ETA: Now watch someone jump in with “Oh, except for Weegee!”
“Except for Michaelangelo!” “Except for Leonardo!” “Except for John Singer Sargent!”
I’m coming to agree with Oscar Wilde, all art is a load of horse dung. Or something like that.
Fully in agreement there, including my reaction to top illustrators.
Though you can imagine in such a case someone making the ecounter-argument that they both may be artists but not al they make is art. BTW, if you call thing A “fine art” and thing B “commercial art” , aren’t you calling them both a form of “art”?
M. C. Escher (according to a biographer) thought of himself as not an artist but an illustrator simply because he did not do anything but draw the images of his dreams. The man was an artist 100%.
The definition is a semantic for those who need the different labels to justify their or others work.
Well, again, the OP is asking for generalizations, and you’ve offered another exception. There’s no question that there are exceptions to the general rule; that still doesn’t invalidate a discussion about the reasons for the general rule.
Yes, if the artist is well chosen. When I worked for a textbook publisher, one of my jobs was searching through the thousands of illustrators’ portfolios for a handful that would be appropriate for a particular commission. Then I’d hand em over to Editorial and they’d choose one. You’d want to select an artist whose personal style jibed well with the subject.
Shoot, I forgot all about this thread and didn’t go digging up the examples that I wanted to.
Let me know if I got you wrong.
If this is true, then human kind did not first begin to produce art of any kind until the Romantic period in the mid 1800s. Up until that point nearly all art was an expression of craft rather than anything personal about the artist and almost all art was commissioned. This is true for all arts. Fine art, sculpture, music and theatre what have you. To think of art as an expression of anything other than craft is a modern (in a relative sense) invention. As I mentioned above, Michelangelo didn’t even paint his own work for the most part. He has a cadre of assistants who did most of the work for him.
Back later with cites.
Also many illustrators are considered in the top ranks of fine art. It just isn’t to everyone’s taste. And there is many an art snob who will look down on them, but Illustration art can go for several thousands of dollars in auction and many illustrators have gallery shows and are exhibited in museums.
Again, back later with cites.
Um, I cannot even begin to fathom how you get that out of what I’ve posted in this thread.
I said “normally”, not “always”. I am aware that some photojournalists are respected for their artistic ability. Some book illustrators are too. But we’re talking generalities here. If the OP’s question was “Why is an illustrator NEVER considered ‘a real Artist’?” then a few counterexamples would be enough to prove him wrong, but that isn’t what this thread is about. If you’d like to argue that illustrators are in every way afforded the same respect as painters whose works are shown in galleries then go right ahead, but saying “Michaelangelo is considered a great artist” doesn’t do anything to prove that point. Alternately, if you have some brilliant theory of your own as to why illustrators aren’t given the same regard as some other kinds of artists, please feel free to share it. But I don’t see that you’re contributing much to the conversation by being sarcastic towards people who are actually trying to address the OP’s question.
Speaking of the OP, as Thudlow Boink alluded to, another factor is that a lot of illustrators aren’t that great. They’re better than the Average Joe to be sure, but most achieve “goodness” rather than “greatness”. The same is true for painters and sculptors and so on, but most of them aren’t considered “real Artists” either. Every better-than-average bowl of fruit ever painted isn’t hanging in a museum. A painting has to be in some way remarkable[li] to wind up in a museum, while there are plenty of published magazine and book illustrations that are not especially noteworthy.[/li]
This isn’t to say that it’s easy to be an illustrator or that it doesn’t take talent and hard work, just that getting a painting into a respected gallery or museum show is even more competitive. If we define “a real Artist” as “could have their work in a famous museum” then many people who work as professional illustrators wouldn’t make the cut. SOME would, but a lot wouldn’t. This would be a rather unfair standard to use, but I can see why some people would think of things that way.
[*]Note that this can sometimes include being remarkably unusual or shocking rather than remarkably beautiful, realistic, or technically difficult.
You are aware that the question in this thread is “Why is an illustrator often considered ‘not a real Artist’?” not “Why is an illustrator not a real Artist?”, right?
I don’t think anyone here is trying to present an objective definition of what counts as art or even arguing that an illustrator cannot be a real Artist. The OP asked a question about how modern illustrators are perceived by modern people with presumably modern attitudes. Michelangelo’s methods or how he was paid for his work don’t have anything to do with the answer to that question. I don’t know why you expect someone who was merely trying to explain a common attitude to defend that attitude as if it were his own.
I’d guess that an even greater percentage of people who consider themselves “artists” but never sully themselves with filthy lucre would have zero chance of having their work shown. Unless there is indeed some bias against illustrators per se, in which case we’re going in circles.
Put it another way: how are you defining the subset of non-illustrator “artists”, and how do you support the contention that it has a greater chance of producing museum-quality work than the illustrator subset?
Uh, yeah, that’s pretty much what I said.
[QUOTE=Lamia]
The same is true for painters and sculptors and so on, but most of them aren’t considered “real Artists” either. Every better-than-average bowl of fruit ever painted isn’t hanging in a museum. A painting has to be in some way remarkable[li] to wind up in a museum[/li][/quote]
In other words, most people who paint, sculpt, whatever, will never have their work in a museum, not even if they are better than average at what they do.
Oh, we’re going around in circles alright, but that’s not the reason why.
I didn’t make any such contention. I said that if “real Artist” is defined as “could have their work in a famous museum” then many professional illustrators are not “real Artists”.
When I went on to say “This would be a rather unfair standard to use, but I can see why some people would think of things that way” I thought I was making it clear that this is not MY definition or a description of MY position on the matter, and thus is not a stance that I am personally interested in defending. I was simply trying to answer the OP’s question.
