[Capt. Fred]

Only recently I have become aware of illustration and 'high art' as separate, pretty obvious and clear distinction usually but i hadn't thought about it. Mainly brought about by comments spooge has been making.

Just to check i understand: Illustration is superficial, eye-candy, and 'real art' has 'meaning' and 'makes a statement about life' or something etc.. is this right? or is there more to it than this?

Is it right to say you can't really get a job as an artist, other than just selling your work if someone else likes it and doing commissions? Whereas as an illustrator there are formal jobs available, or you can still do freelance.. ? What way of working is most normal for an illustrator?

So then, portraiture for example.. how does that fall into the 'art' category when it often seems to be very superficial without 'deep meaning'.

I don't have a point that I'm making, only questions. You have the answers?
I need to know now as I have to choose what I want to do when I leave school (soonish). I don't mind if I'm more of an artist than an illustrator or vice versa, I just want to know the definitions, so I know what to call what i like doing, and where to look for the future.

If any wisened person has any ideas on anything to do with anything i said then let me know. I could do with your experience, it would be much appreciated

EDIT: oops Only now do I see a similar thread already started... sorry Caspian.

[AndyT]

I'd use fine art rather than high art.
Fine artist want to be ahead of their time. Illustrators have to satisfy their clients.
I think I read that fine artist who still use brushes are considered antiquated!?

Illustrators have to learn many different media.
I think it's more practical and fine art is more about theory and attitude.

I wouldn't call illustration superficial.
Illustrators have to know the deepest depth of that field to be successful ...
if they don't specialize in a certain style.

A portrait artist is a particular case if you ask me.

You could as well say that fine artists kinda need to keep up appearances ...
But I guess you didn't mean it in a bad way!?

Funny you ask that btw.
I'll soon try to write about the differences between fine art, conceptual art and illustration.
http://andyart.de/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=12&t=42&st=0#entry229

Haven't done a lot of research yet though.
This is going to be interesting (I hope).

At least I think fine art is what people meant.
It's not an option for you. Better look for illustration or design education.
As always I hope there will be more helpful replies.
_________________
http://www.conceptworld.org

[Sumaleth]

I've heard quite a few ways to describe the distinction between fine art and illustration, but the one that I think is most relevant is this:

Fine art is art that is instigated by the artist. Illustration is art that is instigated by someone other than the artist.

Based on those definitions, fine art is what comes from inside the artist.

However, portraiture doesn't fit into that categorization (because it is usually considered fine art).

I've also seen them defined as "illustration is used to sell a product or illustrate a story, whereas in the case of fine art the -art- itself is the product".

That's another good one, although it gets washy when you consider that a lot of the best Renaissance art illustrated stories. What was illustration then has become fine art today.

These definitions, and indeed the whole categorization of art into these two categories, is something that we artificially put onto art. Art is really just art - the expression of an idea or story or whatever. This is why they've never really been clear cut - there's a lot of blurring between the boundies of definition.

One final point: "quality" of the art is not relevant in the discussion of categorization. Traditionally, the fine art purists have snubbed their noses at illustration, but the quality of the art has nothing to do with why the art was created. Check out the Sistine Chapel for an example.
_________________
Art Links Archive -- Artists and Tutorials

[Capt. Fred]

AndyT: Yes, fine art is the term i was looking for. And yeah, you're right, what I like is not called fine art, it's called illustration. Apart from my interest in portraiture which is a special case as you put.

But I wonder how special a case, because there's also optical art (op-art, like bridget riley for eg.) to add to the list, which is completely superficial in the sense that what you see is all there is to it. The colours and shapes are only supposed to play with your eyes.. There are probably more examples for the list.

Which I suppose is what Sumaleth is saying about the boundaries being blurry. I suppose it's not really necessary to have EXACT definitions.

All right then, thanks for your replies.

[Les Watters]

Fine art VS. Illustration. I do agree that there is a differance. but, I believe the definition of fine art coming from the artist and Illustration comming from some one else is wrong. Rembrandt and Sargent painted Portraits to make money, and they where given this job by some one, does that make it illustration or fine art? I believe history would say Fine Art, and it would also say Illustration. If you look at the work of say Loomis or Sundblom you would say Illustrator, the day it was created, but what about today when the ad is done with and the beauty of the painting is all that is left, Fine art or Illustration?
_________________
When in doubt, black it out.

