Pixelation
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Helm on February 16, 2007, 07:04:49 pm
-
I was recently linked to this http://www.finalredemption.com/beta# which as I understand is Kon's new site. Congrats, Kon. However, I saw that this requires registration to see some of the art. Though it striked me as an odd thing to do, I guess a few webmasters want to follow their target groups statistics and so on. Then I saw that certain assets in the site, like Video Tutorials not unlike the ones we have in this forum free for use, require paying money to see.
I want to discuss and gauge reaction to this attempt from the userbase, and hopefully get Kon to explain the rationale behind this.
Obviously, running a website takes money, and a webmaster is free to ask for compensation on any thing for his site, and whomever is willing to pay for it, that's their choice. Nobody should be able to make them stop. In the end, if there's a demand, people will pay, if there's no demand, Kon will likely remove the service.
However, there is an issue in my mind. Many people in this forum have posted video tutorials for free to promote learning and helping each other, as this board is made to do. I've put hours of my life in promoting this and trying to get other people to contribute, and a lot have. It's a well of knowledge that I think anyone can benefit from and can only hope will grow. However, Kon decided to share his wisdom for money. Now, Kon is a moderator on this board. If it was a matter of paying for webspace, we have a part of Pixelation on which to upload videos so nobody's personal server is swamped by requests and bandwith sleeching.
Am I the only one who sees the conflict of interest here? Are we or are we not supposed to promote free learning? Would you pay for tutorial videos? If not, why? If yes, why? Finally, where is the line drawn when free enterprize on the 'net and the supposed attitude of a non-profit institution like Pixelation collide?
Please discuss.
-
I guess Alex did it with the purpose of covering some costs (not only with the webserver), because it's only 5 dollars. And even though I think a open donation would be better, he may have his motivations.
He has always been helpful around here, and I guess this won't change, and if his interests are indeed in conflict with pixelation's purpose he's grown up enough to measure if it could affect his stay here.
-
My new website will be displaying my works I have created, and there is a lot which you can see without registering for anything.
There is also a regular membership which allows you to join my mailinglist to recieve updates whenever there is news about the site. As a member, you also can post comments and rate the work on it. This is so people who are truelly interested enough to get a free account can rate and give feedback in a spam-bot free environment.
There are alot of art websites which offer videos and content which you must buy, and I am merely doing the same with what I think is good enough to show to those whom get subscriptions to the site and it also helps support the site as well as help me continue to produce good content for it. Nobody has to get a free membership or buy a subscription, but it is there for those whom wish to see more of my work. A lot of the content is free, but some have special quirks such as progress animations for those with free memberships and such.
I will also be offering pixel articles every week or two which will go through the entire process from beginner to advanced in all aspects of pixel art. I already have the first book aimed at beginners almost complete, and each chapter in that will be released every week or two to those whom have a free membership.
I'm surprised this is an issue, as it is my personal work and website which I choose to handle in my own way, but I am thankful for the mention of the new website, and will find any feedback appreciated.
-
As I said, congrats on your new site and I'm sure a lot of people will be interested in following your pixel art lessons, because as you say, a small registration that is free is really no hassle and expected all over the internet now.
But wouldn't you say posting pay-to-view videos of your processes/video tutorials when a website you're a moderator on does the same without asking for money is a bit cheeky and disrespecting the hard work of others that don't ask for compensation?
Or is it that you think people doing it for free are what they are, and you are a better artist or teacher so your services are to be sold?
Whatever your conception in this case is, reality will validate or invalidate it anyway, in the future you'll see how many people will pay for video tutorials. But I'd like an answer because you're currently a moderator in this board and I for one see a conflict here.
-
i was dissapointed when i saw your site, alex. it looks great and everythings awesome, but there are even stationary pieces that i cannot view, the videos would be awesome to see aswell. well it is YOUR site so theres really nothing we can do about it.
-
Helm, This is something I had been thinking about doing for years, as you can see I had video tutorials from back in 2003, which a couple are available for free on my website. Not every video will require a premium membership to view.
Is it not right for an artist to sell their work? This is the choice I am making for specific content which I feel is worth being subscribed to in order to recieve. Some of it is free, and some of it requires a subscription. It is up to people to decide which option they choose.
-
Kon, let me make it absolutely clear I am not trying to tell you how to run your own personal website, even though I might not agree with its policies. This isn't the purpose of this thread at all.
What I am trying to convey, is that I for one feel a moderator in Pixelation, which is a free site with free services (amongst them video tutorials) shouldn't be selling video tutorials on the side. On moral grounds.
This isn't about changing your website's price policies. This is about your moderating position in Pixelation.
-
I signed up a free account because I was curious. The videos do not work here. Also the site displays rather faulty in Firefox.
-
Is it not right for an artist to sell their work?
According to philosophy, it's not.
Art is a combination of genius and knowledge used to reach beauty without any other utility.
If you make money with your art, then it's art for people and not art for beauty. Thus you're being a sophist and Plato would have called you a pseudo-artist.
That's just philosophy tough...
-
Helm, I don't see what is immoral about it. I think I can choose what I can or can't do with my personal business and I don't think that a seperate entity such as pixelation should have a say on how I should carry out my personal business with it.
as for the firefox issue, I think I have fixed it, but if not I'd appreciate some feedback on the issue so I may work on it.
-
Helm, I don't see what is immoral about it. I think I can choose what I can or can't do with my personal business and I don't think that a seperate entity such as pixelation should have a say on how I should carry out my personal business.
