February 1, 2010
Washington, DC
How would you represent the phrase “art works” in a single image?
“Art works” is Rocco’s guiding principle for his work at the NEA. The phrase has three meanings: “art works” are the plays, paintings, dances, films and the other works of art that are the creation of artists; “art works” describes the effect of art on audiences and viewers, art works to transport, transform, inspire, and challenge us; and “art works’ is a reminder that arts workers are real workers with real jobs who are part of this country’s real economy.
It’s time to convert these words into a powerful image, one that conveys the complexity and power of “art works.”
This morning, in Miami, Rocco announced the release of a request for proposals for the design of a new “Art Works” logo. Speaking at the Design and Architecture Senior High school he said, “Those two words – “art works” – pretty much sum up everything we are about at the NEA and I hope you will see them everywhere. Art, artists, and arts professionals work to change the communities they inhabit: they are placemakers and help create livable, sustainable, complete communities. I look forward to having a logo that conveys that.”
Here’s a fantastic opportunity to apply your creative talents to our vision. The deadline for submissions is February 26th, so time is of the essence. We look forward hearing from you!
I wonder if encapsulating the range of what arts can be may be one way to rob it of mystery and complexity. Art sometimes doesn’t even try to “work”, but to stop the mind from its usual habits and haunts. It may require being confusing and not seeming to “work” at all. Duchamp’s own “works” are meant to destroy the idea of being understood or functioning in a logical way as the objects they once were, for example.
No, art CAN “work”, but it PLAYS better.
“…arts workers are real workers with real jobs who are part of this country’s real economy…”
This is a laudable claim, and a sentiment that I whole heartedly agree with. However your Request for Proposals for the NEA Art Works logo is a request that a whole class of American worker should work for free. This is speculative work pure and simple, and it is wrong. Graphic design is a profession, its practitioners are also real workers and have every right to be compensated fairly for their work.
A more effective and ethical approach to requesting speculative work is to ask designers to submit examples of their work from previous assignments as well as a statement of how they would approach your project. You can then judge the quality of the designer’s previous work and his or her way of thinking about your business. The designer you select can then begin to work on your project by designing strategic solutions to your criteria while under contract to you, without having to work on speculation up front.
Please withdraw this RFP, and rewrite it so that the speculative and free labor aspect is rescinded.
Sincerely,
Mark Kaufman
Yes, this request for proposals for a NEA logo is yet another request for free work, but this sounds like a fun project.
The NEA, with this RFP, is asking the design community for work on spec. I would strongly urge the organization to respect the standard practice in the design industry, and follow the AIGA guidelines by strongly rejecting this process.
Ric Grefe, the Executive Director, has written a letter to Chairman Landesman, published at aiga.org, urging him to reconsider the process and volunteering to help in the search for a new identity design partner.
The New York times article claims that there is a $25, 000 grant for the winner. I don’t see that anywhere in this posting though…
@glimmer site:
Nothing is for free. If you want fun, I suggest you take up a hobby. Graphic design is a profession, its practitioners are also real workers and have every right to be compensated fairly for their work.
When you take on speculative work, fun or not you devalue your profession, the discipline of design and the community as a whole.
Of course it sounds like a fun project.
The problem is that I can’t keep my lights on and my children fed on ‘fun’ or the remote possibility my design may be chosen.
That does not even take into consideration the fact that there is no designer/client interaction beyond the RFP so there are no ideas to cultivate with the client that would result in exploring different themes that may be just what is needed, but will never see the light of day with this type of process.
They may get a pretty picture at the end of this “process” but that’s all it will probably ever be.
Expecting me to use my talent and time without compensation is insulting, especially with the economy the way it is now and with so many designers struggling to compete for clients with ever-shrinking marketing budgets. What do you think the employees of the NEA would say if their supervisors asked them to work next week but only one employee would be chosen to get paid for that week of work?
I don’t believe any of them would think that sounded like fun.
I respect the AIGA and generally don’t condone spec work either, but this instance of spec work should be given a pass by the design community. The points made by Ric Grefe from the AIGA are respectable but completely miss what I think is the most important aspect of this project.
