illustration
Andrew D
Fox) wrote:
[snip]
+Examples:
+
+Rockwell makes a painting specifically to be reproduced as a magazine
+cover. It's an illustration.
+Rockwell makes a painting to be sold as an original. It's an illustration.
+Dali makes a lithographic work for reproduction as an edition of 100. It's
+a work of art.
+Dali makes a painting intended solely for reproduction as a magazine cover.
+It's a work of art.
I get it now, it's all in the spelling of the signature!
R-O-C-K-W-E-L-L = Illustration
D-A-L-I = Art.
[snip]
+The point: whether something is art or illustration has nothing to do with
+who makes it, its quality
Measured against whose standards?
[snip]
+It depends on what you do. If you create an illustration, yes, it can never
+be art. If you create a work of art for the commission, then it is art -
+forever.
Nothing like being dogmatic eh Dan? My dictionary dismisses you narrow
view of art in the first three definitions.
[snip]
+An illustration must have the literal imitation of reality as its primary
+goal and must not contain any self-referential elements.
Who says? Are you saying that an illustration cannot include any
free-thought or interpretation on the part of the artist? So, if a
magazine asks me to produce an desert painting to illustrate a feature on
travel in Australia's outback and I produce whatever I think would suit
their story, that is art because they weren't specific??? Is that what
you're saying?
+ An illustration
+depends on this imitiative quality for its value. If you are illustrating a
+shoe catalog, or a family-life scene for a magazine, what you produce had
+better look exactly like the real thing.
Rockwell's works did not look real so therefore, despite what you said
earlier, they can't be illustration. However, many abstract works look
almost exactly the same as pre-school scribble so perhaps these are mere
illustrations and not art.
+A work of art, on the other hand, is self referential: the forms that
+appear in it, whether they be figurative or abstract, need not resemble
+their conterparts in the outside world, if indeed they have any. They exist
+only to serve the work itself. This means that figures, trees, houses,
+etc., can be distorted in any way we please (or in no way) to suit our
+composition. Colors are chosen to suit our internal color key and often
+don't match the colors of the models, if we have models. (Thus a painting
+of Aunt Harriet can feature blue hair and red skin, but an illustration had
+better match her in every detail.)
I'd lay odds that the illustration book mani referred to earlier has
plenty of abstract and non-realist works in it. Someone should tell these
people they aint illustrators.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Andrew D
"Fungusamungus" <fungu...@warmmail.com> wrote:
+Illustrators don't reproduce paintings. Those people are called painters!
+Illustrators tend to work with pencils, pens, sometimes digitally, but
+generally *not* paint.
They work with whatever the brief requires or whatever they prefer or
whatever gets the job done. Hard to get a pencil or a pen or a hard-drive
to go through an airbrush.
Andrew D
"Fungusamungus" <fungu...@warmmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
+I can see your argument if you're applying it to technical illustration. But
+not all illustration is technical illustration. There's a vast array of
+illustration out there, and I believe indeed, that *most* of it can be
+considered art (even the tech illo still has to have some degree of artistic
+talent to make it look right).
Dan doesn't believe in talent or skill. He believes in "knowledge" - so
long as it's his knowledge. It's a case of "there are no rules in art and
if you don't know those rules then you will ever be an artist".
Cathy
on an Illustrator and an artist have to be different. The talent involved in
either case must be good and eye appealing. I do both create for
illustration but I also enjoy being free on other pieces.Am I not an
artist, I thought that I was. If I am cut do I not bleed oils? Oh well
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-30070...@i160-129.nv.iinet.net.au...
Sharon Barcone
"Cathy" <clau...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:ukd33m8...@corp.supernews.com...
> I have been following this thread and I can not understand why the
question
It is an old debate in art circles, that the illustrator whose purpose is
generally commercial is somewhat inferior to the "artist". This seems to be
so even when the illustrator shows remarkable skill.
I find it interesting that the September 2002 issue of American Artist
happens to be featuring the work of artist/medical illustrator Bonnie
Hofkin. Her medical illustrations are works of art and her figurative oils
are stunning. The article focuses on this person as a talented individual
regardless of the label you wish to place on her.
> The talent involved in either case must be good and eye appealing.
I am not so sure of that. "Artist" seems to be the one label where a lack of
talent or skill does not necessarily mean rejection from the profession.
> I do both create for
> illustration but I also enjoy being free on other pieces.Am I not an
> artist, I thought that I was. If I am cut do I not bleed oils? Oh well
>
Bonnie Hofkin is an excellent example of what happens when an artist puts
hand to illustration. I won't open the Pandora's box with examples of
unskilled artists.