Wally Wood

[YVerloc]

I read an anecdote about the Hildebrandt Brothers. They were working on the Tolkien calendars together in the 70's, and had some "creative differences". Are they artists or are they illustrators? What are the definitions anyhow? A screaming match ensues. Things are knocked over. Paintings are broken in half.

In the end, they decided that an artist stands to work, and an illustrator sits down.

YV

[AndyT]

I think the problems appear when you try to put the older pieces of art in today's categories.
I guess the distictions are important because there are so many stereotypical views.

The role of art changes. In the past it wasn't important ... maybe not even possible to make the distinctions.

But Les Watters in your reply it sounds as if good art is fine art!?
IMO Loomis is an Illustrator.

And why shouldn't artists do stuff for money and still be artists.

They were paid as artists and Loomis was paid to create illustrations.

But what do I know.
The important thing is that it's not about quality.

YVerloc: Hehe good one
_________________
http://www.conceptworld.org

[Les Watters]

Look we always end up in the same place with discussions like this one. What is Fine art and What is Illustration? There are many Great Illustrators that could stand on their own up against any of the Old masters.

The problum is the lack of any forthright definition in art, if an artist movement can define art, then so should we. With out a definition all we do is argue.

But in this relativistic world most people beleive in nothing. So until an agreement can be decided on, or at least different schools of thought can be organized, we are doomed to to just keep on talking and getting no where, no wonder the world is so fucked up, Artists can't even agree on what art is!
_________________
When in doubt, black it out.

Wally Wood

[AndyT]

We can define what illustration is now and what fine art is now.
It is not easy though.

It gets even more complicated when we try to say what fine art was back then.
And if there was such a thing as illustration.

There's just no easy answer. It's not arguing ...

And what the ... ?

[atomicmonkey]

The old masters were illustrators themselves. Mike didn't mess around on the chapel ceiling for the hell of it.

[Wren]

I suppose it could be said that, as far as todays terms go, "Fine art" is art which is done by the artist for the artist and has no restrictions on the level of quality or the accuracy of realism. By that definition, any and everyone in the world who wishes to use a visual medium to express themselves is an "artist".

"Illustration" on the other hand is art done by an aritst for someone else and has a high expectation of quality and accuracy of realism. By that definition, "illustration" is by far the harder art form to master and those who do it well are ususally in demand for their ability to make someone elses ideas a visual reality.

But really, the term "Fine Art" is almost a misnomer anymore. Up until the turn of the last century, there were fairly clear definations of what was considered art and all art up until that time was created for one of two purposes: practice or pay. That was it. An artist either did a piece to improve their skill or they did it because someone paid them to do it. And in most cases, paid work had to fulfill specific requirements given by the consignee. This means that all artists were also illustrators as they had to be able to paint not only their own ideas, but the ideas of others and had to do so with a great deal of accuracy and realism.

The precepts of "Modern Art" forever changed what the world thinks about art and has sadly devalued the importance of those things that made art in the past something to be admired; namely the ability to accurately reproduce objects, areas and figures. And at this point i will stop, otherwise i'll go off on a tangent...
_________________

SASart Studios

[Kortez]

[Rubber Duck]

Wren: I do not agree to your definition-
I think you can't value one thing against the other and say a is better than b even though they are different as night and day.

I am not sure what the world thinks about art and if modern art changed this in any way (if so that would be actually a positive thing).. but I suppose that illustrators aren't the best choice to evaluate this matter (.. its just that it is different seeing or depicting the outer appearance of things instead of visual and non-visual components in one).

I would actually go as far and say that something like a modern-art-painting does not exist in itself, since it is not the painting that is the important part but the things around and about it. the inspiration so to say, the context.

As soon as a painting alone (without any context) is a "piece" I would call it an illustration since it must be a mirror of something we know or have seen to recognize and understand it.

[Wren]

[Les Watters]

Illustration is information given to an audiance with prior knowledg. That is the definition of Illustration.

When you draw a map to a party for your friends and say hey this is a map to my part , That is illustration. Illustration also involves certain techniques. Alex Ross does not do traditional comic book cartooning, he applies Illustration technique to the comic book format.

You can also Illustrate and Idea with words. Like I'm doing right now.

Finding definitions of things is important for us to communicate, when words loose the power to communicate we loose the ability to govern our selves.

That is a major problem in the U. S. today, people wanting to redefine things, or throwing definitions out. That is a direct response to the "Modern Artists" of the last 100 years or so. Definitions and standards are important to every place in life. If we throw them out how do you know if your team won the game? Or if you passed the test? or if your car is safe to drive? or the food is safe to eat? Or the doctor is qualified to do surgury on a loved one? In the real world we can not live without hard definitions, if we did we would all shurly die... soon.

