About Dore
Nerd Gerl
Mr. Gustave (how do you pronounce that?) had OTHER artists do his work while he
signed them (other artists signed the work too tho...). This was a common
practice in historic artist guilds, although I think it occurs in "Kinkaid's
Guild" too. (oooh - no I didn't!)
Anyway, I have a book of "his" prints. There's all kinds of artists names on
"his" prints. I can post these names here if you want.
Is Gustave an artist at all? Hm...
==========
Portfolio of Nude Angels: http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
See In Person @ MatrixArts Space | Sacramento, CA
E- Portfolio: http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/nangels.zip
Erik A. Mattila
Nerd Gerl wrote:
> IF this hasn't already been pointed out THEN...
>
> Mr. Gustave (how do you pronounce that?)
Goo Stauve Dough Wray.
had OTHER artists do his work while he
> signed them (other artists signed the work too tho...). This was a common
> practice in historic artist guilds, although I think it occurs in "Kinkaid's
> Guild" too. (oooh - no I didn't!)
Not exactly. Artists throughout art history have had art factories
(nothing to do with guild training per se.) Holbein, Lucas Cranach,
Rubens etc. When you get into printmaking, the specialty of labor was
ever greater. For example, carpenter's usually carved the woodcut
blocks, not the artists.
>
> Anyway, I have a book of "his" prints. There's all kinds of artists names on
> "his" prints. I can post these names here if you want.
>
> Is Gustave an artist at all? Hm...
Technically no. Doré dazzled French Magazine publishers who employed
illustrators in the days before Photo-Offset printing. He was fast,
accurate, and very good. He barged into the publisher Philipon's office
at age 15, and Philipon later wrote that when he looked at the kid's
drawings he almost cried. By age 16, Doré was the highest paid
illustrator in France.
But the invention of the electrotype process (c.1852), which reproduced
engraving plates, added to the sheer volume of Doré's work published
between 1850 and 1900. I suspect that a lot of the signatures you are
seeing are from people who reproduced original Doré engravings via the
electrotype process.
Erik
mdeli
wrote:
>IF this hasn't already been pointed out THEN...
>
>Mr. Gustave (how do you pronounce that?) had OTHER artists do his work while he
>signed them (other artists signed the work too tho...). This was a common
>practice in historic artist guilds, although I think it occurs in "Kinkaid's
>Guild" too. (oooh - no I didn't!)
>
>Anyway, I have a book of "his" prints. There's all kinds of artists names on
>"his" prints. I can post these names here if you want.
>
>Is Gustave an artist at all? Hm...
>
Shows what you don't bother to learn after you go to art school.
Dore' did the artwork usually in wash for the books he illustrated.
The signatures you see on the wood engravings are usually by the
engraver and Dore'. The engravers were also good artists. They varied
the originals by adding their touch. Some were better than others but
all were very good.
This was the case for many artists who produced wood and steel
engraving. In the case of lithographs however the artist drew directly
on the stone which was then printed.
Gee Fox is Daumier an artist or an illustrator in your book?
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
Nerd Gerl
>>Nerd Gerl wrote:
>> IF this hasn't already been pointed out THEN...
>>
>> Mr. Gustave (how do you pronounce that?)
>Goo Stauve Dough Wray.
Thank you :-)
>>had OTHER artists do his work while he
>> signed them (other artists signed the work too tho...). This was a common
>> practice in historic artist guilds, although I think it occurs in
>>"Kinkaid's Guild" too. (oooh - no I didn't!)
>Not exactly. Artists throughout art history have had art factories
>(nothing to do with guild training per se.)
Oh. (My bad) I interepreted artist guilds as art factories.
>Holbein, Lucas Cranach,
>Rubens etc. When you get into printmaking, the specialty of labor was
>ever greater. For example, carpenter's usually carved the woodcut
>blocks, not the artists.
Hee hee. The carving reveals some pretty intricate detail. I don't think I
could find a carpenter who could do that today!
>> Anyway, I have a book of "his" prints. There's all kinds of artists names
>on
>> "his" prints. I can post these names here if you want.
>>
>> Is Gustave an artist at all? Hm...
>Technically no. Doré dazzled French Magazine publishers who employed
>illustrators in the days before Photo-Offset printing. He was fast,
>accurate, and very good. He barged into the publisher Philipon's office
>at age 15, and Philipon later wrote that when he looked at the kid's
>drawings he almost cried. By age 16, Doré was the highest paid
>illustrator in France.