Don't worry how others here would label you. You thought, therefore you are.
P.S. If you are bleeding oils, see a doctor.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Andrew D
<clau...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
+I have been following this thread and I can not understand why the question
+on an Illustrator and an artist have to be different. The talent involved in
+either case must be good and eye appealing. I do both create for
+illustration but I also enjoy being free on other pieces.Am I not an
+artist, I thought that I was. If I am cut do I not bleed oils? Oh well
Most people would acknowledge that to be a good illustrator, you need to
be a good artist. Illustration is art - no question. It might be wise to
view the 'artistic' efforts (talent, skill) of those who dismiss
illustation as something less than real art before giving their
pontifications too much credence.
Oh, and please see a haemotologist soon ;)
Andrew D
<sha...@usadatanet.net> wrote:
+"Cathy" <clau...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
+news:ukd33m8...@corp.supernews.com...
+> I have been following this thread and I can not understand why the
+question
+> on an illustrator and an artist have to be different.
+
+It is an old debate in art circles, that the illustrator whose purpose is
+generally commercial is somewhat inferior to the "artist". This seems to be
+so even when the illustrator shows remarkable skill.
After thinking about Dan's comments yesterday, I've concluded that he was
in fact elevating the illustrator to a superior position - though this may
not have been his intention. Read Dan's comments and see how he imposes
all sorts of requirements which an "illustrator" must meet while leaving
an "artist" to do as s/he pleases. Clearly, he thinks illustrators have
the tougher job.
[snip]
+> The talent involved in either case must be good and eye appealing.
+I am not so sure of that. "Artist" seems to be the one label where a lack of
+talent or skill does not necessarily mean rejection from the profession.
Unfortunately for the profession as a whole I'd suggest.
mdeli
> I can not understand why an Illustrator and an artist have to be different.
Artists, illustrators, cartoonists etc. etc. all produce artwork whose
aim is to attract the viewer by means of vision.
Dan Fox wrote.
>>However, if Mani goes to a Toronto museum and poops in five places on the floor, and it's displayed, that's art. The kind and quality of art is another >>question entirely.
I wrote in a review of Fox's artwork.
"On the positive side, Fox's painting could have some utilitarian
value if Fox would sell himself out to the evils of commercial art, If
reproductions of each of his paintings in this important show were
reduced in size to about 4 inches on a side and printed in repeats on
bed sheets, I suspect his works could rival the lower price end of
Walmart bedding supply."
According to you your work is art. Now Dan suppose you chose to take
my above advice.
My question is:
At the moment you decide to send your paintings to whoever reproduces
it for the printing of those bed sheets is your artwork instantly
transformed into illustration? And, should it now in your opinion be
forever banned from entering a museum as art?
Perhaps as a holder of major art degrees you could enlighten us on
this vexing philosophical problem.
Perhaps our esteemed Strickland could also add his educated opinion
here.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
Sharon Barcone
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
> After thinking about Dan's comments yesterday, I've concluded that he was
> in fact elevating the illustrator to a superior position - though this may
> not have been his intention.
>Read Dan's comments and see how he imposes
> all sorts of requirements which an "illustrator" must meet while leaving
> an "artist" to do as s/he pleases. Clearly, he thinks illustrators have
> the tougher job.
>
> [snip]
I am not so sure of that either. Think of it this way, the illustrator is
inferior to the "artist" for two reasons (this is the basis for many
arguements, not my own opinion) 1. The intent of the work is for commercial
purposes only.
2. The nature of the work is copying, regardless of the skill needed to do
the job.
Isn't that one of the big complaints regarding and condeming
representational art? The modern art lover will tell you that smears of
paint on canvas require much more creativity from the artist.
Well......whatever.
Even Dali was critized for having a too commercial attitude, not that of a
serious artist. The fact that Dali was proficient in many areas of artistic
endevor was held against him.
> +> The talent involved in either case must be good and eye appealing.
>
> +I am not so sure of that. "Artist" seems to be the one label where a lack
of
> +talent or skill does not necessarily mean rejection from the profession.
>
> Unfortunately for the profession as a whole I'd suggest.
>
> Andy D.
>
> "I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Agreed.
sharon
Fungusamungus
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
| After thinking about Dan's comments yesterday, I've concluded that he was
| in fact elevating the illustrator to a superior position - though this may
| not have been his intention. Read Dan's comments and see how he imposes
| all sorts of requirements which an "illustrator" must meet while leaving
| an "artist" to do as s/he pleases. Clearly, he thinks illustrators have
| the tougher job.
|
I don't think so. Tell ya why:
It seems to me Dan was implying that to be an illustrator, one simply needed
to be able to do/possess the qualities he mentioned, as if anybody could be
an illustrator just by simple learning.
