What's the Difference between an artist and an illustrator?
Mike Beebe
Anyone know?
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
Mike Beebe <be...@scd.hp.com> wrote:
>
> Anyone know?
How much respect they get from their respective communities.
Or, how they market themselves.
Simple as that.
Avendale
The Illustraitor has a job? ;)
Shane Fisher
Abraxes on Furrymuck
FunkyMonkey on EMuck
"hoo-BOY! Now I get to punch his head to the MOON!!!" -the TICK
James Charles Rau
>
> Anyone know?
About ten dollars per hour? :-)
James
>
>
PeterCat
be...@scd.hp.com (Mike Beebe) wrote:
>[What's the Difference between an artist and an illustrator?] Anyone know?
A regular paycheck, usually... an illustrator draws what his or her client
or boss orders, usually to accompany an advertisement, book project, or some
other kind of commercial production. They become successful by producing the
required product, on deadline and within budget, with sufficient technical
skill, to satisfy their client or boss.
An artist draws what he or she feels like drawing, in an attempt to
communicate emotion. They become successful artistically when enough people
respect and admire that communication to satisfy themselves; they become
successful financially when enough people pay to receive that communication.
A particular person can be either or both, sometimes one, other times the
other. It's a rare artist who can live off his or her art, and even famous
artists take commissions from time to time.
--
The Furry InfoPage! http://www.tigerden.com/infopage/furry/
pete...@Furry.fan.org (PeterCat) Rhal on FurryMUCK (come cuddle!)
--
Watch "Babylon 5" weeknights at 6pm (ET) on TNT!
khr...@my-dejanews.com
pete...@furry.fan.org (PeterCat) wrote:
> Recently in alt.fan.furry,
> be...@scd.hp.com (Mike Beebe) wrote:
> >[What's the Difference between an artist and an illustrator?] Anyone know?
>
> A regular paycheck, usually... an illustrator draws what his or her client
> or boss orders, usually to accompany an advertisement, book project, or some
> other kind of commercial production. They become successful by producing the
> required product, on deadline and within budget, with sufficient technical
> skill, to satisfy their client or boss.
Actually, one is a subset of the other:
Artist: one who creates art.
Illustrator: One who creates 2D images, usually in a highly graphic style, to
'illustrate' a point, be it single images that have stories attached or a
series as part of a written work. Generally used to mean artists whose
primary media are pen-and-ink. Taken as a separate context from 'artist' to
denote someone with some technical experience on graphic representational art
and the commerical graphics industry.
I can be an illustrator and _still_ not make a living at it, but by
describing myself as such I am limiting the 'field' of art that I
predominantly work in... illustrators aren't expected to carve statuary or
paint in oils, you see. :3
ermine
email to khromat at in orbit dot com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Elf Sternberg
>> Anyone know?
Wow, what a populist definition, Bev and/or Steve. The real
definition, actually, is based upon two things: skill with the craft,
and expression with the craft. As Scott McCloud pointed out in his
utterly brilliant "Understanding Comics" (a book I highly recommend
to anyone who reads comics or designs websites!), there are six
"stages" involved in any artistic undertaking. The first three are
surface, craft and form. Anyone stuck in one of these stages is an
illustrator (or, for writers, a hack). A surface artist can draw
like other people, but hasn't mastered his own particular artisitic
talents; people in the stage of craft have practiced hard to get at
the underlying nature of their illustrations and make them feel more
real, even when they illustrate fantasy. Form is the stage in an
artist's developement where composition, sequence, thematic
presentation, and irony can be depicted subtly and yet powerfully; it
brings together the "surface" of pens and pencils and the "craft" of
anatomy, perspective, and so on, so that the artist can start to say
something.
The other half, the "artist" half, consists of idiom, form,
and purpose. Idiom is the unique touch of the artist; in the course
of drawing, he or she begins to develop a unique style, a unique way
of doing things, a new way of drawing the "same old thing." People
who start going down the artistic path face three possibilities: peer
respect and succes is one, hostility and rejection is another, and a
reversion to doing "what the audience wants" is the third. But
that's the risk when you start to do something personal with your
talents.
Finally, there's the last two stages. These aren't both
necessary by themselves; artists usually pick on or the other, but
rarely both. These are the biggest questions the artist faces: Does
he want to say something about life through his art, or does he want
to say something about art itself? Or,
Does he have anything to say at all?
Form is where the artist decides to explore the limits of his
art, often going to great and experimental limits to see if he can
say more, have more impact, with the idioms and the craft skills than
he has in the past. These are people who make significant
contributions to the vocabulary of an art form, often with great
controversy and contention.
Purpose (or Idea) is where the artist takes everything she
has and says something about life itself, something powerful and
fundamental.
This is why Shakespeare is so revered; the language in his
plays isn't what people spoke, it's something he had internally that
he was able to express on paper; the stories he wrote were more
powerful than any of the other trite stuff coming out of playwrights
in his age. In both form and purpose, Shakespeare was an innovator
and a talent. The same is true of all the Masters; DaVinci,
Rembrandt, and even Dali (1) were utter masters of the insides of
their crafts, (2) created a new way of looking at art with their
innovations, and (3) communicated profoundly powerful ideas through
their art.
This is why I don't consider myself a "great" writer; I
haven't created anything new in the way of language itself and I
haven't said anything in my stories that hasn't been said before
elsewhere. I'm at best stuck between form and idiom, learning my own
internal dialogue and settling in with it. With writers things are
sometimes different, though; because I am not dissatisfied with
English as it stands my journey through idiom may be unnoticable to
all but the most observant.
Especially in the erotic writing I do, we get people who have
surface-- they can describe sex-- but haven't the least clue about
grammar, spelling, or sentence structure; then there are those who
can write with those, but there's no pacing, no plot, no underlying
themes however trite. And finally, there are those who have those
skills, but borrowed them from somewhere else, without creating
anything of their own. It's not until I start to read new an
interesting idiomitic writing that I sit up. This is why Stephen
King is a great writer; he has everything, including a _Purpose_,
even if that's "just" to scare the wits out of you, and he has
created a great idiom, that workaday language he uses so well to drag
you into his stories and hold you down to the very last.
This is why, though, Furrydom has few (I might even argue
"no") artists. For examples, three "comic" artists I admire are A.A.
Milne (Winnie the Pooh), Art Spiegleman (Maus), and Dave Sim
(Cerebus). (I know, Milne is more of a writer than an artist, but
his watercolors for the original editions show a compassionate talent
no Disney illustrator is going to approach.) These are people who
_had something important to say_ (note that in my inclusion of Milne,
I want to illustrate (heh) that not all "things that are important to
say" are necessarily angry or rebellious) and had the dedication and
talent to say it. In the case of Sim, we could even watch the
evolution of the artist from Cerebus #1 on up. This is why Richard
Adams (Watership Down) is revered but nobody gives half a damn who
writes the Animorphs series. This is why Ralph Bakshi is a household
name but I couldn't name one person who worked on The Lion King.
Damn, I seem to have gone overboard in my response, and I bet
there won't be a single response to it. Most of the newsgroup is so
embroiled in the Furry Deathmatch thread that deep, intellectual
thinking about art is going to get lost in the shuffle.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystical cynical idealist
e...@halcyon.com: A Decade of Usenet: On-line since August 18, 1988
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss has looked into me.
Neither liked what we saw.
--- Brother Theodore
ilr
> surface, craft and form.
> and purpose.
a bunch of words because they don't describe what they mean.
I think you shoulda said more. Like more about the people
you mentioned, I still don't have a clue where I stand. And I'm
not just going put myself into the category I choose to be in (like,
you know... those other furry people we can't talk about).
Where do I stand? I'm about 5 days away from going recluse
and never doing another pinup again, at which point I'll spend a
year on a big project with an underlying theme that backbites
all the things that the fandom holds sacred in hopes of massive
rejection so I can be bitter and a troll on AFF about how the "Furry"
is so inbred and other good junk along those lines.
> and I bet
> there won't be a single response to it. Most of the newsgroup is so
> embroiled in the Furry Deathmatch thread that deep, intellectual
> thinking about art is going to get lost in the shuffle.
>
Give that man a Cookie!
Okay, Here's one, Elf and the Gang of Steve V.S.
Ali Babba and the 40 thieves.
-ilr the ill-(ustrator/artist?)
