Pulling Back the Curtain of Big Tech: Confessions of an Anonymous Art Director, Pt. 2
Interview by Danielle Evans / WNW Member
In the first part of Confessions of an Anonymous Art Director, I explored the inspiration-gathering process for creative projects at a global tech giant. The discussion was illuminating, so much so that we cut the interview in half to highlight another process: hiring independent creatives for ad campaigns.
We independent artists love to complain, especially about vague feedback and bizarre requests, without considering the source of these concerns form in the mouths of other artists. After all, in-house creative teams are the messengers, attempting to unite talent they love with budgets that work. Frank creative rationale is rare, often out of respect to said artist. Nothing personal, only business. That said, our anonymous Art Director is back to disclose more of the process behind hiring artists and why you’re told to “do your thing, but not too much.”
If you haven’t, read Part 1 here first.
The Interview, Part 2
Danielle: I'm surprised to hear that <company redacted> has taken so much time to generate ideas. And then refining, refining, refining. And ideally, through that process, you're coming to something very clear and easily trackable. But there is a downside because it requires people to be vigilant and educated in their decision-making. Not everyone is. Explain to me what you're seeing that isn't working.
AD: Well, I think these directions have to be sold in-situation. And when I say in-situation, it means that I throw a piece of artwork inside a digital banner, inside of a product. And we have to sell that to an executive, as like a hero image. So the stuff that gets sold at the executive level is unfortunately what an executive assumes will be final art. We have to get as close as we can to that sign-off image. The problem is that execs think the art is more final when the concept is very fluid because we’re not commissioning, then selling the idea. And once they sign off, you'll have to figure out, “Can we license that exact image, illustration? Or can we create something similar, or can we have the artist create something similar?”
“The problem is that execs think the art is more final when the concept is very fluid because we’re not commissioning, then selling the idea.”
What I really dislike about that process, is that a lot of times, especially with illustration, we will sell an illustration to an executive. And then when we go to commission that person, you're basically asking, “How close to the thing that we sold can you get for us?” We had an image from an artist, a portrait illustrator, and when we got on the call with her, we're like, “Here's the image that we love.” We don't tell them we sold this exact image to an executive. That's not what you do. You try to say it in a nice way, I guess. “So, we're interested in this one. Can we license this, or get a recreation?” This woman has worked like a traditional artist. She said the image was a private commission for somebody, for a private collector, for their home. So she was like, “Obviously, I'm an artist, and I can't sell this because she paid for it. And as an artist, I don't want to recreate the same exact thing.” Which makes sense.
Artists don't want to recreate the same exact work. The way that we usually preempt that, knowing that most people will give a similar answer, we pick out the things that we like, that we want to replicate in a way. So with this portrait artist, she had fun plants in the background. So we said, “We like the color scheme. There's a primary yellow in here, and we like the plants in the background. These are the two things we want to keep in a new composition that you make.” We do give some flexibility to the artist. But we also have enough things that work from what we've sold to an executive.
Danielle: So, you're looking at the spirit of it, in a lot of ways. Even though it would be ideal to sell the letter of it.
AD: Yes, you want to sell the exact thing. I care about the artist, but people are working so fast, they're like, “We just need to sell the thing.”
One of the things I really hate the most about this process, especially with illustrators, is that like an art director above me, somebody who's not an executive signing off on something, might say, “Well, we like this artist's work, but these colors are too weird. So, can you hack it together so that the reds are blue?” Or “will you repeat this as a pattern?” I really hate hacking artists' work together. But it happens so often, where it's like, you take a <artist redacted> piece, and you recolor it to whatever they [decision makers] want it to be to present to an executive. Or you chop it up so it's a different composition. And that feels dirty. That feels really dirty.
I would hate to have to show the artist how we butchered their work. I don't think we do that, but I would hate to have to show them. I think that especially hit home with <artist redacted> because she talks so openly about how her color palettes are a huge amount of work. That she gets really mad when people just copy her color palettes for their own composition. It could be anything, but she was like, “The way that I get the color palettes is a process on its own that's unique to me.”
If we were to come to this artist and say, “Look, we want you to do a piece that's similar to this one, but here's your color palette.” Knowing that we're giving her a color palette, we're taking away a quarter of what makes her work unique. That sucks.
I think from the artist's perspective, if somebody came to me like, “We like your work, but you need to do this and we need to art direct the hell out of it so it fits with a very specific thing we sold,” and it wasn’t in tune with what decisions made me unique, the artist in me would be discouraged. Therefore, I don't want to go to potential artists and say, “Can we get these three things of your work that we like?”
Danielle: Wow.
