Earlier this week I was going through an animation studio owned by one of our fine, entertainment conglomerates, and came across a newbie. She was young, she was a few weeks into her job, and she told me the following:
"I was a graphics artist back east. The studio saw my work on line and contacted me, asked if I wanted to take a test for an animation job. I took the test, they phoned and said they wanted me to start in two weeks, and I came out.
"This is my first work in the animation industry. I'm a storyboard assistant" ...
My point for posting this?
1) To demonstrate that people do get jobs from tests, sometimes in unordinary ways. (Usually the candidate approaches the studio, not the other way around.)
2) To show that new artists come into the business all the time. The animation industry is a collection of creative enterprises (movies and t.v. shows) and if a person has the chops a producer likes and decides that he needs, that person gets himself employed.
Posts
14 comments:
I don't get it. Why do these "points" need to be made?
Of course people get hired after taking tests. I have, myself. That doesn't mean, however, that the tests are necessary. If the studio liked her work so much, why didn't they just hire her on the spot? They did anyway. Why put her through that? Did she need some technical training? Train her-spring for it. It's not rocket science, after all.
The testing issues are that they are too long, too difficult and too widespread. They are also mostly unnecessary when dealing with experienced professionals. The mandated probation period should handle all "bad hire" issues.
Who said newcomers are having a hard time breaking in? They get lower salaries and have a higher tolerance for exploitation. It's the experienced artists that are having more of a problem in this market.
I don't get it. ...
We put this up to show that tests connect to jobs. We've received multiple complaints that studios issue bogus tests over which artists slave, and there are no jobs at the end.
The issue isn't no testing but abusive testing. A major topic at negotiation time contract is over-long tests. When an artist has to board four of five pages of script for no money in order to get a job, that crosses the line. Studios agree to cut tests down, but the practice crops up again six months later. Few on the studio side police things for long stretches of time.
We understand tests are necessary to make sure the artwork in an artist's portfolio is theirs, but that takes a test of a few hours, not several days.
If people are taking looong tests, let us know.
"Of course people get hired after taking tests. I have, myself. That doesn't mean, however, that the tests are necessary."
Oh, I get it. Only you are granted the right to land work through a test. Got it.
Shut. Up.
I bet they got her a whole lot cheaper than the person they fired who knew what they were doing.
"Oh, I get it. Only you are granted the right to land work through a test. Got it."
Excuse me? How the hell did you get that from what I said?
I have taken dozens of tests, wasted hundreds of valuable hours, not to mention the incredible stress, and managed to get one or two jobs for all that time and effort. I hate tests. We don't need them, even for the exceptional situation Steve cites. How could you, in your wildest imagination read that my remarks amounted to a defense of testing? Now it's a "right?" Yikes!
"Shut.Up?" How about: Buy.A.Clue.
Jeezus. And here again...
"I have taken dozens of tests,..."
Don't like tests? Then don't take them. That would be a great start. The rest of your rant is...a rant.
"
We understand tests are necessary to make sure the artwork in an artist's portfolio is theirs,"
Funny, i thought the trial period of a new employees contract does that.
One person got hired from a test! Hell, that must mean that tests are warranted! Why should I even submit a portfolio again? To take a test?
It is said that the worst job to have is looking for a job because its difficult and without pay - but not in animation! In this rackets you get a second round of payless work!
Steve spare us your little anecdotes. Tests are a formality that studios put out as an excuse. A tiny fraction of those taken grant jobs. You cite one instance like its proof. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.
We understand tests are necessary to make sure the artwork in an artist's portfolio is theirs, but that takes a test of a few hours, not several days.
For anyone already in the industry, their RESUME should be more than enough backup to assure the work an artist is presenting is theirs, if the production assistant/producer/director/whomever is actually questioning the legitimacy of the work would make a few phone calls.
But that's too much work, whereas handing out a test to waste someone else's time is just dandy.
WTF?!
"The rest of your rant is...a rant."
@ "Jeezus,"
Exactly what part of what I said was the "rant?" Troll
Oh look, new people who make very little get hired =)
Oh look. More bitter rants from entitled labor union trolls. Steve's original post actually tried to be respectful. How sad.
"She was young, she was a few weeks into her job, and she told me the following:
"I was a graphics artist back east. The studio saw my work on line and contacted me, asked if I wanted to take a test for an animation job. "
--------
A test for a newbie with some art background (graphic design) , but no practical experience in the Animation Industry is one thing. That seems reasonable to see if the newbie has what it takes.
I think the issue many of us who are classified as Journeyman artists have with these arbitrary studio "tests" is that the testing procedure completely ignores our long experience in the industry and the material we have displayed in our portfolios/reels. The whole concept of being a "Journeyman" is trashed. It's as if with each new job our past is erased and we have to prove ourselves all over again , as if we are someone who has never worked in animation before.
The Guild should be able to establish acceptable practices that protect it's long term experienced members from being put in the same category as the "newbies" .
(and before someone mentions the obvious: no , I'm not saying that mere longevity and membership in the Guild is a reason to hire someone. An artist could have managed to scrape by in the industry for 30 years and still suck ... that's understood. The Journeyman artist needs to have the goods , be able to show what they are capable of , as evidenced by their portfolio/reel . But if the Journeyman does have a solid portfolio/reel and a long list of industry credits then why the need for "testing" ? )
"Oh look. More bitter rants "
It's a situation where experienced people can't find work but the companies will hire base pay newbies to replace them. Steve's post BEGGED to have that pointed out. Salt in the wound so I hardly think they are trolls. Calling them "entitled" is just slagging people you don't know.
And yes, I'm fully employed, I just understand their frustration. Try to have a bit of empathy rather than being a total dick.
Full (almost full) disclosure:
I'm a director on a series and have directed on several series. I'm also a storyboard artist and have been asked to take tests and have never gotten work from a test and so I'm biased - like everyone else regardless of whether you're for or against tests.
I've also freelanced boards to people that have never boarded before and some of them work out and some don't. I've also freelanced boards to experienced animators (my preference) and some of them have worked out and some haven't.
The inexperienced artists if they get what I'm doing in my notes and I can see that in the CU I will probably give them another chance. Same for the experienced artists.
I'd rather give them a couple of pages of a script I'm working on with the hope that I'll get something (anyhthing) I can use and the artist will get some money for his efforts (though they might not get the full amount - if the show normally pays $600 per script page then he might get $400).
I have always found tests to be a waste of time. My time and, of course, the test taker's time. Some of the places I've worked at have given out tests and that then requires me to spend the time to study these to see if there is any potential in them. I just don't have that type of time to waste with the schedule we keep to look at work that won't be used in the episodes I'm currently juggling. If I were to just quickly glance at the test and make a snap decision what's the difference between that and just looking at their samples? I know the argument is you'll know it's their work, but I kinow that a lot of newbies taking these tests also get help from pros (they'd be stupid not to) so there's not a lot of difference.
If you want to get into boards now is the time. I know some board artists that are juggling several shows from several companies because they're dependable and can meet the deadlines. There's a lot of work out there - especially in action/adventure.
When a comapny advertises for storybaord artists it's usually because they need them to start or pickup NOW not in two or three week after they can review a bunch of tests.
My feeling (and I know this from experience) is if you're offered a test then the directors/producers don't think you can do it and/or don't have any need right now.
AND anyone who offers you a test of more than a page and half of script should be told to shove it.
Post a Comment