Illustraton vs. Fine Art
I ROBO I
paintings.
-robo-
AC
<RO...@redconnect.net> wrote:
Illustration, IMHO, is visualizing someone else's idea, with or without
pay . Drawing a scene from a book for your portfolio, without a client,
can be 'illustration', but that's more of a stylistic definition. For
example, I call the Sistine Chapel ceiling an illustration becuse it
was done under the specific direction of the Pope as regards to
content, style, etc, even though I don't think Michelangelo was
actually getting paid.
Dimitri Pavlov
broader definition that includes rendering concepts (intangibles) and also
existing (tangible) subject matter. Whether it be an artist's sketch of a
home to be built or an existing one.
Fine art focuses on artistic impressions of either subject matter in a
manner which has the flexibility to move away from obvious and known
values, to explore and promote subtle underlying aspects, and finally to
free the creator's mind to appeal to distinct emotions from the viewer.
Where fine art is distinct from Illustration is that it often requests a
different level of intellectual participation from it's audience. Fine art
is free to embellish, exaggerate, minimize and distort in it's statement.
Illustration often conveys hard information in it's effort to define the
subject.
The media used, the time it takes to complete, or the intellectual prowess
of the artist has no bearing on the definition. I think there's also some
overlapping depending on how the artwork is presented in final form and the
history of the artist.
IMHO
Dimitri
AC wrote in message <031019990552493008%segr...@earthlink.net>...
iguana
stands alone. ...my definitions.
--
*********************************
Ryan
igua...@hotmail.com
ICQ UIN: 4479814
http://members.xoom.com/iguanaPSU
*********************************
I ROBO I <RO...@redconnect.net> wrote in message
news:rvdkvk...@corp.supernews.com...
iguana
iguana
iguana
but it was worth the amazing wisdom that oozed from each message
--
*********************************
Ryan
igua...@hotmail.com
ICQ UIN: 4479814
http://members.xoom.com/iguanaPSU
*********************************
iguana <anon...@unknown.net> wrote in message
news:TkBJ3.5357$L4.3...@typ12.nn.bcandid.com...
Dave Needham
> art paintings.
>
> -robo-
Fine art is painting about painting.
Illustration is painting about stuff.
perhaps...
dave
Lar
Oh you're trying to start something here, ain'tcha Dave? ;)
I'd say fine art is about painting to please yourself, while illustration is
painting to please a client.
This does not mean you cannot please yourself doing illustration though. I've
found more often than not, a client will prefer my take on their original idea
to their own, but if the client wants a piece of crap and is willing to pay
for it, then go ahead and do the best damn piece of crap you can :) There's
always time to satisfy your own artistic urges another time, and it's a lot
easier to do that with cash in pocket than without! :)
Later!
Lar
****
So I've got these web pages :)
Lar's Studio - http://www.sentex.net/~fresco/studio/direct.html
The Lair - http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/6667
****
t.knezek
> painting to please a client.
I do a lot of brush & ink artwork... since I'm almost never paid for it,
it's all done to please myself, but most people who feel the need to
categorize it call it illustration. Why? Because my drawing style is
fairly realistic, my subject matter tends to be either straightforward
or campy (I do a lot of pin-up art), and I don't pretend to put a lot of
"deep meaning" into my work.
Most people seem to limit "fine art" to the categories of
oil/acrylic/watercolor painting and sculpture (as long as the subject
matter isn't 'cute'), and anything incomprehensible to the average viewer.
"Fine art" seems to be whatever gallery owners are showing, and
illustration seems to be the remainder of two-dimensional artwork.
-Teresa
--
* Intuitive Images Design *
------
* exceptional web design *
* exceptional service *
* exceptional rates *
------------------------------
http://www.intuitive-images.com
Lar
>> I'd say fine art is about painting to please yourself, while illustration is
>> painting to please a client.
