What’s the difference between illustration and fine painting?

[Keith Russell]

How to “move into this path” of creating from your personal vision? Well, first of all, I think most good artists have such a vision, but it takes some work to touch it, to use it. You have to put aside everything you know about art, everything you have learned about what is good art and/or marketable art, everything you have ever seen anyone else do. You have to think about the earliest impressions you ever had, before learning all the art “rules.” Inside, you have a personal set of symbols, of shapes and composition and style. You have to give yourself permission to put those down on paper, on canvas, in metal or wood… without judgement or criticism.

Forcing the waveform to collapse for two decades...
http://www.syntheticskystudios.com
Hilliard Gallery, Kansas City, "Small Works", December 2019

[Eagle_AS]

Like a few have already mentioned, this question could be answered a thousand different ways. The artist that came to mind when I first thought about it was Norman Rockwell. He made a good living as an illustrator during his lifetime, but is now being considered more of a fine artist these days. Perhaps give him a look and see think about the question. He can be considered both IMO.

AlexSwan.net GeminiGraphix

[Keith Russell]

I had not intended to simply quote from JoyJoyJoy’s post, without comment. But, I was interrupted, and it ended up being posted–as is.

Sorry about that.

How to “move into this path” of creating from your personal vision? Well, first of all, I think most good artists have such a vision, but it takes some work to touch it, to use it. You have to put aside everything you know about art, everything you have learned about what is good art and/or marketable art, everything you have ever seen anyone else do.

I disagree–especially about putting aside everything one knows about art–as if that were possible, let alone desirable. I don’t view creativity as a subtractive process; I don’t think that, in order to be creative, one must forget (subtract) what others have done, nor even ignore what one has done before, one’s self. I instead view creatitivy as an additive process. In order to create something new, one must build upon what others have done; adding ‘something’ essential, some aspect of the visual that others have either missed, overlooked, or in which they may have been uninterested.

One cannot do this by forgetting or evading what one knows about visual art, nor can one do it by ignoring what has already been done. If one ingores what has already been done, one might accidentally copy, not realizing that it is unoriginal. To avoid duplicating others’ works, one must keep those works clearly in mind…

You have to think about the earliest impressions you ever had, before learning all the art “rules.”

The above seems to suggest that the ‘rules for visual art’ have no relation to reality, that they are merely arbitrary conventions that others have followed, but that–if one wishes to be ‘original’–one must not only avoid copying others actual works, but also their techniques, etc.

This is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Is every painter but the one that decorated a Prehistoric cave in France, a cheat–and/or a plagiarist? Is all the music written since Pythagoras, derivative, unoriginal junk?

‘The rules’, though (at least, the right rules) were derived from direct observation of the way objects, materials, and surfaces appear when lit. These rules most certainly do apply, even if one wishes (as I do) to depict unreal objects and scenes as if they were real…

…if we ignore these ‘rules’, we cut ourselves off from the ability to represent the very context in which we exist, and which gives meaning to our existence.

One can certainly create art that doesn’t relate to reality, but (IMO) the result is very likely art that doesn’t relate to human beings, either.

K

Forcing the waveform to collapse for two decades...
http://www.syntheticskystudios.com
Hilliard Gallery, Kansas City, "Small Works", December 2019

[artbyjune]

Interesting debate is evolving here.

I agree it is more or less impossible to ignore other’s art and the whole development of Western art and ways of seeing/ depicting.

But to add to the body of art in an original way may also involve seeing with those child-like eyes of innocence in order to have original perceptions. I think the great artists combine the two strands, e.g., Picasso, El Greco. and so on. Art history with original twist too.

How to do it??

Maybe develop the 2 strands in your work and work towards being able to combine the 2 successfully in your art…then it will hopefully be truly an expression of yourself (and so unique) as well as building on (perhaps just to reject) history of art approaches (and so the art will be truly original and maybe even an advance in art as a whole…e.g., cubism, impressionism) that others can appreciate. Something that adds to ‘art’.

I am not an art historian so I hope my comments make sense.

http://june-walker.pixels.com/
Life beats down and crushes the soul.... and art reminds you that you have one. Stella Adler

[philwms]

Art, like age, is a state of mind.

