Booth, though, is proof that misinformation can turn out to be somewhat productive in some people Yes, good point! Btw, "Mickey Mouse" was an American slang term for "kid stuff" or "amateur. Thus the narrative-decorative continuum that works for me would be of little value to a person with such an affinity.
For me personally, I find that the decorative elements predominate in those two examples you named, especially Michelangelo. Etcetera, My reading of aesthetics defines decoration as design that does not arrive at any cruxes or climaxes.
That is, there is no hierarchy of dramatic interest or tension. Textiles, for instance, due to their repetitiousness, are clearly decorative in design and effect. Any expression of mood that lacks narrative interest, like wallpaper, a blue wall, a stucco facing, or other kinds of abstract patterning will be decorative.
A great narrative painting can be appreciated solely on it's decorative merits. Yet it is still narrative at core With crescendoing dramatic moments playing against other static elements. Hardly close to a mere rendering of tone or textile pattern.
Harvey Dunn taught his students that the old masters were illustrators who taught the story of Christianity through their pictures. TheDonQuixotic-- Thanks for the offer.
I am probably the least qualified person on the planet to speak on a career panel about the arts, as my own career is in a very different field. Also, I'm afraid I don't live near Massachusetts. You can write me any time at David. Apatoff gmail. However, you might find more relevant experience in some of the articulate professional artists who comment on this blog. Graham Yarrington-- You are extremely kind, and I appreciate it.
From my own perspective, these long posts are sometimes necessary but are never the most satisfying, whether for reader or writer. I have no plans to be lecturing in NY, as no one else is quite as foolhardy as the Norman Rockwell Museum. However, the estimable Sterling Hundley is giving a talk at the Society of Illustrators on October 18th, and I'd recommend that highly.
Mellie wrote, "trying to argue that one is superior to the other is a sterile debate. Kev, Since the discussion was about fine art, I assumed it would be apparent that I was using "decoration" in a broader, design context and not just for, say, a chevron pattern.
I tend to like the word decoration because, one, I believe that it was the very context that fine art was born in and needs to return to, two, it connotes functionality, and three, just might serve as a check against some of the hubris that often surrounds fine art. I thought you fully endorsed semantic creativity. I take the position that fine art was decorative because it was great, not the reverse. I can't imagine dredging for decorative works will net any fine art that toots your barge horn.
Unless you are looking for Lalique. Very nice illustrations and yes I believe that illustrations such as these most definately qualify as fine art. I do have the 60 th aniversary edition now called rendering in pen and ink but it is not fully identical to the original and doesn't have the introduction.
Thanks for the clarification on that idiomatic expression. Antonio -- drawing with a scratchboard I've been experimenting with a technique similar to scratchboard that might be helpful for getting thin white lines. With a round tipped stylus that won't tear the surface I use an empty ballpoint pen , emboss lines into the surface of a white 4 ply board like museum board or illustration board.
I find a hot press surface works best. Then rub over the embossed lines with a flat tipped Prismacolor pencil. I've been using color but black works too. If you find this useful and produce something interesting, let me know. I call it the dead pen technique.
That quote is out of context. Brangwyn's work, when taken as a whole, includes bowls, chairs, textiles, room design, typography, furnishings of all sorts of decorative design work, and on and on. Taken in isolation, as a fine art painter, he was an illustrator.
I have a Lalique monograph; I've already found him. But again, the discussion is about fine artists and illustrators. I have more in mind artists who, through cross-pollination in the visual arts typically in what were referred to as the "sister arts": painting, sculpture, and architecture , are practically predestined to arrive at a sense of design that is decorative see Brangwyn's Wiki bio , of whom Michelangelo is an archetype.
Yeah, I didn't mean to say the quote was taken out of context, but that it lacked a sense of context as a statement. I blame it on the benadryl. But I do understand what was meant by "decorative" with respect to brangwyn at the time he was working. The flattening of shapes, highly designed as shapes, often outlined, bold colors and values In order to "stay on the wall" and project the cartoon a great distance.
