[LoTekK]

posted this up over at conceptart.org, and figured i'd throw it around over here, too...

quote:

---

okay, i don't know if this is a stupid question or not, but it's been burning in my head recently, especially since i'm looking into [finally!] working my way towards art school:

what's the real difference between "fine art" and "illustration?" i mean, i think i understand the traditionally-accepted views between the two, but what about in our current society, where convergence is practically an inevitability? what's the fine line that separates fine art from illustration? or has it been hopelessly blurred?

thanks in advance

---

[Lunatique]

General speaking, most fine art courses are more focused on the intellectual side of art, while illustration focuses on the techiniques of art.

In fine art, you'll learn art history, theory, how it affects our society, how to understand art...etc.

In illustration, you'll learn color theory, composition, values, drawings, painting, design, and probably some courses on the business side of illustration--dealing with clients..etc.

The two do converge in some classes, but the honest truth is, it's usually the ones with fine art degrees that are the wannabe hacks who can't draw/paint their way out of a bag bag. It's a lot more rare for illustration majors to suck that much.

My buddy's got a degree in fine art. He still draws the same crap as he did in High School. Even he said it was a waste of time, and they didn't teach him JACK about drawing and painting.

But, not ALL schools are like that. I also know excellent artists who did the fine art thing and kicked ass.

[Jelo]

Hey, that was a very good explanation.

[Tom Luth]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoTekK:

[QUOTE]
what's the real difference between "fine art" and "illustration?"

---

[/QB][/QUOTE]

That difference will vary with every school, and over time. When I went to school in the 70s, I spent a lot of time looking for a school that taught representational art. LA Art Center looked best, but was priced out of my league. Finally decided on Cal State Long Beach. Initially, I intended to be a drawing/painting major, and take a couple illustration classes on the side. As I began taking classes, and saw that Fine Art instructors and students, at least then, held representational art in poor regard, I began to rethink my choices. At times being met with disgust over my insistence on trying to paint realistically, and being told "If you want to do that crap, go take Illustration!" I made the change to being an illustration major.

That was then. Do some first hand checking with schools you are considering. Might be worth bringing samples of your work, and of work in the style you wish to do, to see if your goals match theirs.

Something else I discovered: My Fine Art courses were weak on actual instruction. Most involved a hand out sheet of materials, short demonstrations of how to stretch a canvas, and little else. We were given assignments, a week or two to work on the paintings, then we had critiques. Darn little in the way of instruction while working. In recent years, I have signed up for a class a semester at City College, and I am blown away at the level of instruction given with the classes! Far better than all my fine art classes put together! Constant involvement of the instructor, with ongoing help and suggestions as we work. Wish I got that 20 years ago!

I found illustration to be far better structured back then. Detailed instructions, demonstrations, and introductions to new materials or ways of working. Same could be said of night classes I took at Art Center, Brandes, and Art Institute of So. Cal.

In other words, you will need to do a lot of leg work, and track down the classes and instructors you want. Good luck!

[LoTekK]

lol, that was definitely an interesting explanation, luna... i never really thought about it in that way...

i'm currently enrolling in a community college (after failing out of university... the traditional education thing never has worked for me very well... ) to do an illustration major, so i guess i was a little concerned about whether or not i should be taking fine art instead... if what you say is true, and the major differences tend to be in art history, then i should be okay, seeing as i generally love to study the masters on my own anyways...

btw, jason manley had a short but sweet explanation of the difference:

quote:

---

a fine artist will most likely tell you that their art is more personal and for the sake of art...not for the sake of commercial gain.

an illustrator or illustration is purely commercial in use...it may be an equal art...but its not fine art.


thats the simple way out of that question...

j

---

oh yeah, escher talked about the illustrator's main goal was reproduction of his/her artwork... i have the quote in a book at home, so i'll post that up later today...

