Representational Painting v. Illustration
Jeff Cooperman
"abstract art is bad, things that resemble a photograph are good" - all
this bashing of art of a conceptual level because it isn't painted with the
same concept of craft found in pre-20th century painting is getting old.
So I'll throw out a question, since people seem so sure of their answers in
so many postings...how do you define illustration versus representational
painting, especially in times postmodern? Illustration is often a
pejorative term used to bash realist painting, but I'll define it for
myself as a descriptive means of depiction used to describe a single idea -
fine art, while painted similarly at times, attempts to transcend to
singularity of a moment by extending the idea into a metaphor of something
more timeless, using formal and structural means of picturemaking to
reinforce the metaphor suggested. (i.e. William Bailey keeps his still
lifes evasive by a shifting, unreal light - Richard Estes avoids being an
architectural draftsman by crafting his images in a geometrical fashion,
leaving out key details to keep one's eye moving)
Mani Deli
Co> After perusing these postings, I find I'm getting tired of this
Co> attitude of "abstract art is bad, things that resemble a photograph are
Co> good" - all this bashing of art of a conceptual level because it isn't
Co> painted with the same concept of craft found in pre-20th century
Co> painting is getting old.
It is a myth to believe that painted realism resembles a photograph. Almost no
realistic painting past or present, from the worst to the best could be
mistaken for a photograph.
Co> So I'll throw out a question, since people seem so sure of their
Co> answers in so many postings...how do you define illustration versus
Co> representational painting, especially in times postmodern?
The Ilustration vs. Fine Art debate explained without Artspeak.
This debate concerns itself with two different factors: the illusion of
solidity in painting and the subject matter of a painting.
The term "illustration" as it is used in Modern Academic Art circles was first
used as a perjoritive definition by the passe' critic Clement Greenberg in the
late 30's. He needed a theory and some catch words which would separate the
Flat stuff he favored from those who painted in the round (3D illusion). His
success launched our present total non-objective period in the fine arts.
It happens that all classical painting with few exceptions, from the 14th
century onward had painters creating the illusion of depth on a flat surface.
That goes from then to now and includes the impressionists Picasso, Dali,
Duchamp to Estes. At base it isn't more complicated then saying 3d vs. 2d.
It was also Greenberg's reaction to sentimental subject matter which launched
the term "Illustration" as a no-no. The anti-academic revolt went into full
swing around 1900. It was a revolt against the subject matter in 19th century
academic painting which could be summed up as being Idealized and sentimental.
Greenberg got this as carry-over from the Fauves, Picasso and what was then
approximately known as the Modern trend. He used the catch word Kitsch to
describe any subject matter of this sort that was painted in any classical
manner (3d).
With these two catch words kitsch and illustration Greenberg single handedly
went on the critical front and managed to turn fine art in the direction of
flatness as it is accepted today . The result is that anything conforming to
an image containing a strong illusion of 3D which contains a modicum or more
of identifiable subject matter is considered "illustration" in the
Greenbergian and now Modern Academic sense.
Greenberg also was successfully able to separate fine art from illustration in
the publics view by claiming that Kitsch and illustration were synonomous and
also bad because they were commercial.
The terms kitsch, illustration and also commercial are some of the main terms
responsible for the demise in technical ability prevalent in the fine arts
today (there are of course others, experimental and self-expression etc.).
The universities picked up on this in the late 50's and began teaching what is
by now Modern Academic Art. The result is that Academic art education teaches
that fine art amounts to flat pattern making, Artspeak, and the newer
"Anything Goes Art." This to the exclusion of all the other art production
which is passed off as Illustration and commercial Kitsch and a mere repeat of
the bygone past. The student and much of the public has been thus been led to
believe that only work in the realm of Academic Modern Art can be termed as
great fine art and we are kept in the dark about anything else. This also
keeps most art teachers happy because they don't have to make any attempts to
teach what they can't do.
The artist who creates what is so often denigratingly called illustration
today makes his work attain an illusion of space. His work contains the
illusion of 3d and images which can be narrative or mysterious. In this
technical respect it conforms to the tenets great classical art, (fine art) of
the past. The finest illustration is fine art.
Non-objective abstraction pattern making and 2d decoration, for lack of a
better term, in spite of Academic claims are even older than so called
illustration. There is abstraction in oriental Islamic and Africa and all
decorative arts world wide.
I happen to prefer what is known as classical painting and think the best of
Modern Academic Art does not favorably compare in merit to the great art of
the past and present (often called illustration) be it abstract or classical
in format.
Before flamers get out their blow-torches I want to say that the above is a
rough outline not a rigorous description. I realized long ago that this would
require the book which I have just finished.
Mani DeLi
... No skill no art.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Wray Kephart
X After perusing these postings, I find I'm getting tired of this attitude of
X "abstract art is bad, things that resemble a photograph are good" - all
X this bashing of art of a conceptual level because it isn't painted with the
X same concept of craft found in pre-20th century painting is getting old.
Its not that simple; as most representational art of 13th-17th centuries
was painted by commission <guild/studio generated>. LOTS OF FREELANCERS
OUT THERE NOW wanting a piece of the old guild action; trouble is, no one
wants to commission themselves portrayed as Pope John Paul and their wife
as the Virgin Mary. Craft you say? Whats that your driving; your spending
your money on some other kind of 'functional' technology/youve visited
Olan Mills already this year <Xmas time>.
X So I'll throw out a question, since people seem so sure of their answers in
X so many postings...how do you define illustration versus representational
X painting, especially in times postmodern? Illustration is often a
X pejorative term used to bash realist painting, but I'll define it for
X myself as a descriptive means of depiction used to describe a single idea -
X fine art, while painted similarly at times, attempts to transcend to
X singularity of a moment by extending the idea into a metaphor of something
X more timeless, using formal and structural means of picturemaking to
X reinforce the metaphor suggested.
<Now that were all perfectly clear> illustration is and always has been a
pictorial tool used in conjuction with text; for those who could not read,
for those needing help getting the point of the authors text; many authors
illustrated their own works <thackeray> if for public consumption
via newpapers, pamphlets, periodicals. The tradition continues in childrens
books primarily only because adult audiences are now literate. Are there
any true illustrators posing as fine artists or has someone hung a
moniker even theyd deny.
(i.e. William Bailey keeps his still
X lifes evasive by a shifting, unreal light - Richard Estes avoids being an
X architectural draftsman by crafting his images in a geometrical fashion,
X leaving out key details to keep one's eye moving)
Richard Estes is a superrealist; that is all.
Kephart
JanneSiren
understanding of Clement Greenberg is grossly impoverished on both a
theoretical and an historical level. And to put the Impressionists,
Picasso, Dali, Duchamp, and Estes in the same sentence (and in the context
of a Greenberg crit) is not only peculiar, but just plain wrong (if
arguing against Greenberg).
Pick up Greenberg's Collected Essays and Criticism (in four volumes,
edited by John O'Brian) before your book goes to final print. That will
save you from "flamers" and "their blow-torches"--perhaps.
J. Martin Hill
Institute of Fine Arts
J. Martin Hill
Institute of Fine Arts, NYC