You've made your position clear. You don't see any moral ambiguity in being part of a free knowledge environment like pixelation in a very high position, and then having a personal site that sells knowledge for money.
I personally disagree that this is okay. Both our positions are clear. I'd like to know what other people think, as this is quite interesting a development.
-
Is it not right for an artist to sell their work?
According to philosophy, it's not.
Art is a combination of genius and knowledge used to reach beauty without any other utility.
If you make money with your art, then it's art for people and not art for beauty. Thus you're being a sophist and Plato would have called you a pseudo-artist.
That's just philosophy tough...
According to PLATO's philosophy, yes.
There are other branches of philosophy that has no problem with art being something that you can sell. Using the term "philosophy" like "the bible" is a misuse of a whole bunch of mindsets which are all together called "philosophy". So yes, according to Plato, what you just said might've been right.
Kon: I have no problem with your personal website and business and do not think that it interferes with your work as a moderator on this site at all. That is my opinion.
I have no interest of buying your services, though :<
-
Stuff still displays strange here. As in text overlaying where it should not.
On the whole selling thing. I so far have not seen a single artists site that sells stuff like that, tiny thumbnail, pay to see more.
The only sites I seen where you pay for stuff like that is pornsites.
Also do you think your stuff is really that great to warrant someone paying money to see it? Just a thought.
-
Ptoing took the words right outta' my mouth with the porn statement. However, I don't think this is a big deal. It doesn't mean much to me, since I've been to his site in the past, and I don't think I'm missing anything new, other than a few features, and pieces. Still though, Alex is entitled to his opinion, and property. He should run it the way he wants.
As far as affecting morality of moderation on this site, I don't think anybody would notice, much less care if he charges for another site. He helps here for free, which is the focus of all artists needing general help for individual growth and maturity. His site is about him, and him only. It showcases his works, and his opinion. I believe he should run it however he pleases...
-
According to PLATO's philosophy, yes.
There are other branches of philosophy that has no problem with art being something that you can sell. Using the term "philosophy" like "the bible" is a misuse of a whole bunch of mindsets which are all together called "philosophy". So yes, according to Plato, what you just said might've been right.
I both agree and disagree with you. Yes my words were true according to Plato's Philosophy but you should not consider philosophy as various independant branches, some answers were found and remain true even if some people don't accept it (this is not concerning art, about which Plato did quite a few mistakes).
Sorry for being off topic, I'm stopiping this right now (or PM).
-
Selling videos on the side is a little wack. I can understand the possible conflict of interest between that and Pixelation. I can understand why Helm has an issue with the morality of the motives behind Alex's new site - this is a dangerously small community as-is, we're all normally just here to help each other grow. For free, yeah?
But if this is really about Alex's moderating abilities/interests, then why is this being posted in General instead of the Mod forums? What's the point of posting some obscene all-caps bulletin? If you're really curious about how the community feels about this, as a moderator, an impartial and just observer, then why are all of your posts in this thread oozing passive-aggressive vitriol? If this is really a Mod issue, then just deal with it in the Mod forums. If this is a personal issue, then there's no reason to bring it here, deal with each other directly. If you're genuinely curious about how people feel, then don't try to make them feel the same way you do.
But other than that.. just chill out, guys. It's fucking pixel art. It's not worth this sort of bickering.
-
if this is to be a moderator issue, I'd like it to not be disconnected by the feeling of the community. Some things have been in the past, and I don't desire this anymore. This is a chance to discuss openly a matter that could very well be settled behind-the-scenes. It is not an issue of the practise of moderation (which would be best delt in private, yes) but rather an issue of the moral obligations of moderators, on which I am no more an authority than anyone else. I don't have the power to take action anyway. This is why this is a discussion, and I am just one more person with an opinion, surrounded by the userbase, with their opinions.
-
I think he should be able to sell videos on his site, it's his buisness. Many things on the internet are only available for paying users (paypal, eBay ect.) I think Alex is doing the same thing and I think thats ok, but something feels wrong about this because other people are helping others here for free.
I think you should put some basic videos up for free and you should put up some videos for the more experienced for a small price.
But the book is another issue, I think it's a good idea and i might even buy it ;)
-
if this is to be a moderator issue, I'd like it to not be disconnected by the feeling of the community. Some things have been in the past, and I don't desire this anymore. This is a chance to discuss openly a matter that could very well be settled behind-the-scenes. It is not an issue of the practise of moderation (which would be best delt in private, yes) but rather an issue of the moral obligations of moderators, on which I am no more an authority than anyone else. I don't have the power to take action anyway. This is why this is a discussion, and I am just one more person with an opinion, surrounded by the userbase, with their opinions.
I understand, completely, where you're coming from. And my opinion on all of this, expressed in that previous post, was also just one person's opinion. I don't want to come off as if I'm trying to be any sort of moral authority here. But I feel like there are two things being expressed, one being an open question to gauge a community reaction, and the other being a strong opinion on the same question. Also, personally, I feel like moderators' questions and opinions carry more weight, so it's worth being careful about making that distinction in posts like this.
As far as the question at hand is concerned, I don't have a firm opinion on it.
On the one hand, Pixelation is a place where we all come to learn. We learn, and teach, in hopes of inspiring others, because we love it, and because we realize that a scene this small requires a lot of love in order to flourish. When someone (anyone) opts to charge other artists for their services, it makes a gap in that community circle. Charging clients is totally acceptable, but I feel like the problem that people are having with Alex's website stems from the fact that he's charging other pixel artists. I understand this view, and agree with it.