If you’re going to reply to my posts at all, I’d appreciate it if you’d try to actually read them first. If that’s not of any interest to you then you are certainly free to post without quoting me, although since you apparently have nothing to say with regard to the actual subject of this thread I’m not sure why you’re here at all.
On the one hand, it appears that your artistic circle jerk really comes down to “no true Scotsman”. Oh, pardon me, “I don’t have balls to defend the position, but it’s understandable why some would think ‘no true Scotsman’.”
On the other hand, blow me.
Bored now. Reply all ya want, I won’t see it. Ta.
Why is an illustrator often considered “not a real Artist?” Because he gets paid for his work. Because he isn’t starving in a garret, flinging elephant dung against a canvas to express his ennui with the world. Because he and his starving artist buddies have managed to convince themselves and their girlfriends that only THEY are True Artists and everybody else is a hack. Because the Art Community likes exclusivity and will defend it against all comers, even if they have to invent a line that doesn’t truly exist. Because of other, similar cliches that all have some grounding in truth.
Really, can you look at one of David Hocking’s swimming pool paintings without imagining the title of an Elmore Leonard novel splashed across it? Bet you can’t anymore! And what separates Jeff Koons from a Hustler photographer or his candle-making wife? Nothing, except he’s convinced the Art Community that he’s a Real Artist.
I’ve often defended “Art” has having some set qualities and I’ve based my arguments on the principles I learned as an undergraduate art major – they did teach us things, it wasn’t just Circle Jerk 101, Circle Jerk 102, etc.
I’ve often thought it was a shame that more people aren’t given better art instruction in school, taught how to see, how color works. Representational art, loved by so many people, has much more going on than merely “See that? Copy it.” Yet I don’t think its fans realize that.
And the thing is, you’re absolutely right - what makes a piece “art” is often someone’s willingness to market it as such.
And the relegation of an illustrator to “less than Artist” IS a modern convention. It wasn’t always that way.
I would say for myself, as someone who has drawn over 400 commissions (in the form of 10-minute portraits ;)) and also draws for my own pleasure, there’s a significant difference in the process. A commission is a collaboration - I’m trying to see someone as they see themselves, and represent that in my voice. Drawing elderly women, for example, is nearly impossible; I can’t please them.
When I work for myself, OTOH, I’m having my experience alone and I don’t care if it flatters. I aim to forget myself and the subject, and concentrate only on the process.
I don’t worry about whether any of it qualifies as “art” (although I would like it to succeed, i.e., be complete).
That’s the nice thing about giving up on being a Big Deal Famous Artist and just settling for selling drawings and paintings to ordinary people now and then. 
Here are a few of my favorite inspirations:
To my mind, the true pinnacle of art is someone who, having mastered his or her craft (namely the technical skills of art), then goes on to create something using those tools which expands the conciousness and creates awe in the observer.
An example is that of abstraction. The best abstraction (in my opinion) grows out of an intimate knowledge or representation - an intuitive feeling for natural forms which only extensive experience with handling and depicting them can provide.
Unfortunately, this process has been short-circuited by those who wish to leap into producing “high art” without the careful intermediate stages; who perceive “high art” as being, in essence, only that which is labelled as such; who value “originality” as an end unto itself (and thus are doomed to fail to be truly original).
Which brings me to illustration. Illustration is primarially an exercise of craft; thus, those who practice “art” in the short-circuit sense will naturally despise it. Those who practice art in the sense I prefer do not despise it, but view it as (for example) an apprenticeship in learning and mastering the skills required for the artist to go on and produce true high art.
Again, the question this thread is about – the question right up there at the top of the screen – is “Why is an illustrator often considered ‘not a real Artist’?” I’m not sure what your problem is with people answering the question that was posed. This isn’t GD and I don’t think the OP was attempting to start a debate, he or she was just asking about the reasons for an attitude he/she perceived to be a common one.
*I note that this is not the Pit, either.
Nicely said.
I believe it’s also true that the opportunities illustrators have to inspire awe or do something challenging or original in their work will be somewhat limited by the nature of their assignments. This was what I was trying to get at earlier with my newspaper photographer analogy, but to provide a better example I’ll link to the work of an actual illustrator. I just went to the website of the Society of Children’s Book Writers & Illustrators, and their current Featured Artist is John Gurney.
If your job is to produce a painting of a lion for a children’s picture book, you don’t come back with something like this. You’re going to be expected to produce something more along the lines of the first Gurney painting, a piece unlikely to be hanging in the Tate Modern anytime soon. It’s cute, but I can’t say I’m really moved by it.
I doubt Gurney set out to create an illustration of a lion that would move people to tears, though. He might be capable of doing truly awe-inspiring work, but that wouldn’t have been his goal with this piece. If his assignment was “paint a cute, colorful picture of a lion that will appeal to children” then that was what he had to do, and any ideas he had that didn’t fit that assignment would just have to wait.
That’s an interesting contrast.
Design-y stuff, whether it’s illustrations or furniture, usually strikes me as being very resolved. No mystery left.
Yes, that is an interesting idea, and makes sense (to me at least) given the different goals of, say a piece of commercial design and a less commercial art-work. The design is intended to elicit a certain response in the viewer – to communicate a very specific message if you will, rather than provoke a emotional response in the observer, a response that will be individually nuanced, and will depend on their own mood, background, and experiences.
If the same individual can produce art and non-art depending on the situation / design parameters / goals then perhaps the OP question might be better rephrased as: “Why is *illustration *often considered not real art”.
Absolutely. You’re right.
Do you mean David Hockney? Having people use Google as a spell-check doesn’t exactly help your cause