>
>I do a lot of brush & ink artwork... since I'm almost never paid for it,
>it's all done to please myself, but most people who feel the need to
>categorize it call it illustration. Why? Because my drawing style is
>fairly realistic, my subject matter tends to be either straightforward
>or campy (I do a lot of pin-up art), and I don't pretend to put a lot of
>"deep meaning" into my work.
>
>Most people seem to limit "fine art" to the categories of
>oil/acrylic/watercolor painting and sculpture (as long as the subject
>matter isn't 'cute'), and anything incomprehensible to the average viewer.
>
>"Fine art" seems to be whatever gallery owners are showing, and
>illustration seems to be the remainder of two-dimensional artwork.
Teresa,
That may be the sad truth of the industry, but I'd like to think as the
practioners of art, we know better. It's a shame the art world has been so
stuck on abstract art. Not that there isn't some great abstract work out
there, but realism has its place too, and is a lot more accessible to the
general population. My mother is far more likely to hang a Constable or a
Bateman than she is to hang a Picasso in her living room.
I do a lot of cartooning, and it's my most marketable skill, but my
illustration teachers *hated* to see anyone cartoon in art college.
Cartooning was for the animation students. Why? I never did get a
satisfactory answer.
I think part of the problem, or rather the problem with the question is that
the English language doesn't have any grey areas between "Fine" and
"Commercial" when it comes to art. A writer can be a poet, or a journalist,
or a novelist, a columnist etc. An artist is fine (snob) or an illustrator
(hack).
Sure, I'm oversimplifying the problem and I also refuse to buy into the
labelling I'm tossing around, but that doesn't mean it ain't so to a lot of
folks.
Discussion? Ideas? :)
David
Dave Needham wrote:
> > I'm just curious as to how you people would define illustration vs. fine
> > art paintings.
> >
Illustrators get paid by the hour, fine artists get paid by the piece.
I ROBO I
Dave Needham <da...@coffeecup.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7u5qqc$kes$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> David <dsb...@cobweb.com.au> wrote in message
> news:38051AB0...@cobweb.com.au...
> BEWARE, t'was not I who spake forth, but | robo |
>
> i fink,
>
> dave
>
>
Dave Needham
D i m i t r i
One pushes the other pulls.
Works for me.
Marcus Gray
>> Dave Needham wrote:
>
> I'm just curious as to how you people would define illustration vs. fine
> art paintings.
The difference is in the original intention of the artist and in the
context of which the art/illustration is placed.
--
Marcus Gray
Christine Tammaro
>
> > > I'm just curious as to how you people would define illustration vs.
fine
> > > art paintings.
> > >
>
>
just as the Old Masters have always done. The fine artist claims to create
"art for arts sake". All the while he is expecting to make a living solely
from his art, as well as nurturing the intention of selling it to the first
buyer. Once the exchange of money for art is accepted there is no longer the
difference between fine art and illustration. The fine art is often
reproduced in prints and millions of copies are sold the same as an
illustrators work. In fact, perhaps the two works may appear side by side in
the same magazine! The Fine Art we see and love has been commissioned by
someone who wanted a story, a person or an idea illustrated by an artist so
it could be communicated shared and experienced by everyone, everywhere,
forever.The illustrator is THE ARTIST.
Leon
prehaps...... you dont know what you are talking about
surely fine art isnt just about painting.
Dave Needham wrote:
> > I'm just curious as to how you people would define illustration vs. fine
> > art paintings.
> >
Dave Needham
Leon <le...@mailhost.deepend.co.uk>gibbered in message
news:38181662...@mailhost.deepend.co.uk...
> what stuff is painting about if illustration is about stuff
> prehaps...... you dont know what you are talking about
> surely fine art isnt just about painting.
>
about its subject matter, it begins to illustrate something, and therefore
(logically) can be called an illustration.
most 'fine-art' seems to be just illustration with 'high-culture'
pretentions.
there is also an issue about reproduction, which most fine artist-painters
don't really consider, whereas illustrator-painters do.
dave
Marcia Hartsock
art described as making love to yourself,
MA
Floria G Guillory
This sounds intreging, can't Illistration be consider fine art depending on
the piece an level of the artist's craft?
