Hello

I would like to use this thread to present and discuss the concept of the "professional artist" and why, I think, some of us use "free" software.

I use the masculine pronouns because, well, I'm masculine.




I am defining the "professional artist" as the artist who is trying to satisfy his economics with the creation of his artwork.

Even the "starving artist" is selling his artwork to be able to buy more paint to sell more artwork to buy more paint.....

The "amateur artist" is one who is not currently trying to sell his artwork. All "amateur artists" are one "how much would that cost" away from being a professional. All "professional artists" are basically one decision away from being an amateur artist again. Therefore, I personally see absolutely no form of discrimination between the two states of being an artist. Professional or amateur.

Think of how athletics used to be. The amateur was not getting paid - the professional was.



Why would a "professional artist" use free software?

Well, the first response would be that they do not have to pay for it. I propose that that position is rather invalid.

1. Time is money
2. It takes time to learn to use any tool
3. When the tool does not function as efficiently as other tools - time is wasted - $ is lost.
4. Having to learn work-arounds takes time
5. Not having access to all of the filters, fills and effects available in other software can lead one to waste time seeking functions which are not present - $ ( note: if this is too much of an issue - there is always the other software )
6. When offices require the "paid for" software - wasting time is an unemployer - using "other software" can cost one their career - so, risk = $ loss
7. Using free software has a "oooh, you use that - you must be poor..." socio-psychological effect upon one's "professional" reputation = $ loss
8. Free software has a minimum of reference material documenting its use - ( except for GIMP and Blender ) = takes time to figure it out = see point #1
9. Using the internet at work for the collection of information about "hobby software" is "wasteful use of company resources" = $ loss = unemployed
0. Free software can not be used as a business expense on our tax returns. That also limits our ability to declare classes and such learning to use a "hobby" package. ( Remember, in the US the IRS declares anything not used to make $$$ a hobby pursuit. )
1. Free software can become un-developed at any time = a hell of a lot of risk for the professional artists using it
2. Free software = open source code = easy to introduce worms and viruses = $$$$$$$$
...
there are many other bullets I could add, but it is enough to say that - from a professional artist's perspective - "free software isn't free"


So why use it?

I remember when I was a kid. My parent's actually boycotted mechanical toys. After the first couple years of watching me dissect them into a collection of gears, hinges and motors before dinner - they got frustrated with it. ( Damn, I loved those insectacons, destructicons, constructacons - don't even get me onto the topic of Lincoln logs and Kinex - I remember the year they mistakenly bought me a chemistry set... Ya know, youth is wasted on the young! )

Anyway, I think the reason we use free software is the same as the reason why we grind our own pigments and mix them into linseed oil to make our own paint rather than buying it from Windsor-Newton.

1. We want to have more control over our tools. If not control, at least a deeper understanding of them.
2. We want our tools to be developed to achieve a BETTER artistic product.
3. We want to know that our tools were produced honestly, openly, and ethically - not stolen and hidden under an algorithm
4. We want to know the people who help facilitate our work
5. We have an impish little gnome inside us who demands that we let it out once in a while ( Wednesdays and Sundays - usually after a sermon )
......
there are many more reasons why a "professional artist" would want to use free software

To save time, I list only these.




In short
I do not see professional artists as a group of "locusts" wanting to devour someone's else's hard work for little contribution to it.
I do not see professional artists as hostile to the amateur artists they once were and could be again.
I do not see professional artists as hostile to the developers producing the software they use. ( Although, there could be displaced aggravation which can be piled on an open source developer rather than the "commercial" developers who made the crap the artist must use daily at their workplace. This would probably be mitigated if the "commercial" developers were known and could be harassed --- like that freedom would ever occur. )


I very much see benefit to a dialogue between the developers taking the risks to create the software and the artists taking the risks of using it.




Developer - I wonder how this works?
Artist - Works great, but it should dance too.... But keep the hula skirt, cuz, ya know, I prefer saran wrap.


Tanks
James Anthony Wright
Priest, Scribe, Professional Artist

Thinking of the meanings behind professional and artist I came to the conclusion that the term "professional artist" is a paradox.

Lazur URH wrote:Thinking of the meanings behind professional and artist I came to the conclusion that the term "professional artist" is a paradox.

Efficiently put.

If professional artist was meaning (professional) graphic designer, this would make more sense to me.

But, I can't get the idea of professionals not being hostile to amateurs.

Profession is the key, that distinguishes the professionals from amateurs.
That profession leads to experience and knowledge of the industry,
and is based on the urge of the professional to produce top notch designs for the specific needs.
To make their work more valuable, they need to emphasise this.
Thus, saying professional vs. amateur can quickly turn into
"those who know how to do things right" vs. "those who just playing around", or more like:
"we can" vs. "you can't".

