November 2004
Memphis, Tennessee
Welcome to the latest iteration of kellybrother.com. This version is significantly different than the others in this respect: It includes work I've done for local as well as national clients, hence the "local" and "national" buttons. Local represents work created here in my hometown, Memphis, and national is comprised mostly of work I've done through my agent (Bob Betke, dba Jacqueline Dedell, Inc. www.jdedell.com). Although this is a new feature, it is, nevertheless, an undesired one.
Mary Yeung, in her helpful book, "The Professional Designers Guide to Marketing Your Work", has this to say about marketing an artist's style, "To compete on a national level, you have to build name recognition by specializing in a particular area...Or you can market a signature style by creating a special "look" for all your drawings...If your portfolio shows too many styles and techniques, it will give the art director an impression that you're an amateur who hasn't made a commitment to a particular style."
These words were very helpful to me when I first considered signing up with an agent. After developing a style for my creative work and soliciting several artists reps, I eventually had the great fortune to be signed on with Jacqueline Dedell. My business began to grow in the national arena and I was able to support myself and family with about %40-%50 work coming from national clients via Jacqueline Dedell and %50 - %60 work coming from local clients.
My hometown, Memphis, is not a large market for creative work and so I've had to be a "jack-of-all-trades" to survive. You can see the kinds of things I do for local clients by clicking on the local button of my web site. You'll find just about every kind of illustration - from technical to humorous to medical. The national button leads to work that I've done mostly for national clients through my agent. I've always considered my local work the equivalent of an actor waiting on tables until he establishes himself. The local work supports the national. Don't get me wrong, I'm proud of the local work and enjoy producing it. But it's not the highest talent I have to offer. It'd be like a violin player who spent most of his time playing pop music when he longs to play classical.
When pouring through the latest editions of American Showcase and Workbook, I'd always wondered how the artists managed to support themselves with their work. Did they stay busy all the time? Did they have day jobs? Some of the art was not as good as that of others. How did those people survive? I now realize that artists come and go and that not all artists stay busy all the time. But I thought at least the top name artists did - until I spoke with one of those top name folks and learned that he was struggling to stay afloat!
I realize that this is a survival-of-the-fittest business - no place for weanies; but some trends of late (and not so late) have prompted me to write this manifesto (some may think screed!) A story I recently told at a panel discussion at the Memphis College of Art illustrates my point: About a year ago I called on an art director of a local ad agency of some repute and showed my portfolio (of local work). He looked at it with great interest and then proceeded to tell me that they had an account with a large local corporation, headquarted here in Memphis, and that they (the corporation) did not use illustration in their marketing material - that illustration did not fit in with their corporate standards! I almost fell out of my chair and asked the AD to repeat the statement, just to be sure I heard it correctly. His restatement of the claim left me speechless.
Samuel Huntington, in his influential book, "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order" claims that our U.S./Western culture is in decline. The comedian George Carlin echoes the same thing as he makes the talk-show circuit touting his new book, "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?". I've heard him say that our society is like water going down a bathtub drain, winding tighter and faster in ever smaller circles. One can't help but wonder if this assertion isn't evidenced, in particular (for artists), by the ad agency example I just cited. It seems to me we see the effects of what I call corporatism all around - a desire for corporate standards and strict conformity - "playing it safe", staying within the boundaries. A talented graphic designer friend of mine says she sees this phenomenon occur every several years. The creative cycle gets tight and conformatist and then cirlces around and loosens up. Huntington offers hope by offering the prospect of a renewal of western culture some time down the road. Of course many people see what appears to be American cultural hegemony. Our movies, designs, art, music, etc. seem to predominate world culture. But how long can this last?
With corporate outsourcing, international competition, equilization in world markets, education, productivity and the global economy, are corporations circling the wagons? Hedging their bets? Going fundamental (ist)? I'm asking bigger questions than I can answer but eliminating illustration to accomodate a corporate standard looks like a hardening of the arteries rather than an exercise that will strenghthen. Has September the 11th cowed the American spirit? Wait- and-see attitudes can be defeatist. They say the time to advertise is during a downturn. It's also the time to let loose, not hold back. Conservation is consonant with conservatism but is the opposite true? Which comes first, the chicken, or the egg? Does hightened creative thinking and work lead out of a downturn or not? Does creativity emerge after or before/away or toward an economic upswing. Is it a cause or effect?