The public’s perception of public funding for the arts is fragile, at best. There is a long brewing storm of discontent about arts being “elitist” and too much of an insider’s game played with public money. An RFQ will only add fuel to the debate that the NEA desperately needs to win if it wants to survive in today’s economic circumstances even with an administration that promised to do it’s best to support the arts.
Art is every much an essential part of this economy as highways and “shovel ready” construction projects. Shouldn’t we as a design community be standing together with the NEA to help them achieve this monumental cultural change in perception that will inevitably raise our own stock in the eyes of society instead of holding steadfast to what amounts to nothing more than preserving the existing balance of power and prestige within our particular community. Going with the RFQ model as is prescribed by the AIGA, talented but less established designers are at a artificial disadvantage than those with simply more resources because their ideas will never have a chance to be heard i.e. “the insiders are the only ones who can win”. So, letting this one go is choosing between the lesser of two evils. On one side, the AIGA-led design community feels let down by what amounts to a trouncing of our industry standards or the much larger and less artistically inclined taxpayer audience feels let down that the NEA is yet again falling to it’s old ways of preferential treatment to a privileged few.
Frankly, I think we’ll survive if the NEA stays the course in favor of democratizing the process. The argument that democratizing = superficiality or low quality has merit because of so many other spec work projects that end up that way. However, the NEA’s past is filled with examples where it took every step as cautiously, informed, and well within industry practices as it could to grant works of art that was ridiculed and derided for nothing other than not having enough public involvement. It’s kind of a cardinal rule that I know quite a few public artists live by: involve the public.
So, AIGA please back off on this one.
Andy, I think you’re missing the big picture here. I see your point of view. However, this is not a school project for bake sale posters. This is a professional organizations seeking professional services.
Given the fact that the NEA has allocated $25,000 to award to the chosen agency (see RFP details), obviously, they have a budget. The fact that they are soliciting spec work sets a very bad precedent. The NEA should know better.
When the NEA sends out RFPs like this, what’s stopping other organizations from doing the same thing? I once had a request from a start up magazine for layouts in an RFP. When I explained that I don’t work for free, they said “well, it’s only one spread.” As if i could just whip something up without a detailed conversation of target audiences, content, figuring out style sheets, grid, etc. We all know how much time is involved with something, especially a logo.
I think this is a huge misstep by the NEA, which is supposed to support the arts. If Chairman Landesman says “arts workers are real workers with real jobs who are part of this country’s real economy,” yet approves an RFP like this, it’s really professionally insulting. The NEA should be setting the examples, not making it harder for us.
$25,000…maybe. A careful reading of the proposal clearly states that 5% of the scoring system is allocated to pricing. Therefore if you have a list of finalists on equal footing in the technical and management evaluation criteria, the award will go to the “bidder” with the lowest cost. It is a significant factor, and one that I agree with, but please do not throw around that dollar figure as if it is set in stone.
Also I take issue with Andy’s contention that “…we’ll survive if the NEA stays the course in favor of democratizing the process.” Democratization does not now, nor has it ever meant providing goods and services for free. Even if it is for the greater good, a standard which the Arts Works project meets. Yes, we will survive, but at what cost to the creative industry as a whole? At what cost to your bottom line? At what cost to the perception that design is a valuable asset to the country and the economy? In some not too distant future will the NEA, or the Commerce Dept. need to issue an RFP in order to tout the “value” of a design industry which has been de-valued to such a degree that it needs government handouts?
I’m sure when the NEA needs a new vehicle fleet it opens up the field to all automakers to compete. All they have to do is give the NEA a car. The NEA keeps all cars, of course, just as they keep all rights to all the artwork submitted in this “RFP.” (PDF page 7) And when they need plumbing work, all the plumber has to do is make the first 3 repairs for free so the NEA can evaluate their services.
Of course, what’s to stop someone unscrupulous from putting this on one of those spec websites as a “contest”? Anyone worrying about being found out can just claim “Art Works” is their framing business or something. Then they can pick the one they like best, cancel the contest, and submit it as their own work to this.
