Illustration, Art or Both?
I’ve always contended that the lines between Illustration (Commercial Art) and Fine Art is extremely blurred at best. They seem to take from one another on a regular basis over the last 100 years or so. This is something I fought over with more than a few instructors while working my way to a Bachelor’s of Fine Art degree. So, now I find it interesting to see more people come around to the notion. The best example of this is the fine Illustration Art blog. I find myself agreeing with the entries there for the most part and grateful for the examples that might be lost with time if not scanned and placed there. Check it out!
WTF entertainment? Weblog 
While earning a BA in academic art in the 70’s I was taught that illustration wasn’t art (too derivative). Amusing, since avant garde for the past 90 years is derivative of Duchamp and the dadaists. (I had to take rendering classes in the architecture department to learn perspective drawing.)
Today I follow in the footsteps of every artist up to Cezanne by studying and interpreting museum masterpieces – both the art and the frames (which are some of the best decorative art ever made). Combining fine art, illustration and decorative art in the same piece is a fun way to blur those lines even further.
Mernie Buchanan - March 23, 2008 at 7:52 pm |
Many concepts in the past are being reclarified and redefined today. Personally, I never found Fine Art that “fine”! I’ve been drawing/illustrating since I was 3 years old and it was pretty much God-given gift and nothing anyone actually taught me. Classes only “guided” me in the direction I wished to go but for some reason I never had true appreciation for the “Art Masters”. This irked and continues to irk my mother as she can go on for days about Van Gogh, Picasso and blah blah blah! I’m sorry but some modern art, in my mind, is far more intriguing and “revolutionary” than much that I’ve seen from the “Masters.” I have to admit, I never had much appreciation for Picasso until I learned that he could actually paint realistically! I guess drugs ruined people’s lives even back then! Ha! Flame me if you want…
Big Willie - March 27, 2008 at 11:31 am |
There are things to be learned from the past. If anything else it saves one the trouble of retreading the same ground. The thing that has always troubled me is the “snob” appeal of the designation “fine” art. Art is art. You either like it or not. Techniques and approaches leap over the designations. It’s all done for money, either by commission or gallery sale. The one done for commision (or publication) just has a broader appeal according to whomever commissioned it. (Editor, ad agency, etc.)
Picasso and drugs, that’s another story though. The same could be said about Dali. I guess that’s why there’s something like three films competing to do biography. (Pacino as Dali though. That could be pretty funny.)
wtfentertainment - March 27, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
Nice blog here, i’ll come back soon.
tomaszharacz - August 12, 2010 at 12:54 pm |