Lemu...@hotmail.com
khr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <6v1o6q$p...@cyber3.servtech.com>,
> pete...@furry.fan.org (PeterCat) wrote:
> > Recently in alt.fan.furry,
> > be...@scd.hp.com (Mike Beebe) wrote:
> > >[What's the Difference between an artist and an illustrator?] Anyone know?
> >
> > A regular paycheck, usually... an illustrator draws what his or her client
> > or boss orders, usually to accompany an advertisement, book project, or some
> > other kind of commercial production. They become successful by producing the
> > required product, on deadline and within budget, with sufficient technical
> > skill, to satisfy their client or boss.
>
> Actually, one is a subset of the other:
Yup {;
> Artist: one who creates art.
>
> Illustrator: One who creates 2D images, usually in a highly graphic style, to
> 'illustrate' a point, be it single images that have stories attached or a
> series as part of a written work. Generally used to mean artists whose
> primary media are pen-and-ink. Taken as a separate context from 'artist' to
> denote someone with some technical experience on graphic representational art
> and the commerical graphics industry.
??!!?? *Wow*, that's quite a generalization. Good thing Norman Rockwell's
dead, or he'd be pissed. {;
Actually the difference between an artist & illustrator depends essentially
on who you ask. Some people say that anyone who creates representational
images (as opposed to nonrepresentational, or abstract artwork) is an
illustrator, since they are *illustrating* a story, premise, or idea. A more
practical definition contrasts illustrators, who create images for clients,
with fine artists, who display & sell their work through galleries (though
there is often overlap).
> I can be an illustrator and _still_ not make a living at it, but by
> describing myself as such I am limiting the 'field' of art that I
> predominantly work in...
It's not what you *call* yourself that determines what you *are*, it's what
you *do*. I don't think being an illustrator precludes you from being any
other type of artist simultaneously. While specialization looks good in your
portfolio, it doesn't have to be a way of life...so long as you market the
appropriate work to the appropriate client, what you pursue on your downtime
is irrelevant. I can call myself an anthro artist, but it doesn't prevent me
from *also* being an editorial & childrens' book illustrator (& fine artist,
if I ever had the time) {;
> illustrators aren't expected to carve statuary or
> paint in oils, you see. :3
They aren't? {; Lots of illustrators work in oil...Bernie Fuchs comes to
mind, the aforementioned Rockwell, Lane Smith I think, & C.F. Payne uses it
combined with other media including colored pencil & gouache. Simple pen &
ink graphics are suitable for cartoons & small editorial pieces, but
childrens' books, CD covers, magazine covers, book covers, movie posters,
medical diagrams, greeting cards, etc. etc. usually call for richer media.
Actually there are illustrators who make a living doing 3-dimenstional
illustration, using such materials as cut paper, textiles (including
soft-scuplture or needlework), metals, clays, etc., sometimes to make a
bas-reief sort of piece, or to do something like an Absolut vodka sorta
project.
> ermine
> email to khromat at in orbit dot com
--Ezuli, yet another illustrator
see th' anthro stuff at http://members.xoom.com/Ezuli/index.html
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
>In article <bevnsagF...@netcom.com>
> bev...@netcom.com (Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci) writes:
>
>>In article <6v07q9$r9d$1...@hpscit.sc.hp.com>,
>>Mike Beebe <be...@scd.hp.com> wrote:
>
>>> Anyone know?
>
>>How much respect they get from their respective communities.
>>Or, how they market themselves.
>>Simple as that.
>
> Wow, what a populist definition, Bev and/or Steve. The real
>definition, actually, is based upon two things: skill with the craft,
>and expression with the craft. As Scott McCloud pointed out in his
>utterly brilliant "Understanding Comics" (a book I highly recommend
>to anyone who reads comics or designs websites!), there are six
>"stages" involved in any artistic undertaking. The first three are
snipped - but good points - except that i've got little use for
"artistic" sophistries in rationalizing what is "art".
I'd say that "good" art is all in how well it communicates, rather than
in the alteriour motives of the artist (or illustrator, or craftsman, or
whatever title gets imposed on the creator).
I've seen what I feel is the finest of art, but know that it was done for
often the venalist of motives having nothing to do with "great artistic
ideals" and visual dreck churned out in the most sincere expression of
the loftiest of intentions espoused by all these over-romantisied
artsy-pousers.
Damit, if you look at a peice and "don't get it", then the peice has
failed as art.
But if it grabs your soul, it succeeds, wheather or not is was done by a
trained monkey, art whore, or mere craftsman. That's art.
"illustration" is simply a sub-set of art intended to supplement an idea,
but it can be jsut as valid a peice of art in its own right.
grrrr. I hate all thsi "defining art" crap. All too often it turns into
some BS rationalization of all those "dark childern" artist pousre
wannabes.
Just do the work well and leave all the definitions to the clowns.
Don Sanders
Please carry on with the discussion, your results will determine the future
of Art as a Hobby to me.
Don Sanders
Dsan Tsan on #furry of Yiffnet
Artist at Roll Yer Own Graphics
http://www.dreamscape.com/dsand101/dsan.htm
(my furry page) Email dsan...@future.dreamscape.com
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Damn, I seem to have gone overboard in my response, and I
> bet there won't be a single response to it. Most of the newsgroup is
> so embroiled in the Furry Deathmatch thread that deep,
> intellectual thinking about art is going to get lost in the shuffle.
Oh, sure, TAKE the side of the bet with better odds. :-)
First of all, I second what you have to say about Understanding Comics. I'll
add that it ought to be read by anyone who wants to READ comics and understand
them at anything more than a superficial level. It's also a much easier read
than Will Eisner's book.
On a counterpoint, sometimes things that are worth saying ARE angry. This is
why I can appreciate Blumrich and Ashworth. The mistake some people make when
criticizing them is that they treat what these two have to say as if it's
meant to be a total, complete substitution for the reader's belief system,
rather than an alternate viewpoint useful for reflecting on one's own views.
And Elf, gimmie a call sometime. We ought to get together more often.
--
"I don't believe in Guns."
"I Do! I've actually seen one!"
"Yeah, I hear that the Government has secret warehouses where they keep them."
--
"Yeah, I've got ADD, you wanna make something of.... oooh, cool. Look!"
--
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Elf Sternberg
> I think you shoulda said more. Like more about the people
>you mentioned, I still don't have a clue where I stand.
Ah, I see. You want to "be" something, rather than "do"
something. You want to "be" an artist, rather than create art.
There is a difference. Steve Gallaci "does" art (the art styles in
the early Erma Felna work was uniquely his and continues to be so--
and he's telling a great story, even if it seems to be wandering
these days) whereas Eric Blumerich "is" an artist-- pretentious,
whiny, and far more inclined to complain about how people don't
understand what he's done in the past than proceed to doing anything
new in the future.
I suggest you call yourself an artist-- and work towards
being recognized for your art. If you expect to eat by the products
of your hands, however, there are a few other things to expect-- one,
you will do a *lot* of illustrations, work for hire, and stuff with a
mass market appeal.
Elf Sternberg
>I've seen what I feel is the finest of art, but know that it was done for
>often the venalist of motives having nothing to do with "great artistic
>ideals" and visual dreck churned out in the most sincere expression of
>the loftiest of intentions espoused by all these over-romantisied
>artsy-pousers.
Heh. Reminds me of Phil Foglio's comments about Kaja's
education at Art School. "They taught her how to paint cement blocks
orange, stack them in a pyramid, call it art, and apply for a
grant." It wasn't until Kaja started working with Phil that she
actually learned that one can't be an artist until one learns the
craft of illustration, the process of learning anatomy, perspective,
the skills of color and line.
>Damit, if you look at a peice and "don't get it", then the peice has
>failed as art.
Not necessarily. It may have failed you as art, or perhaps
even worse, you may have failed it as a viewer. If I open a book
written in Japanese and can't read it, is the book a failure?
>grrrr. I hate all thsi "defining art" crap. All too often it turns into
>some BS rationalization of all those "dark childern" artist pousre
>wannabes.
YODAs. Young, Opinionated, Directionless, Artistes. Yeah, I
agree that there's a lot of dreck out there pretending to be "artsy,"
but as the twentieth century comes to a close there is a certain lack
of new ideas in art, and it's become difficult to say things with oil
and watercolor, and actually get peoples' attentions. Sadly, we may
be waiting a while for a rediscovery of naturalistic art.