I’m appalled that the NEA is condoning spec work. It seems antithetical to the NEA’s mission.
I agree with many of the comments posted here.
This approach to design is insulting to the profession and seems to go against the mission stated within the post.
To prove that ‘art works’ the NEA should create a much needed job, and actually put someone to work.
I also agree with the comments above and I am hopeful you at the NEA hear them.
But I wish to speak to the concept at large. Needless to say we think this is a great idea since we are named Salida ArtWorks. Salida is a small town tucked in the mountains three hours south of Denver. Since we are a networking organization with a mission to interweave our arts community with the community at large we use gears on our logo. We play on it in the same three ways you propose…”the arts work for Salida.” When determining our image we were surprised to see the number of organizations named ArtWorks we could google all around the country. The theme is used in so many versatile ways.
So here is our vote to continue the discourse on this concept.
I certainly applaud the NEA’s intent to get so many involved in the creative process and elevate the value of art and art creators. What saddens and disappoints me however, is the fact that this RFP, in its current state, devalues the very industry and individuals for whom it was founded to support and nurture.
What is even more disheartening, is the fact that the NEA has acknowledged this issue, noting the “lively discussion” surrounding Speculative work (on the Art Works home page), but is unwilling to take simple actions to adjust the RFP to once again stay true to its mission and treat artists and their work as integral and invaluable contributors to this country’s real economy.
For those who may not fully understand Speculative work, it may be well intended but its impact is very detrimental. This RFP, in its current state, is asking entrants to craft and submit a finalized, custom logo identity, with the hope of an opportunity to win a contract. The mere act of submitting the logo identity transfers the rights and ownership of the logo identity to the NEA, regardless of whether or not the entrant wins (page 7 of RFP). Furthermore, the NEA is not required to select a winner (page 1 of RFP). In other words, the NEA owns the rights to all submissions, can do with them as they please, and is not obligated to award a winning contract.
This may not sound detrimental to some but imagine if all industries were allowed to work in this fashion. What if the NEA requested a new building and held a national “competition” for architects to erect a finished building with the possible hope of getting paid with a contract. Plus, by entering the competition, and constructing the final building each architect gave up the rights of ownership. And again, the NEA was not required to select a winning building or award a contract. I suspect very few architects would enter. Its not hard to imagine many architects feeling insulted and devalued by the invitation alone.
Devaluing artists and their work in this way could be easily avoided. Supporting and empowering artists as real workers requires minor adjustments to the current RFP. If the RFP simply removed the request for a finalized, custom logo, and instead requested relevant sample work from the entrant. Even emerging artists or non artists, with limited portfolios, could submit samples – work to which they currently own the rights – as an example of their potential. The RFP could then, as it currently does, request a bid from the entrant as well as a short description of what “Art Works” means to him or her.
The NEA could then evaluate the entrants on whatever criteria it saw fit, and engage the selected entrant with an awarded contract, like most projects of this nature, and like most “real workers” in this country’s real economy. The NEA could then begin a cooperative creative process with the entrant to create a logo identity that truly resonated with the NEA’s mission and core values. The process itself, would be a celebration of the artist as a truly valued, and real worker in our larger community.
To the NEA leadership, I invite you to consider the deeper impact of this RFP in its current condition. A simple adjustment could reestablish the NEA’s mission to champion the artist within us all.
Traci was very much on point. If one of the three meanings for this logo is to be “arts workers are real workers with real jobs who are part of this country’s real economy” then the NEA should certainly respect this purpose if their new image is to be honest and meaningful.
Ill tell you what: I already submitted my work
How about that….
Well good luck with that, Tins. However, I think this is a prime example of why this way of getting a logo is not in the best interest of the client or the designer.
By the date of your post, I can tell that the amount of work you were able to put into a project of this kind was no where near what would be required. To fully research and understand what is needed let alone enough time to explore ways to visually represent the idea and refine it through the design process usually takes more than 10 days. And that’s assuming you spent each and every one of those days developing a logo. Which is probably not the case. And it still ignores the fact that there is no interaction with the client at all.
You may have nailed it, Tins, but that doesn’t happen very often.
