Illustration Vs Fine Art

[The Ham]

I'm researching for my dissertation right now and it’s so far going into the realms of Illustration Vs Fine art. How they clash, why and who.
Mainly focusing on concept art and comic art going against art the likes of old master paintings and modern fine art.
I know of a few artists who run between the lines of both for example Ashley wood, Kent Williams yoji shinakawa etc.
I’m doing it because this is a criticism I find myself in all the time while studying Fine art. My work blatantly shows my influences are greatly from illustrators and other artists whose work has a big presence of narrative and reason.

Anyway my main question is does anyone has an opinion or knows of any good references of debates or book or anything on this before?


Thanks

[Jasonwclark]

Eye halve a spelling chequer,
It came whit my pea sea.
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight fore it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write.
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid,
It nose bee four to long,
And eye can put the error rite.
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it.
I am shore your pleased too no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh;
My chequer tolled me sew.

I suppose that was a little low, but there is an edit button. Might grab you a few more responses.

From what I can gather, there are only few things that distinguish illustrators from fine artists (and they're blurry at best.) One has to do with order of payment; illustrators are contracted first and then do the work. Fine artists do the work first and then struggle to sell it (though commissions really throw a wrench in this distinction.) Another has to do with the preeminence of the story or 'product' (in illustration you can't make dramatic changes to these simply because it makes for a better image.) Additionally, I suppose you could say that gallery owners will pimp you to the pretensious upper crust, whereas publishing houses will w-hore you out to the increasingly image hungry masses. Chances are you're going to get fucked either way, but in the fine art world everyone is a necrophiliac, so there's an added bonus that they'll try to fuck you again after your dead.

Diatribes about skill or merit aside, that's pretty much the jist of it. Tom Wolfe has some interesting thoughts on the issue, so you might look him up.
Best of luck.

PS. Adobe should come out with a 'FineArtist' program to counter their Illustrator one, just we can keep all our 21st century ducks in a row.
PPS. Curiosly, the verb ''w-hore" remains one of the few profanities not allowed on the CA boards.

[The Ham]

Thanks for the head up on the wording. My grammar can be horrible I know.
I gathered the 'jist of it' that you gave. What I’m really after is a lot more of a debate on it than that. Because sat in a Fine art class with a group Crit my wok gets a lot of nose turning relation to comic book style. It gets at me a lot when that happens because surely illustration is just as emotionally valid as fine art as it’s done with fairly similar intentions. Does it not more rely on the artist themselves?

Christ. see this is why I’m seeking help

[Jasonwclark]

I guess the problem you're going to run into, is that it's a totally one sided debate.
The side that keeps it going (the fine arts side) stands to lose a lot once it concludes, which is why this debate persists, even though it could probably have been put to bed 40 years ago.

It sucks that you're receiving such jaded crits from your peers. Forget those people... just post your work here instead.

[kev ferrara]

The following is only my opinion...

Fine art is sold in a Fine Art gallery. That is its definition. If illustration gets sold in a gallery it becomes fine art.

"Fine Art" as a distinct category from everything else, was a political distinction drawn by ideologues circa 1900-1920, coinciding with the rise of illustration. You need to research the salon system of the 19th century. Utopianist movements including Marx. The early modernists' Manifestos. And then look up Kenneth Minogue on ideology and it might help you see the political roots of the overthrow of the "oppressor" salon system.

The camera also played a part because ideologues can't see the poetic components of art, they just see the literary components which dovetail with their "social realist" interests. Thus they could not see a significant distinction between, say, Waterhouse's Lady of Shallotte and a photograph of a similar event.

If you read Howard Pyle, Harvey Dunn, or Robert Henri's notes, they make very plain the difference between photography and illustration.

The depression and the rise of films effectively killed illustration as the bete noir of the "fine art community". Since the fine art community is ideology based, they simply have chosen new "oppressors" to rail against as time has marched on.

The Fine Art community has now effectively hated on everything it could get its hands on, including itself. And now we are at the end of the cycle.

Which is why the distinction between Fine Art and Illustration is falling away and "realist" work is becoming popular again. There was never a distinction in the first place, only a false one.