But I tend to disagree with the notion that it's all BS. I
can go to a museum of "fine art" and find certain paintings funny, or
sad, or depressing. Classical music is a good example of how this
works-- there's no lyrics, the music rarely "says" anything, but to
the experienced ear it does say something. Music can contain menace,
or hope, or memory, or love, without using a single word of the
English language; it has a vocabulary all its own. The same is true
of any artistic endeavour, and those who put ink to paper, whether to
draw or write have to expect that they may only be able to share
their visions with those who speak the same language.
When we talk about Furry, we can talk about how the "stuff
that sells" reaches out and grabs its mostly male audience by the
hormones, satisfies for the ten minutes of mental masturbation the
picture supplies, and then is forgotten forever. (This is why I love
Foglio-- despite his apparently trite subject, erotica, his stuff
*stays with his audience* and continues to amuse-- and arouse-- long
after the book has been put away. This is why Monty Python continues
to be important-- the material is so fundamentally different from
anything else before it that it actually creates its own subtext).
Take Ken Sample-- although his work is generally illustrative, there
are only a few pictures he's drawn that I can recall off the top of
my head, and none of them feature naked people.
A book does not "reach out and grab you." Sometimes a
painting won't reach out and grab you, and sometimes it takes a
little more than a first glance at nekkid foxes for the viewer to
understand, appreciate, and perhaps even laugh-- or cringe-- at what
he's seeing.
Take, for example, Degas. In 1873, he drew "La Classe De
Danse" (the Dancing Class), an illustration of girls practicing
ballet. At first, it looks like a lively, gentle picture of girls
learning to dance. Hardly the kind of thing that one would expect
out of a master painter-- except that Degas drew in the impressionist
style, and was one of the first to master the style well. That is,
until one looks closely, and realizes that the only person in the
picture who has a face is the male dance teacher, and that the one
girl in the foreground sitting on the piano is scratching her back
with the same kind of pose one normally sees in a rat. And then you
start to wonder if Degas liked the women he was painting. In fact,
you can learn from his writings that Degas primordially hated young
girls and hated drawing them, but that's what sold. In fact, he even
referred to them as "vermin" and "rats" in his writings. And he said
so in his art. And then you start to see that in many of his other
works.
That's what I mean when I try to reach the difference between
illustration and art. The illustrator draws a picture of girls
dancing; the artist has something to say, and whether or not that
"something" is pretty or ugly, it's something deeper than the surface
of ink and paper. This is why I have even less truck for "le
artistes" than I do for the illustrators; the second, at least, have
their hearts in the right places, and are on the right track.
ilr
> >failed as art.
>
> Not necessarily. It may have failed you as art, or perhaps
> even worse, you may have failed it as a viewer. If I open a book
> written in Japanese and can't read it, is the book a failure?
>
or you fail as a listener.
>
>
> That's what I mean when I try to reach the difference between
> illustration and art. The illustrator draws a picture of girls
> dancing; the artist has something to say, and whether or not that
> "something" is pretty or ugly, it's something deeper than the surface
> of ink and paper. This is why I have even less truck for "le
> artistes" than I do for the illustrators; the second, at least, have
> their hearts in the right places, and are on the right track.
>
And I don't like how the 'Artiste' image is so synonymous with
confrontile or dark stuff and the whole "suffering artist" crap
that goes with it. Is it just because that's an exotic fantasy
to most?
_I could see how meeting beautiful vixens wearing smiles just
for the nerdy viewers sake might be something exotic that
the furry fan is depraved of in RL. Speaking of depraved,
I've had mostly dark thoughts since a young age but I am
very intrigued by the happy faces and effervescent personalities
in this fandom. Maybe some of this droll sappy happy art is
just as emotionally charged as other "finer" arts but just not
taken as seriously because "furry" doesn't take the other
artsy stuff as seriously?
I take a smile very seriously whenever I draw one.
-ilr the Artist(because Elf says so)
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> Damit, if you look at a peice and "don't get it", then the peice
> has failed as art.
> a trained monkey, art whore, or mere craftsman. That's art.
> "illustration" is simply a sub-set of art intended to supplement an
Right On!
I once took a course on Art theory, and the various movements and theories of
communication. I got into a number of arguments with the teacher when we got
to some of the modern types whose ideas were to take ordinary objects and do
nothing more to them than place them on a stand and call them art. I mean, I
understand that the artist's idea was to make us look at ordinary objects in a
different way, but still, it's monkey art. You're right. If you have to
explain it, then it fails as art. If the artist doesn't have a message of his
own, and it's merely a vehicle to get us to come up with our own answer or
meaning, then he has merely asked a question, and doesn't care about the
answer. BFD.
> grrrr. I hate all thsi "defining art" crap. All too often it turns
> into some BS rationalization of all those "dark childern" artist
> pousre wannabes.
They just don't have a lot to say, artisticly.
WRT Illustrators, ever see an exhibition of "Industrial Art". There used to
be a time when machines were overbuilt enough that onne could integrate
artistic elements in the design. Maybe there isn't a message in the way the
web of a wheel is cast, but one can at least apply aesthetic principles to it.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> YODAs. Young, Opinionated, Directionless, Artistes. Yeah,
> I agree that there's a lot of dreck out there pretending to be
> "artsy," but as the twentieth century comes to a close there is a
> certain lack of new ideas in art, and it's become difficult to say
> things with oil and watercolor, and actually get peoples'
> attentions. Sadly, we may be waiting a while for a rediscovery
> of naturalistic art.
Camille Paglia in her latest online column had something to say about how film
seems to be replacing all other forms of art, and how there really hasn't been
anything significant in the art world in the last 30 years. She has a
particular passion for Dali.
http://www.salonmagazine.com/col/pagl/1998/09/29pagl.html
> Take Ken Sample-- although his work is
> generally illustrative, there are only a few pictures he's drawn that
> I can recall off the top of my head, and none of them feature naked
> people.
Agreed on Foglio. There's an interesting bit in the back of the latest
Xxxenophile where he talks about the attitudes of other erotic (and I use the
term loosey) comic books and why his book has so many female fans.
And the same for Ken. The picture of his I love and remember the most is a
very old one, with two Silkies at a videogame. The one watching is so caught
up in the game he's holding his friend's tail like a joystick. Alas, I
haven't seen too much, memorable or not, from Ken lately.
>Degas
Interesting point.
Betty
> Ah, I see. You want to "be" something, rather than "do"
> something. You want to "be" an artist, rather than create art.
> There is a difference. Steve Gallaci "does" art (the art styles in
> the early Erma Felna work was uniquely his and continues to be so--
> and he's telling a great story, even if it seems to be wandering
Your opinion only. There are many people who have always thought that
Albedo was boring, static and nearly devoid of artistic merit. Great
story? Hardly!
> these days) whereas Eric Blumerich "is" an artist-- pretentious,
> whiny, and far more inclined to complain about how people don't
> understand what he's done in the past than proceed to doing anything
> new in the future.
Gee, I guess I must have imagined all the artwork, comics, and illustration
that Blumrich has done. At least Blumrich (background in fine art) knows
HOW to draw and render, as opposed to Gallaci (background in commercial
art) who has always sorta faked his way through.
Blumrich is an artist because he -IS- an artist.
Gallaci might have started out with good intentions, but now he is just
hacking a buck outta the fandom (note Steve's yearly "nude" paintings of
Erma Felna for auction in the CF art show). He's not even the King of
Pandar any more -- Terrie won THAT title last year with her "Chester
Ringtail sucking himself off" colored -laser-print-! :P
Doodles
WA Resident) wrote:
>WRT Illustrators, ever see an exhibition of "Industrial Art". There used to
>be a time when machines were overbuilt enough that onne could integrate
>artistic elements in the design. Maybe there isn't a message in the way the
>web of a wheel is cast, but one can at least apply aesthetic principles to it.
It's not a lost talent, either. Look at the iMac as an example. The
shape is very pleasing to my eye, as opposed to the bulky boxes that
most computers are. The color scheme leaves a lot to be desired, but
in terms of overall look, I think it's a fine development.
Hmmmm... Industrial strength furries. New from Ronco!
Unca Spooge, also developing the Popeil Pocket Vixen.
Farlo
>Blumrich (background in fine art) knows
>HOW to draw and render
I have seen samples of Eric's work in the American Journal of
Anthropomorphics. He does draw pretty well.
