Illustrators vs. Fine Artist? What does everyone think?

[sharprm]

I just wanted to say likening 'abstract art' to music is wrong. The guy's initial reaction to label those prints as "what the cat threw up" was on the ball. Abstract art is not like music because music follows mathematical rules. Abstract art is like recording farting in the bathtub. Its easy and its stupid.

A clear example of following/not following rules is modern abstract architecture versus classical architecture (both don't try to represent something). Classical architecture follows mathematical rules. There is repetition of shapes, symmetry, hierarchy, ratios etc. You can tell how big a building is with a quick glance. With modern architecture they don't follow these rules, its usually an ugly box with crap whacked on it. You can't tell how big it is and often where the bloody entrance is. Classical architecture probably followed rules possibly because its easier to build (eg. calculate how much material) and easier to defend in a battle. But it just looks better as well! You only think differently if u have been brainwashed by paying a lot of money to go to art uni or if u can't draw or if u think liking sh*t means you are smart.

I like comics, picture story books, portraits, caricatures, paintings of battles etc. as long as they are done well. I don't know which fall into the categories of illustration or fine art.

[Lester Toil]

Well, you have guys like James Bama here who is known for being one of the premiere illustrators of the 1960s (responsible for all those stunning Doc Savage paperback covers as well as all the cover art for those Aurora monster model kits). When Bama hit a certain age he retired from the commercial illustration field and devoted his skills to "fine arts"--and by that I mean painting cowboys, indians, western landscapes, and old sharecroppers. Now obviously the ONLY difference between his illo work and his fine art work is its content. Put a cowboy hat on Doc Savage here and he's now worthy of a fancy-schmancy fine arts gallery exhibit with a curator and a program book. And incidentally, western art is the #1 theme of painting that commercial illustrators embrace when they retire. I don't know why that is, but it's true.




And then you had dudes like Wayne Thiebald that were firmly identified as fine artists (he was a superstar here in the San Francisco Bay Area when I was a kid with those paintings of cupcakes and pies) that would do the ocassional painting for a cookbook or an opera poster when the mood struck him. And again, there was absolutely no distinction between his fine arts work and those commercial illustration pieces--not even content-wise! Same goes for guys like Mark Ryden who also fluctuated between commercial illustration and art that demands gallery wall space



.

But I have to admit I still go through bouts of insecurity as a commercial illustrator and say to myself, "I wish I had it in me to do real art that someone would want to hang over their fireplace." Needless to say I'm the kind of person that would worship an original illustration by Brad Holland and frame that puppy in the finest frame I could find and hang it proudly--and in all honesty, most people would too. Again, I guess the distinction comes in with the content of the art. If it's a painting of a gas station attendant holding up a Firestone tire, most people wouldn't want that near their mantle (of course I would). But if the same artist painted a still life, it would be considered living room worthy and written up in Art Connesoiur Magazine..

But as I said, there's pieces like this by Skip Liemke that defy categorization (it's actually a book illustration). But in general, I'd have to assume it's the content of the art that distinguishes it. Unfortunately it also dictates the value and importance of it.

[emceeONE]

I think it's who likes it that distinguishes it. If a fine art critic or gallery owner digs the work, it's fine art. If not, it's commercial art. In the end, it's like music. If I like it, I'm a fan. If I don't, I'm not. The difference doesn't matter to me, the general public, or even to other artists, I suspect.

And Lester, westerns are #1, really?!

[Wm Wray]

I think I've made the distinction pretty clear, but admittedly it's a subtle distinction that is abused to protect the world of conceptual art where there is a dearth of drawing ability.
Fine art is pure personal expression; another is an attempt to fulfill the need of how a client what's to use your art to sell a product. Isn't that clear?
Every now an then artist come along who are so interesting in there personal vision they find a slot in illustration that is pretty darn personally expressive. That is when the lines Blur. James Jean comes to mind. I imagine his Vertigo covers where not heavily art directed most of the time. Some artists are lucky that why that there personal style is very brand oriented or popular to what the commercial fields are looking for. James recently decided to go into fine art. His work looks on the surface substantially the same. However he's not being art directed, he owns the work body and soul.
The frustrating part is now even though he's in a gallery, many in the fine art world would still call his work Illustration. I don't agree with that, I'd counter it's has a surface illustration style that conceptually oriented galleries need to get past their prejudices to accept. Those dismissive prejudices are the first line in a rational that is in place to protect fine artist with no skill, but a good class pedigree. Otherwise Illustrators would take over the fine art world effortlessly. That?s why illustration is put in a classification that is considered stupid and obvious and fine art is considered intelligent and insubstantial. What makes this argument winnable is powerful people declare it so and to a great extent it?s true.
Frank Frazetta is a talented oaf. Some university educated artist who make household objects into cleaver forms would in a debate, out articulate Frank Ten ways to Sunday. It?s all based on classicism. In our society Classicism is everywhere, just try and get into Hollywood or become a CEO if your not born into it. In fine art it?s the same way in that sense the distinction is working class: Illustration vs. Upper class: Conceptual artists. I?m not saying it?s fair, but it?s REAL.