Read Thomas Wolfe's the Painted Word.

This is not to say that the twentieth century wasn't a marvellous time for the invention of new decorative schemes. All of which have been taken up by Architects and Fashion designers for their work.

kev

[Brendan N]

Fine art is sold in a Fine Art gallery. That is its definition. If illustration gets sold in a gallery it becomes fine art.

I agree with everything you said, just not quite on this one. I know why you say this, and I think it certainly has merit, but I don't think that fine art is necessarily confined to 'gallery space' - so to speak. In my view, Fine Art has as much to do with the spirit of the piece (as most dictionary definitions will echo) as the way it is commercialized.

This, of course, makes it more fuzzy.

In fact I think separating the two terms (Illustration and Fine Art) is in itself very problematic, and taking a "vs" slant on the whole thing is, as far as I can see, going to end up as something polemical rather than academical.

If you are intent on doing something where you treat Illustration and Fine Art as separate, I think your best bet would be to start by redefining Fine Art according to Kev's definition here.

just my 2c.

[Chris Bennett]

Fine art is sold in a Fine Art gallery. That is its definition. If illustration gets sold in a gallery it becomes fine art.

Which in most cases is a posh name for a shop.

[The Ham]

nice thanks
id just emailed artist Kieran Yanner to get his opinion on it. he gave me a good point i totaly agree with

"The only real difference I can assertain between "fine art" and "commercial art" is that one is made for personal enjoyment/release (fine art) and the other is made for profit or the enjoyment of someone else (commercial art).

If you take that look. You kinda start to realize that even most gallery artists would fall under commercial artist as its in their intent to sell their work and gain profit. Boxing ones self into an area once they realize what the consumer is looking for and sticking to reproducing similar looks. Self marketing.

Art in general carries with it emotional ties. Wether its dictated by a publisher or dictated by the market at the time. So saying there is in some way more emotion or depth to "gallery/fine art" (which is typically what ive heard) is downgrading the planning and executing that goes into commercial art. But really thats all it comes down to... one person trying to feel superior over another.

I produce work for my own personal release (when i have time) and for profit and publishers. I'm an artist. I don't need to add another label and I'm comfortable with my own position in life to not to need to feel like i'm better than anyone. You get flak from both sides. People in commercial art criticizing gallery artists and gallery artists criticizing commercial artists. There is a lot people can learn from both sides and they can get past their egos."

thanks for all the stuff ive gotten so far, its helping me alot.
i'm trying to get stuff sorted for people to crit my work on here, peopel are honest and fair on here and tend to give good advice. hmmmm

[Hyskoa]

Well illustration is where they usually either are forced to educate you in traditional techniques to convey ideas in different mediums or at least try to give some sort of basis so you can build up an interesting image.

Fine arts is where they put a brush in your hand and go "You just go nuts and we'll see what happens in a few decades hmmmmmmmmmkay."


In present day education anyway.

[Ilaekae]

"Which is why the distinction between Fine Art and Illustration is falling away and "realist" work is becoming popular again. There was never a distinction in the first place, only a false one.
...
This is not to say that the twentieth century wasn't a marvellous time for the invention of new decorative schemes. All of which have been taken up by Architects and Fashion designers for their work. "

Ahhhhh...I never had it explained to me so clearly before. Since it's apparent from the first para above that this "re-connection" can occur only when all work is "realist," supported by the implications in the second para that "non-realist" work is basically a bunch of new "decorative schemes," I guess I'll have to start referring to my early influences and references to my own learning process as interior decorators or gift-wrap designers...

So as not to confuse any one in the future, Klee, Arp, Johns, Duchamp, Miro, Nevilson, Pollock, Klein, Shawn, Tanguay, Picasso, Matisse, Rothko, and maybe 3-4,000 others, as well as every other artist of any stripe that they ever influenced in any way (including probably 25,000+ professional illustrators), will be immediately removed from my reference list of "artists" to refer to.

And I hope all of you learned a lesson from this finally. You have been told over and over that the only "true artists" are those who adhere religiously to strict "realist" work or "realism," but none of you ever seem to learn.