-------------------
Farlo m>*_*<m
Urban Fey Dragon
-------------------
*Never* send e-mail to these addresses:
postmaster@localhost
postmaster@[127.0.0.1]
abuse@localhost
abuse@[127.0.0.1]
Fhaolan
WA Resident) wrote:
>different way, but still, it's monkey art. You're right. If you have to
>explain it, then it fails as art. If the artist doesn't have a message of his
>own, and it's merely a vehicle to get us to come up with our own answer or
>meaning, then he has merely asked a question, and doesn't care about the
>answer. BFD.
Fhaolan cocks his head to one side, contemplating, "Aye. Bu' 'art that
poses a question' is still valid as art, IMHO. It jus' gets a wee bit
tedious, if tha's all it is, every time, all tha time."
"An' yer righ', if ye have tae explain it, it fails at art, in tha
same way as jokes fail when they're explained."
>They just don't have a lot to say, artisticly.
*grin* "Actually, I had this odd though' abou' puttin' *them* up on
tha pedistal, an' callin' *them* art. Then it occured tae me tha'
tha's probably tha' whole poin' o' tha movemen'. So, they did
comunicate somethin'. It's a stupid, trite somethin', bu' hey! Ye
gotta star' somewhere." ;)
>WRT Illustrators, ever see an exhibition of "Industrial Art". There used to
>be a time when machines were overbuilt enough that onne could integrate
>artistic elements in the design. Maybe there isn't a message in the way the
>web of a wheel is cast, but one can at least apply aesthetic principles to it.
"I actually find Industrial Art facinatin', and wish it were applied
far more often than it is currently. Clean design is all nice an'
fine, bu' decoration cuts tha' bleakness down."
-Fhaolan, Celtic Wuf!
Locandez
I don't know, what _is_ the difference between an artist and an illustrator?
*silence*
Oh...
--
-- Blank Furvey: http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/lyndale/furvey.txt
--
-- NOTE: The email address that I am posting from is fake.
-- My true email address is: lyndale [at] argonet.co.uk
"Inflation's hit a two year high, the rise of 3% is blamed on three elephants, a hippo, a leopard and a giraffe and Cyprus."
tamar_...@my-dejanews.com
Well, If you listen to my art professor, which I try not to as often as
possible, an artist is one trained and produces more formal art stuff and art
TRUE, artist. An illustrator is one who produces works for a purpose,
functional art, and is not really art because the artist's
personal..uh..emotions (for lack of a better term) isn't in the work cause a
illustrator makes things for others rather than for themselves.
But what do those old school guys know. They think all modern art is good,
with a capital ALL.
--
Ebony Leopard
M. Mitchell Marmel
On Sat, 3 Oct 1998, Fhaolan wrote:
> "I actually find Industrial Art facinatin', and wish it were applied
> far more often than it is currently. Clean design is all nice an'
> fine, bu' decoration cuts tha' bleakness down."
Which is one reason why, were I insanely rich, all my Mercedes-Benzes
would be from the 1950-1970 era instead of modern examples...
-MMM-
'66 230S "Hapsburg Horror"
'82 Nissan 200SX "Thunderbolt Greaseslapper"
WdHek: "Zum Teufel, es lauft!"
MBCA Delaware Valley Section
Daphne Lage
>
> I don't know, what _is_ the difference between an artist and an
illustrator?
One has almonds and the other doesn't.
Yanno... sometimes you feel like a nut... sometimes you don't! ;)
*big goofy grin*
--Daphne Lage
****************************************************************
The EgoWorks - Free catalog available -
http://www.intercall.com/~egoraven/
****************************************************************
TALL TAILS - The Official Homepage
http://www.intercall.com/~egoraven/ttmain.htm
****************************************************************
The Secret of N.I.M.H. Justin and Jenner Shrine
http://www.intercall.com/~egoraven/nimh.htm
****************************************************************
"The only thing you can change is yourself,
but sometimes that changes everything." - Anonymous
****************************************************************
maza...@my-dejanews.com
The connotation is that illustrators are drawing other people's imaginings /
ideas while artists work only from their own wellsprings.
--
-- M. Naschatya
UsagiOni
I don't reallly think there is a difference, honestly. I mean, an artist is
someone who is practiced in one or more of the 'arts', and drawing is an 'art',
and an illustrator draws, ergo, an illustrator IS an artist.
Betty
<glt...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't know, what _is_ the difference between an artist and an illustrator?
An artist is simply someone who creates art. Now, there are different
levels of "artists," going from "self-taught artists" (amateur artists,
folk artists, hobby artists, fan artists) all the way up to artists who
receive specialized training for their craft or have worked to hone their
art skills (illustrators, commercial artists, industrial, graphics, and
advertising artists). Last, but not least, you have "fine artists"
(artists whose work is done for personal reasons or commerical reason but
which also receives critical acclaim). Many artists from the lower arts
-can- often move into the ranks of the fine artists.
An illustrator creates images that illustrate a story. Illustrators were
often called commerial artists, since they did work-for-hire or were
specifically employed to illustrate a story, book, or article.
Artists who are talented and malleable enough can move back and forth
between the spheres of "fine art" and "commerical art/illustration":
Norman Rockwell, N.C. Wyeth, Howard Pyle, Rockwell Kent, Thomas Hart
Benton, and even Pable Picasso. Why, Michelangelo was an
illustrator/commercial artist of a sort; the Sistine Chapel was done on
commission and illustrated stories from the Bible.
Some folk artists (like Grandma Moses or Thornton Dial) can be considered
"fine artists." Some self-taught artists (such as Basquiat and Henry
Darger) can also (though being dead helped those two a lot) can also move
into the "fine arts" sphere. There are many other exampled that can be
listed.
If you've done any sort of reading about the popular and fine arts, you
will see that as the decades have passed, the lines between the "High" and
"Low" arts become more and more blurred.
BTW, none of the artists listed about are "furry artists" -- if you want to
learn more about them, do a web search or visit your local library.
Don Sanders
>In article <36142d56...@news.primenet.com>,
> jcr...@primenet.com (James Charles Rau) wrote:
>>
>> James
>> >
>> >
My Gwad! as hard as I might to ignore this thread, I just can't resist!! I'm
going to hate myself for this. (if I don't already now!)
>
>Well, If you listen to my art professor, which I try not to as often as
>possible, an artist is one trained and produces more formal art stuff and art
>TRUE, artist. An illustrator is one who produces works for a purpose,
>functional art, and is not really art because the artist's
>personal..uh..emotions (for lack of a better term) isn't in the work cause a
>illustrator makes things for others rather than for themselves.
>
Hmm, I guess by your defination, those of us amateurs who do art should not
even call ourselves artists! Some of us are either trained nor produces more
formal art. We used to do it as a hobby, but as these discussions on the
subject get more and more intense, I can seem myself wondering why bother even
learning art when more blocks are placed in your path. So I guess I am no
longer a artist, would it meet you all's aproval if we now start calling
ourselves Doodlers, scrawlers, or Crayon people??
>But what do those old school guys know. They think all modern art is good,
>with a capital ALL.
>
These days, it takes it even takes a college degree just to use the toilet.
Don Sanders
I been trying to say that for years, but did anyone listen? No.
M. Mitchell Marmel
On Sat, 3 Oct 1998, Daphne Lage wrote:
> One has almonds and the other doesn't.
>
> Yanno... sometimes you feel like a nut... sometimes you don't! ;)
No, no, NO.
The difference is:
Who ever heard of Adobe Artist?
Charles Groark
M. Mitchell Marmel wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Oct 1998, Daphne Lage wrote:
>
> > One has almonds and the other doesn't.
> >
> > Yanno... sometimes you feel like a nut... sometimes you don't! ;)
>
> No, no, NO.
>
> The difference is:
>
> Who ever heard of Adobe Artist?
*I* have. He's an artist who makes bas relief from dried mud bricks...
(grin)
Charlie
Dr. Cat
person that's using those two words. If you sit quietly and listen to them for
a while, you can usually tell by how they use the words whether or not they're
a snob, and if they are just where exactly the rank on the snob-o-meter. :X)
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Dr. Cat is a snob, but unlike the usual high-culture type refined
snob, he accomplishes it through an obsession with trivia related to bananas,
and by hating people who incorrectly use "orientated" instead of the
correct word "oriented". (Man that is irksome! "Orientated" isn't even a real
word! What is WRONG with some people?) ...See, there he goes again.)