AD: A lot of designers don't know those things. I wouldn't know those things about <artist redacted>. I would have assumed her work was just trendy, organic shapes, until I followed her. And I realized how much of the process is what makes her unique. Anyone can copy that, but she has her own thing that is special.
The formulation of selling something to an executive is rigid, so much of the work that gets put in-situation is analyzed for the things that make it successful. The things that you like, the things that you want to keep, the things that you want to focus on. Instead I wish we’d find an artist and say, “This person used a unique approach. Let them do their thing.”
But this is probably happening in a lot of places, too. You’re making this thing that appeals to the opinion of one or two people who have to sign off on something at a higher level, so then it affects how everybody works below. So everyone scrambles to prepare this thing for those few people who have to weigh in on something.
“The formulation of selling something to an executive is rigid, so much of the work that gets put in-situation is analyzed for the things that make it successful.”
Danielle: Yes. But I think you're proving that it's possible to exercise opinion and education and expressing those things. Because obviously, it's not like you didn't end up working with <artist redacted> anyway. It was simply understanding how to best work with her. I think a lot of people enter into these processes and don't grapple with why. Some of the beauty of working in-house is to have the freedom to not grapple with why, but because you've been on both sides of this in your experience, you are doing so actively.
AD: Yeah. Both in the photo and illustration industries, there is an abundance of talent. The fact that we can go through so many rounds of mood proves this. When I first joined <company redacted>, those first few rounds, I was like, “Man, I'm exhausted. There's no possible way I can find any more mood stuff.” And then I did.
There's just more places you can dig into. There's an infinite level of things that you can find to present. Which is exhausting. So, there's an abundance of illustration and photography, and 3D, and an internal idea that we can just keep going until we find the thing we're looking for.
The downside of that is that you're presenting so much stuff, and it starts to blend together, especially with illustrators. You're like, “I want to present this project in a certain illustration style.” But now there's an illustrator, a very unique illustrator who you might like. Like, I love <artist redacted>. I love what she does, but there's honestly a lot of artists who are in that same realm. Not the same style, but the same realm.
So an executive can say, “Oh, there are 20 illustrators who are all in the same realm. So we can keep going until we find the exact thing we're looking for.” Which is good and bad. What I was trying to change internally was this idea that if there's an abundance of people that we can commission or license from, then shouldn't we focus more on how and why we're choosing them?
We repeat hire a lot of people, like famous white male artists. And part of the risk of using somebody new is that you're unsure if they're tried and true. But the work does speak for itself. So, with the commissions that started with the <product redacted> last year, it was like, “What if we use this person because they are of an intersectional background or do x attribute uniquely?”
I don't want to say “if they deserve a chance” because we hired a specific artist of color for the first time last fall, and everybody loved it. We’ve used work previously that was similar, but the tried-and-true artist was white. I wasn’t trying to sell the art as “We should use <artist redacted> because she's underrepresented.” I think they ended up liking her work just as it was, which was great. But is there a conversation to be had which follows, “If we have 10 people whose work all looks the same, what artists should we be giving a platform to, basically?”
Danielle: Oh, yeah. That's a great point.
AD: That's not a regulated, internal conversation. The decision centers around who we worked with before, or what specific image does the best job of telling a story. And I felt, as a newcomer, I had the ability to try to say, “Let's focus on the artist we are using, and how to give new voices a chance.”
Danielle: It's almost like social philanthropy. Working with a larger company like this with this kind of exposure is like hitting the social lottery for an artist. You're saying that the same kind of care should be applied to how people would handle monetary philanthropy ... research, understanding what is underrepresented, and what needs the most assistance.
This is fascinating. And I think that could be a beautiful place for people to start opening up doors to creative ethics. We have talked about non-US companies with formal ethics departments because they're necessary once you get this big. You need someone keeping an eye on things. Do you think there's space in global marketplaces for creatively ethical departments?
AD: I think so. When we pick who we want to commission, we pass our ideas off to a team who reaches out and negotiates details. There might be an opportunity on that team to create a system for who we should be commissioning. And are we ethically doing this right, or not.
Danielle: This brings art buyer details into question. You're saying it's a photo team that reaches out. Is it because photo is ultimately the gateway to whatever is being sold on a digital platform, and therefore, any watercolor, any painting, any illustration, any digital file is going to be a digital image and fall under digital copyright?
AD: I guess so. Yeah. They are very good at talking to artists of all mediums ... pricing, licensing, contracts. I don't know if that's just how that team was born, but that's how it's always been. But they work really well doing that, so we just pass everything off to them.
But I do hop on artist calls because the photo team will serve as a mediator or speak to details about specs or branded social content. But the calls need an art director on there to talk through project concept and goals.