To the NEA: It’s interesting how you characterize this as a “lively” discussion—when all but two comments I see are negative—and choose the characterize the response as “positive” when the head of AIGA wrote a letter to you expressing his disappointment in your RFP process. That is quite some spin you put on it.
It’s even more saddening to me that your chairman made this announcement at a high school full of students studying for a career in design. So there is a whole class of students that think this is something that is OK and the school faculty—who should know better—tacitly support spec work by agreeing to have the NEA there for the announcement. But what’s the big deal about teaching young minds the wrong thing when there’s a photo op to get, right?
You would be well served to rethink your direction. Let’s face it, to many people, the NEA is not an entity that should be supported by taxpayers and the current blind eye and ear you seem to be turning towards this significant protest will not endear you to yet another segment of the population.
Let’s think of this RFP as an RFC or “request for courage”. The kind of courage we creatives get just before we suck it up and go mow lawns at the end of a dry month. Or the kind of courage we muster the morning after getting fired by our best client who left with 70% of our income. It takes courage to behold a 25,000-pound carrot then decide to gamble 40 design hours on world-changing speculation, rather than on new business development. It takes courage to tell who’s left of our *paying* clients that they got a bad deal and they’ll be taking the back seat for a few weeks while we prove Art Works [how ironic]. It takes courage to look the AIGA in the eye and say, “You’re right. But I need the portfolio piece.”
There are courageous creatives everywhere. And the NEA knows it.
Does anyone understand all of the legal jargon you have to fill out in order to submit a logo?
a DUNS NUMBER? The entire pdf is very confusing…..
If any of you think that this job would have been awarded to you as a small / medium sized agency, or freelancer – you are delusional. Had this work been assigned via normal channels it would have been awarded to one of the large agencies that the AIGA caters to – I know the AIGA has members of all shapes and sizes – but it’s clear that the smear campaign against spec work has it’s roots in elitism to some degree.
The fact is that “speculative” work is often the only avenue for a small, or struggling graphic designer to make a living – much less a name for themselves.
Do I agree that is the best thing for the design community? Probably not, but at the same time I’m not so elitist to say that it has no place in the community either.
Take it, or leave it – either way I’m going to focus on designing (I’m a designer not a salesman).
Interesting discussion. Now it remains to be seen if NEA will eat what they cooked and get low quality submissions from amateur designers or if our industry is desperate enough for this type of RFP to flourish?
What a bunch of whiners there are here. I’ve been a professional designer for over 13 years and the fact that the NEA made this type of project open to ANYONE, including student designers, freelancers and massive agencies alike makes me applaud them.
This is an excellent and equal-chance opportunity for a designer to create a quality logo for a national organization and get paid fairly for it. So what’s the problem? it seems to me the only people who don’t like it are those of you who are part of “super-duper-we’re-the-best-in-the-world” agencies who want to be “chosen” based on their stature rather than their actual work. Afraid of a little competition, are we? Well, move over Grover, there are other great designers in this country and now we have a shot too. Cry all you want – I’m thankful for a chance like this and my submission is in.
Occasionally, great work comes out of contents, like the Vietnam Vets Memorial designed by Maya Lin when she was a student.
Rather than repeat the already useful explanations behind why spec work is bad, I’ll just say that in light of the above example, NEA’s approach could be less offensive if it did a couple things: allow only students to be involved (obviously high-caliber work can come from students if you take the above example) and absolutely do not require a transfer of rights for unselected work, the latter being simply bad business.
To Orchid: the point you’re missing is that it’s mainly small firms or solo designers with not much experience who feel they can’t afford not to participate but they lack the essential support of a large firm that can afford to take on such a significant project. It is hardly about big firms whining. It’s more that you and others like you can enjoy the teeniest bit of respect because of the objections of the very people you criticize. They’ve made the hard choices to say “no” in order that others can enjoy this so-called respect.
I find it odd that a nonprofit, one reliant on government funds and donations, has the staff time to devote to reviewing thousands of entries.