Dr. Skorzy MacFarlaighn
Bricks without straw!?! It cannot be done!! So let it be written, so let
it be done... :)
-Skorzy
--
J. Scott Rogers ** sko...@cyberzone.net **
UMASS Medical Center ** jeff....@ummed.edu**
Program in Molecular Medicine >> Dr. Skorzy MacFarlaighn <<
Worcester, Massachusetts | Anthrocon '99 Artshow Rat |
-- | Artshow Assistant Director |
"Truth, like surgery, hurts, but heals... "
"The Biorg Universe" Anthropomorphic Fiction w/ J.L.Eddy
http://members.limitless.org/~waltzer/tftbu.html
Wanderer
>> >Damit, if you look at a peice and "don't get it", then the peice has
>> >failed as art.
>>
>> Not necessarily. It may have failed you as art, or perhaps
>> even worse, you may have failed it as a viewer. If I open a book
>> written in Japanese and can't read it, is the book a failure?
>>
>or you fail as a listener.
Well, *that* was pointless ...
In any event, it is impossible to fail as a viewer. It is, however,
possible to not be the correct viewer for the piece. In the example above,
the book is obviously aimed at those individuals who read the Japanese
writing in which the book is printed, whether Kanji or Romanji. If you do
not know how to read Japanese, then you are not a member of the target
audience.
See, ilr? It *can* be said in other ways ... :>
>>
>>
>> That's what I mean when I try to reach the difference between
>> illustration and art. The illustrator draws a picture of girls
>> dancing; the artist has something to say, and whether or not that
>> "something" is pretty or ugly, it's something deeper than the surface
>> of ink and paper. This is why I have even less truck for "le
>> artistes" than I do for the illustrators; the second, at least, have
>> their hearts in the right places, and are on the right track.
>>
>I think that's why "furry art sucks" is heard so much.
>And I don't like how the 'Artiste' image is so synonymous with
>confrontile or dark stuff and the whole "suffering artist" crap
>that goes with it. Is it just because that's an exotic fantasy
>to most?
Well, if you want to get technical, "artiste" is reserved for those
individuals one typically sees at gallery openings or signing their latest
book of art criticism. Red Skelton, as an example, was an *artist*. He
painted pictures of clowns, and he painted them well. He was never an
*artiste*, but always an *artist*.
>_I could see how meeting beautiful vixens wearing smiles just
>for the nerdy viewers sake might be something exotic that
>the furry fan is depraved of in RL. Speaking of depraved,
>I've had mostly dark thoughts since a young age but I am
>very intrigued by the happy faces and effervescent personalities
>in this fandom. Maybe some of this droll sappy happy art is
>just as emotionally charged as other "finer" arts but just not
>taken as seriously because "furry" doesn't take the other
>artsy stuff as seriously?
<shrug> A possibility to consider. The thing is, most "happy-sappy" art,
as you put it, has no deeper communication than "look at me". Not a telling
statement, and so such things are typically forgotten. A busty vixen with
bedroom eyes, on the other paw, has a sexual undertone. Not a "great" or
"literary" undertone, no, and terribly easy to overuse for its sheer drawing
power. But an undertone nonetheless.
Now, some artists go for something unusual, the "something weird is going on
here" picture that stays with you, but doesn't really involve the viewer
(one instance that comes to mind was in the Palladium RPG in the Psionics
section ... a demon, with with a mask on a stick, is advancing on a baby
with a lollipop in one hand ... and a Magnum .44 in the other. Weird, but
no real message.
Then you come to the ones that have a "life" of their own. These are the
ones I'm fond of, not only because they require a versatile artist, but
because they *involve* you. A picture of a knight in shining armor is nice,
but there isn't much to it. If he's fighting a hideous, slavering monster,
it has action. And if the reason the knight is fighting this thing is
because he happens to be backed into a corner, you have drama.
Now ... have the knight be holding a glowing piece of jewelery in his off
hand.
You've just added a plot. Is the knight defending the item? Stealing it?
Taking it for someone else who needs it? Is the creature evil, and wanting
to steal the item from the knight? Or is there another reason ... ?
(As you might guess, I love Everway cards ... ;)
But give me a fully realized environment any day ... and plot if possible.:)
(Of course, it helps if you put wolves of some sort in there ... ;)
Yours truly,
The wolfish,
Wanderer**wand...@applink.net
Where am I going?I don't quite know.
What does it matter where people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow.
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I*don't know!
Dan Pankratz
> and by hating people who incorrectly use "orientated" instead of the
> correct word "oriented". (Man that is irksome! "Orientated" isn't even a real
> word! What is WRONG with some people?) ...See, there he goes again.)
You too?! :D My ex g.f. used to use that word... I thought it was hilarious
but I din't have the heart to tell her it wasn't real.
-Dan
--
"like hypnotizing chickens."
-Iggy Pop
Dr. Cat
I can understand why she's your ex. I'd break up with anyone who used
"orientated" as if it was a real word too. Can't blame you. :X)
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Bananas that are oriented north-south on the table taste just the
same as bananas that are oriented east-west. Even in oriental countries.)
UsagiOni
>: > and by hating people who incorrectly use "orientated" instead of the
>: > correct word "oriented". (Man that is irksome! "Orientated" isn't even a
>real
>: > word! What is WRONG with some people?) ...See, there he goes again.)
Hey, what do you call Chinese french fries?
Orient-Taters
:-)
how...@hotmail.com
> illustrator?
>
> One has almonds and the other doesn't.
>
> Yanno... sometimes you feel like a nut... sometimes you don't! ;)
>
>
> --Daphne Lage
AAAH! BA Rum Bum.
--
Ebony Leopard
thegango...@hotmail.com
Elf Sternberg wrote:
> That's what I mean when I try to reach the difference between
> illustration and art. The illustrator draws a picture of girls
> dancing; the artist has something to say, and whether or not that
> "something" is pretty or ugly, it's something deeper than the surface
> of ink and paper. This is why I have even less truck for "le
> artistes" than I do for the illustrators; the second, at least, have
> their hearts in the right places, and are on the right track.
>
> Elf
>
> Translation:
Well here I am again using pseudo-intellectual phrases like "le artistes" and
other assorted foo-foo. As usual I'm just trying to impress everyone with my
pedantic intellect. In actuality I am just a goofball who has low self esteem
and I'm trying to impress you all so I won't have to suck my thumb any longer.
Elf
This translation of "Elf-Speak" is brought to you by the letter G and the Gang
of Steves
Chuck Melville
<6v64q8$hbq$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...
> Locandez wrote in message ...
> >
> > I don't know, what _is_ the difference between an artist and an
> illustrator?
>
>
> One has almonds and the other doesn't.
>
> Yanno... sometimes you feel like a nut... sometimes you don't! ;)
>
> *big goofy grin*
>
And -that- settles the question.
GOOD NIGHT, EVERYBODY!!
--
-Chuck Melville-
"We'd like to buy a cat. Preferably one with a history of mental illness."
Matt Harpold
>>>But what do those old school guys know. They think all modern art is
good,
>>>with a capital ALL.
>>>
>>
>>These days, it takes it even takes a college degree just to use the
toilet.
You know, these sweeping generalizations about 'all' modern art are getting
awfully annoying. There's more to modern art than abstract expressionism.
Educate yourselves.
-Matt "Tubrine Div"
Zoo.topia: fine art and illustration portfolio
http://zipcon.net/mharpold/zootopia
khr...@my-dejanews.com
noo...@myemail.com (Don Sanders) wrote:
> In article <19981003182333...@ng07.aol.com>, usag...@aol.com
(UsagiOni) wrote:
> >
> >I don't reallly think there is a difference, honestly. I mean, an artist is
> >someone who is practiced in one or more of the 'arts', and drawing is an
'art',
> >and an illustrator draws, ergo, an illustrator IS an artist.
>
> I been trying to say that for years, but did anyone listen? No.
I've been saying that for years, too.... are you listening to me? :3
ermine
==================================
home email: KhromatAtInOrbitDotCom
khr...@my-dejanews.com
noo...@myemail.com (Don Sanders) wrote:
> Sorry all, due to the nature of the discussion, I will not be partaking in it.
> Please carry on with the discussion, your results will determine the future
> of Art as a Hobby to me.
Hey, Don... why will a discussion among a few artists, writers, and general
nosey folk on one little newsgroup determine _your_ future of Art as a Hobby?
Are you Having Fun with it? Do you crave the need to express yourself through
art? Then IGNORE this thread and continue to do art! Nobody is saying that
if you don't have a purpose of making your art "mean something" than you
shouldn't try and find some other hobby (Okay, maybe the more pessimistic
types might, but that's not the majority). If you draw to make _you_ happy,
THAT is the purpose!