On the other hand, it depends on your personal interpretation of what that community circle consists of. Is it entirely inclusive to all pixel artists? Is it a completely open community? Or does the community end when you leave the community websites? The reason that any of us have websites, at heart, is to showcase our work in order to get paid work (this is a generalization). So is it that absurd that someone's website might function solely (or at least mostly) as a means of generating income? Personally, I don't think that's absurd at all. And if Alex is able to make money and pay his bills by doing so, then all the more power to him. Whenever he's on Pixelation, he's here to help - his website is exclusively his, though.
For me, it's a grey area. I don't see this as a situation that can be boiled down to right and wrong. As a member of the site, I personally don't have any problem with Alex doing what he's doing on his own site. I don't feel like it's going to interfere, in any way, with his moderating abilities. And my guess is that there won't be many people who feel like his actions are treading such hallowed moral ground that he should be asked to hand in his moderator badge. That said, however, I think that it's ultimately up to the people running the site to determine what sort of community and image they want the site to have - and if they believe that moral boundaries have been crossed, it's their decision to make.
-
I think Kon should do what he wants. Saying he shouldn't ask for money for a service is an opinion. Saying he can't ask for money is ridiculous.
One can donate his time to non-profit organizations, but when one goes to work one expects to get paid. I think we should wish him luck and be on our merry way.
EDIT: Oh, and what's the deal with the tabloid-like heading?
-
I sometimes post topic names in caps, as one can see in my post history. It's not an attempt at sensationalism but rather an internet habit from when I first started posting in (other) websites where it was norm when something of importance was posted. I just don't post a lot of topics is why it might seem odd to some people.
Also, personally, I feel like moderators' questions and opinions carry more weight, so it's worth being careful about making that distinction in posts like this.
Seeing how many people have so far disagreed with my opinion on the matter openly in this thread, I don't really think this fear is a justified one. Don't worry, Akzidenz, nobody is trying to tell people what to think here. I understand where you're concern is founded on, but I think open-mindedness and critical thinking has always been supported in Pixelation. I am well-known for speaking my mind, true, but never to shut somebody else up (unless breaking of the rules occurs). I take pride in knowing Pixelation is a fair community.
On the matter at hand, I see both viewpoints though I personally side with what was previously expressed in my posts. I don't really desire to see Kon hand in his moderator badge as he puts it. I wanted to see if he sees any sort of conflict in what's going on foremost. Why did I want that? Because I am really interested in the (extremely non-profit-based) communal dynamics of Pixelation and how they could be affected by such a thing. Personally, I think a future where long-standing members of this community do 'free' critique here and such but keep the 'real hardcore critique and tutorial videos' for their own pay-sites is a horrible one, and I'd like to gauge reactions to first signs of this so we may feel out options in the present.
-
I was actually very surprised to see this too, and i was looking forward to seeing the finished "Sandman" piece. I think it's sort of unfair, or at least a little awkward, that there was a thread about it, to which many members contributed,
and now the final piece is only viewable with a subscription to the site.
I see now that this has been changed.
It isn't wrong for an artist to sell their work, however, when the piece is shown online, and the viewer gains to rights to use, sell, or do anything with the art they are viewing in the portfolio, it is no different from viewing it in an exhibition. When artists sell their work, they give all the rights to the buyer (for example, selling artwork to a game developer.)
It's obvious that everything cost money, but i think that with Kon's skill, commissions would cover costs for a domain (and server-space) completely. I run my own server out of an old machine that my family had lying around, and my domain name is one registered at a free domain site. I am really curious as to why the site went subscription based. A professional artist should be able to cover those petty cost with work done for commercial groups.
EDIT: also, for those of us without money (or a paypal account/credit card, for that matter) it is significantly harder to actually get a subscription. If i knew you and could hand you the money it would be no problem, but the hassle really isn't worth it, especially when the subscription is only to one artist's site.
-
I don't really...get it.
Sure, Kon's got every right to make money off his art, and he deserves to profit from his knowledge, I think. But even artists with outstandingly huge and high-quality archives of art only ask for money when someone actually buys something (a print or painting). What are people buying here? Your art? Not quite.
As has been said, It's Kon's site and he can do as he pleases for all I care. It just seems like a really wierd decision to make.
I mean, seems like you'd benefit more from showing your work for free and getting all kinds of high-paying offers than hiding your art from potential employers.
Ok, gtg, I might say more later.
-
actually, most of the art can be viewed with simply a free membership. There are only a couple images available only in premium memberships because those I specifically didnt want to display because I had other intentions with them but decided to throw them in anyway.
The idea with the subscriptions, is that you gain more content which goes kinda behind the scenes showing how things were made and gives information which has value.
This is not the only project which I am working on, and so it is not the only thing which I have to pay for, and so having such a system helps me and the projects which I am working on.
-
But what's the point in subscribing for free anyway? It just consumes precious viewers' time that could be being spent actually...viewing your art. I can understand signing up for the articles or whatever it was you said you'd make weekly, and even signing up to make comments. But, even if free, membership should, IMHO, only be required for either or both of those 2 things. Not just browsing through.
But I guess I understand where you're coming from, and like I said, do what you want. It's no business of mine.
-
Just to throw my opinion in, I don't think it will conflict with his moderation of pixelation. And this may be counter-intuitive, but I don't think this will require any action to counter Pixelation going this route until there are further signs of it doing so.
-
I think what Alex is doing is fine. He's creating content, and charging for it. Just because it's like free content here doesn't mean it has to be free elsewhere. So long as he's not reserving content created by people other than himself in these sections, I don't see what's to argue about. I'm frankly kind of surprised you made such a spectacle about it, Helm. This really could have been handled via PMs if you're really concerned about it.