I would say it is highly reasonable to use non-free -preferably very expensive, hard to find- softwares for commercial needs,
and avoiding free softwares for works from that point.

But on another hand, the software the designer uses won't turn him to have the urge to produce top notch designs.
Hopefully the "we can" vs. "you can't" is not always defined by the softwares, and freelancers have a chance.

This conversation had me look up a comparison of vector editors.

I came across Wikipedia's Comparison of vector graphics editors. While looking through the list I spotted a fork of Inkscape called Ponyscape! Downloaded and will test it too.

Ponyscape is based on Inkscape (a fork). Its author is attempting to recreate the software (in so far as I understood this Question/Answer session. But as developer he has seen the code base for Inkscape and feels it is in need of clean up and elegance.

Forgive me if the following is "off topic" though I feel the topic is fairly wide.

MY WISH LIST
1. A code cleanup in the next point upgrade. Translation: my first wish is to see a point upgrade (0.49 to 0.50, for example) where the code base for Inkscape is either cleaned up or rewritten. Over this many years it may be possible that Inkscape has become a patchwork of code. Firefox was released after Netscape Navigator was opensourced. Netscape was deemed to bloated to fix, so it was rewritten. As much as the developers may be fondly attached to their code additions, a review of the entire package (and subsequent clean up) is never a bad thing. If Apple can release an O/S without new features, but just code clean up, Inkscape could enjoy the same thing.

2. I'd like to see a fork of Inkscape that would allow for tools and features that are not currently compliant with SVG standards (and may never be). It would have its own file format (IFF, for example) and could save to SVG with an appropriate warning that some features might be lost.

I am sure I could contribute a few more ideas... but hey: why not stir up the bees' nest with just a few shakes of the stick?!

brynn wrote:

Off topic:

BobSongs, considering Inkscape devs' recent inability to provide a Mac version of the current stable release, I wonder if Ponyscape could fill that void? Currently, to my understanding, a Mac user wanting the current stable release, can either compile it, or not have it. This is the 1st I've heard of Ponyscape. But if they are getting it built for Macs, I'll bet a lot of Macs users would be happy with it...although I guess that depends on where Inkscape was when Ponyscape was forked...?

The PonyScape developer had this to say concerning Inkscape:

flutterguy317 wrote:Q: Why are you creating a whole new vectoring suite instead of continuing to use Inkscape? What prompted this?

A: Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Inkscape. I think it's a great piece of software and I loved working on it. Unfortunately, a lot of the codebase for Inkscape is messy and combines old coding techniques with new ones, which can get very confusing. It was a constant struggle to try to find the root cause of crashes, and changing some small things could eventually lead to the entire program being locked up or crashing completely. It was very difficult for me to receive bug reports from the Ponyscape users whose root cause was from something very deep in the code (and often not caused by any changes from my development).

A couple of things sealed the deal for me when making this decision. The latest beta of Ponyscape began having issues when a dialog was moved, and any attempt to trace the bug was futile. Additionally, while retrofitting the Objects dialog for submitting to upstream Inkscape, the blur slider began to cause random crashes which I was unable to pinpoint. Too much of the Inkscape code would need to change to get it to be clean and modular enough to a point where fixing bugs would be relatively easy. I wish the Inkscape team the best of luck and I know that they will continue to produce a solid vectoring program, but working on the codebase was too frustrating for me.

In light of this quote, it's very possible that porting the code to MacOS isn't feasible.

Free software for the professional artist, approved by the professional artist and encouraged by the professional artist. It's got to be like that old deodorant ad: "Strong enough for a man, but made for a woman." The software should be powerful enough to please the most demanding professional, but made for the amateur to enjoy as well.

To be "strong enough" for the professional artist, the code base should be clear of confusion. To be "made for" an amateur, the interface and tools should be clear of confusion.

As it stands, PonyScape seems to be in production. flutterguy317's latest quotes after the Q&A are dated May 2013. Will it be ported to MacOS? My hope is that Inkscape will be the first to that finish line.

BobSongs wrote:As it stands, PonyScape seems to be in production. flutterguy317's latest quotes after the Q&A are dated May 2013. Will it be ported to MacOS? My hope is that Inkscape will be the first to that finish line.

Ah well, just a thought

brynn wrote:

BobSongs wrote:As it stands, PonyScape seems to be in production. flutterguy317's latest quotes after the Q&A are dated May 2013. Will it be ported to MacOS? My hope is that Inkscape will be the first to that finish line.