Danielle: Yes. Can you talk to me about those calls? Because in some cases, you're sitting in a room with some of the most well-known artists in the world. What is it like hearing how they talk about their work or more importantly, seeing how such a large company wants to treat them?
AD: Oh my god, it was such an eye-opener. Last fall, for <product redacted> launch, we commissioned five artists, and three of them were working with us for the first time. Those are the most exciting calls I've been on in a long time. Which is to say, when you reach out to somebody who has not worked with us before, this might be their big break, or at the very least, this is a big deal ... As an artist who's been on the other side, I know how electrifying that is.
As an artist, you're on a phone call with this global giant. You don't know what they want to talk about, because it's confidential as fuck. As the hiring team, you get to give this project to somebody, great budgets and amazing exposure, and you know this will be a huge deal for them. You can feel the enthusiasm, and it's infectious.
On the other end, when you're working with someone hugely famous like <artist redacted>, they’re very arrogant. The attitude is "Oh, just another brick in my wall." It's a weird dynamic by contrast. The above artist was very much like, "Well, you know my rates,” and, "I'm available for additional, unrelated collateral, and here's my rate for that." And nobody asked for it.
Danielle: Oh, wow.
“Those are the most exciting calls I’ve been on in a long time. Which is to say, when you reach out to somebody who has not worked with us before, this might be their big break...As an artist who’s been on the other side, I know how electrifying that is.”
AD: I much prefer calls with new artists. You get to hear how transformative this opportunity is just by hearing them on the call. That experience is fantastic. That's part of the reason why I think responsibly sourcing new talent, finding new people, giving them this platform, is a life-changing experience for them and a requirement for us.
Danielle: Yes, I can understand how you’d feel that way. If you're diversifying the pool of people that are used, you get that same experience every time. It's almost like a teacher circulating kids every year. Where she knows exactly where they're going to be, and when they're coming in, and how fresh they're going to be. And how much trouble they'll be. But then ultimately, watching them become students that rise to the occasion of her class. That's an immense high, and a privilege.
I guess my follow-up to you is how are you making the best of what decisions you've been given? Like, when the hand is dealt, how are you working to make it the best it can be, in spite of hiccups and setbacks?
AD: I think it's trying to figure out what the artist does best, and how to art direct them from there. You've got the thing you sold to the executive. You might have hacked together pieces and secured the sign off. But now you have to find the parts of the artist's work that make them unique, the selling point we bought. It’s unique art direction. To an artist you want to say, “Do what you do best, and we'll put it in there. The subject is a portrait of a girl, no celebrity. You make up a new face, have some plants in the background, and then go crazy.” But the reality of it is that we sold something that we have to try and do our best to give you some freedom. But also know this thing has to still sell, if that makes sense.
Danielle: Yeah. It's almost working backwards. It's basically art direction reversed.
AD: Unfortunately, yeah.
Danielle: This is an amazing process. Listening to your process helps me piece together things I've experienced as the hired hand. If someone had only told me, “Hey, this is what we sold to our boss. And this is kind of what it has to be. Go nuts, but don't go nuts.” Those are experiences that all of us have put on Twitter and laughed about, not realizing that, “Well, actually my hands are tied here, here, and here.” Like, “This is what we've got, but we want you.”
AD: The first few months were rough. We’d reach out to a bunch of people for a job. But then we knew that we were only going to go with one. From this perspective, I had to say, “Okay, we awarded the job to another illustrator.” And it's not anything personal.
It's literally just one executive saying, “This is the person we want.” We could say, “Oh, we felt like this one was the best person to convey our goal for this product.” But an executive signed off on someone else. But you know you have to go back to that other person and say, “Well, we've already started the conversation, and this isn't going to go any further.”
I've been on the other side of that so many times. I know how heartbreaking it is, but it's not personal. And I think just seeing it from the other side knowing there are so many complicated things that happen that are out of your control ... That if you get told you're not the right fit, or this is not happening, or even if they ghost you, it's not because they hate you, or that you're not the right person.
Danielle: Sounds like dating.
AD: Pretty much, yeah.
Danielle: To me, hearing this, getting a peak behind the curtain, makes me more grateful for people who were excellent at their jobs, who did let me do what I wanted. Who did give me the best constructive feedback. That only amplifies my gratitude, so thank you for that.
WNW Member Danielle Evans is an art director, lettering artist, speaker, and dimensional typographer. She’s worked with the likes of Disney, Target, the Guardian, PWC, (RED), McDonald’s, Aria, Condé Nast, Cadillac, and would love to work with you. Subscribe to her newsletter here.
Header Illustration by WNW Member Miriam Persand