>
>But the invention of the electrotype process (c.1852), which reproduced
>engraving plates, added to the sheer volume of Doré's work published
>between 1850 and 1900. I suspect that a lot of the signatures you are
>seeing are from people who reproduced original Doré engravings via the
>electrotype process.
>
>Erik
This is what I have in front of me:
"Early in his career he (Dore) had been upset by the low quality of engraving,
and he assembled a shop of about 40 engravers - Gusmand, Pannemaker and Jonnard
foremost among them - he thought competent to work on his elaborate, dramatic
illustrations. Much of the credit for the success of Dore's illustrations
belong to these skilled artisans."
Source: Dore's Illustrations For Paradise Lost, page vii
Names on the illustrations: Jonnard, Glaplante, Hotelin, Gusmand, Pannemaker,
Hurot, Piaud, Laplante, Collon Smeeton?, Ligny, Jaimard?, Goebel, Gavchard,
Dumont...
Hell I can't read these names... it's hard to make them out.
Anyway. I contend that Dore did none of these illustrations in front of me, but
instead, instructed these "engravers" on how he wanted the illustrations to
look. I believe this because although the drawings are similar, a detailed eye
will notice that there are subtle (sometimes plain aweful) differences in
style. Some of the subjects in the drawings are way out of proportion too,
while others are perfect.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of Goo Stauve, however, and evidently, I
am a fan of all those other illustrators too!!!! :-/
Nerd Gerl
>Shows what you don't bother to learn after you go to art school.
That is incorrect. I am not in "art school". Yet I am "bothering" to learn
something now.
Andrew Werby
collaboration between an artist and an engraver. There was no efficient
method for an artist to directly produce a printing plate, so the original
drawing would have to be reinterpreted by a skilled engraver, who inevitably
put a some of his own hand in. It was nice of Gustav to share credit with
them, but only fair. I recently saw an exhibit in the Tate gallery which
detailed the relationship between JMW Turner and his engravers, which was
substantially similar. Turner went on sketching tours, produced watercolors
from these and licensed them to publishers, who in turn hired engravers to
make printable plates. Turner would then critique the plates in detail,
until a mutually acceptable result was achieved, then the book would be
published- "Picturesque Views of the Southern Coast of England" or
something similar. He apparently did quite well with this- enough to support
his oil-painting habit, anyway.]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
"mdeli" <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3d42c03...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
mdeli
<and...@computersculpture.com> wrote:
>[Mani is correct here- most published illustrations of this period were a
>collaboration between an artist and an engraver.
BTW There is nothing special about this sort of collaboration. It
covers the history of print making from Bruegel, Durer, to Japanese
Prints etc.
Only artzy fartzies think that art is always a product of an
individuals self expression. If they studied art history other than
the ersatz crap they sponge up in art schools the would realize that
much of the finest artwork is collaborative.
It is rare that an artist who paints large complex subjects doesn't
use assistants. This is true for Dali, Warhol etc. and goes far back
in art history. In fact a lazy like Andy Wortball had assistants
doing most everything.
Andrew Werby
"Agathena" <agath...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5a09425e.02072...@posting.google.com...
> n...@mail.com (mdeli) wrote in message
news:<3d43054b...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>...
> > On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 18:17:54 GMT, "Andrew Werby"
> > <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote:
> >
> > >[Mani is correct here- most published illustrations of this period were
a
> > >collaboration between an artist and an engraver.
> >
> > BTW There is nothing special about this sort of collaboration. It
> > covers the history of print making from Bruegel, Durer, to Japanese
> > Prints etc.
> >
> > Only artzy fartzies think that art is always a product of an
> > individuals self expression. If they studied art history other than
> > the ersatz crap they sponge up in art schools the would realize that
> > much of the finest artwork is collaborative.
>
>
> Mani is not correct to compare today's illustrator vs artist
> with those of centuries ago. Today's illustrator may be
> a technician and a graphic designer but there is a difference
> TODAY between the category "Illustrator" and the category
> "Visual Artist." As usual the MISS Haversham of art is being
> anachronistic.