But he seemed to also imply that an artist knows no such boundaries, and
doesn't have to 'conform' to anything to be an artist, making the burden on
an 'artist' much heavier.
Andrew D
<sha...@usadatanet.net> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
+news:right-31070...@i204-223.nv.iinet.net.au...
+
+> After thinking about Dan's comments yesterday, I've concluded that he was
+> in fact elevating the illustrator to a superior position - though this may
+> not have been his intention.
+>Read Dan's comments and see how he imposes
+> all sorts of requirements which an "illustrator" must meet while leaving
+> an "artist" to do as s/he pleases. Clearly, he thinks illustrators have
+> the tougher job.
+>
+> [snip]
+
+I am not so sure of that either.
Oh I'm damned sure Dan didn't intend it that way - but the fact is he was
suggesting illustration was more difficult - and anyone whose tried to
make a living at it knows that's often the case. Not only does an
illustrator have to put themseleves into their work, but they've often got
to get inside the client's head in order to ascertain what they expect.
The illustrator has to please at least two people so a successful
illustration is a triumph indeed - much better than a successful abstract
work done for no other reason than the artist felt like it.
If we must differentiate, then from now on, I want to be recognised as an
illustrator first and an artist second.
[snip]
+ Isn't that one of the big complaints regarding and condeming
+representational art? The modern art lover will tell you that smears of
+paint on canvas require much more creativity from the artist.
+Well......whatever.
Yep. Like when keith tells us kids are better at drawing because adults
tend to follow rules that make them forget how to draw properly. Luckily,
keith isn't in charge of medical research or driving instruction!
Andrew D
"Fungusamungus" <fungu...@warmmail.com> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
+news:right-31070...@i204-223.nv.iinet.net.au...
+| After thinking about Dan's comments yesterday, I've concluded that he was
+| in fact elevating the illustrator to a superior position - though this may
+| not have been his intention. Read Dan's comments and see how he imposes
+| all sorts of requirements which an "illustrator" must meet while leaving
+| an "artist" to do as s/he pleases. Clearly, he thinks illustrators have
+| the tougher job.
+|
+
+I don't think so. Tell ya why:
Of course he doesn't.
+It seems to me Dan was implying that to be an illustrator, one simply needed
+to be able to do/possess the qualities he mentioned, as if anybody could be
+an illustrator just by simple learning.
Which is why there are so many damned illustrators in the world!!! Not.
Look at the numbers of average people who walk up to a good
representational piece and say "I wish I could do that".
+But he seemed to also imply that an artist knows no such boundaries, and
+doesn't have to 'conform' to anything to be an artist, making the burden on
+an 'artist' much heavier.
And yet there are lots of people who walk past drip an smear paintings and
say "anyone could do that".
I think most of us know which is the more difficult.
Sharon Barcone
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
> Oh I'm damned sure Dan didn't intend it that way - but the fact is he was
> suggesting illustration was more difficult - and anyone whose tried to
> make a living at it knows that's often the case.
What I got was that illustration requires excellent copying skill. This is
something that the traditional representational artist is faulted for doing.
Copying what is already there isn't "art" , requires little creativity, or
so the arguement goes.
>Not only does an
> illustrator have to put themseleves into their work, but they've often got
> to get inside the client's head in order to ascertain what they expect.
But the illustrator has a cheat sheet. The client will provide the basis for
what is needed such as, I need a child's book, medical text, or beer ad.
> The illustrator has to please at least two people so a successful
> illustration is a triumph indeed - much better than a successful abstract
> work done for no other reason than the artist felt like it.
My mention of artist/medical illustrator Bonnie Hofkin was because she is a
good example of how the artist/illustrator line is blurring. The illustrator
today must include creativity in the mix. There is much competition from the
graphic artist amoung others. And how different is the portrait artist who
also has a cheat sheet, I want a portrait of my wife, dog, child.
>
> If we must differentiate, then from now on, I want to be recognised as an
> illustrator first and an artist second.
My preference would be to label both as artists.
>
> [snip]
>
> + Isn't that one of the big complaints regarding and condeming
> +representational art? The modern art lover will tell you that smears of
> +paint on canvas require much more creativity from the artist.
> +Well......whatever.