- Adam
-
I enjoy your art, and it is all very very bold and interesting, but I'm just not a fan of the idea, or site design
-
well, I was disappointed.
Im a fan of your work alex and I was looking forward to browsing your site..
But to be perfectly honest, I hate having to sign up at websites to browse their content, especially if its free anyway
I think the most important part of any website is how easy it is to browse and use
But still, its your site and your content.. I just find it a bit impersonal that you'd want people to sign up to view your art
-
I enjoy your art, and it is all very very bold and interesting, but I'm just not a fan of the idea, or site design
Yeah, that's another thing. I don't like the site design. It's the scrolling. What with the scrolling? The purpose of thumbnails is to provide small samples of larger works in a limited area with the most efficiency. So what with the scrolling? I think all thumbnails on a page should be visible from the get-go.
-
How about another topic - having people critique a site's layout and distribution techniques without the creator having posted it here himself? Helm linking to Alex's site and asking for opinions on it isn't much different than me grabbing an image from someone's directory and dropping it onto Pixelation for comments without their approval. Just one more reason I think this whole thread is uncalled for, I guess.
- Adam
-
How about another topic - having people critique a site's layout and distribution techniques without the creator having posted it here himself? Helm linking to Alex's site and asking for opinions on it isn't much different than me grabbing an image from someone's directory and dropping it onto Pixelation for comments without their approval. Just one more reason I think this whole thread is uncalled for, I guess.
- Adam
like this ? http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=2642.0 ::)
-
I, like many others can't be bothered to sign up. Even if you were the greatest artist in the world i wouldnt bother. You are just going to lose visitors.
Why would anyone want to pay to see a video tutorial when they can come here and see the for free?
I agree with that it conflicts with the morals of free learning on this board, but helm, i expected more from you. This thread seems more of a personal issue - and perhaps a very unneccesary one. Alex can do as he pleases - if he created a site under a different URL and no-one knew it was him - there would be no issue. I don't see how his moderator status should affect his personal business.
I don't see many people paying for your services alex. Also i see many floors with your site, text overlapping, un-alignment etc... If you were going for a business/money orientated site you picked a very bad layout. Too confusing.
I used to enjoy your old layout, and browsing your art. Now - it's too much of a chore.
-
I also agree, I think you're actually losing a certain spectrum of visitors with that kind of concept. I for one certainly wouldn't sign up, just to browse the free pictures.
I do however not see a conflict with the free content here and the paid content on his website, that's Alex' personal business and has nothing to do with him being a moderator here imo.
-
Normally I'd stay out of a conversation like this, but I have to say that I agree fully with Adam and, like him, feel that this whole topic is a bit uncalled for and inappropriate. This is a personal choice on Alex's part, and as far as I know he asked for no criticism on his site or his methods. Also, as far as I can tell all of the content on the site in question is 100% original, created by Alex, and as such he has the full right to do with it whatever he pleases. Helm, I think a quote from your original post sums it up pretty well:
Obviously, running a website takes money, and a webmaster is free to ask for compensation on any thing for his site, and whomever is willing to pay for it, that's their choice. Nobody should be able to make them stop. In the end, if there's a demand, people will pay, if there's no demand, Kon will likely remove the service.
Also do you think your stuff is really that great to warrant someone paying money to see it? Just a thought..
I think this statement is a bit off base, too. Couldn't it be asked of anyone who works professionally, who charges a wage for their work? The only difference here is that Alex created his work first, and then attempted to sell it. Not all artwork that is sold is commissioned. Many people just like to buy paintings, or, in this case, pixels. Asking if he "really thinks he's so great" is a bit insulting, too, as it, in my mind, implies that he's arrogant or egotistical. Is every artist attempting to sell their work an egomaniac, then? Apologies if I've misinterpreted your meaning, but this is how it came off to me.
Finally, and maybe most importantly, in regards to the question of a "conflict of interest": has one arisen? Has there been any change or decline in the quality of Alex's moderation or contribution to this site (outside the realm of, say, perhaps having been a bit busy designing his new site, of course)? I don't know, of course, but if there hasn't, then I'd argue that this is a non-issue.
Apologies, again, if I've misinterpreted or misconstrued anyone's words.
-
About his stuff being that great: Alex is a good pixelartist and sure as hell deserves money for his work if he works on a game or whatever, but I really don't think anyone here is good enough to offer stuff like videos of themselves pixelling for money, I highly doubt that any of the videos will teach the persons paying for them anything they can not learn for free here, just as quick. And that the thing i find odd about this to be honest, who is the target audience.
It's his fans I am guessing (who else), but most people here (as someone esle already stated) are not even old enough to have a creditcard or paypal. But then again that is just my opinion.
-
most people here (as someone esle already stated) are not even old enough to have a creditcard or paypal. But then again that is just my opinion.
Is that really true? I thought the userbase for Pixelation was mostly 18-25ish with a decent chunk of nearly-18-year-olds.
-
Heh, yeh indeed, stroke that one out. It's getting late here. Still leaves the questions if anyone will actually sign up. Even tho it's cheap (5$ a month) I don' see the value for money atm. Anyway, good luck, I guess.