[While one can be a graphic designer without being an artist, I'm not sure
that's true of an illustrator, at least a good one. The term "Illustrator",
aside from being used as a job description (and many fine artists do this
job to supplement their incomes) is also used as a pejorative by those who
consider any recognizable content in a work of art a betrayal of the ideals
of Modernism. Actually, it's this attitude that is a bit anachronistic these
days, what with the resurgence of representation in PostModern fine art.]
> >
> > It is rare that an artist who paints large complex subjects doesn't
> > use assistants. This is true for Dali, Warhol etc. and goes far back
> > in art history. In fact a lazy like Andy Wortball had assistants
> > doing most everything.
> >
> Another trick of Mani's is to bring up something beside the
> point, like artists using studio assistants into the
> contemporary distinction between artist and illustrator.
> By today's definition Erik and Dan are right. They are
> looking at artists and illustrators of the past and present
> with today's definitions. Mani is bogged down
> with his
> usual anachronistic-Ingres-obsessessed-classical-definitions.
[It's true that this is a different issue, but many artists of today never
touch the works they are credited with. Dale Chihuly doesn't blow his own
glass, Jeff Koons doesn't sculpt his kitschy ceramics, and most artists
working large in steel confine themselves to making blueprints which are
sent to fabricators. The "touch of the artist" was a fetish of Modernism,
setting it apart from previous attitudes, which were more accepting of group
efforts and subcontracting. This appears to be another area where
PostModernism has reverted to earlier opinions. I don't think the division
between artist and illustrator is so rigidly adhered to as it would have
been 30 years ago, when the Modernists were in command. I'm sure many of Mr.
Koons' effusions would be condemned as rank illustration ("Kitsch" was their
other favorite curse-word) and some of the "outsider" art being so
enthusiastically heralded as the Next Big Thing is illustration by any
definition. ]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
>
> >Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
>
> Tired of Mani, stuck on his treadmill without a new
> idea for 20 years?
>
> Don't visit his website, he spews it all here.
mdeli
>By 'artzy fartzie' he means anyone with a BFA, MFA.
By artzy fartzy I mean the Modern Academic Art fundamentalist. Someone
like you who is stuck with antiquated Dada and the avant gone.
> Today's illustrator may be
>a technician and a graphic designer but there is a difference
>TODAY between the category "Illustrator" and the category
>"Visual Artist." As usual the MISS Haversham of art is being
>anachronistic.
Fine! So what's the difference?
>> It is rare that an artist who paints large complex subjects doesn't
>> use assistants. This is true for Dali, Warhol etc. and goes far back
>> in art history. In fact a lazy like Andy Wortball had assistants
>> doing most everything.
>>
>Another trick of Mani's is to bring up something beside the
>point, like artists using studio assistants into the
>contemporary distinction between artist and illustrator.
My statement says nothing about illustrators.
>By today's definition Erik and Dan are right. They are
>looking at artists and illustrators of the past and present
>with today's definitions.
Really? Fox claims he is an illustrator detector.
mdeli
<and...@computersculpture.com> wrote:
>[While one can be a graphic designer without being an artist, I'm not sure
>that's true of an illustrator, at least a good one.
Anyone who produces artwork can be called an artist. Its no big deal.
Whether something is art or not is an opinion. I don't think its worth
arguing about . It takes a twit like Strickland to go so far as to say
"Prove its not art."
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
Erik A. Mattila
> Another trick of Mani's is to bring up something beside the
> point, like artists using studio assistants into the
> contemporary distinction between artist and illustrator.
> By today's definition Erik and Dan are right. They are
> looking at artists and illustrators of the past and present
> with today's definitions. Mani is bogged down
> with his
> usual anachronistic-Ingres-obsessessed-classical-definitions.
But I really wouldn't want to submit a definition of "illustrator" at
all. I think it's a fool's errand. For example, anyone working in the
graphic arts field has no problem knowing exactly what an "illustrator"
is (since it's a job description). But "art" has never been anything
other that a vague, ambiguous term, subject to local and historical
influences. Schongauer, Durer, Wolgemut and so on are all artists who
you might find represented in museum collections, but who were also
illustrators. And, I think Mani is correct, it hasn't changed much
today, since at any given moment an adventursome director of an art
museum can make someone like Carl Barks an "artist" instead of
cartoonist. Rockwell Kent, Norman Rockwell, Aubrey Beardsley and so on,
illustrators who have been elevated to the stature of "artists" in more
modern time.
