I tend to really enjoy some illustrators. Maybe they didn’t invent the style they are known for using, but they certainly worked well within it. I adore Tamara De Limpika and also Patrick Nagel. I will point out that every nail salon that ever existed brutalized his work in a horrid, horrid way, but I still find his work interesting. Michaelangelo he ain’t. (Who is by the way, one of my favorites)
I think the question being asked is more similar to “why do people focus so much on Mozart, et al. than contemporary musicians?” It is a rare, rare thing to hear anything other than “the classics” when it comes to classical music even though I figure, in the last few hundred years or so someone must have done something to compare. Did quality music really stop that long ago? And are all we are left is so-and-so’s version of the 5th Concerto of Whomever Has Been Dead A Long Time?
I’m a tad jaded though, I was looked down upon because I had only seen opera on TV and didn’t have season passes, so what the hell do I know?
I don’t think I have ever seen any successful commissioned illustration that doesn’t also have the artist’s own personal stylistic flourishes to make it their own.
Can you elaborate on that a bit. What, to you, makes them ‘good fucking drawings’? You do indeed represent some issues that are probably very meaningful to you in some way, and that is part of art. But when it comes to drawing and illustration, you seem to lack either technique or just practice, maybe? Also, I’m not seeing a decent grasp on anatomy, perspective, or even light and shadow to even stylize or exaggerate it properly. I wish I had more good things to say, and I didn’t want to crit you in the other thread, as that’s not what the point of the thread was. Criticism isn’t easy to digest, and I’ve had to deal with a lot of it in my time, but drawing for the most proficient seems to come naturally and comments and compliments, unprovoked. Over much time and practice, like anything else, can one refine their raw talent. Let the quality of the art speak for itself, and if you’re not getting much feedback, perhaps ask if anyone would like to more formally criticize it (meaning pointing out your strengths as well as weaknesses). It’s really the only way to progress.
As to the OP, I think in a lot of peoples heads they see Illustration as commercial, and fine art as self indulgent, internal, starving, patient work. Don’t kid yourself, it all comes from the same place, but with commercial art comes deadlines, and with deadlines comes compromise. So you begin to learn shortcuts and taking the ‘easy way’ sometimes, also a certain facet of apathy for the work might set in if you loose interest or get bored. Another thing, there’s a lot more say from your client and they usually tend to alter you work in such a way it’s looses all integrity, although there are a few great illustrators today that can practically work with final say. All that said, I love any work in which I can tell it was done with a master’s hand and a fresh POV.
Usually artists of any stripe are either (a) telling a story or (b) exercising technique. Sometimes they do both, but the most compelling approach (in my opinion) is to tell a story. In commercial illustration, the artist is paid to tell a specific story; with “fine art” the artist presumably gets to pick what story is told. Skill and technique certainly doesn’t differentiate the illustrator from the fine artist; check out the exquisite line art from Franklin Booth, for example, http://www.lostonwallace.com/booth.jpg or the beautiful paintings of James Gurney http://www.dinotopia.com/world-art.html; both are commercial artists. Many graphic novel illustrators are very gifted and proficient in their art as well. I think that the primary distinction for most people is; whose story is the artist choosing to tell, and why? Even here, things are fuzzy; you may hire an artist to illustrate a story, but their interpretation of parts of that story are going to be uniquely their own, unless you force them to simply execute a technique over a predetermined framework or sketch. Does it invalidate the artwork if someone was paid to approach the source material and interpret it artistically, as opposed to, say, someone simply telling them about a book and the artist being compelled to illustrate the images it conjures in the mind? Is the motivation of the artist even an issue at all?
Cuckoorex, you bring up some good points. Let’s take the audience’s perspective, rather than the artist’s. When the viewer or outsider looks at a piece of art, whether it be fine art, commercial, or even entertainment, they are provoked in some way. They forced to interpret what their seeing, and reconcile it emotionally.
