why can't illustration be fine art?
Brian Shapiro
mediums through which art can be made, but appreciated with different
aesthetics. Is there possibility that illustration be considered another
medium for or form of visual art? Before jumping to think of contemporary
illustrators, consider those before the 20th century, such as Gustave Dore
and Albert Durer.
Brian Shapiro
"Brian Shapiro" <thesh...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:LIay6.20253$aP5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
" "
old are truly illustration, but the snob aspect of those involved in fine
art education will never admit that both are related. Fine artists are
never worried about deadlines since they "only paint for themselves", whilst
illustrators live in the real world and have to discipline themselves to
working at the behest of a client.
At the end of the day all art is illustrative.
"Brian Shapiro" <thesh...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:LIay6.20253$aP5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
mdeli
to pan a picture which he feels is politically incorrect. It is
also used as a derogatory term by art teachers. "We teach Art here
not illustration," is really an excuse used by teachers who can't
teach drawing and technique. Thus most students are totally ignorant
of the commercial aspects of art and a whole branch of modern
artwork.
There really is no concrete aesthetic distinction between fine art and
illustration.
The non-judgmental meaning of the term Illustration is for artwork
usually done to convey very specific ideas or accompany text, usually
for a commercial purpose. It falls into the category of Commercial
Art. Commercial art is art done for payment.
However most all artwork with minor exceptions, is done for payment
and is thus commercial. The word commercial refers to economics.
Whether an art work possesses merit has nothing to do with its
purpose.
Someone here pointed out that Fine Art is usually done by a single
artist and is ORIGINAL ART. But so is a any painting by NORMAN
ROCKWELL.
Most artwork whether its fine or not can be called illustration.
The three terms, kitsch, commercial and illustration are used by
critics to denigrate any artwork that doesn't conform to Modern
Academic Art Theology. When thus used it it usually means blasphemy,
don' t look, end of discussion.
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
Rick Clark
can't be "fine art". One may make a distinction as to what defines
illustration, and that the "idea" as to what the picture should
contain may not be 100% original to the artist, but I don't see that
this degrades significantly how the piece must ultimately be judged.
Sometimes the artist knowing in advance what the piece must be "about"
stimulates some really creative ideas that he/she might not otherwise
have thought of, as it takes the burden off in one area, allowing the
creative energy to flow in some different direction. And can't we say
that, in some sense, the Sistine Chapel is actually "illustration"? I
mean, M. could not simply do *anything* he wanted- the work had to be
in theme with the assignment.
Regards,
Rick Clark
Tracy Miller
HE disagreed with what Pope Julius II wanted to do, and the pope
therefore said, OK, do what you want. The area where Michelango did
not have so much freedom is in what project he was to work on.
YA gotta get your facts straight!
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:47:55 GMT, Ple...@LobotomizeMe.com (Rick Clark)
wrote:
Rick Clark
>Yes, actually, he could do anything he wanted in the Cistine Chapel.
>HE disagreed with what Pope Julius II wanted to do, and the pope
>therefore said, OK, do what you want. The area where Michelango did
>not have so much freedom is in what project he was to work on.
So you are saying he could have done a non-religious battle scene?
>
>YA gotta get your facts straight!
YA mean like "Cistine Chapel"?
Regards,
Rick Clark
Tracy Miller
Are you just a smartASS?
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:06:01 GMT, Ple...@LobotomizeMe.com (Rick Clark)
wrote:
>tra...@pipeline.com (Tracy Miller) wrote:
>
>>Yes, actually, he could do anything he wanted in the Cistine Chapel.
>>HE disagreed with what Pope Julius II wanted to do, and the pope
>>therefore said, OK, do what you want. The area where Michelango did
>>not have so much freedom is in what project he was to work on.
>
>So you are saying he could have done a non-religious battle scene?
THe pope originally wanted to have scenes of the twelve apostles.
Michelangelo didn;t want to do that. Instead, he did scenes from the
old testament, interspersed with scenes of prophetesses.
>>
>>YA gotta get your facts straight!
>
>YA mean like "Cistine Chapel"?
OK, Sistene, Beauregard.
>
>Regards,
>
>Rick Clark
Tracy Miller
As for illustration:
Before the Renaissance, artists were treated as just artisans.
Painting was not considered as part of Liberal Arts, as Poetry and
Rhetoric were, among other things. Artists usually made contracts
with Patrons in those days, in which they were told exactly what to
paint, what materials had to be used, and the preliminary work had to
be approved by the patron.