Erik
Roob
nerd...@aol.combounces (Nerd Gerl) wrote in message news:<20020727001502...@mb-mu.aol.com>...
Nerd Gerl
>how do you pronounce gustave? are you freaking dumb?
This... asked AFTER the question was answered. You remind me of one of those
zit covered meth-smokers waaaay in the BACK of detention.
Where is your website covered with bad tatoo art?
Don't post to me anymore. U R plonked.
==========
Naked Angel Art: http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
See In Person @ MatrixArts Space | Sacramento, CA
Erik A. Mattila
> Mani is not correct.
> He is using this debate to
> support his stale argument that Rockwell
> and Disney are great artists and not 'mere'
> illustrators.
Just for drill, I recommend that you read Edward Sapir's essay "Culture:
Genuine and Spurrious." It's very interesting, but to the point, he
uses the term "art" as an example of how we can understand the term
"culture." It's definition is fuzzy and ambiguous, but one thing we all
agree on, and that is that "art" is something we like. If we go to an
art gallery or museum and see work we don't like, we don't say "I don't
like art then!" We say "That isn't art."
> It's not even a question of
> elevation of one profession above the other.
> It's just a diffentiation between two entirely
> different categories. And the gulf has widened
> enormously in recent years with the added
> technology used by graphic designers and
> illustrators.
You're correct - it's not a question of elevating a profession. You're
incorrect, however, to think that "great artist" and "illustrator" are
discrete categories. Many "illustrators" are recognized by society as
artists. So it is not an exclusionary catagory at all. As we know,
many are both great artists AND illustrators. In fact, "great artist"
isn't a profession at all, is it?
> If you support Mani in this argument then
> you must be in agreement with him that Rockwell
> and Disney are the greatest artists of
> this century.
I don't accept the very narrow "if - then" choice you offer at all. The
fact of the matter is that I agree with Mani that the question is
foolish. The concept of the "greatest artists" is equally foolish. I
mean, how do you measure that? Rockwell and Disney are ok, and if
either ends up exhibited in a museum of art it's terrific, in my
opinion. But I don't think either is the greatest artist of this
century. Both, in fact, died in the last century. (yuck, yuck, yuck.)
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
>>Just for drill, I recommend that you read Edward Sapir's essay "Culture:
>>Genuine and Spurrious." It's very interesting, but to the point, he
>>uses the term "art" as an example of how we can understand the term
>>"culture." It's definition is fuzzy and ambiguous, but one thing we all
>>agree on, and that is that "art" is something we like. If we go to an
>>art gallery or museum and see work we don't like, we don't say "I don't
>>like art then!" We say "That isn't art."
> Thanks for the reading recommendation. May I recommend William H.Gass:
> "The Test of Time"
> It opens:
> "What does a work of art have to do to prepare to stand the Test of
> Time? Is it a written test, this test? And does it appear at a
> certain period in a work's life the way final exams do...?"
> He goes on to develop Gertrude Stein's meaning of 'masterpiece.'
No thanks. We're talking about how "art" comes to be in society - which
is the central issue in the question about "illustrators" vs. "artists."
> No wonder the definition of art is fuzzy and ambiguous. It's
> demonstrated right here. Anyone can come on and say "Have a look
> at my art" - art created in isolation.
Well, I suppose...but we use many terms that have no explicit meaning.
And even those with explicit meaning change over time.
> They may not have shown their work to anyone else, just said to
> themselves "I can do that!" or "Any five year old can do that" a
> nd voila! they are ready to show it to the world of the internet.
> I don't buy your definition of 'if I like it, then it is art.'
But that's not my definition at all. I'm just claiming that what is
called "art" at any given time is on a sliding scale (or no scale). I
can support the claim by citing art history. You might say that art
belongs to a society's belief systems.
> Although that 'elevation' might be a beginning. There is a lot of
> stuff which I don't like but which I respect as Art. On the other
> hand some of my favourite art(small 'a') is Mexican leaf paintings.
> Your claim stated elsewhere, that consensus can turn something
> into Art, and a small consensus in a gallery or museum would be
> enough. Gallery and museum curators worry about their reputations
> and they rely on wider consensus.
Well, yes...and curators such as MOMA's Rubin and Varnadoe developed
their reputations by innovative and controversial exhibits. Take the
famous "Primitivism and Modern Art" for example. All those African
masks were never considered to be "art" by the Africans, but only by
Trocadero curators in Paris.