Now, take Pixar. To many, they are considered the perfect dance between, art, science, technique, and consumerism. But, there’s not much interpretation left for the viewer. It’s all spelled out for you, and you don’t really have to think about it much. In a lot of way’s it’s manipulative. Pixar knows what tweaks a certain emotional response, and it works (when done right). It’s a slight of hand in storytelling and art. It’s beautiful and evocative, but obvious it isn’t fine art. It’s coming from a multitude of people behind the curtain, and they’re trying to appeal to as large an audience as possible.
Now let’s look and David Lynch. As a filmmaker, he’s experimental, cryptic, and leaves a ton open to interpretation. Sometimes not making much sense on the surface. It leaves the audience either confused or mesmerized. You have to find a connection to it. It also envelops you in a certain atmosphere. And while there may be some manipulation going on, it’s obvious the film is coming from mainly his center, and just putting it out there. If it sticks for the viewer, fine. If not, oh well… not for you. That smacks more of “true” art, even though it’s still supposed to be “commercial”.
I am not knowledgable enough to give a really informed answer to the OP’s question, but I suspect the answer to why “illustrators aren’t really artists” is similar to the reason why “science fiction isn’t really literature”:
Partly because of Sturgeon’s Law, and partly because the criteria by which good illustrations are judged are not the same as the criteria by which good art is judged, though they do overlap.
I think the difference is the degree of latitude the artist is given (or demands) in the work he’s comissioned to do. For example, Michaelangelo was commissioned to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, but my understanding is that the design, composition, and subject matter (within the broad strictures of “stuff from the Bible”) were almost entirely his own, and often clashed with what the church wanted him to do. Under lissener’s definition, the difference between an artist and an illustrator is not how he gets paid for the work, but the degree to which the work becomes a vehicle for the artist’s expression, and not the buyer’s expression.
Does that mean that portrait painters who have been commissioned to paint a faithful and not unflattering likeness of someone aren’t artists, and their work doesn’t belong in art books or museums?
I dunno, but when you find out, tell N. C. Wyeth–I’m sure he’d like to know…
Are the writers of genre fiction any less writers than one’s who win the National Book Award? It would seem so, but truly I doubt it. Much depends on the individual writer, of course. How about children’s books–why are they considered lesser in many eyes? Who knows?
lissener appears to be arguing that artists who take commissions but who then manage to transcend the limitations of the commission are True Artists (or Scotsmen)… whereas the others are not.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen the many portfolios of successful commissioned illustrators that don’t also include some personal works. Those who can subsist solely on personal works are lucky bastards. The rest of us have to earn our bread with whatever means we have available. I envy the abilities and talents of a lot of illustrators whose works I’ve seen in the mainstream. To say they are not artists just seems counterintuitive to me.
What would you say about artists who mostly don’t execute their own work. Artists like, for example, Michelangelo?
I am mainly posting to remind myself to post more tomorrow morning. I worked at an art gallery that specialized in this form of “not art” for 10 years and have spent a lot of time thinking and talking about this subject.
I think the typical, generic pre-Renaissance Pieta really IS no more than a good illustration. The fact that someone bothered to hang on to it for all these years is probably what makes it “art”.
Norman Rockwell’s starting to gain real respect, now that it’s been a few years. At the time, I think his sensibility was similar to everyone else’s, so it wasn’t celebrated as outstanding. Yet his technique was a good deal better than his peers’. Nowadays, his competitors’ work has been discarded but Rockwell’s remains.
Michelangelo and da Vinci and those cats – they’re freaks of nature ;).
I don’t think many modern portrait painters get their work in art books or museums, they’re considered basically an upscale version of photographers who do yearbook pictures.
I think the OP has it right, that illustrators aren’t as highly esteemed because they aren’t coming up with the idea for the pictures themselves. I would guess that in many cases the illustrator is given specific instructions as to what scenes should be depicted and what style should be used, and could be asked to redo anything that the publisher wasn’t happy with. Because they have less freedom, they get less respect for the final product.
An analogy might be made with newspaper photographers, who aren’t normally considered “real Artists” either. No matter how talented they may be, their creativity and self-expression is normally limited by the fact that their main job is to produce pictures of an assigned subject to go with someone else’s story on that subject.