Why is "Fine Art" different?
_________________
When in doubt, black it out.

Wally Wood

[Mari]

Well, I don't know much about distinction between art and stuff - I'm mostly self-taught so I really have no knowledge of art.
I also have not had the time to read through all the posts - usually long posts like that kind of discourage me.

But this is my view on it: If what you say is correct, then all I do is illustrations. I do it for eye candy. I have not yet been able to make myself draw something that I thought was an ugly creature.
What someone else said in an earlier post, that fine artists want to be ahead of their time and make a statement, while illustrators have their clients to satisfy: I'm neither.
I'm one of those people that discovered they have a little talent, and started drawing more. My skills only developed after watching my first real anime - it got me addicted to anime. (Don't despise me for that! My style may be anime, but the intentions are good! Sorry... I just heard so many things about "real artists" or "fine artists" maybe, who disliked anime artists because it's so shallow. It's not, in my opinion.)
Well anyway, to get back to the point, I simply draw for my own satisfaction. I have no clients nor do I have a statement I want to share with the rest of the world. I simply get an image in my head which I think is pretty, and because I have the "power", try to redraw this image from that photograph or movie even, inside my head.
I simply draw what I want to see. I still have some trouble with putting emotions into drawings, and maybe it is because of this, but the fact remains that I simply draw for myself.
It's much like how I view writing.
Don't do it for the viewers - do it for yourself.
And in that light, there really is no obvious distinction, is there?

Just my view on "art".

[Mari]

PS. If I repeat myself in my posts, please forgive me. I always had that problem with getting my point across.

I don't know why - I AM able to write stories. Maybe because that's less personal?

Well anyway, sorry for any inconveniences.

[Les Watters]

Maybe you should read the long posts.

One more question to all.

Why is it so difficult for artists in 2003, to get together and define art for them selves?
_________________
When in doubt, black it out.

Wally Wood

[AndyT]

Mari:
I'd say you are a hobby anime artist. A good one btw.
People here don't hate anime/manga. (I don't like the weird grimaces though)
The problem I see is that some people get a bad taste.
What you might like is a collection of beginner's mistakes to artists here.
It's the anime communities and the 4 or 5 step tutorials that teach you how to draw a head.

Then look at the art by Prometheus for example:
http://www.itchstudios.com/psg/gal_mech.php
People love it ... even his anime stuff.

He makes studies, knows the theory and paints with acrylics ... look at the tutorial he wrote:
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3148
...and the ones on his site.

Nobody wants you to move away from anime.
But you should consider learning something about art in general.

You have talent.
Showing form with values for example is something you could learn.
If you make the image work without lineart you may keep the lineart.
Deal?
_________________
http://www.conceptworld.org

[eyewoo]

An artist can produce both fine art and illustration... and most do. Fine art is a state of mind more than a state of physicality. Producing an illustration at the paid request of a client results, for the most part, in an illustration... But, taken a step farther, if the client is aware of the artist's work as a fine artist prior to the request and essentially gives the artist complete freedom in executing the request, then the illustration is probably also fine art.

On the other hand, artwork created by the same artist completely at his own internal request or need, is fine art... even though the intended purpose is to sell it and make a living.

Phil...
www.philwms.com fine art site
www.eyewoo.com illustration site

[EraserX]

Here's my $.02. There are two main categories all art fits into; commercial art and fine art. Some may argue that commercial art is not really "art" at all and I see where they're coming from, but still disagree. In my mind, illustration is just a dicipline. It can be used in fine art or commericial art. The same principles and skills are applied in both fine art and commercial, the only difference is the intent. Commercial art is done at the request of a customer in excheange for money and is based on the customer's vision. Thus, making the artist, the instrument in which the piece is created. Obviously, some commercial art is more moving than other and has a deaper meaning, but the bottom line is that it's not based on the artist's vision. Fine art, on the other hand, is when an artist realizes his own vision. He/she may try to sell it afterwards, but the creation of it is ONLY about portraying his vision and showing a part of him/herself and how he/she thinks or feels. If it is created to suit a potential customer, then it does not qualify as fine art. Illustration, painting, sculpting, welding, creating collages, photography and any other discipline you can think of CAN be used to create fine art OR commercial art. Anyway, that's my take.
_________________
http://www.eraserx.deviantart.com
http://www.myspace.com/johnrauch