anyone who thinks that illustration is for "other people" while fine art is for "yourself" is fooling themselves. that might be true of individual illustrators or fine artists, but it's laughably naive about fine art as an industry.

i haven't seen a single distinction between the two in this thread that is actually objective. saying a fine artist didn't care about the money, or illustrators have to do what other people tell them... again, that can certainly be true of specific situations or people, but is embarrassingly simplistic and useless as any sort of distinction.

that's not to say the two are them same, just that there must be better definitions out there than this. also, i'm also not sure how/why the two are exclusive. why is illustration NOT considered art/fine art? when and why is a work of fine art NOT illustrative? is there some real and consistent criteria? i think a lot of the current distinction is made to pad art school tuitions and some people's egos. sorry if i'm offending anyone, but then

Real deal painters wrestle with their compositions and render them with great skill. It seems to me that illustration is often made much faster with less concern for working out an interesting visual arrangement and quick work covered for with a few cool gimmicky tricks

is so inaccurate AND insulting, that i'm not going to feel too contrite. i mean, that's just dumb.

[Wm Wray]

I think I've made the distinction pretty clear, but admittedly it's a subtle distinction that is abused to protect the world of conceptual art where there is a dearth of drawing ability.
Fine art is pure personal expression; another is an attempt to fulfill the need of how a client what's to use your art to sell a product. Isn't that clear?
Every now an then artist come along who are so interesting in there personal vision they find a slot in illustration that is pretty darn personally expressive. That is when the lines Blur. James Jean comes to mind. I imagine his Vertigo covers where not heavily art directed most of the time. Some artists are lucky that why that there personal style is very brand oriented or popular to what the commercial fields are looking for. James recently decided to go into fine art. His work looks on the surface substantially the same. However he's not being art directed, he owns the work body and soul.
The frustrating part is now even though he's in a gallery, many in the fine art world would still call his work Illustration. I don't agree with that, I'd counter it's has a surface illustration style that conceptually oriented galleries need to get past their prejudices to accept. Those dismissive prejudices are the first line in a rational that is in place to protect fine artist with no skill, but a good class pedigree. Otherwise Illustrators would take over the fine art world effortlessly. That?s why illustration is put in a classification that is considered stupid and obvious and fine art is considered intelligent and insubstantial. What makes this argument winnable is powerful people declare it so and to a great extent it?s true.
Frank Frazetta is a talented oaf. Some university educated artist who make household objects into cleaver forms would in a debate, out articulate Frank Ten ways to Sunday. It?s all based on classicism. In our society Classicism is everywhere, just try and get into Hollywood or become a CEO if your not born into it. In fine art it?s the same way in that sense the distinction is working class: Illustration vs. Upper class: Conceptual artists. I?m not saying it?s fair, but it?s REAL.

anyone who thinks that illustration is for "other people" while fine art is for "yourself" is fooling themselves. that might be true of individual illustrators or fine artists, but it's laughably naive about fine art as an industry.

i haven't seen a single distinction between the two in this thread that is actually objective. saying a fine artist didn't care about the money, or illustrators have to do what other people tell them... again, that can certainly be true of specific situations or people, but is embarrassingly simplistic and useless as any sort of distinction.

that's not to say the two are them same, just that there must be better definitions out there than this. also, i'm also not sure how/why the two are exclusive. why is illustration NOT considered art/fine art? when and why is a work of fine art NOT illustrative? is there some real and consistent criteria? i think a lot of the current distinction is made to pad art school tuitions and some people's egos. sorry if i'm offending anyone, but then

Real deal painters wrestle with their compositions and render them with great skill. It seems to me that illustration is often made much faster with less concern for working out an interesting visual arrangement and quick work covered for with a few cool gimmicky tricks

is so inaccurate AND insulting, that i'm not going to feel too contrite. i mean, that's just dumb.

[nateomedia]

While working on an MFA in Illustration, I've found myself wrestling with how to define what I do and I think I've finally come up with some answers that work for me.

The argument that most people seem to start with for separating fine art from illustration usually has to do with the intent of the artist. However, I would argue that the intent of an illustrator and the intent of a fine artist isn't much different. For the most part, both illustrators and fine artists create work with the intent of satisfying a buyer of some sort. Illustrators labor to create work that will satisfy the commercial needs of publishers and manufacturers; fine artists labor to create work that will satisfy the commercial needs of art galleries. After all, art galleries are stores ? the intent is to make money ? galleries don't hang what they can't sell. And fine artists still need to eat. So, fine artists may seem to have more creative freedom than illustrators, but they are still being influenced the whims and desires of the art market.