-
my opinion:
Helm, this is the 3rd time there has been a ruckus over Alex's moderation position for virtually unrelated matters (and I'm saying this based off of the majority's opinions on this as well as my own). And it would almost appear that there is a constant search for reasons to question Alex's said position. Not only do I not see the connection you are trying to make here between this and his own personal website, but I'm also in disagreement with the public discussion about the matter. The discussion is fine when it comes to people's opinions about his website alone, but it isn't so when you are asking to publicly question his moderating position because of it. These are things that we most certainly do behind the scenes. You've given your reasoning for this, but again, it makes little sense to me. It was you who mentioned in an earlier dispute that any qualms between moderators should not be handled publicly, and I agreed with that statement. It will render the Moderating team as dysfunctional to the forum members. This was inappropriate.
I as well am not a fan of paying for a membership, but I can imagine those that *would* find value in such. He has the right to sell video tutorials from his website just as much as we all have a right to sell our pixel-art services to any one else whether it be commercial games, or what have you. As for Ptoing's comment about not being 'good enough' to sell such videos - I'd leave that opinion to the buyer. If this were the case, none of us would have a job in the pixel art market.
If there is to be more discussion on the subject of Kon's moderating position here, I suggest we take that where it should be. As for the discussions of his new site in general, that of course should be continued. However, I too (like Sals) suggest that the creator of the website make a new thread for such and this one be locked.
-
Helm's just a bitter buttercup.
As for the site... ya, the porn thing.
-
I don't quite get the conflict of interest. It's his personal site and should be able to do as he wants. This forum has a completely different approach and culture that it shouldn't and doesn't have anything to do with Alex's site. Personally, I don't give a shit if he wants to try and make money from his site (though I think he's going about it the wrong way).
All that aside, I'd like to say that if I was just surfing along and came across his site, I wouldn't be too impressed. It does nothing to make me want to browse through it all. It doesn't pop like the old one. The layout screams of too much open space and knowing his skills, he could do much better with utilizing it. If I were a potential employer looking at his site for the first time and being forced to pay to see the details of his process, etc. I'd be yawning and moving on to another client. Personally, if he wants to make some cash from visitors, I'd suggest selling marketable items like t-shirts, books, and online games.
-
I don't quite get the conflict of interest. It's his personal site and should be able to do as he wants. This forum has a completely different approach and culture that it shouldn't and doesn't have anything to do with Alex's site. Personally, I don't give a shit if he wants to try and make money from his site (though I think he's going about it the wrong way).
All that aside, I'd like to say that if I was just surfing along and came across his site, I wouldn't be too impressed. It does nothing to make me want to browse through it all. It doesn't pop like the old one. The layout screams of too much open space and knowing his skills, he could do much better with utilizing it. If I were a potential employer looking at his site for the first time and being forced to pay to see the details of his process, etc. I'd be yawning and moving on to another client. Personally, if he wants to make some cash from visitors, I'd suggest selling marketable items like t-shirts, books, and online games.
100% agree, I would love to have a pixel t-shirt :P
-
It is clear most people see no problem in what Kon is doing - what Pixelation isn't doing. As such, I should rest easy knowing we don't appear as a bunch of hypocrites for the users of Pixelation, right? That's good, then.
-
We all gotta eat.
-
I wouldn't go as far as to say that helm is attacking alex, however it's morally unjust of helm to post something like this publicly without even pming alex beforehand. It was kind of cheap to post this regarding alx's personal website and to have alex blindsided by the fact that this is supposed to be an issue. As a matter of fact, it makes you look bad, helm to do something like this out of the blue with no true basis for doing so.
This matter could have been handled much more appropriately, and it makes pixealtion look hyppocritical when it strikes out against people trying to make some kind of profit from their own hard work. The only people who can decide whether or not alex's work is worth paying for are the people who decide to pay for it. Point blank.
Now, I do understand that it may be offputting to see a member of our community trying to make gains off of art that he supports as free or worthy of being free on another site; however its none of our business what alex does on his own time.
-
I also don't like the idea of having to register just to view some images or vids... even worse pay for it. But it's his choice. Nothing we can do about it.
I just hope that this won't make the other pixel artist get the idea of asking money with a similar concept in the future.
-
Also do you think your stuff is really that great to warrant someone paying money to see it? Just a thought..
To exemplify my quote a bit better.
http://www.bkstudio.com/home_movie.htm#
-
As was said before, the choice to determine whether it is "good enough" to be sold is really up to Kon whoever is paying for it. To emphasize what Helm was saying, the issue is not about the quality of the work, but that fact that Kon is a moderator at this forum (which offers free tutorials, help, etc) and he is attempting to make a profit on the side via the same type of service/material. Whether or not that crosses any moral boundary is up to whoever. To each his own.
Personally, I don't think it's a very big deal. If he wants to sell his videos, let him sell. It shouldn't have any influence on his position here.
-
Stwelin, correct. However Ptoing's link is a good point of view to consider, when people who are professionals and offering free knowledge via tutorials. It is a good example for people to follow.
It had suprised me how misunderstood my original point was, but I guess it's to be expected since -apparently- the moral issue is a very thin one for most that commented. I guess 'making a profit' is sacred ground for the vocal part of our userbase.
-
Stwelin, correct. However Ptoing's link is a good point of view to consider, when people who are professionals and offering free knowledge via tutorials. It is a good example for people to follow.
It had suprised me how misunderstood my original point was, but I guess it's to be expected since -apparently- the moral issue is a very thin one for most that commented. I guess 'making a profit' is sacred ground for the vocal part of our userbase.
hmm, I don't really think that your post was incorrect in content, i just think you should have done this more tastefully- the current rendition seems to be almost like you're trying to discredit alex for trying to get ahead with his talents. At least in my opinion, this isn't a battle against your opinion, per se, but more against what you're saying alex seems to have no right to do. (hopefully that came out right).