>>>It's not even a question of
>>>elevation of one profession above the other.
>>>It's just a diffentiation between two entirely
>>>>enormously
> Artist and illustrator ARE discrete categories. 'All artists can
> also be illustrators, but not all illustrators are artists.'
Then what was Albrecht Dürer when he was illustrating a bible? Better
yet, Hans Schauffelien (since he only illustrated). Strangely, these
"illustrators" regularly end up in "History of Art" books. Abrey
Beardsley, for example.
> Many great artists of the past also did illustrations but that does not
> blur the distinction between the illustrator vs the artist in today's
> world (20th & 21st centuries). Try it on the next curator as you
> apply for a show.
Of course it blurs the distinction. Holbein would have his crew paint
twentyfive redundant portraits of Henry 8, because Henry wanted to give
them out to relatives for Xmas presents. All those of the 25 portraits
that have survived today would be important holdings of an art museum. A
Rockwell painting may be reproduced on the cover of "Post" 2 million
times, but the original has ended up in a museum or private collection,
as a work of art. Disney animation cells are collected as "works of
art." Disney himself is included in many Art History Tomes as a
"Surrealist" artist. Russian Museums such as the Heritage collect
Rockwell Kent avidly, as an artist. Even 15th century German Broadleaf
Prints (advertisements) by "anomynous" are collected by museums as
"works of art."
> With many people making a career of making art after training for
> that career, I call it a profession. What do you call it, 'a job?'
I wrote, in whimsy, that "great artist" was not a print. But yes, it is
a job. The U.S. Dept. of Labor even has a code for it - three, in fact:
Artist - painter
Artist - sculptor
Artist - printmaker
But you said yourself, above, why "profession" is problematical. Anyone
can hang out their "artist" shingle. There are no professional
guidlines, criteria, standards or requirements to being an artist.
Personally, I think that's the way it should be. It's probably the only
real manifestation of the mythical "free market" economy Republicans are
always slathering about.
>>>If you support Mani in this argument then
>>>you must be in agreement with him that Rockwell
>>>and Disney are the greatest artists of
>>>this century.
>>>
>>
>>I don't accept the very narrow "if - then" choice you offer at all. The
>>fact of the matter is that I agree with Mani that the question is
>>foolish. The concept of the "greatest artists" is equally foolish. I
>>mean, how do you measure that? Rockwell and Disney are ok, and if
>>either ends up exhibited in a museum of art it's terrific, in my
>>opinion. But I don't think either is the greatest artist of this
>>century. Both, in fact, died in the last century. (yuck, yuck, yuck.)
>>
>>Erik
>>
>
> When Rockwell & Disney are exhibited would the word 'illustrator' be
> used to define them?
I've never seen the word "illustrator" applied to Disney, but I get your
point, weak as it is. Yes, "illustrator" could be used. But so could
"artist." In fact, if you took 50 contextual definitions of "artist"
and applied them, a couple would not apply -- anal retentive
wish-definitions that are contingent on a narrow minded view of art.
>
> It's Mani's foolishness to claim two illustrators as the 'greatest
> artists' who span the centuries. (yuck, yuck). There is a basic flaw
> in his thinking. It's closed, it doesn't evolve or permit new ideas
> as the culture changes around him.
Yes, but such a claim is meaningless, or it least it only means that
that's the way Mani sees it. But honestly, the closure you see in
Mani's thinking I see in yours, when you hold to an explicit difference
between "illustrator" and "artist." I don't know if you've studied
language issues, but your definition of "illustrator" is primarily
exclusionary: "illustrator" = "not-artist." That's pretty simplistic,
but on the other hand I think holding on to that definition probably has
some emotional value to those who need it - compensation for self-doubt
or something like that. I'm just guessing.
> But do carry on, acting as if he were the Arthur Danto of the
> internet. How foolish would that be?
Well, Nik trounced me a while back for writing "insofar" in a response.
Is this something like that? Are you asking me to dumb-down for you?
Erik
mdeli
>I wrote, in whimsy, that "great artist" was not a print. But yes, it is
>a job. The U.S. Dept. of Labor even has a code for it - three, in fact:
>
>Artist - painter
>Artist - sculptor
>Artist - printmaker
Someone who produces artwork is called an artist. Its no big deal.