So, if the difference between "fine art" and "illustration" can't be pinned on some "pure" motivation on the part of the fine artists and some "tainted" motivation on the part of the illustrator, then the distinction must be one of function. And if it's a question of function, then one must ask: Is an image's function fixed in its construction by the artist or is an image's function fluid and a result of contextualization?

Well, let's ask a couple of questions:

1. What happens to an "illustration" when it's hung in an art gallery? Does it remain an illustration? Or does it become "fine art?" If an illustration by James Jean or a comic book page by Chris Ware is hung on the wall of an art gallery, do these pieces still function as illustration? They are removed from their original context, no longer in juxtaposition with the original text and imagery that gave them their meaning ? does that change them?

2. What happens to "fine art" when it's reproduced for commercial purposes? Is it still "fine art?" Or is it now "illustration?" If a Jackson Pollock painting is used in a Woman's World magazine ad for mop cleaner, is it still functioning as fine art? Or does placing the painting within a new context and the juxtaposing with text change its function?

What I've concluded from asking these questions is that the distinction between "fine art" and "illustration" is simply one of curatorship. When an image is placed within a space that is thematically limited with clear and direct messaging, the image gains the ability to communicate a fixed message to a broad audience. That's illustration. When an image is isolated in a space devoid of specific contextual clues, the image's meaning becomes fragmentary and the image opens itself up to study and interpretation based on the interests of the individual viewer (which could be cultural, historical, formalist, etc.). That's fine art.

[emceeONE]

I like your take, Nate. I don't think it's always separated like that in the real world, but it's a nice objective measure.

[OFFBEAT]

What about... If you draw a dog, it's fine art... if someone hires you to draw a dog.. it's an illustration?

[extremophile]

Almost there, but if it happened a long, long time ago, then it's fine art, not just illustration. Specially if the church commissioned you to do it as mural or something.

[nateomedia]

Almost there, but if it happened a long, long time ago, then it's fine art, not just illustration. Specially if the church commissioned you to do it as mural or something.

I don't think the terms "illustration" and "fine art" are of much use prior to ~1870 and the rise of photography. The function of painting was different back then, as it was the only means of recording images. It was only after photography was invented that painting/image-making split into the navel-gazing of modernism/post-modernism and the more clearly commercial work of "illustrators."

However, if you're going to analyze the work of painters like Titian, Raphael and Michelangelo by looking at how their work was used and what their artistic intent was, I think they have much more in common with illustrators than they do fine artists. Most of their work was commissioned by the church with the rest being commissioned by wealthy private patrons. Their rockstar status gave them some leeway in terms of composition and content, but if they were hired to do a portrait, they did a portrait.

Even if you want to argue that the religious content somehow shifts that work towards "fine art," how many times has the God touching Adam's finger part of the Sistine Chapel been used in advertising campaigns? Seems to me that such modern usage would redefine it in those instances illustration. That's why I think looking at artistic intent is tricky.

[wildthing]

So I've heard some stories from people on both sides of the fence that there is sometimes a mutual contempt between people who are more "entertainment art" and people who consider themselves "fine artist." Specifically I've heard that there are many Illustrators and Fine Artist who disdain each others fields. For example that there are certain fine art galleries that would turn down any submission that seems to "illustrative" or ones that seem to imply to much storytelling. I have noticed at my own school that there seems to be a sharp (perhaps that's not the right word maybe distinct) division between the interests of our Fine Artist and those of us interested in doing work in the entertainment industry. It's not a serious point of contention, we make friends with people on the other side but it is something that I'm becoming more and more aware of.

For me it's a rather stupid distinction because I believe it's simply a line in the sand that people turn into a huge thing. I would consider most of the old masters who were painting Biblical and mythological themes to be "illustrators" and "Fine Artist."

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Most of the people I have worked with are grouped this way:
art and copyright infringement attorneys
art and copyright attorney's who have dual degrees law/fine arts
fine artists with a college degree
fine artists with a certificate
fine artists who are just plain touched by god.

Illustrators with in the same scope of education as above.

Maybe some galleries and or publishers have contempt for one genre or training over another but I have not met any of them..we all seem to play well together I personally love all of you. Some of the students I have worked with are out of this world.

[wildthing]

It's all about context, and with different contexts you can't really compare the two together, the only area that they overlap in is that they are visual art. The rest is up for grabs. It's like comparing music videos to documentaries.

Hmmm. as an educator in both genres' as an illustrator can you not create fine art? whatever that is..its like trying to say what is normal..now they move to what is "statistically normal", however, I know that you can I belive all the art I am seeing and all of the artists from "Al Hirshfeld to Walt disney" are truly fine art. when is it not...really?


Mark

[Blank Canvas]

I'm an illustrator. In general I have to draw and paint what the customer wants, very often in exactly the way they want it, even if I don't really want to do it that way.

In theory a successful fine artist can choose what they want to paint and how they'll do it. But then they're likely to be constrained by what will sell, what they're known for etc. And if a fine artist accepts a commission, does that make them an illustrator?