[kev ferrara]

TheHam... just beware... you are probably dealing with ideologues who take their politics *very* seriously. Political ideology is a form of mental virus or poison that feeds on jealousy and hate, which is why it always requires an "enemy" to rail against.

Mark my words, you will not convince the ideologues who critique your work that their ideology is simply ego-fabricated political bullshit.

But, if I were you, and didn't give a fuck about my grade point average, I'd stand up right in the middle of class and say exactly that... "you people are critiquing my work form a stance of ego-fabricated political bullshit because you hate yourselves and you hate your lives and none of you can draw worth shit and have no fucking heart!"

You can then follow up with, "May I go now?"



best,
kev

[kev ferrara]

I guess I'll have to start referring to my early influences and references to my own learning process as interior decorators or gift-wrap designers...

...Klee, Arp, Johns, Duchamp, Miro, Nevilson, Pollock, Klein, Shawn, Tanguay, Picasso, Matisse, Rothko

No, no, no... not all of them. Just some Miro, most Pollock, most Rothko, most of Arp, most of Klein, not so sure about Shawn or the rest.

And so-called "realism" casts a very wide net indeed. So I wouldn't exactly call it exclusionary.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with decorative art. I happen to believe that all art is poeticized versions of life, so even Pollock is offering us a narrative. I consider the distinction to be related to the generality of the aesthetics of abstractionist work. Because these works have no specificity (not even to themselves, because their styles are easily duplicated by a competent craftsman), they apply rather poorly to our specific experiences in life. They are expressive and beautiful without being tethered to realism. This makes them emotionally associative works, like wordless classical music.

Classical music can be associated equally well as background for a Hollywood melodrama, a bugs bunny cartoon or a commercial for diapers.

Modernist decorative schemes are the same way. They can work for furniture, clothing, architecture, magazine layout... or any other thing where blank or boring surfaces are an integral part of the utility of an object. There is definite merit in that kind of creativity. I am not knocking decorative art. But it is, by its very nature, a surface-oriented art. It is not deep, despite all the verbiage spilled on its behalf.

Its okay if we disagree Mr Ilaekae. The world is big enough for the two of our opinions. Or don't you think so?

sweet dreams
kev

[Ilaekae]

The world will survive fine with our differing opinions. It's our egos that I worry about...

[The Ham]

"you people are critiquing my work form a stance of ego-fabricated political bullshit because you hate yourselves and you hate your lives and none of you can draw worth shit and have no fucking heart!"

haha yeah i think if i did that id wound thier very soul and i'd be the only student left in the room.....hmmmmmm sounds nice.
Anyway i am aware i'm eventualy going to be gunning for one party rather than the other, i guess this is one of the many reasons ive started this, to see where some peoples hearts are on the subject. personaly for me the dark side was prooving to be the Fine art.......but i'm still open minded and i think it was mainly because i was being bruised by what i was getting from my fine art based group crits that Fine art was shaping to be the media i was compareing against.

although i do agree with

"The Fine Art community has now effectively hated on everything it could get its hands on, including itself. And now we are at the end of the cycle".

it definatly has turned its nose on most if not all other medias.....argh. my noodle is cooking on high now!

i'm going to be reading more and gathering more sources before i set my path of argument.
sorry if i'm begining to babble.
thanks again

[The Ham]

Theres been a change in how i'm going about it now. like kev ferrara my tutor warned me of playing both sides against each other and advised rather to compare the two.
i think this is a better route to go
its all good

[otis]

A pointless debate that will leave you with no answers.
But if you want to argue apples vs oranges...go ahead.
It's still just fruit.

I hope your not paying a lot for tuition.

[Mungus]

The world will survive fine with our differing opinions. It's our egos that I worry about...

stop mutually stroking each other.......this is a public forum

[Mungus]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...9/ai_n14355638

http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2...d_Art/art1.asp


Hey Hamster, here's some interesting articles for your research, the first one's interesting regarding illustration being celebrated/plagiarised in the Fine Art sphere.


fine art = $10,000
illustration = $100
both being the same picture, but when you engulf one in ideological smoke and mirrors......