The "look" (corporate standard) must not be confused with the attitude. Looks come and go but identity and brand is more than just a corporate look or style - it's a way of thinking - a climate - an atmosphere of thought. And creativity must be a vital part of the corporate attitude in order to survive in this ever increasing competitive world. But we can't all be hip or creative one might say. Perhaps, but just as each individual brings something unique to the table, so would each corporation. All corporations can't be Southwest Airlines, but they can all be creative in their own way. It's not an end in itself, it's a process - a process that leads to open ends and solutions and not closed ones (like eliminating illustration!). One that includes people rather than shutting them out. Just as individuals have to dig deep to find out who they are, so do corporations (large and small).
Corporations enjoy the high profile of being seen as "supporting the arts" - sending sponsors to the local symphony or art museum or placing ads in their publications/venues. This is not ipso facto supporting the arts, it's supporting the "image" of supporting the arts. Supporting the arts means creating outlets for employees and vendors to truly be creative - to give their ideas, aspirations, insights. What is problem solving without creativity? And creativity is too big to corral like some cattle drive - like herding cats. A recent issue of Fast Company magazine pointed out in an article on branding that for some companies, consumers are forming clubs or groups around certain brands as a means of personal self-indentification. These corporations are having to rethink their standards to accomodate these customer driven desires.
My next concern: Stock illustration. We've become a derivative society. Due partly to the computer, but moreso to the lack of vision and investment. While corporate CEOs rake in millions, the creative collaborators are being nickled and dimed to death. Will there eventually be a "create original art" button in Photoshop? There practically already exists one with the layers and gausian blurr features - or so it seems. I'm waiting for the first truly visionary company to break from the pack and spend the bucks to invest in creating a truly invigorating creative climate - a corporate Medici family. Some probably already exist but they're few and far between.
If I see that cowboy in the erectile dysfunction ad or that couple walking on the beach one more time, I'm going to scream! There's nothing wrong with borrowing from yourself or reusing an image but there's got to be a limit. Is there or is there not a law of deminishing creative returns? Stock art (and perhaps photography) puts artists in the worst position: competing with themselves. I'd rather create a piece at half my normal rate than sell a piece of stock art. I realize that some folks make their living at this, and I am on a stock site, but it's killing the creative spirit and turning the creative process into a commodity. Why not just scan every existing work of art on the planet, make it copyright free, and be done with it.
Is the race for stock a race to the bottom, to the mundane, to the insipid? Do marketing materials and corporate communications reflect the inspiration behind them? I received an email ad for a software product touting an artist finding a solution to an advertising problem by creating an illustration at the last minute (thanks to the resourcefulness of the creative person) after rejecting a stock photograph. Fair enough under normal circumstances but why do I get the feeling this story is typical rather than an exception? You can just feel the cost-saving measures grinding in the background as a subtext to the story. The finished product is excellent and I have to ask, why wasn't the illustrator approached to do the project in the first place? (See the example at: User Project:Illustrator uses Carrara Studio to soar to new heights in advertising <http://urlv5.dolist.net/id.asp?l=136652-288350-382544-310>)
Don't get me wrong. This is not a photography versus illustration issue. It's an original versus derivative issue. Perhaps there are too many illustrators and photographers around. Maybe in 20 years we'll weed each other out until there's only a handfull of artists left in the world. Perhaps originality is too expensive. But can we survive in a static world?
I realize I could be labled as "sour grapes" and that maybe I'm just a bad artist - a hack - fair enough. But looking around, we artists can't all be bad or hacks. I don't have all the answers, I don't have all the questions. But I know that things can be better.
There's something to be said for paying to have something special made just for you - something that no one else has - something that is the result of collaboration; at a particular time; with a particular group of people; for a particular need. Creating something original should define who you are; who we are - for now, and for the ages to come. It should be worth investing in. It should (and does) pay off.
Kelly Brother
back