February 5, 2010
Washington, DC
The NEA is interested in seeing how the phrase “Art Works” resonates with the American public, and so we announced that we are seeking an image that captures all three of its meanings.
Since we believe that art works for everyone, this is meant as an opportunity to solicit ideas from as broad a public as possible and invite this country’s creative community to engage with their NEA.
We wanted a process that was open to students, designers, artists, companies, private citizens, and pretty much anyone who agrees that “art works.” To achieve that, this solicitation is not structured as a “Request for Qualifications” or in a way that is based solely on resumes, past work, and a track record of similar work.
Instead, this RFP is open to anyone who enrolls in the Central Contractor Registration, and it has a streamlined submission process that essentially involves submitting one image (in both black-and-white and color) and a three-page narrative that explains the thinking behind the proposed image and provides some basic information about the proposer.
The response to date has been overwhelmingly positive, and it has also engendered a lively dialogue about the structure of the RFP itself, in particular around the issue of “work for spec” in the graphic design community (an issue has been well captured and discussed at http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/position-spec-work, among other places).
The NEA is permitted only to respond directly to comments and inquiries on an open RFP through the proscribed process. If you have submitted a comment on this RFP to someone at the Agency other than the relevant contracting officer, please do not take the lack of response as a lack of interest or attention. As always, we welcome a continuing dialogue with the creative community, as well as your ideas, comments, and submissions. We also look forward to announcing the selected image in the near future.
Tags: artists, citizen engagement, design, logo, participation
The NEA has adopted two hypocritical positions here:
1. “…arts workers are real workers who are part of this country’s real economy. They earn salaries, support families, pay taxes.”
The implication is that artists’ work is quantifiable, valuable and should be compensated fairly.
2. Asking artists to work for free, in hopes of getting paid for it.
Soliciting “students, designers, artists, companies, private citizens, and pretty much anyone” does not defend spec work. In fact, it simply widens the pool of creative talent that will waste their time, talent, and *work* on an empty promise of being paid.
In fact, students, artists and private citizens are less likely than professional designers to comprehend the dangers of working on spec, outlined in the AIGA position paper here: http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/position-spec-work
Furthermore, in an economy where artists and freelancers are already hurting, the NEA is setting a poor standard for the treatment of arts workers.
This is interesting. Although not a graphic designer myself (I’m a painter), I am compelled to take their side on this issue. The AIGA makes an extremely valid point by requesting that you do not ask for work for free.
Apparently, you should clarify the name… “Art Works… for free.”
As a designer I look at it this way – if an organization wants the quality you get from non professional designers who are willing to work for free – then it’s fine by me. Just making a logo is a 3rd grade effort. But if you want a logo that truly means something – that communicates across barriers, that works on many levels and is unique within the millions of other logos, then you’ll want to hire a professional firm. There are two things I take from a request for spec work – a lack of respect for quality, and a budget that really wouldn’t interest a real designer in the first place.
Having been given a grant from the NEA in 1980, I wrote the ethical guidelines for holding a design competition for the Graphic Artists Guild.
http://www.graphicartistsguild.org/resources/guidelines-for-art-competitions/
What an irony that now an unethical logo contest comes from that same institution.
If you truly wanted to show how Art Works as “the contribution of the arts to the economy”you would create a level playing field by limiting your search for a logo to professional designers.
This is a job. It is a job designers do as a profession, using a professional process.
You would not put out an RFP to graphic designers if you wanted a law brief or a building built would you?
This is not just about the “work on speculation” issue. You are basically holding a design contest. Who is going to judge this contest? What makes you think you are going to get thoughtful entries to present to these judges? Why are these judges qualified to evaluate the entries?
I second the opinions already expressed, and would like to add the following: As a professional graphic designer who has been working in the field for over 20 years, I am totally put off by the registration process for this competition, and have decided not to enter. I can only imagine how the “students, designers, artists, companies, private citizens, and pretty much anybody….” will feel when asked questions regarding DUNS numbers and fiscal years. I think the award should be given to all those who are able to navigate this confusing and time-consuming process. I also think it is interesting that the process was apparently changed to a more “streamlined” one after changing the initial instructions, which involved downloading a multi-page PDF and wading through page after page of legalese. Too bad for you. I think my design is a winner.
Miamiart453 has it right. The request should have been “Government wants artwork for free”. While it’s nice to invite anyone who would like to participate, the NEA should be able to do a better job of showing that art has value. If “Art Works” it has value. We need people put to work not hobbies. How about the folks at the NEA working for a month and then we can decide who should be paid?