Now, on the other hand, if you don't like to do art but you think it's an
easy way to make money and be famous, get out quick! I _never_ recommend the
artistic path as a career unless you truely desire to use what you _already
do_ as a means of getting a little recognition by way of monetary
compensation. Even then I caution folks, as the artistic fields are _tough_
industries, tough on egos, tough on burning out folks, tough on getting
recognition. Ask any of the pros here... I asked Kelly Freas myself, once,
when I was thinking about taking a serious step on making my art into my
business. That's why I've got a dayjob.
I draw because I _have_ to... I've been drawing steadily since I was 3. If it
wasn't for the fact that some friends started sharing copies of my art and
encouraged me to do prints and such, I'd still be drawing --just not for
public consumption. I even had a swing at being a pro (okay, computer
animator, but it's still artistic) and learned that while I enjoyed the
process, I quickly burned out doing art for myself when the pressure at work
became high... I might someday go back to it, now that I have a better idea
how to pace myself, but my personal-art-time is still a high priority for me.
If I don't draw _something_ after a few days, I get really stressed out
internally. Better that I've got a career doing something _else_ and keep my
art as a sideline business and hobby.
So, get off your tail and decide for _yourself_ if your art is worth it...
don't depend on others to decide for you if you're worth it. Only you know
for sure.
khr...@my-dejanews.com
> >
> > I don't know, what _is_ the difference between an artist and an
> illustrator?
>
> One has almonds and the other doesn't.
>
> Yanno... sometimes you feel like a nut... sometimes you don't! ;)
>
> *big goofy grin*
Okay, I'm confused....which one has the nuts?
Me, I'm a cashew... I refuse to work for peanuts. :3
ermine
--
khr...@my-dejanews.com
ark...@istar.ca wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Oct 1998 00:01:37 -0700, mau...@gte.net (Richard Chandler -
> WA Resident) wrote:
> >WRT Illustrators, ever see an exhibition of "Industrial Art". There used to
> >be a time when machines were overbuilt enough that onne could integrate
> >artistic elements in the design. Maybe there isn't a message in the way the
> >web of a wheel is cast, but one can at least apply aesthetic principles to
it.
>
> "I actually find Industrial Art facinatin', and wish it were applied
> far more often than it is currently. Clean design is all nice an'
> fine, bu' decoration cuts tha' bleakness down."
Actually, there's also the aethetically pleasing but clean-lined industrial
style... I find it quite elegent, combining elements of practicality and
functionality without it looking dismally pedestrian.
ermine
khr...@my-dejanews.com
Lemu...@hotmail.com wrote:
> khr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Artist: one who creates art.
> > Illustrator: One who creates 2D images, usually in a highly graphic style,
to
> > 'illustrate' a point, be it single images that have stories attached or a
> > series as part of a written work. Generally used to mean artists whose
> > primary media are pen-and-ink. Taken as a separate context from 'artist' to
> > denote someone with some technical experience on graphic representational
art
> > and the commerical graphics industry.
>
> ??!!?? *Wow*, that's quite a generalization. Good thing Norman Rockwell's
> dead, or he'd be pissed. {;
(clipping of further commentary regarding media used by illustrators...)
Let me AMEND myself....
When _I_ think of oils, I think of Grumbacher... when _I_ think of
sculpturesl, I think of Matisse and Michaelangelo...
An Illustrator is ILLUSTRATING, by whatever media they prefer, a point.
Is that a better definition for you? :3
> Actually the difference between an artist & illustrator depends essentially
> on who you ask. Some people say that anyone who creates representational
> images (as opposed to nonrepresentational, or abstract artwork) is an
> illustrator, since they are *illustrating* a story, premise, or idea. A more
> practical definition contrasts illustrators, who create images for clients,
> with fine artists, who display & sell their work through galleries (though
> there is often overlap).
But even that's not a good definition, since most of the commercial job
descriptions I've seen call for "Graphic Artists" not "Illustrators".
Using the definition of representational art is a good start... I just
_happen_ to have the unfortunate notion (given to me by a lot of book
reading) that Illustrator as a term was defined by technique of purpose, and
heavily used to mean someone who illustrates written works which are often
done as black-and-white images. Often does _not_ mean always, though, and I
apologize if that is what you construed from my phrase "often in
pen-and-ink".
khr...@my-dejanews.com
noo...@myemail.com (Don Sanders) wrote:
> tamar_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > jcr...@primenet.com (James Charles Rau) wrote:
> >> be...@scd.hp.com (Mike Beebe) wrote:
> >> > Anyone know?
> >>
> >> About ten dollars per hour? :-)
> >>
> >> James
> My Gwad! as hard as I might to ignore this thread, I just can't resist!! I'm
> going to hate myself for this. (if I don't already now!)
(obligatory mantra) I will not be psychologist, I will _not_ be
psychologist...
> >Well, If you listen to my art professor, which I try not to as often as
> >possible, an artist is one trained and produces more formal art stuff and art
> >TRUE, artist. An illustrator is one who produces works for a purpose,
> >functional art, and is not really art because the artist's
> >personal..uh..emotions (for lack of a better term) isn't in the work cause a
> >illustrator makes things for others rather than for themselves.
> Hmm, I guess by your defination, those of us amateurs who do art should not
> even call ourselves artists! Some of us are either trained nor produces more
Err, Don, if you read Tamar's email you would note that it was not HIS
opinion, but the opinion of a stuck-in-a-rut art professor.
> formal art. We used to do it as a hobby, but as these discussions on the
> subject get more and more intense, I can seem myself wondering why bother even
> learning art when more blocks are placed in your path. So I guess I am no
> longer a artist, would it meet you all's aproval if we now start calling
> ourselves Doodlers, scrawlers, or Crayon people??
Boy, you appear to be so ready to read the negative that you're ignoring all
the positives! Tamar happens to be an excellent illustrator (in my opinion)
by the definition I learned in _my_ schooling (reading a lot of books,
mostly... more than one teacher is best to form your own opinion!), which is
that Illustration is a TECHNIQUE, not a attitude or class of artist.
> >But what do those old school guys know. They think all modern art is good,
> >with a capital ALL.
> These days, it takes it even takes a college degree just to use the toilet.
Then I must not be house-trained. :p
I learned how to draw by _drawing_.... I learned techniques of perspective
and layout from looking at other's art and from reading. I do not have a
college degree in anything, and I make my living in the Computer Industry as
a QA analyst. Please, please, pick your esteem off the floor, give it some
TLC, and stop reading this newsgroup if you have to... but don't give up on
something you enjoy because you believe others' opinions of what you do is
negative.
*sigh*
khr...@my-dejanews.com
noo...@myemail.com (Don Sanders) wrote:
> In article <19981003182333...@ng07.aol.com>, usag...@aol.com
(UsagiOni) wrote:
> >
> >I don't reallly think there is a difference, honestly. I mean, an artist is
> >someone who is practiced in one or more of the 'arts', and drawing is an
'art',
> >and an illustrator draws, ergo, an illustrator IS an artist.
>
> I been trying to say that for years, but did anyone listen? No.
I've been saying that for years, too.... are you listening to me? :3
==================================
TALIN1
> Anyone know?
>
>
Um, my sister..whose an illustrator gave her veiw point to me......
We are the whores of the art world. We get paid for what we do
best, and if it is not done to satisfaction, we have to do it over, and over
again. Generaly we are often looked down upon by the "fine art communty".
Thats because, we place technique over dribble.
Um, shesh....my lil' sis shocked me there........
Talin :)
Elf Sternberg
doo...@cheezies.primenet.com (Doodles) writes:
>>WRT Illustrators, ever see an exhibition of "Industrial Art". There used to
>>be a time when machines were overbuilt enough that onne could integrate
>>artistic elements in the design. Maybe there isn't a message in the way the
>>web of a wheel is cast, but one can at least apply aesthetic principles to it.
>It's not a lost talent, either. Look at the iMac as an example. The
>shape is very pleasing to my eye, as opposed to the bulky boxes that
>most computers are. The color scheme leaves a lot to be desired, but
>in terms of overall look, I think it's a fine development.
I'm not sure the iMac is an example of Industrial Art; it's
more a paragon of modern Industrial Design. Although it's pleasing to
the eye, I'm also willing to bet that it and a hundred other designs
went through a dozen "focus groups" before Apple settled on the one
they liked best. Creativity takes a backseat to groupthink these
days, sadly; there are no "personal touches" in the design of the
iMac.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystical cynical idealist
e...@halcyon.com: A Decade of Usenet: On-line since August 18, 1988
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss has looked into me.