>
> Yep. Like when keith tells us kids are better at drawing because adults
> tend to follow rules that make them forget how to draw properly. Luckily,
> keith isn't in charge of medical research or driving instruction!
>
> Andy D.
>
> "I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Mr. Tudball
Your pal,
Mr. Tudball
Galoshes changed to protect my feet
Sharon Barcone
half a dozen times this year. Surely that has left lots of time to paint.
Besides, this isn't an argument, it is a discussion. That is what this
forum is all about isn't it?
sharon
Mr. Tudball" <Mr_Tu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:27155-3D4...@storefull-2195.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Sharon Barcone
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
>
> I think most of us know which is the more difficult.
>
> Andy D.
>
> "I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
But Andy, aren't you comparing the skilled illustrator to the bad abstract
artist. While I don't personally care for most abstract work, I can say I
believe that there is some that is made by skilled artists who carefully
planned and executed interesting well painted pieces.
I don't think it is a question of which is more difficult. It is that the
illustrator is most often required to prove his or her skill. And too often
the "artist" is not.
sharon
Andrew D
<sha...@usadatanet.net> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
+news:right-01080...@i165-170.nv.iinet.net.au...
+
+>
+> I think most of us know which is the more difficult.
+>
+> Andy D.
+>
+> "I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
+
+But Andy, aren't you comparing the skilled illustrator to the bad abstract
+artist. While I don't personally care for most abstract work, I can say I
+believe that there is some that is made by skilled artists who carefully
+planned and executed interesting well painted pieces.
While I generally try to remain impersonal in my posts here, I have to
admit I had pictures of Dan's paintings in my head as I compared
illutration to abstract. That was because it was all in response to Dan's
dogmatic "this is art" post.
Now, I'm sure Dan's happy that he's an artist and presumably has the level
of recognition he desires and so my opinion of his work counts for nought
- which is why I don't usually give it. But when Dan posts a dogmatic
assessement of what makes an artisit and seems to be dismiss excellent
illustrators as non-artists, I can't help but look at what he produces and
what he considers "art" and compare this to the works of those he
dismissed.
"Fungusamungus" summarised that Dan appeared to believe "real art" imposed
the heavier burden because unlike illustration, it had to look like
nothing, conform to no pre-requisites and please no one. This is why I
responded "I think most of us know which is the more difficult."
+I don't think it is a question of which is more difficult. It is that the
+illustrator is most often required to prove his or her skill. And too often
+the "artist" is not.
Frankly Sharon, I'm with you. Both are artists ..... with illustrators
often being the better :)
mdeli
Andrew D
+someone wrote:
+> I can not understand why an Illustrator and an artist have to be different.
+
+Artists, illustrators, cartoonists etc. etc. all produce artwork whose
+aim is to attract the viewer by means of vision.
+
+Dan Fox wrote.
+>>However, if Mani goes to a Toronto museum and poops in five places on
the floor, and it's displayed, that's art. The kind and quality of art is
another >>question entirely.
+
+I wrote in a review of Fox's artwork.
+"On the positive side, Fox's painting could have some utilitarian
+value if Fox would sell himself out to the evils of commercial art, If
+reproductions of each of his paintings in this important show were
+reduced in size to about 4 inches on a side and printed in repeats on
+bed sheets, I suspect his works could rival the lower price end of
+Walmart bedding supply."
After reading Dan's comment about you pooping in a museum, when you said
"[if his paintings were] reduced in size to about 4 inches on a side and
printed in repeats" I had something other than bedsheets in mind. I
envisioned them printed one after another with perforations between.
Simon Downs
The definition of what illustration 'is' is pretty simple, the definition of what
illustration isn't is a little more contentious. The word comes from latin, and
means; to illuminate - to make clear - to throw light on something. In modern
usage I can't think of a better definition than that given by Christopher Frayling
( the Big Boss of the Royal College of Art ). He says, " Illustration is a visual
response to another piece of art." So a record cover can be an illustration, as
can a magazine image (in response to the article)*, but I suspect a painting of a
Sioux chief, or a beautiful sea-scape, however high in craft skill, if it is not
in response to some other art piece, is not an illustration, it is a painting.
The world is always a better place for any good painting, so don't let anyone stop
you, but it's not illustration.
Being paid for the work is not a measure of it being an illustration (But being
paid if anyone uses your art is vital. Under international law, of which both the
EU and US are signatories, you do the art, you own the copyright).
Best wishes.
Simon.
*As are Computer Game art, background mattes for T.V. and television, Kid's books
… the list is huge.
Kooter
"Simon Downs" <simon...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3D5B901F...@ntlworld.com...