But there is great deal of overlap between those tenets and the tenets of magazine and book illustration. As well, if you read old book descriptions, on any number of occasions you will see the word "decorations" substituted for "illustrations", particularly in the English tradition.
Over here, decorations tended to mean vignettes that incorporated typography and pure design elements. I really can't think of an artist whose sense of design isn't in some way decorative. The one inviolate principle of decoration is visual harmony. And there's gazillions of ways to make that happen. Kev, I think there is far more to it and you are oversimplifying; there may be "gazillions of ways" in theory, but in reality there are very few ways to make it look right.
I don't think there are too many artists around today that you could hire to work in that style; there were conventions, built up and refined over time, that have been largely lost. The problem is, because of the modern affinity for literalness, hardly anyone can see past the subject matter and narrative.
Matthew, thanks for the sugestion, I have played with that kind of technique in graphite drawings, and it does give nice results With indentation you have to plan ahead With several indentations of different colors you could get nice effects. Etc, So you want to define Fine Art as the particular style of mural design that you find most attractive?
And in order to qualify, the work must be done in one of the "few ways to make it look right? Since this prescription lets out the possibility that Romantic art may be considered fine art, I'm assuming that your actual argument here is that the word "fine" in Fine Art means "classical. So you want to define Fine Art as the particular style of mural design that you find most attractive? I don't recall offering a definition of fine art; I said that I believe decoration was the context that fine art was born out of.
This argument boils down to a particular set of classical criteria So then you should be happy since you have it all down? Many moons ago I asked on this blog what the difference was--at the time I felt that I was an ignoramus for asking such a foolhardy question I had to go back and look more closely.
Etc, I'm still just trying to figure out what you meant in your first post. In order to do so, I am trying to discover what you mean by your terms. If you can't or won't define your terms how can anybody know what you are actually saying? Kev, I really don't know what more I could add, other than I suspect that working in architecture and decorative objects has benefits that are far underappreciated; such work typically precludes the direct bias of human form, and is somewhat abstract but yet has definitive form, unlike the more nebulous varieties of modern abstract art.
I do hope we're not hogging the discussion here. It is interesting to note that, if you delve into the etymology of many of these words, you will see that illustration shares a root with illustrious. And to make something illustrious is a method of celebrating it, and in order to properly celebrate something or acknowledge it through ritual one must set the proper mood, and this is the purpose of decorating.
David, I am trying to reach you to discuss the Famous Artists School. I have acquired some of the archives of the school and I am researching the history of the various schools and particularly their demise. Phone me at if you can, or write jp artistsmarket. David, Very nice blog. I'm particularly interested in the Famous Artists' School. I have acquired a portion of their archives, and I am researching the various schools and in particular how it all ended with lawyers and such.
I am desperate for information, and so much has been lost. Any information about this will be greatly appreciated. My phone is or you can email. Kev, If Cox is your gateway into appreciating the style then I'm glad; but personally I don't find his more literal academic influence particularly compatible.
I don't know why you would make an effort to ferret out a weak cox. Honestly Kev, I see both examples as being pregnant with banal Classical Realism; yours was first trimester and mine was in labor. Seeking proper form, serious golfers strive to create a divot with each swing of the club, scooping out a bit of the ground as they contact their ball.
No matter how far or how accurately the ball travels, this piece of sod will only ever move a few yards beyond the original striking position, as it has no aerodynamic qualities. Thankfully the game is such that it isn't concerned with overcoming the inabilities of the sod. That would be a dull and pointless game indeed. I have been away practicing law for the past few days as this conversation galloped ahead. Some of what I would have responded has been superseded by other comments, but I will now do my best to catch up.
Thanks to those who went forward with an interesting dialogue. I haven't read any of the previous comments. All I have to say is: Illustration is intended for the average "simple-minded" folk and fine art is for the pretentious status-hungry "elite".
It's possible to enjoy both in a more personal way beyond such categories but most people belong to either category or a mix of both. I know I'm late to the party, but I've got to say it! But, as you point out, the truth may be the exact opposite. Illustration is as old as the patron - artist relationship, as old as the pyramids or even the cave paintings; and "fine art" really came about much later with the ascendancy of the merchant class over the noblemen and the Church.