Things changed in the Renaissance, when the artist came to be valued
for creative genius, for being inspired by God. Then panting came to
be inlcuded as part of the liberal arts, as an intellectual pursuit.
Illustration takes us back to that time before the Renaissance, when
the artist primarily had the role of an artisan. That is why
illustration is not fine art. And yes, I believe fine art should also
include technical ability.
Tracy
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 12:06:01 GMT, Ple...@LobotomizeMe.com (Rick Clark)
wrote:
>tra...@pipeline.com (Tracy Miller) wrote:
Ricardo Pontes
Do you consider Normal Rockwell, Maxfield Parrish, Andrew Wyeth, and Alphons
Mucha illustrators?
Ricardo Pontes
Tracy Miller
me that question......I'd be happy to discuss it with that sort of
person.
" "
exception, but she gets too historical, and perhaps is inaccurate in some
manner. Painting has always illustrated something, a myth, a religious
theme, a moral, unless it has been to represent the likeness of the patron.
In the 20th century painters such as Hockney, Liechtenstein (forgive any
spelling errors on that one), and Warhol, blatantly used illustration in
their fine art works. Which tends to prove the point. But if anyone wants
to argue for the sake of it, to nit-pick for the hell of it, then please
do..................I'm sure nobody will mind.
"Tracy Miller" <tra...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:3accbb5a...@news.pipeline.com...
Peter H.M. Brooks
Ricardo Pontes <Ricard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ObCQojUvAHA.302@cpmsnbbsa09...
> Tracy,
>
>
> Do you consider Normal Rockwell, Maxfield Parrish, Andrew Wyeth, and
Alphons
> Mucha illustrators?
>
Prague the other week and he is a brilliant illustrator as well as a
first rate artist - his painting of the woman waiting to be devoured by
wolves was wonderful too.
--
Madness is rare in individuals-but in groups, parties, nations and ages
it rules.
- Fredrich Nietzsche
Sharon Barcone
to everyone.
sharon
"Tracy Miller" <tra...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:3accbb5a...@news.pipeline.com...
-----= 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! =-----
Tracy Miller
Tracy Miller
wrote:
>It seems that the consensus tends to agree on this one. Tracy being the
>exception, but she gets too historical, and perhaps is inaccurate in some
>manner. Painting has always illustrated something, a myth, a religious
>theme, a moral, unless it has been to represent the likeness of the patron.
>In the 20th century painters such as Hockney, Liechtenstein (forgive any
>spelling errors on that one), and Warhol, blatantly used illustration in
>their fine art works. Which tends to prove the point. But if anyone wants
>to argue for the sake of it, to nit-pick for the hell of it, then please
>do..................I'm sure nobody will mind.
>
Oh......well, tell me how I was inaccurate. I can correct myself on
one thing.....the # of Sybils. There were actually only 5, and there
were 7 Old Testament Prophets.
I offered a historical view, but won't limit myself to that
necessarily.
I'll get back toyou re: the rest of your post.
Tracy
mdeli
wrote:
>Speaking as a collector/appreciator, I can't think of any reason it
Whether something is art or not isn't really worth discussing.
Illustration in some sense is all the artwork that bugs the Modern
Academic Art fundamentalist because a casual look is enough to inform
him that his skill is miles behind it. It bugs him even more if he is
a certified member of the starving artist society.
RBrac53660
Tracy Miller
can be made:
I like Mucha, but I liked him most when I was a teenager. Now Klimt
is similar, but his work has far greater depth.
Elvis painted on velvet could be considered art, and Monet's
"Waterlily Pond" could be considered art, but that does not mean
they are "Art" on a similar level.
One is an Elvis on Velvet, and the other has far greater depth.
I think the distinguishing characteristic between illustration and
fine art is whether or not the art could be valued even after its
original purpose no longer exists, as in the Parthenon marbles.
" "
the point about art...........its function is totally decorative.
(watch that put the cat amongst the pigeons!!!)
Steve
"Tracy Miller" <tra...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:3accc82a...@news.pipeline.com...
" "
Monet's water lilies is still just gobs of paint on canvass, nothing more
deep than Elvis on velvet when you get right down to it. Both are art.
Lets face it, if anyone is daft enough to pay huge amounts of money for
Tracy Emins unmade bed, then absolutely everything can be considered art.
And all art illustrates something.
"Tracy Miller" <tra...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:3acf273d...@news.pipeline.com...
Tracy Miller
appreciation class. Learn about history, culture, philosophy.
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 18:24:18 +0100, "\" \"" <sbr...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Lauren Foster-MacLeod
> Ricardo Pontes <Ricard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ObCQojUvAHA.302@cpmsnbbsa09...
