illustration
Mani Deli
its all of these:
-It is a picture done for payment.
-It is a picture in which subject matter is combined to tell a story.
-It is something that those who sympathize with Modern Academic Art don’t like
and express this by labeling a picture as illustration.
I doubt that there are any other definitions. However I will be interested in
reading any additions if they are written in clear English.
I maintain that all painting falls under one of these definitions. Or to put
it another way, there really is no concrete distinction between art and
illustration.
Whether a so called illustration is fine art is a matter of quality. However
that goes for any work that passes itself off as artwork.
We have discussed this before at length before. At that time I asked the
question If a finely painted Rockwell is mere illustration why is the Last
Supper by Leonardo not illustration?
The question boils down to this. When is something passing itself off as
artwork not an illustration?
Mani DeLi
…no skill no art
Peggy Hall
: Illustration remains relatively undefined. There are several views. Usually
: -It is a picture done for payment.
: -It is a picture in which subject matter is combined to tell a story.
: -It is something that those who sympathize with Modern Academic Art don’t like
: and express this by labeling a picture as illustration.
Could you explain this last one ?
[...]
: Or to put it another way, there really is no concrete distinction between
: art and illustration.
Time for you to go back to school ! I think the difference you are
seeking is between FINE ART and illustration. Illustration is done to
clarify or supplement text or ideas usually for a commercial purpose and
thereby falls into the category of Commercial Art.
Fine Art is usually done by a single artist and is ORIGINAL ART. Commercial
Art or Illustration can be copied from other sources and incorporated into the
overall picture. A single finished llustration is often done by more
than one artist, or a single artist may use components done by other
artists and incorporate it into his work.
It is possible to have a FINE ART work used as an illustration, but this
is not usually the case.
[...]
: The question boils down to this. When is something passing itself off as
: artwork not an illustration?
See previous statements. An illustration is, by definition, meant to
supplement or clarify an idea or concept. Fine Art needs no such excuse.
--
==========================================================================
Peggy Hall ph...@primenet.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
bob
illustration". You can add this to your list.
Jerry/Janette Musser
exi...@ptd.net
In article <291295.222...@frontier.canrem.com>, Mani Deli
<md...@frontier.canrem.com> wrote:
> Illustration remains relatively undefined. There are several views. Usually
> its all of these:
> -It is a picture done for payment.
> -It is a picture in which subject matter is combined to tell a story.
> -It is something that those who sympathize with Modern Academic Art
don’t like
> and express this by labeling a picture as illustration.
>
> I doubt that there are any other definitions. However I will be interested in
> reading any additions if they are written in clear English.
>
> I maintain that all painting falls under one of these definitions. Or to put
> it another way, there really is no concrete distinction between art and
> illustration.
>
> Whether a so called illustration is fine art is a matter of quality. However
> that goes for any work that passes itself off as artwork.
>
> We have discussed this before at length before. At that time I asked the
> question If a finely painted Rockwell is mere illustration why is the Last
> Supper by Leonardo not illustration?
>
> The question boils down to this. When is something passing itself off as
> artwork not an illustration?
>
Mattison
: Mani DeLi
: …no skill no art
skill is for illustrators
feeling is 4 artists and viewers
having bee both professional artist and illustrator i can tell you there
is a huge difference and huge similarities between the two but the are
distinctly different most differences rooted in feelings and the human
condition of passion
Mattison FitzGerald
artist not geek in disguise
CAT
mat...@netcom.com (Mattison) wrote:
>skill is for illustrators
>feeling is 4 artists and viewers
A true master utilizes both.
CAT
exile
Ken Labuskes
illustration and art is like looking for the place where the railroad
tracks come together. I have seen line cooks, teachers, and carpenters
preform with the sense of vision, skill, and passion that would define
the concept of "artist" for anyone. I cannot see why an illustrator
could not preform with the same attributes.