As you say, Despite all this hand wringing about the difference between art and illustration, I think the question is a fake one, concerned more about social status than about the nature of art. Thank you! Aside from argument about who gets paid, I can't help but think of the pro-life issue.
When does life begin? At conception? The intent, the narrative- should that not be the main pillar of illustration? Where does the illustration begin?
In gestation as narrative? It's future is somewhat predetermined. It has perimeters. That does not deflate its value in comparison to established fine art. This refined art may demand more from the artist and when the artist is successful in communicating a new vision within the limitations of the narration or a new understanding of a narrative itself, it goes beyond being a gratuitous work for a fee. With regard to illustration being of less status that fine art-who cares? The market place, where another narrative about art insure value of the status quo.
I was taught that the difference between fine art and illustration is the intent of the artist not the viewer. Using concept art, those involved in the planning of a project such as a director can visualize the composition of a shot or the layout of a set, before ever having a camera set up in place.
The financial scale may vary from industry to industry but the creation of a scene—be it a movie set or a level in a video game—tends to be one of the more expensive steps in the creation of a piece of entertainment or art.
The nature of concept art means that a concept artist must be practical with their work, taking into account any rules the final product must follow. For example, concept art of a robot or a weapon that is going to be used in a science fiction video game must "work" within the given rules of that game.
Another example of real-world constraints is in concept art for costume design. A concept artist drawing potential ideas for a costume must draw something that can actually be made and worn by a real person. Illustrators do not face such restrictions. An illustration could be a drawing, a photograph or a painting. It can be a stand-alone piece such as a portrait or part of a more substantial work such as a comic book.
The look of an illustration will vary by artistic style, but will usually seem more "complete" than concept art, which could be a mere pencil sketch. Unlike a concept artist, an illustrator is depicting the final form of whatever their piece is. They are not constrained by the realities of a finished product somewhere down the line, because the illustration is the finished product.
Another difference between illustrators and concept artists is the broader picture. An illustrator need not give any thought to things outside of the view of their illustration though they certainly can if they choose.
For example, an illustrator drawing a castle needn't consider how that castle looks from above. Nor do they need to put thought into what is going on behind the outer walls. A concept artist cannot ignore these factors because they may come into play later in the design stage. Whether an illustrator can do concept art or vice versa is entirely down to the individual artist. Illustration requires more artistic skill than concept art, as the finished piece must be visually appealing and convey a message, evoke emotion, or tell a story.
Conversely, concept art requires a more pragmatic way of thinking. As the finished piece must reflect the physical realities of the thing it is conceptualizing. There is sometimes a misunderstanding that concept artists are merely artists doing a rough draft. Many concept artists are indeed far more talented artistically than their concept work may suggest and concept work is often done quickly due to the nature of the early planning stages of a project.
It is entirely possible to be a good concept artist with only mediocre artistic talent. And if Da Vinci had Redbubble he would have definitely cashed it in. Modern fine artists also sell prints of their art, but unlike the illustrator , fine art is not commissioned by clients, businesses and organizations distributing it under their own licenses.
Illustrators serve commercial interests and audiences. However, there is no difference between fine art and illustration in terms of visual style, creative skills and tools used, their talent, and hard work. A fine artist could paint a flower on paper in watercolour and an illustrator will do the same but for a client for a gardening magazine. Both can be abstract or surreal. Fine art and art are often used interchangeably in public discussions. Art in definition is literally any human creation.
A hammer, your phone and the Mona Lisa are all artworks created by artists. Both Illustrators and Fine-artists are Artists and they both make art. Art is the umbrella term, branching out into many disciplines including fine-art and illustration. The illustrator follows the design process which involves solving a communication problem. The fine-artist expresses free-thought and is not confined by the needs of the audience. A simple way of putting it is that an illustrator answers questions while a fine artist asks questions.
So I did the heavy lifting for you. Tired of scrubbing crayon drawings off your wall?
0コメント