>> Tracy,
>>
>>
>> Do you consider Normal Rockwell, Maxfield Parrish, Andrew Wyeth, and
> Alphons Mucha illustrators?
>>
> Mucha certainly was! I really enjoyed the exhibition of his works in
> Prague the other week and he is a brilliant illustrator as well as a
> first rate artist - his painting of the woman waiting to be devoured by
> wolves was wonderful too.
Illustrators: (yes) Norman Rockwell, Maxfield Parrish & Alphons Mucha
(also great artists/designers)
Artist (& not illustrator): Andrew Wyeth. His father, N.C.Wyeth was a
great illustrator.
- Lauren
--
THE BLESSED BEE
www.blessedbee.com
samples/subscription info:
in...@blessedbee.com
Peter H.M. Brooks
Lauren Foster-MacLeod <dz...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9aqo4r$a43$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" (pe...@new.co.za) writes:
> > Ricardo Pontes <Ricard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:ObCQojUvAHA.302@cpmsnbbsa09...
> >> Tracy,
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you consider Normal Rockwell, Maxfield Parrish, Andrew Wyeth,
and
> > Alphons Mucha illustrators?
> >>
> > Mucha certainly was! I really enjoyed the exhibition of his works in
> > Prague the other week and he is a brilliant illustrator as well as a
> > first rate artist - his painting of the woman waiting to be devoured
by
> > wolves was wonderful too.
>
> Illustrators: (yes) Norman Rockwell, Maxfield Parrish & Alphons Mucha
> (also great artists/designers
>
the Serb Epic and illustrations used for soap packets.
I must say that those soap packets are impressive, though!
" "
the tales of the past, philosophy is mans struggle to come to terms with
life and death, culture is the activities mankind get up to in order to
improve the brain cells..........art is something nice to look at. You
wouldnt want shit on your living room walls would you............but then
again Ofili ! God there is no hope for us.
Dont be such a snob, its the disease of fine artists who try to elevate
their craft above the mantle piece.
"Tracy Miller" <tra...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:3acf5697...@news.pipeline.com...
Andrew D
+The term illustration is used by the modern art critic wants he wants
+to pan a picture which he feels is politically incorrect. It is
+also used as a derogatory term by art teachers. "We teach Art here
+not illustration," is really an excuse used by teachers who can't
+teach drawing and technique. Thus most students are totally ignorant
+of the commercial aspects of art and a whole branch of modern
+artwork.
+There really is no concrete aesthetic distinction between fine art and
+illustration.
Literally, "illustration" refers to any painting which is intended to (or
attempts to) "illustrate" something. So, not only should Rockwell and his
ilk be recognised as illustrators, but so too should any artist who
attempts to "illustrate" an idea, concept, feeling, emotion ...whatever,
through their art. In this sense, almost all abstract art is also
illustration.
The same critics who condemn traditional realist art as mere illustration
are usually guilty of lobbing all works inot that category. Every time an
art critic lauds a modern piece of unfathomable abstraction as a depiction
of the artist's emotions (or whatever), s/he condemns it as a mere
illustration, whether that is his/her intention or not.
Show me a piece of art that depicts an idea or emotion, whether abstract
or traditional, and I'll show you an "illustration".
Andy
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Andrew D
+Yes, actually, he could do anything he wanted in the Cistine Chapel.
+HE disagreed with what Pope Julius II wanted to do, and the pope
+therefore said, OK, do what you want. The area where Michelango did
+not have so much freedom is in what project he was to work on.
+YA gotta get your facts straight!
So if he'd *wanted* to paint an explicit orgy scene, he'd have been
allowed to? I suspect not.
Lissa Robinson
>
> Literally, "illustration" refers to any painting which is intended to (or
> attempts to) "illustrate" something. So, not only should Rockwell and his
> ilk be recognised as illustrators, but so too should any artist who
> attempts to "illustrate" an idea, concept, feeling, emotion ...whatever,
> through their art. In this sense, almost all abstract art is also
> illustration.
No, to illustrate means to: "make clear, explain; make clear by examples; serve
as example of; elucidate (description) by drawings or pictures."
Don't you think maybe you might be confusing elucidate with allude? Illustrating
is usually a much more direct and literal way of communicating an idea or
emotion. Abstraction is generally not direct or literal but more evocative and
suggestive.
> The same critics who condemn traditional realist art as mere illustration
> are usually guilty of lobbing all works inot that category. Every time an
> art critic lauds a modern piece of unfathomable abstraction as a depiction
> of the artist's emotions (or whatever), s/he condemns it as a mere
> illustration, whether that is his/her intention or not.