It is clear that the ArtWorks logo development effort and its RFP process are considerably flawed:
The professional ethics are broadly objectionable, as noted in previous blog entries: requiring a completed product; requiring release of intellectual property ownership by the creator; preclusion of further billable involvement in the development or implementation of the design; and assigning evaluation criteria that may very easily exclude the small practitioner, favoring those established firms the agency would have approached had this competition not been conceived and perpetrated.
Professionals and even capable and enthusiastic amateurs are rightly disdainful of a public agency project with a dedicated budget soliciting pro bono or speculative contributions, taking disrespectful advantage of artists and designers, the very population the agency is established to nurture, support and promote.
The RFP itself, inadequately frames the objectives and intentions for use of the requested design. Requesting “one color and one bw” version of a single solution, its authors apparently have no experience or appreciation for the professional process of logo design development. No mention was made of multiple, alternative submissions from an entrant or how to differentiate them. No mention was made of related or integral typography, separate or apart from “the logo.” Little insight was given to the programmatic intentions for ArtWorks beyond the erudite theoretical musing of the NEA administration.
The language and substance of the RFP, with DUNS and CCR requirements typical of Blackwater (now Xe) and other billion-dollar beltway contracts, are further exclusion of or disincentive to much of the artistic/design community who balk at the bureaucratic pro forma presentation, even though a significant portion of text was noted “n/a” rather than simply deleted.
Having implemented this RFP, with objections by so many including representatives of at least one respected professional association, it must be incumbent upon NEA to publish publicly not only the work of entrants who were public-spirited (or perhaps hungry or bored) enough to respond, but the critiques and evaluations of the jurors. And with NEA’s required and logged knowledge of the entrants’ email addresses, NEA must advise entrants directly of this publication. That’s small “thanks” for entering.
PS: The Comment Policy on this website plainly states “Providing your name or email address is optional.” The Leave a Reply page calls it “(required)” Very understandable.
Ask a real firm to donate their services, rather than encouraging the exploitative process of CrowdSourcing. Either that or ask only design students to submit their work, under the supervision of an instructor.
Please tell me that the logo at the top isn’t the winner. (Personally, I chose to forgo entering the contest, largely based upon my principle of avoiding speculative work).
@allegrodesign On the contrary, I don’t seek any respect from large firms and in fact have little respect for their practices – I’ve worked for a large firm and found them to be unnecessarily cruel to their employees as well as the small- or medium-sized businesses who seek their services. The large firms I’ve personally been in contact with only care about money and awards, and nothing else. To think they care about spec work based on merit is absurd.
I am a freelance designer with buckets of experience and some nice awards under my belt (to group all solo designers and small firms in the category of “little experience” is pretty silly, I must say), and while I don’t make a practice out of submitting spec work for many of the reasons stated in this string, I DO like to enter the occasional contest – which is exactly what this is. A contest. And the point I was originally trying to make in my first comment is that it’s a choice to enter this contest. It’s not required, it’s stated very clearly that the winning designer will be paid for their design, and I think it’s great that they will choose a logo based on the DESIGN and not on the amount of awards or qualifications the designer has. This is a contest based on quality, not on past experience, and I think it’s a great opportunity for anyone who wishes to enter.
a good logo can make a business, not to be confusing and messy but clear and easy to understand. But sometimes its nice to see the odd weird logo out there
I agree that a good logo can turn out as a huge marketing advantage for a business. The only thing is defining “good” in this case. Should be very interesting and “different” to see what this RFP will bring, since were many less experienced designers that participated here, but less experience is not always a disadvantage.
Took me time to read all of the comments, however I actually enjoyed the article. It proved to be Very useful to me and I’m certain to all of the commenters here! I bet you had enjoyable scripting this article, didn’t you?
“I agree that a good logo can turn out as a huge marketing advantage for a business. ”
I don’t agree at all. I think the contest itself is more a vehicle for marketing then the logo. In fact as digital media came onto the scene logos were / still are far less important then they were in the 60’s and 70.
Today visuals changes, content changes, channels change and the audience become more intelligent at an alarming pace.
the logo will be much less memorable than what a company tweets about. Unless you Apple, but hey pinpoint a apple logo ? It changes monthly with the times, that is the future