> Dear All.
> The definition of what illustration 'is' is pretty simple, the definition
of what
> illustration isn't is a little more contentious. The word comes from
latin, and
> means; to illuminate - to make clear - to throw light on something. In
modern
> usage I can't think of a better definition than that given by Christopher
Frayling
> ( the Big Boss of the Royal College of Art ). He says, " Illustration is a
visual
> response to another piece of art." So a record cover can be an
illustration, as
> can a magazine image (in response to the article)*, but I suspect a
painting of a
> Sioux chief, or a beautiful sea-scape, however high in craft skill, if it
is not
> in response to some other art piece, is not an illustration, it is a
painting.
> The world is always a better place for any good painting, so don't let
anyone stop
> you, but it's not illustration.
So if I fart out a piece of clipart from imagination/memory for a webpage,
that's art not illustration?
IMO, the goal of an illustrator is to illustrate. If this were a binary
group I'd try to illustrate my point. To illustrate is - as your initial
definition states - to throw light on something. An illustrator aims to
communicate thru visual media. He takes bits and pieces from one or more
sources and brings them together into a presentation that conveys a concept.
The only real difference between an artist and an illustrator is that an
artist works towards representing some aspect of his world. An illustrator
attempts to 'throw light' on some idea in order to communicate a message to
a viewer.
Discussion
I suggest that illustration cannot be defined, especially by
comparing it to "art". One can continue to try, though.
Are you saying, (as I like to believe), that there is no "art" in
illustration, but there can be illustration in "art"?
N.H
"Kooter" <cbow...@mindspring-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ajgb3j$hdk$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Yes, indeed, and whatsoever!!!!!.......
....... ..." Art " remains and still, the only and only, the most
Powerful Spiritual Path to a Higher Creativity!!!!!!!!!!!!.............
...
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Discussion" <go...@away.dot.for.good.dotcom> wrote in message
news:SUR69.8044$IU4.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Kooter
"Discussion" <go...@away.dot.for.good.dotcom> wrote in message
news:SUR69.8044$IU4.2...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> I suggest that illustration cannot be defined, especially by
> comparing it to "art". One can continue to try, though.
> Are you saying, (as I like to believe), that there is no "art" in
> illustration, but there can be illustration in "art"?
> N.H
Art can be defined. The problem is that the definition is subjective.
Something that looks like crap to me could be the greatest piece of art that
you've ever laid eyes on. We both have a definition of what constitutes
art. Its just that our definitions don't coincide.
Art and illustration are both conduits for communication. The creator of a
presentation, in whatever media, is attempting to convey a message to an
audience. The message is a concept that is understandable by both the
presenter and the audience. The interpretation, technique, style and skill
of the presenter determine the quality of a presentation. If the presenter
is successful in reaching his audience with the intended message and has
done so with style and skill then he has created art. If, OTOH, the message
is lost or the quality of the message is low then the purveyor of the
message is a barn painter.
The difference between an artist and an illustrator is in the interpretation
of the message. When an artist interprets a message he wraps his thoughts,
feelings, and personality around it and sends the whole package out to the
audience in his chosen media. An illustrator is more interested in the
message itself than the package that the message is wrapped in.
Note that I didn't exclude artists from being illustrators or the other way
around. Illustrators can be and are artists. Artists can be and are
illustrators. The difference between the two is so subtle that it becomes
unimportant.
<snip>
Simon Downs
(Is that your given name?).
If your fart was in response to another piece of art; for example if you saw
'Dumb and Dumber' and, as a considered artistic response, farted. That would
be illustration (maybe not good illustration, and how you'd reproduce it for
a client I just don't know).
If you just happened to fart, no matter how elegant your farts are, and how
much you've practiced farting, that would not be illustration, just a slack
sphincter.
By way of a note, I don't think I ever mentioned art. I talked about
painting, and illustration. In all the years I've worked as an illustrator,
and the time I've spent lecturing at university on the subject, I've never
been able to work out what Art is. Which is why I'm happy to be called a
designer, or a commercial artist, but a bit nervous about claiming to be an
"Artist."
There seems to be some confusion about painting being Art. As my fine artist
friends tell me, painting can be an art, but so can Conceptual Art pieces
without any input from the artist (look up Jeff Koons), or a computer
interface (Tomoko Takahashi). Illustration is an art, but not a fine art,
and I'm bloody glad about it too. Illustration is art in service, not art
for our own self-satisfaction.
All my love.