Neither liked what we saw.
--- Brother Theodore
ELynne
> I'm not sure the iMac is an example of Industrial Art; it's
> more a paragon of modern Industrial Design. Although it's pleasing to
> the eye, I'm also willing to bet that it and a hundred other designs
> went through a dozen "focus groups" before Apple settled on the one
> they liked best. Creativity takes a backseat to groupthink these
> days, sadly; there are no "personal touches" in the design of the
> iMac.
> Elf
Which brings up an interesting (to me) thought... I read William Gibson's
latest (?) book, _Idoru_, and was fascinated by the idea of
custom-designed computer cases as artwork. In the story, the computer
cases are for portables--they seemed to equate to very light laptops, or
large handhelds, possibly. The main character had one that had been
inlaid with turquoise and silver by a couple who lived on a Navajo
reservation, and sold their pieces for thousands of dollars. On the one
hand, I'm very inspired by this idea--I would love to get a bucket of
Crazy Glue and a horde of things (buttons, beads, bits of glass, etc) and
transform a computer from a plastic box into something that might
reasonably be called "art" from a certain perspective. I've seen people
who have painted, rather inexpertly, on their computers. Unfortunately, I
don't own a computer myself, and nobody will let me play with theirs. :\
I've been thinking about buying a defunct computer, or even just the case,
for $10 and working with that. Any thoughts, anybody? Am I crazy? Was
that rhetorical? :) OBFurry--are any of you artists, self-styled like
myself or recognized by others, compulsively creative? I've known for
years that I can't leave something the hell alone without wanting to at
least draw all over it with a Sharpie...
-- Erin, Easily Amused
"Look, a bug!"
----------------------
"Public media should not contain explicit or implied descriptions of
sex acts. Our society should be purged of the perverts who provide the
media with pornographic material while pretending it has some redeeming
social value under the public's 'right to know'."
-- Kenneth Starr, 1987, _Sixty Minutes_ interview with Diane Sawyer
http://www.snopes.com/spoons/noose/starr.htm
thegango...@hotmail.com
Elf Sternberg wrote:
> I'm not sure the iMac is an example of Industrial Art; it's
> more a paragon of modern Industrial Design. Although it's pleasing to
> the eye, I'm also willing to bet that it and a hundred other designs
> went through a dozen "focus groups" before Apple settled on the one
> they liked best. Creativity takes a backseat to groupthink these
> days, sadly; there are no "personal touches" in the design of the
> iMac.
>
> Elf
>
> -
Translation:
Hey all, how about the neat phrase "paragon of Modern Industrial Design"? Or how
about groupthink? Gosh I'm so brilliant. I use these phrases so all you insects
know you have met your intellectual master. Grovel at my feet swine!
Elf
This translation of "Elf-Speak" isd brought to you by the letter D and the Gang of
Steves
Peter da Silva
Betty <bet...@NOSPAMforME.net> wrote:
>Your opinion only. There are many people who have always thought that
>Albedo was boring, static and nearly devoid of artistic merit. Great
>story? Hardly!
Great story? I don't know. It's about the only "folks in space" comic book
I can think off that actually qualifies as science fiction rather than
space opera (at best) or superhero sludge (at worst). His technology is
credible, his characters respond like people, and he wrote a complete
multiple-issue story arc that developed consistently from the initial
ILR attack to the climax with the simultaneous ILR attack and scrambling
of the net.
There aren't that many great stories in comics, and almost none in the
science fiction subgenre... but if Albedo isn't a great story it's at least
a damn good one.
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
> We must make sure our momentum aligns with our value-added distribution! <
Peter da Silva
Most artists are illustrators at some point in their careers. The ones
who aren't are either hobbyists, grant recipients, or independantly
wealthy. Artist is something you are. Illustrator is something you do.
Allen Kitchen
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci wrote:
> >In article <bettie-ya02408000...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> >Betty <bet...@NOSPAMforME.net> wrote:
> >>Your opinion only. There are many people who have always thought that
> >>Albedo was boring, static and nearly devoid of artistic merit. Great
> >>story? Hardly!
Blink!
> I don't mind the critisim, the work could be better/different, but it
> still is head-and-shoulders better than the bulk of the product out
> there, and I've never made any pretense about the what why and how I was
> doing any of it.
> The poster also seems a humorless SOB, as the "King of Pandar" is JUST A
> JOKE, a bit of self-depricating humor that some of us kick around.
Goodness. I don't gush on any artist, but SG is one of the best.
And Albedo is one of the few sciFi stories that has actual science
in it. No "beaming" down to the surface or thought transference
devices. They are only a century ahead of our world in technology.
Think of space travel in Albedo as being akin to Longships at the
turn of our own century; uncomfortable, limited, and non-routine
in use.
The story covers a number of facets. 1) technology affects the
society that uses (or turns its back on) it. Any technological change
brings societal change as well. 2) problems are perceived as such
by people, and are solved by people. 3) artificial intelligence does
not automatically mean infallibily; it is a fatal error to consider
any machine to be perfect and foolproof. 4) Any society will
have dissidents and terrorists in them; it is inevitable, even in a
police state.
On top of that, it's a good story. Sometimes the action is
hard to follow, but I catch on soon enough.
There are plenty of "empire in space" stories around. But there
are few that show the empire's internal operations. There will
always be some form of society, and all the good and ill that brings,
even in the future.
Incidently, did you know that StarTrek was not sold to Paramount
as "an optimistic Science Fiction series with thoughtful stories about
the human condition" but rather as a "Wagon Train to the Stars?"
Roddenberry had pitched his idea repeatedly, but didn't get any
interest until he connected it with a popular series of the day.
Interestingly enough, although almost everyone has heard of Star
Trek, few have heard of Wagon Train. Sometimes it is a requirement
to be a royal of PANDAR to succeed in this biz. If I were to try
to sell Far From Home, I'd probably have to pitch it as "Friends
in Space."
Allen Kitchen (shockwave, glad he isn't going pro... yet )
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>In article <bettie-ya02408000...@enews.newsguy.com>,
>Betty <bet...@NOSPAMforME.net> wrote:
>>Your opinion only. There are many people who have always thought that
>>Albedo was boring, static and nearly devoid of artistic merit. Great
>>story? Hardly!
>
>I can think off that actually qualifies as science fiction rather than
>space opera (at best) or superhero sludge (at worst). His technology is
>credible, his characters respond like people, and he wrote a complete
>multiple-issue story arc that developed consistently from the initial
>ILR attack to the climax with the simultaneous ILR attack and scrambling
>of the net.
>
>There aren't that many great stories in comics, and almost none in the
>science fiction subgenre... but if Albedo isn't a great story it's at least
>a damn good one.
The critisism was a good example of being "factual" but malicious in how
it was presented.
On a superficial level, the comments were "true", but the overall effort
was a hateful attack on me and by extension anyone who thought well of my
work.
I don't mind the critisim, the work could be better/different, but it
still is head-and-shoulders better than the bulk of the product out
there, and I've never made any pretense about the what why and how I was
doing any of it.
The poster also seems a humorless SOB, as the "King of Pandar" is JUST A
JOKE, a bit of self-depricating humor that some of us kick around.
The poster's more general critisims with the fandom(see the next round in
the atack on Terri Smith) are also grounded on legitimate concerns,
though I'd suggest that the talent pool has, if anything, expanded, (with
the exception of writers, of which there are woefully too few of any
merit) but the obvious market forces has largely driven efforts to
mediocrity and pandering. But what is a content provider to do? pay the
bills or waste time on efforts unrewarded.
UsagiOni
Holy Czu! Il Capo Gallacci actually POSTS on this thing?!
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
Am i missing something? yeah, I've been around for some years now, got on
initally as a CYA agaisnt some dis-information. mostly jsut lurk, as the
oft lamented flamings don't ususally hold any interest. (the "trn"
function is so handy)
Elf Sternberg
>I don't mind the critisim, the work could be better/different, but
>it still is head-and-shoulders better than the bulk of the product
>out there, and I've never made any pretense about the what why and
>how I was doing any of it.
