”).

The point is that I have skills and I’d like to be paid for them, thank you very much. And I think that people who have skills; artists, writers, carpenters, tapdancers, whatever; should expect to be paid if people want to continue consuming what they put out. Neil Gaiman is a “brand,” as the article says so callously, because he has a record of producing something that people want. It’s simple supply and demand. Just because there is money involed doesn’t give a project any less soul.

Tags: art, business, contracts, Coraline, Neil Gaiman, work