Simon.
p.s. I like your bit about representing the world. Personally I like
representational art, but if you talked to any artist working after 1880
about representation, I think they'd laugh at you.
p.p.s. You're right about the concept bit. But the concept doesn't originate
internally (like the fart), but is external (from another art piece - like
fresh air).
mdeli
<cbow...@mindspring-nospam.com> wrote:
>Note that I didn't exclude artists from being illustrators or the other way
>around. Illustrators can be and are artists. Artists can be and are
>illustrators. The difference between the two is so subtle that it becomes
>unimportant.
>
An artist produces a product called artwork, oil on canvas, drawing
painting etc. If many people like it for a time they roughly
considered it art whatever the media or purpose.
It is subjective in that people don't agree on whether they like it or
not. Fox considers shitting on the museum floor art. I don't. We have
a very large differing subjective opinion on the matter.
What is considered art in the long run is a matter of a consensus. Art
is also subject to time. The emperor's new clothes my still be art,
but will it last? Consider the avant-gone.
artonio7
salesmen. All work is on some level commercial, even if the work is made to
convince it's creator that he exsists. The rewards vary.
The market varies. The product either works as a vehicle for conveying the
message or it doesn't.
Illustrators may draw their inspiration from someone elses concept and the
success of the illustration rests in its success in conveying the concept. I
would venture that artists and illustrators have more in common then either
are willing to admit. We all drink from the same lake we pee in.
some of my discharge can be seen at http://artonio7.com
"mdeli" <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3d5ab597...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
Kooter
"Simon Downs" <si...@illustrationglory.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B981E29B.35D6%si...@illustrationglory.co.uk...
> Dear Kooter.
> (Is that your given name?).
Nope. Just an online name I've used for the past 10-or-so years.
> If your fart was in response to another piece of art; for example if you
saw
> 'Dumb and Dumber' and, as a considered artistic response, farted. That
would
> be illustration (maybe not good illustration, and how you'd reproduce it
for
> a client I just don't know).
> If you just happened to fart, no matter how elegant your farts are, and
how
> much you've practiced farting, that would not be illustration, just a
slack
> sphincter.
Farting is just farting. If the fart was meant to throw light on some
aspect of the show and it was successful then my criteria for defining
illustration would have been met. If the purpose of the fart was to convey
commentary on the show in whatever form and it was done with skill and style
then it would be art. However, IMO, there is no skill or style in farting -
no matter how musical it might sound to the listener. It is just a bodily
function.
> By way of a note, I don't think I ever mentioned art. I talked about
> painting, and illustration. In all the years I've worked as an
illustrator,
> and the time I've spent lecturing at university on the subject, I've never
> been able to work out what Art is. Which is why I'm happy to be called a
> designer, or a commercial artist, but a bit nervous about claiming to be
an
> "Artist."
I came in too late to read the original post. To me it seems like there is
some kind of implied reference to art in the distinction between painting
and illustration. Personally, I don't see a distinction. Some illustrators
paint. Some painters illustrate.
> There seems to be some confusion about painting being Art. As my fine
artist
> friends tell me, painting can be an art, but so can Conceptual Art pieces
> without any input from the artist (look up Jeff Koons), or a computer
> interface (Tomoko Takahashi). Illustration is an art, but not a fine art,
> and I'm bloody glad about it too. Illustration is art in service, not art
> for our own self-satisfaction.
Agreed.
> p.s. I like your bit about representing the world. Personally I like
> representational art, but if you talked to any artist working after 1880
> about representation, I think they'd laugh at you.
I'm not sure I said 'representing the world'. I would be amenable to
'representing an interpretation of some aspect of the world'. The keyword,
of course, being interpretation - not representation. I didn't mean to say
or imply that an artist is just transferring what he sees directly to a
canvas. Interpretation could be anything from a photorealistic painting to
copying the memory of a nightmare.
> p.p.s. You're right about the concept bit. But the concept doesn't
originate
> internally (like the fart), but is external (from another art piece - like
> fresh air).
I don't remember this specific reference. It would help in maintaining a
smooth flow of conversation if you could quote previous messages.
Kooter
The word 'art' is a symbol to which we attach a meaning. Humans created the
word 'art' to communicate a unique concept. The problem is that no one has
ever stopped and quantified the purpose of the word in a way that is
globally acceptable. Is the purpose of art to provide something beautiful?