>
> Show me a piece of art that depicts an idea or emotion, whether abstract
> or traditional, and I'll show you an "illustration".
I see what you are trying for here but I don't buy it. It is impossible to box
all art into the category of depiction or illustration.
mdeli
>is usually a much more direct and literal way of communicating an idea or
>emotion. Abstraction is generally not direct or literal but more evocative and
>suggestive.
Most modern Academic Abstraction doesn't evoke or suggest anything
more than a designer bed sheet.
If you think opposite just take a Rothko and tell us what it evokes
and suggests anything more than very average floor covering.
Bet I never get an answer.
>
>> The same critics who condemn traditional realist art as mere illustration
>> are usually guilty of lobbing all works inot that category. Every time an
>> art critic lauds a modern piece of unfathomable abstraction as a depiction
>> of the artist's emotions (or whatever), s/he condemns it as a mere
>> illustration, whether that is his/her intention or not.
>>
>> Show me a piece of art that depicts an idea or emotion, whether abstract
>> or traditional, and I'll show you an "illustration".
>
>I see what you are trying for here but I don't buy it. It is impossible to box
>all art into the category of depiction or illustration.
The usual cop-out.
Lissa Robinson
it's the only answer you deserve. you never offer any evidence for your allegations
either. just mdeli rhetoric.
mdeli
>**** off.
That's about the best an artzy fartzy ignoramus can answer.
>it's the only answer you deserve. you never offer any evidence for your allegations
>either. just mdeli rhetoric.
As I said before, the usual cop-out. Would you want someone like this
to teach you about art?
Our twit wrote:
>> > Abstraction is generally not direct or literal but more evocative and
>> >suggestive.
Seems you are the one who posed an allegation.
>>
>> Most modern Academic Abstraction doesn't evoke or suggest anything
>> more than a designer bed sheet.
>>
>> If you think opposite just take a Rothko and tell us what it evokes
>> and suggests anything more than very average floor covering.
>>
>> Bet I never get an answer.
Guess I was wrong. The answer is "**** off." I'm sure that should
satisfy many here.
Ricardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"Lissa Robinson" <ljro...@cadvision.com> wrote in message
news:3AD27E12...@cadvision.com...
Box all art into a category? That is exactly what critics who condemn
artists like rockwell as illustrators have done. A THey have in essence
castaway these artists as lower than artists so they could make shitty
artists look better if they are out of the way. I dont believe illustrator
is anothre branch of art. They are together, some artists want to tell a
story, like rockwell. Who cares if he was payed by a company, person or
goverment. What matters is the successful art that he made, that is the
art. Of course Rockwell's skill is far beyond any abstractionist, modernist
or impressionist. Modernists like to think of artists with a great
drawing/painting/sculpting skill as beneath them to make them feel better
about their pathetic talent.
Ricardo Pontes
Tracy Miller
You don't know, because your brain IS boxed.
You have a one -track mind, and all you can do is chant the litany....
All you have to do is be able to draw.......
All you have to do is be able to draw......
" "
than xxxx!, why bother wasting electricity and a phone bill? We dont want
to read it, honestly.
"mdeli" <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:3ad3ed2b...@news.psi.ca...
Lissa Robinson
> god, some of the people on this n.g. ! If you cant write anything better
> than xxxx!, why bother wasting electricity and a phone bill? We dont want
> to read it, honestly.
Actually I have contributed some very informative posts on this n.g. and some
crap too. Are you my parent? Are you the superior one here? Maybe I should bow
down. I don't find your post above all that profound or life altering either.
In fact, I don't want to read much, really.
Ricardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"Tracy Miller" <tra...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:3ad61704...@news.pipeline.com...
> What is the difference between Rockwell and Caravaggio?
> You don't know, because your brain IS boxed.
> You have a one -track mind, and all you can do is chant the litany....
> All you have to do is be able to draw.......
> All you have to do is be able to draw......
>
>
Did i mention Caravaggio Tracy? If i did i have forgotten. I am not sure
where you are coming from with this message, can you please point me in the
direction to what i said. Thanx
Ricardo Pontes
paolo beneforti
Tracy Miller scripsit
>What is the difference between Rockwell and Caravaggio?
Beyond every evident differences, there's a particular impact in real-life
fruition of paintings like Caravaggio's ones: something that Rockwell's
works (and papers like those) havent's, imho.
Anyway, I think tomorrow I'l go and take a cast an eye again on Caravaggio's
"Riposo dalla fuga in Egitto), so to be sure. ;-)