But I could have done that!

A refreshing cool breeze blew across my face this morning, as the hot coffee and orange juice were equally partaken. On what will inevitably be another hot day here in Greece. I sat, as I always do, firstly wondering why I am up so early, and secondly about the work I have to achieve today, and this week. The ponderings of work were probably more on my mind, as yesterday I came across one of my favourite websites. The site cites examples of when creatives have experienced client interaction which is not very conducive to a good standard of work practice.

Made me think. As several of my connections on Facebook are also creatives and we sometimes discuss this matter. As well as the trials of being artistic and living in todays society of capitalism and free-market enterprise. Sometimes it seems that the money wheel is controlled by philistine marketeers. Who have no concept of the true value of aesthetics, but instead, due to their own inability to create, have found a way to make a quick buck off someone else's back. And subsequently put the artist (the creator) down as the lowest denominating factor. After all, it does seem that artists have a cheek. Given a talent and loving the whole process of creating, and, yes, and expecting to be paid good money for it.

What we have in the world today, is a system by which money (sadly) has become a new religion. This has been generated by the zeitgeist theory of credit exchange. Art is always a strange paradox, when it comes to money and finance. After all Picasso could go into a restaurant and draw on a napkin and then take thousands of pounds for it. This is not true for all creatives. I know if I would draw on a napkin here in Greece, it would be collected up with the endtrails of the meal, or frowned upon. Not because of the country, but because I have not become famous. Which in itself is a strange notion of position.

Is it true, or could it be said, that people are famous because they do something that people like. And os those people (the public) then purchase it and make money for the artist, who then gets richer and placed into the echelon of higher society, and continues a spiral upwards. Until the inevitable crash and burn. Whether that be through over-ego saturation and bad quality work, fame narcotics or the pressure opt-out clause. What if the artist was to gain public admiration, but then the public said "we like your work, but it's not worth anything. Keep it up."

Well, two things could happen. The creative would carry on, because they loved what they were doing, or they would stop because the drive was to make an income out of the art. At this point, and again, as I have a constant reminder of Vincent's brilliance on my wall, I have to declare my respect for his work. He struggled and kept at it for his entire life. Having a passion for his art. Wanting to be accepted, but finding that in his lifetime he was not the flavour of the day. Only to ironically find that many years later, his work is perversely sold at great value to collectors (who may or amy not be art appreciators, but do take this art based on it's credit value).

So I am sitting here, enjoying the filter coffee, which was so practically brewed this morning, thinking about the life as an applied artist. I do, do work away from the economic circus and actually love it more that the grind of trying to please clients. Mainly, and a good point here, is that I can do whatever I like, not worry about time constraints, only satisfy the best client there is (myself), and get truly involved in the work. Mostly however, my days are commissioned to try to juggle the problems of creativity. Why are there problems?

I have to be honest. I really don't value the notion of 'talent'. That is to say: "God given talent/born with God's gift" One strong reason is my devout no belief in the deity system. Secondly, I do believe in aptitude. Some kind of genetic patterning that can make someone good at singing, drawing, selling, plumbing, etc. but on the whole that aptitude will not get anyone anywhere if there is not a great deal of toil involved. This was something that always made me laugh as a student at college. Making my way to see my girlfriend at the time, who was a fine art student, and seeing canvas and canvas of students work with Pollockesque attributes, or Picassoesque styles, or Kandinsky or Rothko traits. All because this is a trap of notoriety. They believed they could jump a hurdle of hard work and sewat, and get to the money making style.

So, back to the work in hand. Interacting with clients. The main flaw in this aesthetic form of work, is that it is a service job that provides a product, that has no feasible concept to correlate the effort to the product. Mainly the reason for this is clear. And one of the aspects that I do an amount of research in. The creative right side of the brain's participation in the whole gamut of this sphere of creativity. How can you put a value on thinking Is the thinking an important aspect to the final product? Well, as an example. A client sits down with a creative mind. There is a blank canvas in front of them. The client says; "I would like to see an idea." There is a pause. The client says again; "I would like to see a visualisation of an idea for my product." The creative and the client look at each other. The creative say; "There is no idea without thinking, and thinking takes time. Time equals cost. If you want to pay for the idea, there is an idea on the canvas." The client then says; "But I am paying for the creation, not the idea." The creative then says; "But where does the creation come from?"

This is a continued argument ut let us take an example (I must point out at this stage, that I had in fact completed the note, and was doing a spell check, and the three paragraphs below this just disappeared). Let's image that we have $2,000. We walk into a car showroom and want to buy a car. After the salesperson determines that this is the budget range then he escorts us to the far end of the showroom, where there stands a modest and ordinary looking car. No extras, no trim, no nothing flash and exciting. It does have a banner on it, that read: "This is the $2,000 car for you!" You look at it for a while and then looking at the far end of the showroom, and squinting your eyes somewhat, you see an amazing razzle-dazzle car. You declare that this is the one you want, and start walking toward it. The salesperson tries to stop you and says, "You don't have money for that!". Buy then you look surprised and say, "But it's only a car!"

In a real world situation, and my most common request is that of the internet. "Can you do a website?", "Yes!". "How much can you do one for?" This question never ceases to amaze me, and seems to be a common thread on the 'Clients from hell' site, and I can only answer by saying, "how long is a piece of string?" The confused look is taken away, when the nature of the web is explained in brief. After the price is set, then comes the principle problem. Many clients see the internet as a page on the browser window. They don't see the programming, the design, the artwork and the technologies involved in the setting up of a design. They also see template sites offering a 'you-might-see-that-design-somewhere-else' approach for $60 and say, "look you are ripping me off!" They want original design at a template cost and usually tomorrow. So, the next thing that occurs is that the price is never good at making boundaries. They will (usually a week in) say "I've seen this on another site, can we have it?" or many other forms of this.  Never believing there is additional time and effort, therefore cost associated. Creatives do it because they love it, after all!!

There are many faults with the capitalist way of dealing with aesthetics. The main paradox is that drawing was the first form of communication many thousands of years ago, and has resulted in an inability to communicate it's value. This is arguably paradoxical in form as well, as the monetary system is false and nothing really has a capital value. But basically, and to quote Mr. Gauguin: “I shut my eyes in order to see, and dream the dream my eyes cannot see.”, the utopian ideal would be to have creatives on the same billing level as a lawyer. To have their skills recognised and to be given proper credit and compensation for them. However, in a world of philistines and market manipulations this is not going to happen.

How can this conclude? I see a great deal of my creative friends doing something that is common in many. Creating because of the drive and the passion. They do it because they love it. If the struggle is part of the game, then let it be washed away with some passion. and so I will stop here and continue my day. The website is worth a look as it reminds you (the creative) that you are not alone, and in some case, there are worse out there.

Coffee is complete and there are noises being made outside, so the day has begun. I will go off and do what I do best, and create. Not because it will make me rich and famous, but better still, because I love it!!!