My answer would be not necessarily. For me the idea is to communicate the
artists thoughts, emotions, and interpretation of a particular subject using
skill and style. Does art have to be enjoyed? IMO, no. I consider the
Mona Lisa to be art even tho I don't particularly like the subject. I think
ML was a plain looking woman in dowdy clothes. If Rembrandt had painted
Brittney Spears naked - sans the implants - I'd spend a lot more time
enjoying his talent as an artist but he'd still be an artist regardless of
the subject.
Is shitting on the floor of a museum art? The short answer is no. My guess
is that the message in the act of defecation was somehow meant to convey a
sense of contempt on the presenters part for the art establishment. In this
the act was successful. As mentioned, I also believe that for something to
be considered art it must represent the style and skill of the creator. In
this case style and skill are nonexistant and therefore art is nonexistant.
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
" GOD manifeste himself to us in the first degree through the Life of the
Universe, and in the second through the thought of Man!... The second
manifestation is not less Holy than the
first!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!................ .... The first is named
Nature, the second is named Art!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.................
...."
- William Shakespeare
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Kooter" <cbow...@mindspring-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ajj4mt$f30$2...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Kooter
"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed...@welho.com> wrote in message
news:ajj57u$8ee$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
........ ... Bixause Obelix, woz in a niiiiiid ov a moorrrrre
PPIIIIIIIIIIGGGGXXXXXXXXSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!......
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
"Kooter" <cbow...@mindspring-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ajok10$5p7$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
Andrew D
<arto...@adelphia.net> wrote:
+Art as a form of communication... is a selling of an Idea... all artists are
+salesmen. All work is on some level commercial, even if the work is made to
+convince it's creator that he exsists.
I would say it is commercial if the artsit derives any financial benefit
from the sale, exhibition or reproduction of it. For example, any artist
with a selling website is a commercial artist - no question about it.
Andrew D
<cbow...@mindspring-nospam.com> wrote:
[snip]
+Farting is just farting. If the fart was meant to throw light on some
+aspect of the show and it was successful then my criteria for defining
+illustration would have been met. If the purpose of the fart was to convey
+commentary on the show in whatever form and it was done with skill and style
+then it would be art.
Surely it would just be a critique? Otherwise, every art critic is in fact
an artist - using the printed word rather than a paint brush and canvas?
Andrew D
<ahmed...@welho.com> wrote:
+" GOD manifeste himself to us in the first degree through the Life of the
+Universe, and in the second through the thought of Man!... The second
+manifestation is not less Holy than the
+first!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!................ .... The first is named
+Nature, the second is named Art!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.................
My dog has three legs.
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
It does???????.......
Amazing!!!!!!!!.........
Draw it, and add to it, how much you do want, to see how much you can be or
not a creative one!!!!!!!!!!!........... ...
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Just, do try!
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-20080...@i165-206.nv.iinet.net.au...
Kooter
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-20080...@i165-206.nv.iinet.net.au...
I guess you could call a critique a form of art. After all, the critic is
interpreting what he sees using his own skill and style.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> "Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
> news:right-20080...@i165-206.nv.iinet.net.au...
> > In article <ajj4ms$f30$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Kooter"
> > <cbow...@mindspring-nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > +Farting is just farting. If the fart was meant to throw light on some
> > +aspect of the show and it was successful then my criteria for defining
> > +illustration would have been met. If the purpose of the fart was to
> convey
> > +commentary on the show in whatever form and it was done with skill and
> style
> > +then it would be art.
>
> >
> > Surely it would just be a critique? Otherwise, every art critic is in
fact
> > an artist - using the printed word rather than a paint brush and canvas?
>
> I guess you could call a critique a form of art. After all, the critic is
> interpreting what he sees using his own skill and style.
>
and some essays are little gems of creativity and beauty, but not many of
them.
--
If bread is the staff of live then
the life of the saff is a loaf - Molesworth?
Hugh Middor
cbow...@mindspring-nospam.com says...
>I guess you could call a critique a form of art. After all, the critic is
>interpreting what he sees using his own skill and style.
Considering that critic Dave Hickey was recently
awarded a HALF-MILLION dollar honorarium for his
'contribution to the arts,' being a critic can
have its artful rewards too, it seems.
Andrew D
<cbow...@mindspring-nospam.com> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
+news:right-20080...@i165-206.nv.iinet.net.au...
+> In article <ajj4ms$f30$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Kooter"
+> <cbow...@mindspring-nospam.com> wrote:
+>
+> [snip]
+> +Farting is just farting. If the fart was meant to throw light on some
+> +aspect of the show and it was successful then my criteria for defining
+> +illustration would have been met. If the purpose of the fart was to
+convey
+> +commentary on the show in whatever form and it was done with skill and
+style
+> +then it would be art.