Maybe you should. C'mon, Steve, compared to most of the "space
battles" described in comic books, your stuff made sense. Kinetic kill
vehicles, gravitational accelleration, you know your physics. I
suspect you probably borrowed most of it from SDI stuff, but you had a
knack for making it real. Your stuff would have been great if only
for that. But no, you had good characters, good story, and an art
style that I'd never seen before-- Albedo is *cool*. Take the
compliments as they come!
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
Allen Kitchen <all...@blkbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci wrote:
>
>> >In article <bettie-ya02408000...@enews.newsguy.com>,
>> >Betty <bet...@NOSPAMforME.net> wrote:
>> >>Your opinion only. There are many people who have always thought that
>> >>Albedo was boring, static and nearly devoid of artistic merit. Great
>> >>story? Hardly!
>
>
>> I don't mind the critisim, the work could be better/different, but it
>> still is head-and-shoulders better than the bulk of the product out
>> there, and I've never made any pretense about the what why and how I was
>> doing any of it.
>> JOKE, a bit of self-depricating humor that some of us kick around.
>
>And Albedo is one of the few sciFi stories that has actual science
>in it. No "beaming" down to the surface or thought transference
>devices. They are only a century ahead of our world in technology.
>Think of space travel in Albedo as being akin to Longships at the
>turn of our own century; uncomfortable, limited, and non-routine
>in use.
Careful - least you be branded as one of those uncultured sops who have
been suckered by the granddaddy of the rat-bastard furry art hacks.
As I mentioned, the inital post, though couched as a critisim, was
primarily a personal attack. I actually don't mind honset criticism, and
the book and my other efforts are not above any number of complaints, and
the post did touch on them.
However, the poster really doesn't like me and my work (and I have to
admit, its the hate, not the critisim, that I find disconcerting) and any
defense is a wasted effort.
thanks anyway, and remember, don't get too close, or my cooties might rub
off on you.
sag
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
>In article <bevnsagF...@netcom.com>
> bev...@netcom.com (Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci) writes:
>
>>it still is head-and-shoulders better than the bulk of the product
>>out there, and I've never made any pretense about the what why and
>>how I was doing any of it.
>
>battles" described in comic books, your stuff made sense. Kinetic kill
>vehicles, gravitational accelleration, you know your physics. I
>suspect you probably borrowed most of it from SDI stuff, but you had a
>knack for making it real. Your stuff would have been great if only
>for that. But no, you had good characters, good story, and an art
>style that I'd never seen before-- Albedo is *cool*. Take the
>compliments as they come!
You forget I'm an old fart, and some of the work-ups predate SDI, but
don't predate some classic SF and Newtonian physics.
I feel secure in what, how, and why i do what i do. The inital post was
likely more a personal attack, or at least a highly prejudiced critisim
of both my work and the state of the genre.
Cassie Foxx
Allen Kitchen wrote in message <361AE0FF...@blkbox.com>...
>
>Goodness. I don't gush on any artist, but SG is one of the best.
>And Albedo is one of the few sciFi stories that has actual science
>in it. No "beaming" down to the surface or thought transference
>devices. They are only a century ahead of our world in technology.
>Think of space travel in Albedo as being akin to Longships at the
>turn of our own century; uncomfortable, limited, and non-routine
>in use.
>
>society that uses (or turns its back on) it. Any technological change
>brings societal change as well. 2) problems are perceived as such
>by people, and are solved by people. 3) artificial intelligence does
>not automatically mean infallibily; it is a fatal error to consider
>any machine to be perfect and foolproof. 4) Any society will
>have dissidents and terrorists in them; it is inevitable, even in a
>police state.
>
>On top of that, it's a good story. Sometimes the action is
>hard to follow, but I catch on soon enough.
>
>Allen Kitchen (shockwave, glad he isn't going pro... yet )
>
>
>
I agree. Whatever the artwork (Although I do agree that it's very good
artwork), The storyline is very different to any other put forward. ALBEDO
is serious science fiction, with a very good plot, wrapped around a central
character, wno is not bold, dashing, or perfect. Erma is a completely
believable character within the confines of the society in which she exists.
The technology, as well, is also believable. Most of what Steve has put into
ALBEDO is possible to build today (such as the Aeros and the ships). The
only thing we really lack is the Fusion power source that the craft are
powered by. Of course the Jump Drive is beyond us ATM, but how far away are
we really? The Aero's could be built today, if we had a compact and
powerful enough engine.
ALBEDO is a very well-thought-out story, if you read it closely enough. True
enough, there are some things that do need attention, such as the sometimes
changeable spelling of some major elements, like Arras Charka (or is that
Arras Chaka? There are a few different spellings as the story progresses).
But the quality of Steve's art has really only improved in line and form as
the issues kept coming. The experiment with color was wonderful to look at,
and all the Furries that I know who collect it liked the color issues. Pity
they couldn't continue, for whatever reason.........
Anyway, To Steve:
I know you come here and occasionally post here. All I want to say is, that
my friends and I want you to keep on doing ALBEDO. It's one of the comics
that are worth reserving, and with a story that is interesting from more
than one angle. Keep up the good work, Steve. You ARE appreciated.
Cassie Foxx
Avid Furry comic collector
Email me at skunk...@one.net.au
Peter da Silva
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci <bev...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Am i missing something? yeah, I've been around for some years now, got on
>initally as a CYA agaisnt some dis-information. mostly jsut lurk, as the
>oft lamented flamings don't ususally hold any interest. (the "trn"
>function is so handy)
TRN is my all time favorite newsreader. You can make entire flame wars
vanish with a flick of the wrist, never to return. It's made alt.fan.furry
a smaller but happier place for me...
Peter da Silva
>And Albedo is one of the few sciFi stories that has actual science
>in it.
At least in the "graphic novel" world, at any rate.
His other stories have the same level of deliberate realism (Birthright,
for example), and not only does the technology and society hang together,
but it looks real. I wish he could churn 'em out faster, but not everyone
can be Asimov <grin>.
M S
Syke
An illustrator has work.An artist is poor.
Wow, that's rather pointed and .. well, judging by my amateur pockets,
I'm rather low on cash. :)
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Syke | Tiffany Soto
BeastWars Megatron on any given fanfic character who shows
up out of nowhere and tries to take over the Predacons as leader:
Megatron stares at the newcomer and states sarcastically, "A wise
tyrant always needs someone to be over him, ... so he can be used
as a shield, yesssss."
http://www.FurNation.com/Syke/ *I actually DID update*
Anthromorphics - Fiction and Artwork
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/siren/2/home.html
TFs - Fanfiction and Artwork
G++++ FR++ FW++* M #20 D++ AA+ N+++ W++ B+++ OQ++ MUSH++ BC+ CN++++ OM- P
401
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
thegango...@hotmail.com
Elf Sternberg wrote:
> Maybe you should. C'mon, Steve, compared to most of the "space
> battles" described in comic books, your stuff made sense. Kinetic kill
> vehicles, gravitational accelleration, you know your physics. I
> suspect you probably borrowed most of it from SDI stuff, but you had a
> knack for making it real. Your stuff would have been great if only
> for that. But no, you had good characters, good story, and an art
> style that I'd never seen before-- Albedo is *cool*. Take the
> compliments as they come!
>
> Elf
>
Translation:
Your work is really teriffic Steve but I can't stand it when someone does
well as I love to watch people fail. Therefore I'll give you a
semi-compliment. Actually I really hate the fact that you are more
successful and talented than I am.
Elf
This translation of "Elf-Speak" is brought to you by the letter Q and the
Gang of Steves
bdy...@network.boxmail.com
>Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci <bev...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Am i missing something? yeah, I've been around for some years now, got on
>>initally as a CYA agaisnt some dis-information. mostly jsut lurk, as the
>>oft lamented flamings don't ususally hold any interest. (the "trn"
>>function is so handy)
>
>TRN is my all time favorite newsreader. You can make entire flame wars
>vanish with a flick of the wrist, never to return. It's made alt.fan.furry
>a smaller but happier place for me...
Ah, another trn user. Someday I may explore the scoring options in
version 4, but I'm not sure they'd be of much help in this group, given
how threads drift and the loose relationship between subjects and
contents. However, it is great for making flamewars go away (/name/fK:Tj
is good too).
--
Brian Dysart | Ours is not to reason why...
bdy...@rahul.net | "...and eight for the fruit bat."
www.rahul.net/bdysart/ | <*> Code Code block: C---
Susan Rankin
Speaking as one with a degree in illustration, that's pretty much on target!
I feel so DIRTY! ...But in a good kinda way.... *grin*
SusanDeer