Also in regards to examples to follow, I concur, however that is not how ptoing's post sounded. I'm almost one hundred percent sure that a lot of people will see it as a remark that was more of a, "you're not as good as you think you are" post and not a, " Try following the example of professionals" type of post- if you catch my drift.
-
i just think you should have done this more tastefully
I will agree that this is the case. When I was first linked to Kon's website and pay-for-videos I was outraged and insulted that a moderator of this place would do this. This carried in my tone, and though I regret that, I can't say my opinion on the matter has changed, it has just cooled and crystallized into a very definite disagreement.
"you're not as good as you think you are"
I see absolutely no harm in someone telling someone else 'you're not as good as you think you are'. The person telling you doesn't even have to be better than you. It's a valid wake-up-call to almost all artists on this boards. Most artists I've met and whose art I admire remind this to themselves every day. They might comission artwork, but they wouldn't ask for money to let other people see them draw. Now, I agree someone getting in your face and telling you 'hey man, you're not as good an artist as you think' is presumtuous in most occasions, for how can one know exactly in what regard you hold yourself as an artist? Well, one can know, once you start charging people for the privilege of seeing you do pixel art...
It's like it was mentioned above, who will pay to see the art being made? Will it be people that are looking to hire pixel artists? No, of course not. These people demand quick-to-browse portfolios and don't waste time, much less PAY you to give you a chance at being hired. It will be other pixel artists looking to learn, therefore the videos take a 'tutorial' charge. And if you're charging for tutorials, you better be some sort of not only extremely competent draftsman, but also have your methodology down to so so so so neat and easy-to-follow that other people can learn from just watching a video without even narration.
Now, I've posted video tutorials, and they're free for many reasons: First, I don't feel I'm very good. Second: I don't think they're self-explanatory at all, and therefore more 'entertainment' than 'education'. Voiceovers and pauses and technical explanations would help, but I can't be bothered. Lastly, and this is the most important (and this is why Pixelation is free too) is that I don't consider myself an authority on pixel art, I make many mistakes and may mislead people if they trust me with helping them. We're all learning here from each other. When I critique or edit someone on these boards, I am also learning, and reevaluating my own practises.
Apparently the person whose videos Ptoing linked to also doesn't consider himself as befittingly being in a teacher position, and if you want my opinion, as amazingly good as he is (in my eyes), I can understand why, since his process is so esoteric to watch. He scribbles like hell and you can tell it ends up good because he's got the keen sense to make it good, but it's not explained. If I scribbled like he does the end result would be hilariously messy and bad. So if he was charging for those videos, and I paid and saw them, I'd say I was ripped off, because I didn't learn much besides see pretty art being made.
-
If I scribbled like he does the end result would be hilariously messy and bad. So if he was charging for those videos, and I paid and saw them, I'd say I was ripped off, because I didn't learn much besides see pretty art being made.
I found that point particulary true,helm, and I'm glad you pointed that out. So maybe the real question isn't whether alexs is good enough- or as talented a pixel artist to post those videos. Alex, do you think your videos are thorough and easy enough to follow that people will be paying for tutorials and videos that they can actually use?
I see absolutely no harm in someone telling someone else 'you're not as good as you think you are'. The person telling you doesn't even have to be better than you.
I completely agree, my problem wasn't the words used- it was moreso the tone evoked at the time. It seemed as if the message was meant as more of a harsh criticism rather than a candid wakeup call.
-
About the "being better than one thinks he is":
I often have the feeling Alex is very, very pleased with his art, I mainly got this impression when I read the comments he made on his art on his homepage.
I feel an artist should never be 100% happy with his skill, there is ALWAYS room to improve. One big problem on forums (even moreso than in the real world)
is asskissing. People who are ok or good get massive amounts of asskissing like "OMG YOU ARE SO GOOD!"
Depending on what mindframe the person who recieves this praise has he/she might feel that there is no need to improve, or at least not as much as one could.
The same thing goes the other way as well, people who say stuff like "OMG I COULD NEVER DO THAT!" might as well just stop doing anything. At the end of the day everything is down to practise, everyone can learn a draft, getting ideas can be practised to a certain extent as well, almost no one is hopeless, you just have to practise a lot and pick realistic short term goals.
I also think that many people here have the impression that people like Helm or me are superawesome, but in fact we are not as good as they might think, we just try to steadily improve with what we are doing.
Just my 2 Euro-cents and something to perhaps think about.
-
I understand. Kon is slapping us in the face because he nows people can get great resources for free over here, yet he still opens his on site selling videos,
-
I also think that many people here have the impression that people like Helm or me are superawesome
Nahh :P
-
I understand. Kon is slapping us in the face because he nows people can get great resources for free over here, yet he still opens his on site selling videos,
Alex is slapping no-one in the face. He has the right to sell what he wants. If you don't like it, don't sign up.
@ptoing: superawesome.. you wish!! - your gonna have to settle for just 'some. :P
-
Haha, I am the last person in the world who would say that I am superawesome. :P At least I know in which points I have to improve.
-
As far as "turning a profit" being a sacred ground? I don't know - and even though I recognize that as hyperbole, I think it's off.
Personally, I've worked freelance more than enough to know that being a professional artist without a steady paycheck is terrifying. And there have been times where I've needed to pay the bills, so I've taken shit jobs that I normally wouldn't have. And I don't see it as "selling out" or anything even vaguely of the like, I just see it as trying to survive.
I don't personally know any professional artists who - outside of a stroke of luck and fame - have been able to get by without doing shit work from time to time. It seems universally accepted (or at the very least, accepted amongst most everyone I know) that you do the shit jobs in order to have the breathing room to do the ones that you love.