>> When Rockwell & Disney are exhibited would the word 'illustrator' be
>> used to define them?
Disney and Co. were animators. Animators, comic book artists and
people who do greeting cards etc. are artists. Art has categories.
>>
>> It's Mani's foolishness to claim two illustrators as the 'greatest
>> artists' who span the centuries. (yuck, yuck).
I never said anything like that.
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message news:<3D471638...@oco.net>...
>
>>Agathena wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Just for drill, I recommend that you read Edward Sapir's essay "Culture:
>>>>Genuine and Spurrious." It's very interesting, but to the point, he
>>>>uses the term "art" as an example of how we can understand the term
>>>>"culture." It's definition is fuzzy and ambiguous, but one thing we all
>>>>agree on, and that is that "art" is something we like. If we go to an
>>>>art gallery or museum and see work we don't like, we don't say "I don't
>>>>like art then!" We say "That isn't art."
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>Thanks for the reading recommendation. May I recommend William H.Gass:
>>>"The Test of Time"
>>>It opens:
>>>"What does a work of art have to do to prepare to stand the Test of
>>>Time? Is it a written test, this test? And does it appear at a
>>>certain period in a work's life the way final exams do...?"
>>>He goes on to develop Gertrude Stein's meaning of 'masterpiece.'
>>>
>>
>>No thanks. We're talking about how "art" comes to be in society - which
>>is the central issue in the question about "illustrators" vs. "artists."
>>
>>
> O, I thought we were talking about Art vs Illustration.
> So I thought that a definition of Art would be a
> beginning.
Nonsense, Agathena. The construction ("What does a work of art have to
do to prepare to stand the Test of Time?") subsumes an agreement on what
constitutes a work of art to begin with. We haven't got there yet.
>>>They may not have shown their work to anyone else, just said to
>>>themselves "I can do that!" or "Any five year old can do that" a
>>>nd voila! they are ready to show it to the world of the internet.
>>>I don't buy your definition of 'if I like it, then it is art.'
>>>
>>
>>But that's not my definition at all. I'm just claiming that what is
>>called "art" at any given time is on a sliding scale (or no scale). I
>>can support the claim by citing art history. You might say that art
>>belongs to a society's belief systems.
>>
>
> That would be along the same lines of William Gass's essay
> "Test of Time" which I believe he has developed into a book.
> But you don't want to go there.
No, I was responding to Gass' quotation that you provided. Asking and
speculating about the "test of time" is not a definition of art, and
certainly doesn't settle the "illustrator" question.
>>
> Varnadoe was just interviewed on Charlie Rose. He had a reputation
> BEFORE he was hired by MOMA. The Hi Low exhibition was the most
> controversial but he stands by the catalogue.
> By the way, what did the masks mean to the Africans:
> power, magic, shamanism? Art can have the same qualities.
Kewl, sorry I missed that. Varnadoe did well with HI/LO - but geez,
there's Phillip Guston, whose at the center of that exhibit catalog....I
guess I'm just puzzled why you would quote an exhibit that undermines
your distinction between artist and illustrator...that blurs the line
between high brow and low brow.
The African masks didn't mean those newage things to the Africans. They
are dance regalia. I would think that they were valued the same way
that papier maiche saints are valued in a village in Sardinia, or a
Mardi Gras costume. They were throw-away items in West Africa (wood
just doesn't last long there) until the export industry hit the area
along with the recognition of "African Art" as an art category, a
consequence of the civil rights movement, in fact (mid-late '60s.)
But the argument against MOMA was their claim of "elective affinity"
between modern and primitive art. MOMA's critics said it was bunk. I
think it is bunk. But Varnadoe defended MOMA - of course, he's paid to.
(I do have a lot of respect for him, btw.)
>>>>>It's not even a question of
>>>>>elevation of one profession above the other.
>>>>>It's just a diffentiation between two entirely
>>>>>
>>>>>>enormously
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>> Artist and illustrator ARE discrete categories. 'All artists can
>>>also be illustrators, but not all illustrators are artists.'
>>>
>>
>>Then what was Albrecht Dürer when he was illustrating a bible? Better
>>yet, Hans Schauffelien (since he only illustrated). Strangely, these
>>"illustrators" regularly end up in "History of Art" books. Abrey
>>Beardsley, for example.