So , when the NEA wants pizza for dinner, do they have every pizza joint in town deliver and only pay for the one they like?
“Art Works … for free” but artists, like other professions, need to be paid for their work.
Unlike other art contests, the logo designer produces art for a specific purpose, therefor the art produced is not sale-able to other art patrons, as it might be in a fine art contest. Thus, it is inherently unfair to ask an artist to produce a specific piece of work with only a “hope” for remuneration. The NEA is just circumventing the normal design process by sucking in artist who are buying a design “Lottery Ticket” in hopes their number will come up. Discloser ethics would demand that they at least post the odds of winning.
In this case “Art Doesn’t Work”
I agree with everyone here, especially Barbara Kagan. I too was lost in the labyrinth of forms, links, etc. until my brain was numb. Look closely at the bottom of the page on that ccr form (required in order to ‘work for the government’), it says that you agree to have your computer monitored at ANY time. So I too have what I believe to be a well thought out and executed logo that no one will ever see.
Gee, our government letting us down, what a shock..
“The response to date has been overwhelmingly positive, and it has also engendered a lively dialogue…”
The NEA may not be able to respond to each and every person that has expressed an opinion on the Art Works spec work debacle, but I do hope that in your next post on this subject you will try to explain how you conclude that this has provided the institution with an overwhelmingly positive response. What exactly are the metrics involved in coming to this conclusion? It couldn’t possibly have come from the comments here. It couldn’t have come from respected advocacy organizations like the AIGA, nor could it have come from the blogosphere where it seems to have been universally derided as downright farcical. It must have come from the large number of submissions that you have gotten from the general public, designers and non-designers alike. In this case I would not equate positivity with quantity.
I would hope that you will post each and every one of the submissions so that the merits of the design solutions and level of quality can be judged. I would take a wild guess that you have to sort through an awful lot of sub par work to get a few logos that are not cringe-worthy or embarrassing for the NEA.
You get what you pay for.
So an artist’s work is worth so much to our community that the NEA won’t pay for the work as if it is actually valuable.
This degrades the entire community. If you want to lift up artists DO it. Don’t undermine them.
Artists and designers deserve to paid for their work. This is shameful.
“The response to date has been overwhelmingly positive,”
Are they not reading these posts?
I could not agree more with all of the sentiments offered up here. I think it is shameful and sends the wrong message to the arts community about the value of design. And furthermore if I did all of my client work on spec – how would I make a living, as it is as a self employed graphic designer, I pay for my own health insurance, and many other out of pocket expences that the government can not assist me with, last year due to the tanking economy I lost my home and had to move in with family. How in the world can a designer expect to make a living above the poverty level when our own government refused to place a value on out talent and expertise. Saying that the “contest” is open to ALL designer, and pedestrians alike – is a cop out!
I have nothing to say that hasn’t already been said. What’s sad is that uneducated and hobbyist “designers” (I like to refer to them as “scrapbookers”) will still participate in this contest. People don’t seem to realize that contests like these seriously degrade not only the design profession, but all creative professions. And coming from the NEA of all people, it is especially shameful and hypocritical.
This contest deeply offends me. Making it – a process that was open to students, designers, artists, companies, private citizens, and pretty much anyone who agrees that “art works” does NOT validate spec work. I am a college educated, professional designer who has been working for over 8 years in the field. I also applied for food stamps last year. It’s hard enough making a living as a “creative” and this “contest” doesn’t make it any easier.
I hope everyone boycotts this unethical farce. NEA should do the right thing and shut down such a self defeating, ill conceived project.
As the AIGA has stated, the correct way to go about this process is to place an open call for designers to submit samples of *previous* work along with a written proposal concerning their vision for the Art Works logo.
That is more than enough information to come to a conclusion about which designer to use. Shame on NEA for asking for free work when we are all just trying to keep our heads above water.
I’m quite torn on this–
After 20+ years as a designer the idea of spec work makes me grind my teeth.
So, I think AIGA and all of the previous posters here make good and valid points–i can’t imagine anyone asking a doctor, lawyer, builder, mechanic, or anyone else to work in this fashion. But, on the other hand, like many people, I have kids to feed, and also like so many others i am not having an easy time in the current economy. Desperate times, desperate measures…?
One has to wonder if NEA is playing toward the angle of “lots of good & talented people looking for work” to get good work basically for free…
You made some good points there. I did a search on the issue and found most persons will agree with your website.