[edit]whoops, looks like tom insta-posted me... that's a good point, tom... i probably should be doing more legwork, but right now my choices are pretty slim, as far as colleges go, since i'm currently short on money and time (i don't have long before the fall semester starts, and i need to be in school to keep my student visa... )... but montgomery college's illustration course looks quite promising, as i've spoken to staff and faculty in the department, so i'm fairly happy with that... in the future, once i get my associates (or maybe even earlier, who knows), i hope to go to an art and design institute... so, i'm doing some research on the various colleges like savannah, ringling, etc...

cheers

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: LoTekK ]

[Teknoholic]

As an sophmore Illustration major (double majoring in Animation too) at a very high-up fine arts school, I can tell you the answer to this pretty easily. Illustration is supposed to actually the discipline of developing story-telling techniques and explaining complex ideas with still images. (The exact medium is unimportant, and some illustration isn't even really still.)

Therefore, it is not in itself either 'art' or 'design', but more of a technique. However, you should know that there is a "design stigma" associated with illustration, since it's most common in things like comic books and user manuals and the like.

So a lot of fine artists will look down their nose at your work if it's not artsy enough. But they do that to everyone anyway. They're pissed because they will soon end up working as part-time waiters and teaching art, rather than creating it.

But stick with illustration. It's the best thing you can do. You can do what you love and make a buck and even if you don't become famous, at least you can know that I will be.

[LoTekK]

damn, i edited my previous post because of tom's instapost, and then teknoholic goes ahead and instaposts my edit! o_O

anyways, that's probably the best explanation of the term "illustration" that i've heard thus far, and it certainly clears a lot of things up for me...

i know what you mean about the "design stigma" thing, because i was under the same impression myself until i really started researching a little for myself and realized that a lot of works labelled "illustration" could pass off as fine art... sort of lit up a bulb over my head...

thanks fer taking the time out for the explanations, guys...

[eyewoo]

I've always subscribed to a very simple explanation for the difference between fine art and illustration. Illustration has a purpose; to illustrate an idea or doctrine or story line. Fine art has no other purpose than to be its only purpose for being.

[edraket]

Ok here's another view on it. I agree with eyewoo but this just popped into my head.

Illustration targets normal people.

Fine arts targets intellectual elite people. Of course it technically could target normal people. But once it does that it is not art anymore because the elite people say so.

[el scoono]

i think that eyewoo summed it up pretty well, although there is some overlap between the two.

An illustrator might draw or paint simply to fulfill an assignment from a client, but he can also find room to express himself within this context (depending on how "open" the assignment is). however, an illustrator must always make sure that his image conveys a clear message.

the fine artist paints or draws more for the purpose of personal self-expression, yet he might also have a commercial motive. most fine artists eventually want to have their work displayed in galleries and hopefully purchased. how many fine artists hide their work away from the world? If it was solely about self expression, why bother to share it with anyone?

i have always been of the opinion that the gap between commercial and fine art is not as wide as many people think. what about an artist like Michelangelo? Most people immediately say he is a "fine artist", but nearly all of his works were commissioned by either the catholic church or another wealthy client. so maybe he was more of a commercial artist?

[LoTekK]

@el scoono: yeah, i kinda agree with you... i asked jason, in response to his post, about the fine line between that... i posed the question that if "fine art" was used for commercial purposes (and michaelangelo is a good example), would that be then classed as illustration?

[eyewoo]

I don't think it is too much of a stretch to call Michaelangelo an illustrator as well as fine artist...

[spewak]

the difference is that old "commercial" art wasn't a product of market research.. that's why it's timeless.

[latsami]

wow! so much text to read *o*

well, here in France, illustration is a part of "applied arts", I don't know the equivalence in English. By applied arts, I mean art applied to commercial uses like design, stylism, architectura, visual communication, graphisme, ads etc... You sure can expres yourself thru illustration, but you'll be stick to your client's will I think...

Fine arts schools used to be really famous here. But now their reputation aren't that good anymore. I know several former students and they said it sucked, that they didn't learn how to draw etc. I think they were doing things close to Contemporary Art. And not everyone can appreciate that kind of Art, especially if they're shown all of a sudden. I'm actually in applied arts, and I learnt slowly but surely to appreciate modern art or contemporary art. And even if people like this, this don't mean they will be able to DO this kind of art.

Well, I dunno if this is right, but this is what I feel about that difference ^^;;

[Levijuice]

Spewak : Are you sure about that market research? I think that Michelangelo was commercial artist and he was simply working on works that would sell. In my option his works was exactly what market wanted back then