+> Surely it would just be a critique? Otherwise, every art critic is in fact
+> an artist - using the printed word rather than a paint brush and canvas?
+I guess you could call a critique a form of art. After all, the critic is
+interpreting what he sees using his own skill and style.
Then everyone who looks at art is an artist if they have a reaction to it
or feeling about it or opinion of it. Moving on from this we end up with
the situation where everyone is an artist.
Kooter
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
Everyone is an artist. Note; I didn't say that everyone is a good artist.
Mani Deli
> I can not understand why an Illustrator and an artist have to be different.
Artists, illustrators, cartoonists etc. etc. all produce artwork whose
aim is to attract the viewer by means of vision.
Dan Fox wrote.
>>However, if Mani goes to a Toronto museum and poops in five places on the floor, and it's displayed, that's art. The kind and quality of art is another >>question entirely.
I wrote in a review of Fox's artwork.
"On the positive side, Fox's painting could have some utilitarian
value if Fox would sell himself out to the evils of commercial art, If
reproductions of each of his paintings in this important show were
reduced in size to about 4 inches on a side and printed in repeats on
bed sheets, I suspect his works could rival the lower price end of
Walmart bedding supply."
According to you your work is art. Now Dan suppose you chose to take
my above advice.
My question is:
At the moment you decide to send your paintings to whoever reproduces
it for the printing of those bed sheets is your artwork instantly
transformed into illustration? And, should it now in your opinion be
forever banned from entering a museum as art?
Perhaps as a holder of major art degrees you could enlighten us on
this vexing philosophical problem.
Perhaps our esteemed Strickland could also add his educated opinion
here.
...no skill no art!
Mani Deli
My question is:
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
William Palmer
> someone wrote:
> > I can not understand why an Illustrator and an artist have to be different.
>
> Artists, illustrators, cartoonists etc. etc. all produce artwork whose
> aim is to attract the viewer by means of vision.
[...]
Earlier on this thead, someone expressed the view that
illustration, being a reaction to some other art, was
somehow not as lofty as other art. I don't think that
thought has much value. In the first place, most or
all art is produced in reaction to other art. That
is, art is not produced in a cultural vacuum. In
fact, most--if not all artists--have viewed and
contemplated so much art by others that it becomnes
a part of their consciousness. OF COURSE that would
shape their own work. I believe that if illustration
is good enough, and original enough, it becomes art,
and I include comic book artist Lillian Chestney,
commercial artist Alphonse Mucha, EC COMICS horror
artist Graham Ingels, science fiction artist Richard
Powers, and many others when I think of those
illustrators worth of being called artists.
And this thing about illustation being a reaction
to other art can be deceptive. Here's one example
showing that. At least some of you have seen that
rock-group Queen cover illustration where the robot
is holding the bleeding body of a man, whom the
perplexed robot has just accidently poked in the
torso. Well, that painting had NOTHING at all to
do with that rock group. In no way was the painter
(Frank Kelly Freas) inspired by the group's "art" to
paint that masterpiece. In fact, that painting is
from a 1950's ASTOUNDING SCIENCE FICTION cover.
It originally illustrated what is now a fairly obscure
science fiction story. The illustration, a painting,
is far better-known than the original story. Further,
often fiction magazine illustrators never even read the
stories they were supposedly (if our eariler poster
was right) "reacting to." Frequently, the magazine
editor would simply give the illustrator a thumb
nail description of what the editor wanted, and
the cover artist would not see the story at all
(sometimes because the story itself was still being
written according to the editor's specifications).
So, my hunch is that the powerful Kelly Freas
painting was produced as a result of artist
Freas reacting to something inside him, as
well as something he may have perceived about
the direction society was heading in. I suspect
it had little or nothing to do with that long-
forgotten science fiction story. (By the
way, guess how Queen got it? They PAID for
it, of course, and I am sure that a lot of
their fans thought they were oh-so-HEAVY
that they inspired an artist to paint the
"gigantic-android-holding-the-man" picture.)
Well, now you know the real story...and
as far as I am concerned, it is a shame
that the Freas masterpiece is not on display
at one of the finest museums in the U. S.
a.g.b-p
P.M.
I'm an illustrator.
I do what you want me to do, for pay.
An artist may not even listen to your request..
An artist generally does what he wants to do.
Not much use to your overall business plan, is he?
But we have the same skills.
There are ladies that do and there have always been ladies that do it for
cash only.
But they have the same skills.
http://www.philipmalpass.com
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1gibrus0s8frvtvu3...@4ax.com...