[Phil Moss]

I suppose the text book difference is that fine art serves it's own purpose, but illustration does exactly that - it illustrates it's point, i.e. it's a describing process there to aid someone understanding a page of text from a novel for example, or to aid someone to imagine the pro's of buying a product in advertising.
That is not to say that illustration cannot become fine art or the reverse, it's just that illustration on paper (excuse the pun!) is there to perform a task I suppose.

I did a similar essay at college about Mervyn Peake, who was a fantastic fine artist and an even better (in my opinion) illustrator (aswell as poet, author, prime minister, astronaut, clown, vet, composer...) ... (none of those last four are true... just in case!).

I suppose we, with the mind of 'artists' find it difficult to say the piece is fine art, and that isnt, but I often come across people who enjoy 'hang on your wall' artwork, but have no interest in illustration (these later are the repulsive people who do not buy illustrated editions of the same book by different artists... for shame)

So basically it's short answer yes with an if, long answer no with a but I'm afraid!

[kingshaj]

i prefer to rigidly define them as two wholly separate endeavors
with deferent goals and audiences. (clients with cash or ethereal muses)

in my isolated opinion:

illustration should now be called "commercial art" and often is.
and "fine art" should be renamed "non-commercial art"

thus removing any value judgment inherent in these titles and subsequently thus all the ego bumping.

-learn what there is to be learned from both very different disciplines,
then recombine and cross-pollinate with lessons learned form both and other disciplines as well/

[Elwell]

and "fine art" should be renamed "non-commercial art"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


heh

ehem

excuse me

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

please

stop

I can't take no more

[enrigo]

and "fine art" should be renamed "non-commercial art"

I don't think anybody who's into fine art is going to call it that, after all it's all about thinking up the cool new label that end with -ism to call yourself. Something that sounds superior like fine art is always a nice label.

[Ilaekae]

Elwell, I'm glad you found that before I did...that much laughter would have killed me...

[sweetoblivion314]

I don't think anybody who's into fine art is going to call it that, after all it's all about thinking up the cool new label that end with -ism to call yourself. Something that sounds superior like fine art is always a nice label.

I am sorry but i am very offended by this. I am studying to be a fine artist and this is not what it is about for me or anyone i know.

And honestly I am getting very tired of the constant put downs on fine artists from members of this community. Yes it is a business just like any other, but the idea that "fine artists just pump out crap that they know will sell to the uneducated rich elites who follow trends" is asinine.

[enrigo]

Sorry if it comes off like that with the generalization and all, but I find that that is what the big groups in fine art is doing now. Of course there's always exceptions.

[kev ferrara]

I am studying to be a fine artist

In what sense are you studying to be a fine artist rather than simply an artist?

Can you explain your curriculum and how it would differ from a non-fine artist?

[sweetoblivion314]

In what sense are you studying to be a fine artist rather than simply an artist?

Can you explain your curriculum and how it would differ from a non-fine artist?

its a standard figurative realistic art curriculum except it has a focus on selling art in galleries. Their are classes in practices and marketing towards that type of thing rather then the illustration department that has classes that focus toward preparing portfolios and business practices to market to art for the entertainment business purposes and/or for commissions.

[kingshaj]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


heh

ehem

excuse me

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

please

stop

I can't take no more

i was being facetious...trying to point out the sillyness of caring about these labels....and its a given that no one will really re-name anything ....i'm sure you remember all too well, a recent mammoth thread about the futility of the whole debate.


the truth i was poking fun at: seems like these camps could be friends

its a standard figurative realistic art curriculum except it has a focus on selling art in galleries. Their are classes in practices and marketing towards that type of thing rather then the illustration department that has classes that focus toward preparing portfolios and business practices to market to art for the entertainment business purposes and/or for commissions.

lol but dayum Elwell. i feel like the kid who peed his pants at recess now.
running crying out snot bubbles...off to the principals office to wait for my mom
----

[Elwell]

See, now I feel bad

[chaosrocks]

sure you do

my fine artist husband... aint giving back the munnies.... from his "non-commercial" artz!

baby needs more shoes