So, that's where my reasoning comes in. If Alex/Kon any professional artist needs to pay some bills, I feel his pain, and I wouldn't morally have a problem with him doing a lot of things. If it's unrelated to being hard up for work/money, if it's more of an ego issue, then - as an outsider, someone who doesn't know him and is speaking only to larger ideals here - I don't agree entirely with the morals behind that.
But, like I said before, it's his site. He's his own person. He should be allowed to do what he wants with his site and his life without being subjected to any sort of scrunity over his duties here.
-
I find it hard to comprehend why anyone should be told what they can or cannot be selling, which is the feeling I'm getting.
There's a dislike for what I am doing, because what is being sold could be given away for free, yes that is true for alot of things, but I have a choice like anyone else does to market their work any way they please, and so It is how I feel personally about my work which determines what I want to do with it. I feel good about what I do, and when I feel I have created something good there is a value which I attach to it.
At first when I was upgrading my website, I wasn't going to include such a payment system, and when I decided to make such a system, it wasn't originally intended for my work, but rather the work of everyone, as I had envisioned offering anyone who wanted a webspace to own a customizable webspace which acts like mine. People who aren't even pixel artists could have a site and market their own type of work. So to think that I am somehow taking advantage of pixel artists is simply wrong, but of course you didn't know that until now.
I have my site running as it is as a beta stage which will hopefully help things progress into the next stage where I can begin allowing individuals webspace where they can market their own content. But from the reaction, maybe you people wouldn't like such a thing?
-
I have my site running as it is as a beta stage which will hopefully help things progress into the next stage where I can begin allowing individuals webspace where they can market their own content. But from the reaction, maybe you people wouldn't like such a thing?
It's a cool idea, but i don't think you will make much out of it. Out of general interest, please feel free to not-answer this question as many folk - like myself - do not like to talk about finance publicly, but has anyone signed up or paid for the services on your site yet?
I may be wrong, you might have just found a niche in the market, but there just seems to be so much free content available at the hand of a google search, for anyone to pay for it would be slightly absurd.
Good luck to you. Screw morals - take what you can get!
-
I have no objection to him doing his thing on the side either, this whole thing is rather a non-issue to me which is why I stayed out of it, but regarding making money from this,
it may be a niche, but what about the demand for such a service? Read up on people making money from google adwords or amazon affiliates and such. Have you ever earned money from advertising on a site before? How many unique hits are you getting to your homepage? 0-300 a day? With this amount of traffic, you would be lucky to be able to afford your girlfriend a nice macdonalds meal at the end of the year with the money earned.
Just a thought.. good luck with the site though.
I personally can't be bothered creating an account.. I'm always switching computers and deleting cookies etc, so logging in can be very annoying for me.
-
Hmm... It seems to me people are still interpreting this as an issue about whether or not Kon has the right to sell his videos... of course he does. But it's more about how Pixelation started out as an appendix to Tsu's tutorial, and a resource toward free and community oriented learning and discussion. I see how his moderatorship comes into play, where as a mod Kon is kind of representative of the free learning ideal Pixelation has going on, but he goes against this free learning ideal in his personal site. I wonder if people would feel differently if Kon started offering critiques on art at 5 bucks a pop. That would be in his right, of course, but we as members of Pixelation would have to decide if we wanted to have a moderator who placed his own financial gain above the free learning community ideal that he represents, or possibly whether we actually want to keep the free learning community ideal in Pixelation.
Not saying that Kon's moderatorship should be revoked, but I see where Helm is coming from (though for the record, I also disagreed with Helm's initial presentation).
-
The only way I can possibly see this as a conflict of interest is if Alex takes other people's work without permission or if he spams Pixelation with ads for his product. Other than that, I don't see why people are so offended.
Unless I'm missing something, Alex is an artist trying to support himself by selling his work on his site. What is wrong with that?
-
Unless I'm missing something, Alex is an artist trying to support himself by selling his work on his site. What is wrong with that?
nothing at all.
-
I think most everyone here is misunderstanding Helm's argument. It is not about whether or not Kon has the right to sell his videos.
-
Wasn't the argument about alex selling his videos while they were here for free ???
-
No. It's not about the videos at all. It's about the conflict of interest between his site, selling information for money, and Pixelation, teaching and learning and sharing what we know with each other at no cost.
-
There have been times of my life spent penniless begging for food, so when a person asks that people who clearly have an excess of leisure time and money pay for something that belongs to the artist, whatever it is, i see no problem. We all need to make money to get by. I also have no problem in the concept of paying to see art, galleries and museums charge admissions per visitiation, and anyone who thinks only the best art is sold is decieved, even I can sell paintings for a fair price; not the thousands of dollars that real arists fetch, but certainly more than five. Five dollars wouldnt cover the amount of paint i need, forget the hours working.
There will be a conflict of interest when a person is elected/appointed to a post, the requirements being that he use and share his knowledge to the best of his ability, as is the responsibility of mods beyond simple moderation, and the person refuses. Has this happened? If so, the position is thrown into question. If not, then outside matters are not a concern of mine.
-
I am almost positive that there's gotta be at least ONE person here who is professional enough to have taught a course in Photoshop or art in general and has gotten paid for it. Or perhaps someone's written a book on getting into the game industry or creating art for it? If there's a market out there for it, then why not? What right does anyone here have to say someone can't sell their skills? The fact that Alex is a mod here should have no bearing whatsoever... as long as he's here to help others with the art they're currently developing. Showing people how to make the art in the style and way that he does it shouldn't cause conflict and I think that if the video tutorial thread was never posted here, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
Lastly, I think if anyone does have a problem with Alex, they should be discussing this with him personally through email or PM and not in an open thread to cause a furor and retaliation amongst the rest of the community. This is not politics... this is pixel art. Namaste!