>>
>
> Not strange. I'm thinking of the 21st century distinction
> between 'artist' and 'illustrator.' You are going back
> into art history where almost every artist also did
> illustration or did illustration alone. As you said above
> "what is called art" is a sliding scale. Or borrowing from
> William Gass, "drenched in the particularities of time and place
> and mood and purpose."
But there is no 21st century distinction. It hasn't changed (and this
is where I agree with Mani.) That's why I included Rockwell Kent and
Beardsley on my list. If you want more, I've seen Robert Crumb's work
in an art museum and I know that the University of California Collection
(of fine art) includes Crumb. A little research will turn up several
contemporary advertising designers, illustrators, technical illustrators
and so on that are regarded as fine artist.
Wow, I just remembered an old friend who has passed away, Richard Odin.
Any collector or museum would be very happy to have his work. He was
an incredible artist, and spent his carrer as an illustrator, and
teaching illustration at Cal State Long Beach. Check out his portrait
of Carlos Casteneda:
http://www.artandvision.com/castaneda/dick-oden.html
>
> You suggest that the definition of 'art' is fluid and yet you
> are pulling up a definition of 'illustration' from
> past centuries. Okay. A Durer woodblock print is a work of art
> and in no way compares with the illustrations of today.
>
I wasn't aware of offering a definition of "illustration." I'm just
citing references, and it goes back to the 15th century because that's
when book publishing became major and created a lucrative market for
artists...providing illustrations. But how can you say that Dürer's
work does not compare with illustrations of today. That's a really
absurd statement. The market conditions and the production conditions
are remarkably similar. A publisher solicits your work, which you
design, and technicians bring it to the press.
>>>Many great artists of the past also did illustrations but that does not
>>>blur the distinction between the illustrator vs the artist in today's
>>>world (20th & 21st centuries). Try it on the next curator as you
>>>apply for a show.
>>>
>>
>>Of course it blurs the distinction. Holbein would have his crew paint
>>twentyfive redundant portraits of Henry 8, because Henry wanted to give
>>them out to relatives for Xmas presents. All those of the 25 portraits
>>that have survived today would be important holdings of an art museum. A
>>Rockwell painting may be reproduced on the cover of "Post" 2 million
>>times, but the original has ended up in a museum or private collection,
>>as a work of art. Disney animation cells are collected as "works of
>>art." Disney himself is included in many Art History Tomes as a
>>"Surrealist" artist. Russian Museums such as the Heritage collect
>>Rockwell Kent avidly, as an artist. Even 15th century German Broadleaf
>>Prints (advertisements) by "anomynous" are collected by museums as
>>"works of art."
>>
>
> You sure do bounce around the centuries, Holbein to Disney to 15th
> century prints. Can you stick to the present? That's been my
> whole argument, that you are using an anachronistic definition
> of illustration when the work was hand rendered on wood blocks
> to defend your position that today's illustrators are artists.
Just a while back you were saying I was too atavistic. But the reason
you can't stick to the present is that art, like everything else we do,
has a history, and our attitudes and ideas about it have historical
roots. And the work wasn't "hand rendered on wood blocks." It was
drawn on paper, the design transferred to a wood block or metal plate,
and the negative areas were carved out by master craftsmen (sometimes
the artist him/herself). By Doré's time the master plates were
duplicated. (BTW, that's where the term "sterotype" comes from.)
>>>With many people making a career of making art after training for
>>>that career, I call it a profession. What do you call it, 'a job?'
>>>
>>
>>I wrote, in whimsy, that "great artist" was not a print. But yes, it is
>>a job. The U.S. Dept. of Labor even has a code for it - three, in fact:
>>
>>Artist - painter
>>Artist - sculptor
>>Artist - printmaker
>
> You rely on government bureaucrats to define whether art is
> a profession?
Well, I had to. I had to fight the California Department of Vocational
Rehabilitation tooth and nail to get them to sponsor me to study art
studio in the UC system. I am the only person who has ever done this.
I won my case because I was able to produce the Federal Labor Codes.
That made it problematical for them to tell me "The state does not
consider fine art a viable vocational goal" and at the same time qualify
for federal funding.
But I don't think art is a profession, but that's because I think of a
profession as something that has some discipline and sturcture to it.
You know, plumbers can call themselves "professional" with as much
credibility and artists. It's such a silly point.
>>But you said yourself, above, why "profession" is problematical. Anyone
>>can hang out their "artist" shingle. There are no professional
>>guidlines, criteria, standards or requirements to being an artist.