Lable me :)
Regards,
Mass
Marcia Hartsock <mar...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:38356AC5...@fuse.net...
Lar
>Parden me,
>
>This sounds intreging, can't Illistration be consider fine art depending on
>the piece an level of the artist's craft?
>
>Lable me :)
>
>Regards,
>Mass
I think the labels of commercial vs fine are already being thrown about too
much and too subjectively. Besides, it can be almost impossible for even
'experts' to agree on what is a fine art piece.
One of my fave examples is Marcel Duchamp's famous 'found' art. His toilet
seat is fine art, *because he said it was* and signed it. Okay. Point made.
I'm willing to buy that excuse from Duchamp on an artistic/philosophy sort of
thing. That's the sort of thing I consider art for artists.
Now, Joe Schmoe, a fine art student who figures all his art will be 'found' in
the tradition of Duchamp, and therefore figures he doesn't need to study
anatomy, or art history, or painting, or - or - or - is someone I do NOT
consider to be a fine artist. IMO they are lazy. Duchamp earned my respect
by learning his craft FIRST. Then he went beyond the definitions of the day.
IMO there is nothing wrong with wildlife art, or landscapes as long as the
artist has learned the fundamentals of their craft. Is Bob Ross a fine
artist? Perhaps - perhaps not. He is a good teacher for thousands it seems.
Which piece of art is more important to the common non-artist - the million
dollar price tag on the slices of animal in the Boston Museum, or the Robert
Bateman postcard they got from the neighbours?
Someone tell me to shut up! :)P I'm soapboxing outta control!
Kate Philbeck
whereas fine art is more self expressive.. but there is defintely some
overlap there..
----------
In article <38356AC5...@fuse.net>, Marcia Hartsock <mar...@fuse.net>
wrote:
tugi
difference between art and illustration
is not the matter of quantity but quality...
That is, one does not compare the tastes of particular different apples
and different pears...
While for illustration the value criteria of the work is defined by the
function (in which the craft is often perceived as fundamental), for
an artwork the criteria is defined by the particular artwork itself
(all details of a painting, for example, have a function to maintain
an aesthetic whole)...
But it does not mean that there are no criteria or even outside
functions in art as well as it does not mean that an
illustration can not be aesthetic...
Postmodern view usually see it in a bit different way...
Since in this views everything has some practical function
(as the part of the politics of "text")
then particular artworks can not be without function...
The consequence is that art is loosing its "specific difference"...
In this terms everything can be perceived
as art (try to type "art" in an Internet search engine - you'll be
surprised)
In due course the issue often appears to be why we still have the term
"art" if it is loosing its meaning...
By the way, in my opinion the craft is neither determinative
nor is opposed to art...
Tugi
The...@rotfl.com
Architectural Visualisations
TheOko Art Studio
http://members.rotfl.com/TheOko/
Floria G Guillory wrote:
> Parden me,
>
> This sounds intreging, can't Illistration be consider fine art depending
on
> the piece an level of the artist's craft?
>
> Lable me :)
>
> Regards,
> Mass
> Marcia Hartsock <mar...@fuse.net> wrote in message
> news:38356AC5...@fuse.net...
esalzberg
difference between Illustration and Art?"
Illustration describes or demonstrates. Art goes beyond that to
attempt to communicate on an instinctive (more forceful) level.
Fine Art, like Fine Furniture, is done exceedingly well.
A box of Cap'n Crunch is fine art. ;o)
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Marcia Hartsock
art prior to impressionism was much closer to contemporary illustration, by
measure of intent, craft, commission, subject, educational and documentary use,
etc etc. Analyze any good contemporary illustration by any measure of artistic
aesthetic and there is no question it is art. So once again the question comes
back to communication intent, that of the originating artist or that of the
buyer, and how well the artwork/illustration communicates its intent to the
audience. Gallery artists, or fine artists, often no longer seem to care if
anyone "gets it". Illustrators do.