Has a private commission group produced anything great?

[finneganm]

The Groundhog Day commission that is a top view for today is a drymounting travesty

[o4phish20o]

yep. you got it.

= private commission

= regular release

First one was paid for up front by Amplifier Foundation for their project, We the People... they then put them up on kickstarter to raise money for charity and gave the prints as a "thank you". That is the definition of a private commission IMO.

Second one is not paid for by anyone in advance and Shepard pays for it all himself, hoping that they all sell and he gets paid back.

[35mmpaul]

nope. you don't got it.

[35mmpaul]

= offical, through official channels, license and signed off on by the estate.

= commission, no license, or sign off.

[o4phish20o]

nope. you don't got it.

You don't think the We the People prints were a private commission?
Amplifier Foundation paid & commissioned Shepard to make those.

[blingaling]

The Groundhog Day commission that is a top view for today is a drymounting travesty

oh my.

[mistersmith]

I love that phish never knows WTF he's talking about, but always does, and at volume.

The Groundhog Day commission that is a top view for today is a drymounting travesty

I refuse to believe that's not a joke until pics of actual prints surface. Because that is atrocious on every level.

[finneganm]

nope. you don't got it.

You don't think the We the People prints were a private commission?
Amplifier Foundation paid & commissioned Shepard to make those.

...that is based off of someone else's intellectual property.

This being an important aspect of the differentiation.

[maddoghoek100]

You are drawing a bit of a strange line in the sand, certainly all work where anyone pays the artist for the work would qualify as a commission regardless of who is commissioning the artist to do the work and what their relationship to the property. If the artist does the work on spec and releases it through a gallery regardless of the relationship to the rights holder it would not be a commission.

Official vs unofficial is determined by the licensing arrangement
Commission vs Non-Commission is determined by who paid the artist

galleries commission artists all the time, galleries also accept work on consignment from artists all the time to sell. License holders regularly commission artists to create art for them. They then release it however they want.

This thread i think was intended to reflect PRIVATE, closed commissions, with no intent to resell to the broader public. The private part is the important part

nope. you don't got it.

You don't think the We the People prints were a private commission?
Amplifier Foundation paid & commissioned Shepard to make those.

[o4phish20o]

You are drawing a bit of a strange line in the sand, certainly all work where anyone pays the artist for the work would qualify as a commission regardless of who is commissioning the artist to do the work and what their relationship to the property. If the artist does the work on spec and releases it through a gallery regardless of the relationship to the rights holder it would not be a commission.

Official vs unofficial is determined by the licensing arrangement
Commission vs Non-Commission is determined by who paid the artist

galleries commission artists all the time, galleries also accept work on consignment form artists all the time to sell.

nope. you don't got it.

You don't think the We the People prints were a private commission?
Amplifier Foundation paid & commissioned Shepard to make those.

Not trying to start anything.. I just am curious about this.

Like Woo5lscott said... lots of these "private groups" are getting official licenses and then bigger time artist to create what they want for their group.
Really that is just for movies/music even.

And random people/groups are getting guys like Shepard Fairey to produce something for them...be it out of kindness or a ton of cash... he takes on the project, gives it his spin, gives them the artwork to use/sell/distribute as they see fit (they can use the image for months/years/forever as their own). In this latest, they did it for charity. It could of gone belly up though, the image not caught on, it not sell, them not raise the money... and instead losing a ton. That's not what happened, but it was the risk they took by laying $$ up front to Shepard.

I just see it as risk/money ... the line is drawn at who is taking the risk and fronting the money. The artist.. or someone else.

[veltri]

The Groundhog Day commission that is a top view for today is a drymounting travesty

His next ones will be better.

[maddoghoek100]

That is correct, the only difference between a commission and not a commission is who is taking the risk of loss.

the line is drawn at who is taking the risk and fronting the money. The artist.. or someone else.

[35mmpaul]

nope. you don't got it.

You don't think the We the People prints were a private commission?

No seeing as it wasn't based on any prior intellectual property.

This thread is focusing on prints related more towards film and television properties.

[sidewaysscott]

The Groundhog Day commission that is a top view for today is a drymounting travesty

holy fudge that's drymounting terrible!!

[o4phish20o]

That is correct, the only difference between a commission and not a commission is who is taking the risk of loss.

the line is drawn at who is taking the risk and fronting the money. The artist.. or someone else.

Ok, this I agree with. Thanks

nope. you don't got it.

You don't think the We the People prints were a private commission?

No seeing as it wasn't based on any prior intellectual property.

This thread is focusing on prints related more towards film and television properties.

Film/TV I see it as more of "official vs. un-official" like maddoghoek100 said.. which I totally get and see the difference between.