I realize that I don't know much about art, but I do believe that people
who put people down, usually do it because they need to feel more
important themselves. If you think about it, what makes an artist more
important or valuable than a truck driver or a police officer. We each
have to walk the path we are given but we can choose to walk it with
style or with resentment.
ken
William DeRaymond
>
> In my humble opinion, searching for the dividing line between
> illustration and art is like looking for the place where the railroad
a question of style and quality. It also requires some understanding that
art is a language that needs to be learned like any other language. One must
devote themselves to this process. My experience has shown me there is a
difference between art and craft. I have a deep respect for both. It always
comes down to what is being said by an artist. A true or mature work of art
can illustrate some literary idea or verbal concept, but an illustration
isn't neccessarily always an advanced work of art whose value far transcends
the literary nature of the work. I mean get a hundred thousand artist's to
paint a simple still life of apples on a table. How many will be able to
paint one that has the consciousness of a Van Gogh or Cezanne? How many will
simply be copies of apples on the table top? What is a painting anyway?
>I have seen line cooks, teachers, and carpenters
> preform with the sense of vision, skill, and passion that would define
> the concept of "artist" for anyone. I basically disagree. Everybody seems to want to be an artist. I mean check
it out. It's the 'Art' of medicine. It's the 'Art' of Science. The'Art of
gardening, the 'Art' of ditch digging. The 'Art' of bullshit. The 'Art' of
truckdriving. But when it comes to art who the hell really cares? Maybe
it's the 'science' of art. The majority of folks have no background in the
arts and yet everybody is an expert. Well a truck driver needs certain
skills that will serve him or her in that job, But it doesn't take an
enormous amount of intelligence or energy to operate a large truck, thus
while they get paid fairly well, it doesn't compare in value to the value of
an acommplished painting or sculpture, it's very simple. This is not to say
the job and the work whatever it is, is not without value.
>I cannot see why an illustrator
> could not preform with the same attributes.
>
> I realize that I don't know much about art, but I do believe that people
> who put people down, usually do it because they need to feel more
> important themselves. If you think about it, what makes an artist more
> important or valuable than a truck driver or a police officer.
This is not about putting people down, it is about values. We are all
created equal. But it is naive to think that all work is of the same value,
requires the same amount of education, energy, intelligence, etc.
Personally, I value the artwork I do as far more valuable than the work I do
driving a bus.
I consider my art work as at least as valuable as the work doctors do, or
lawyers, etc. What makes a doctor or lawyer or rocket scientist more
important than truckdrivers or policemen? How comes they get paid more
generally?
> We each
> have to walk the path we are given but we can choose to walk it with
> style or with resentment. ken
- sincerely, William
>
>
--
William DeRaymond/Artist
WorldLightProductions
http://www.worldlightproductions.com/~draymond/
'The abstract nature of reality is the source of beauty.'- William
Ima Dillo
>I consider my art work as at least as valuable as the work doctors do, or
>lawyers, etc.
Ah, but it is the day-laborer who MAY have the artistic talent for expression whereas
the doctor or lawyer MAY have only their education and training which doesn't
necessarily lend itself to artistic expression. And vice versa, of course.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sticks and stones may break YOUR bones
But getting run over is MY worry.
< Ima Dillo. >
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gwenn Knapp
>
> In my humble opinion, searching for the dividing line between
> illustration and art is like looking for the place where the railroad
> preform with the sense of vision, skill, and passion that would define
> could not preform with the same attributes.
I think the line is also blurred, but not quite for the same
reasons. It seems to me that there are works of art sold as
"illustration" (because they were commissioned to illustrate
something) that I find to be breathtaking works of art. And,
equally, I have seen works of art created/commissioned as fine art
that have little appeal or merit. The purpose for remuneration for
the creation may decide what the piece is called, but not whether it
is great. Other artforms, like pottery and furniture can have
practical application which is separate from whether the product is
"art". "Pictures" have somehow lost equal rights, and been separated
into these two classes.
> I realize that I don't know much about art, but I do believe that people
> who put people down, usually do it because they need to feel more
> important themselves. If you think about it, what makes an artist more
> important or valuable than a truck driver or a police officer. We each
> have to walk the path we are given but we can choose to walk it with
> style or with resentment.
I don't know if it is about putting people down, but I do think
there is some elitism involved, or some misplaced glorification of
poverty as essential to true art. Certainly classical artists were
creating to please clients, and there was really no distinction
between art and craft and illustration. We do not look back with
these categories in mind when we judge great art of the past.
So, IMHO, it is what is done and not why that makes it "art".
--
MOTTASIA
Mother Of Three Teens Achieving Success in Art
Art that liberates the spirit.
Portraits in Oil. Website design.
http://www.adze.com/mottasia/