Ah well, just a thought

After further investigation, I came across the PonyScape download page. Lo and behold, there IS a copy for MacOS.

however
I will say the user should read the flutterguy317's comments before downloading and testing. That being said, here's the link:

PonyScape Download Page

I want to mention that a few Inkscape developers have dropped in to give encouragement to the project! I'm pleased as punch for the encouragement.

Would someone help me figure out how to get a DeviantArt ID_Number and height? I want to learn how to link DeviantArt images here.

This page has the proposed and accepted "About Ponyscape" art. Very cute.

EDIT: James—apologies for throwing this topic off track. It's a very open-ended topic title, and I have tried my best to express some thoughts within the parameters of the topic. My justification is this: Some of the forum members may give the new reader the incorrect impression that we don't want Inkscape to change. But that's not the impression I get from the developer comments over at the PonyScape chat area. I also gleaned that the developers are working at cleaning up the Inkscape code!! If this keeps up, we might even end up with a fork that implements more features than what SVG allows, letting us choose which version of Inkscape we use. You never know!

Maybe I should split off the Ponyscape discussion to its own topic? I think more people should know about it, than just those who might read this topic. Maybe we should leave that up to James?

If it's not going to be split though, BobSongs, you should start a new topic for Ponyscape. Maybe under News, Events board?

Lmk what everyone thinks/wants to do

BobSongs wrote:I also gleaned that the developers are working at cleaning up the Inkscape code!!

Maybe that's what's taking 0.49 so long....at least partly?

Hello All


I know painters who actually buy different sands and such to mix with linseed oil to make their own paint. Fresco painters and decorators often use a paint called "milk paint." ( check google ) This is an increasingly common practice in the traditional art world. I think it is the result of concern for chemical poisons, lightfastness and other issues.

I posted the topic to start a discussion about how artists, using inkscape, are piecing it together and using "free" software in a "professional" way.

The discussion of Ponyscape and other forks is totally consistent with my goal. Has anyone written special routines for their unique flavor of their tool? How are they mixing their "paint?"


Consider an artist getting paid for his paintings - he stops painting and starts using inkscape exclusively - he has the credentials from top schools - he has the gallery presence - he has the other bullets on his resume - but, he has changed media and has not sold anything in 5 years - is he still a professional or has he returned to the realm of an amateur?

I propose he is again an amateur. He is totally new to a completely different type of art. He is not making money with his artwork as he is currently producing it.

This happens with all artists. We change media, change design composition, change subject matter, try new formats and simply evolve in what we do. It takes time to become self supporting every time we grow. One day professional, next day amateur.

It can not be about educational credential. Art is too dynamic. Is the technical pen illustrator who graduated from a top 5 more professional than the charcoal painter who attended an outstanding sight-size classical drawing atelier? The question of which school is a good or bad opportunity is too subjective to delineate a professional from an amateur.

The point is - professionals push their tools to their maximum.

Developers should pay more attention to the "customers" who are professionally using the software. They are the ones who see the bugs, slow speeds and other topics the developers want to know about to improve their creation. The amateur is often too new to the tool to know how to sharpen it - let alone build a building with it. So, who is more valuable to a project? The newbie who may not have read the manual? The professional who can identify higher level needs and possible solutions to make the software more palatable and successful for those who have a reality-checking economic need for those improvements?


I do not see any form of animosity among artists either professional or amateur. We in the trenches know
- we know.


Further, how can the improvement of a tool, to satisfy the needs of a professional artist, be detrimental to the amateur? I really do not see any possible way for that to happen. Faster, more robust, more secure, more stable, more logical interface, more intuitive design from the artist's point of view - all of these benefit both the amateur and professional alike. How can the involvement of a "professional artist" as part of the development of a tool be negative to that development?

Tanks
James

Vincent van Gogh.

A "starving artist", a total "amateur", not a "professional", painted the 2nd and 5th most expensive images of all time.
There is no point of valuing an artist's work based on how much money he/she could get from someone
who they get a job from.
Not that valuing on the money they could sell their "product" would count much.
Jackson Pollock could be a great artist based on that but was he a good artist, or a good business man?


The artists are, who create with passion. Even if they are starving, they push the limits of creating.


The professionals are, who will satisfy customer needs by using commercially used technics.
Which needs are rarely driven by artistic type of people.
While professionals could get a head start from those who use older tools, it is not their interest to improve and develop their tools.
With business logic, it takes too much time -too much money-, yet the benefits won't produce enough money on return.

From that point of view, commercial softwares will always have the limits of the actual industry they want to build for.
Free softwares don't have any such limitations.
Adobe knows that, thus working hard to produce new tools, that there is not yet a commercial-professional need for.