>>
>
> Try getting an exhibition without "professional guidelines,
> criteria, standards and requirements."
Which are???? It seems to me it's like paying more for "Super Heavy
Duty" Cherrios, or "Professional level" pipe-wrenches.
>>Personally, I think that's the way it should be.
>>
>
> Well, it's not that way in the real world.
Of course it is. Who's to stop anyone from declaring themselves and
artist and going for it. It's wonderful, I think. Very few will get
anywhere, but it's an incredibly "equal opportunity" er, "profession."
>>Yes, but such a claim is meaningless, or it least it only means that
>>that's the way Mani sees it. But honestly, the closure you see in
>>Mani's thinking I see in yours, when you hold to an explicit difference
>>between "illustrator" and "artist." I don't know if you've studied
>>language issues, but your definition of "illustrator" is primarily
>>exclusionary: "illustrator" = "not-artist." That's pretty simplistic,
>>but on the other hand I think holding on to that definition probably has
>>some emotional value to those who need it - compensation for self-doubt
>>or something like that. I'm just guessing.
>>
>
> I'm holding on to a distinction between the professions
> of illustrator and artist in the 21st century.
> Of course the can overlap. Your paragraph above reeks
> of condescension even to including hints of psychoanalysis.
Perhaps you would care to provide just one credible citation that
establishes the existence of this distinction you speak of. It's only
fair - I've given you several examples. You've just parroted this
claim, that the 21st Century, now all of a year and a half old, has
developed an ahistorical distinction between "artist" and "illustrator."
Please back that up.
I'm sorry to condescend, but you deserve it. What I mean is you can
only argue that you would like to have some distinction between "artist"
and "illustrator." Perhaps one is more valorous in your mind, I don't
know. I just can't imagine any reason for wanting such a superficial
distinction other that some form of ego-gratification. And that's not
"psychoanalysis," by the way.
>>>But do carry on, acting as if he were the Arthur Danto of the
>>>internet. How foolish would that be?
>>Well, Nik trounced me a while back for writing "insofar" in a response.
>> Is this something like that? Are you asking me to dumb-down for you?
>>
>>Erik
>>
>
> No thanks, you can't condescend any lower and
> you can't get any dumber than to agree with Mani.
I didn't think you did. I'm sorry you feel that way re: Mani. You must
be "blinded by the light." Mani has a lot of valid points, and anyone
knows. And he tends to go for artists who display their virtuosity and
skill openly, in an unsubtle way. So it's hard to say "Mani's favorites
aren't skillfull. And that's his position: skill=art. It doesn't work
for me, but that's my problem, not his.
Erik
Alison A Raimes
>But I don't think art is a profession, but that's because I think of a
>profession as something that has some discipline and sturcture to it.
>You know, plumbers can call themselves "professional" with as much
>credibility and artists. It's such a silly point.
Right! Art just makes itself - you don't have to go to a studio to do it; you
don't need to research and develop ideas; you don't need to go out and find
places to exhibit; you don't need to work your arse off to shuffle between jobs
and studies and studio - in fact you don't need to do anything. Art will just
make itself! Easy peasy. What a great life it is not to be part of a
profession.
Holy shit .... I really do need a drink now ;-)
Alison A Raimes
http://raimes.com
mdeli
> Mani has a lot of valid points, and anyone
>knows. And he tends to go for artists who display their virtuosity and
>skill openly, in an unsubtle way. So it's hard to say "Mani's favorites
>aren't skillfull. And that's his position: skill=art. It doesn't work
>for me, but that's my problem, not his.
>
Do you really think that the only reason I like Disney, Dali or
Rockwell etc. is solely because they exhibit expert skill?
My statement "no skill no art" bugs modern art fundamentalists because
they are so used to seeing no-skill Modern Academic Art that they
rarely look beyond skill when they see it in modern art. They have
been taught to ignore evidence of skill. If they are students or
professional academics they have little choice but to defend their
incompetence. Any show of skill is a frightening thing for them.
JSA
like drawing, composition, perspective, etc.
There are other skills, like conceptual rigour, editing, and knowing
how to avoid the pitfall of mannerism, which
is really a form of laziness.
One shouldn't fetishise the traditional skills at the expense of these
others.
jsa
http://cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au/~jabbate