-
I don't see any furor or retaliation, pixelblink. If anything more people were upset with my handling of it than hardly anyone upset with what Kon is doing.
-
What would you say if a guy who moderates a writing forum wrote books and sold them for money?
Whoops, when I posted that I didn't realize that most of the things being sold were video tutorials. That will teach me to read things more carefully.
NEW RESPONSE:
Enough about whether Kon has "the right" to sell the videos. ;) Not because it is a trivial or uninteresting discussion (I think it's an interesting discussion) but because it's off topic and irrelevant here.
What Helm wants to hear from us is "Do you care if a leader of this community-based free learning site is also the owner of a paid learning site?" It is somewhat akin to asking "Do we care if a volunteer in our free soup kitchen runs a paid soup kitchen on the side?"
Maybe you do care. Maybe you don't. You probably have reasons either way.
Discuss.
-
I'd say congrats and best of luck.
What would I say if a guy that is a moderator in a creative writing forum which has free tutorials (by other members and moderators) on the subject but asks for money for his own tutorials on much the same subject on his personal site? Well, you know what I'd say....
-
whoops, previous statement retracted, see edit :P
-
Yes, you got it right.
-
On one hand, as part of the mod squad, I would like the best for pixelation. So having the awareness of the existance of a video tutorial thread, if I were recording my process, I would post it there in hopes it would serve someone, rather than sell it.
But on the other hand, Pixelation doesn't own Alex nor his art, so we can't say what he can or can't do. (Then again, that doesn't mean I agree with his choice, but ah well)
At the end is all up to your mindset, I guess.
-
I guess it depends on the purpose of the video tutorials Alex has made. If they have the same purpose as the other video tutorials on pixelation
then it would seem unfair that he charges for them. However, aren't his video tutorials rewards for his loyal fans rather than instructional videos?
-
I don't see any immorality with being a Pixelation moderator and at the same time an artist who has his own business plan.
Alex is not ABUSING his moderator status for personal benefits.
As for what's going on at his website, please do take that personal. It's no use and not civilized to publicly criticize his business path while he himself did not ask for it in the first place.
I find it pretty child-like to start such a personal attacking, if not, status damaging topic. I don't understand why this discussion wasn't kept internal, it should have, at least until Alex was notified and had replied.
-
heh. I checked out Kons site cause his link thingy in his sig was new and I was like "cool new Kon art". I visit and see that there was a registration requirement and promptly left. I had no idea there was a fee too. Registration was perplexing enough. I wouldn't pay for Craig Mullins content. Unless it was full length DVD with voice over explanations and all that. Then I might. But thats Craig Mullins. I'd like a Barron Storey DVD as well.
His decision doesn't jive well with Pixelation, or with reality in general, but calling him out in public is kinda... eh. I can't imagine anyone actually subscribing anyway.
-
My site is creative, and I didn't make it to be normal.
The system I created motivates me, because it is different and shows me members who want to see new work of mine. My site is for people who are interested in my work, like any personal site which displays work to its visitors, they are there because they want to see the work which the site wants to provide them with, and every artist is selective in what they will show to them. I have the right to be selective with my personal property as all of you do with yours.
Having what I do on my personal site become transparent/bound with pixelation due to me being a mod here would get rid of any reason for having my own site at all, wouldn't it?
-
I don't think your moderatorship and your site are as linked as Helm views it, no. Forgot to address that. I see the job of the moderators here as keeping the boards clean and in order, putting out flames, etc. Putting in the work towards maintenance that the average member doesn't want to deal with. Posting free vids and teaching what you can, writing good crits, etc, is more just being a valuable and productive member of the community. Anyone can do these things, without being a moderator. But not anyone can do the job of a moderator, keeping order and trying to be unbiased when arguments happen or whatever. I guess thats why I don't see as much of a problem with this whole thing, as it relates to Pixelation.
-
Also, people do not pay for Alex' images or theory only, they pay for his experience, his quality, his time and effort put into his personal website and videos. Those things cannot be directly credited to Pixelation.
-
I see no conflict of interest here. Pixelation is a public forum run at negative profit in order to promote the free exchange of information, Kon's website is his business both in the commercial and personal senses, in which some exclusive information is exchanged in a transaction. Information on both Pixelation and Final Redemption is first and foremost a commodity, and its distribution is and should be entirely up to the creators. We're a free site by choice, Kon charges by exercising the same choice.
I think a conflict of interest arises in questioning how an artist chooses to distribute their art. It's not like there are a ton of niches for pixel atists anymore, and this type of thinking will only hurt us in the long run by narrowing our options. Personally, Kon, I wish you the best of luck, and would be interested to hear how this venture pans out.
-
i see no problem at all in this. not for conflicting interests anyways.only thing i fear he's scaring off visitors, but its his business hes running
to re-use the example of pron sites. there are paid and free sites as well. so why not with tutorials.
-
free porn? do tell.
...??? I don't think there are such sites... you may get something for free, but not the full 'product.'
-
I suppose it's down to what you want your site to do, but personally this kind of portfolio website should'nt need registration, especially if you expect to get jobs from it, if I was commisioning artwork and I came across a site I needed to register for I'd be clicking on that little red X and moving on to the next site.
Art is to be seen not to be hidden away in private members areas.