Fine Art has little purpose other than to exist for the pleasure of the eyes and mind.

Illustration generally has a commercial, illustrative or political purpose.

…And of course there are huge overlaps…

"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."
- Albert Einstein

websites and blogs

[JoyJoyJoy]

Keith…

The question posed was how to move down the path towards using one’s personal vision in one’s art. To do this, an artist must find a way to touch and distill his/her inner reality, often images and symbols carried inwardly since childhood. It is not a subtractive process, but a change in focus, in order to attain more information valuable to creativity. It is not “throwing out the baby with the bathwater,” but a conscious process of getting in tune with one’s true impressions, which can be later incorporated into one’s art, along with all the previously accumulated knowledge of art history and art “rules.”

Perhaps Aubrey Flack, a respected American artist, has expressed this better than I:

“When you’ve worked at it long enough, you arrive at a point where you can make images that you always have known; images that you knew, as a child, were your own definition of art. These initial images come from our inner truth. They triggered an impulse to go into the field of art.

You then learn what the world tells you art is, and you become a “professional artist.” Finally, with enough courage, discipline, detachment, passion, and resistance, you can temporarily put this volume of historical data and art information aside and reconnect with your initial impulse – that which you always believed. The thread of belief has been sustained.

Now you can blend all the learned information with the inner image into the fact of your art. You have now appropriated art. Until that point, art appropriated you.”

Nance

Art is not a thing; it is a way.
(Elbert Hubbard)

[Kathryn Wilson]

Like a few have already mentioned, this question could be answered a thousand different ways. The artist that came to mind when I first thought about it was Norman Rockwell. He made a good living as an illustrator during his lifetime, but is now being considered more of a fine artist these days. Perhaps give him a look and see think about the question. He can be considered both IMO.

Hear, hear . . . totally agree! He was a wonderful artist in every sense of the word. Who has not appreciated his accomplishments!

Member of the Pastel Society of NC

[Keith Russell]

Interesting debate is evolving here.

I agree it is more or less impossible to ignore other’s art and the whole development of Western art and ways of seeing/ depicting. [/quote]

‘Western’ art? I don’t even want to be limited only to the entirety of ‘Western’ art…

But to add to the body of art in an original way may also involve seeing with those child-like eyes of innocence in order to have original perceptions. I think the great artists combine the two strands, e.g., Picasso, El Greco. and so on. Art history with original twist too.

I must disagree. I have never liked Picasso’s work, nor his ideas about art. As for ‘innocence’ (in the sense you use the word here, not in its legal meaning) I don’t believe in it, either…

K

Forcing the waveform to collapse for two decades...
http://www.syntheticskystudios.com
Hilliard Gallery, Kansas City, "Small Works", December 2019

[Keith Russell]

Fine Art has little purpose other than to exist for the pleasure of the eyes and mind.[/quote]

I could not disagree more.

K

Forcing the waveform to collapse for two decades...
http://www.syntheticskystudios.com
Hilliard Gallery, Kansas City, "Small Works", December 2019

[Keith Russell]

Like a few have already mentioned, this question could be answered a thousand different ways. The artist that came to mind when I first thought about it was Norman Rockwell. He made a good living as an illustrator during his lifetime, but is now being considered more of a fine artist these days. Perhaps give him a look and see think about the question. He can be considered both IMO.

Hear, hear . . . totally agree! He was a wonderful artist in every sense of the word. Who has not appreciated his accomplishments!

Um…me?

K

Forcing the waveform to collapse for two decades...
http://www.syntheticskystudios.com
Hilliard Gallery, Kansas City, "Small Works", December 2019

[Keith Russell]

Keith…The question posed was how to move down the path towards using one’s personal vision in one’s art. To do this, an artist must find a way to touch and distill his/her inner reality, often images and symbols carried inwardly since childhood. It is not a subtractive process, but a change in focus, in order to attain more information valuable to creativity. It is not “throwing out the baby with the bathwater,” but a conscious process of getting in tune with one’s true impressions, which can be later incorporated into one’s art, along with all the previously accumulated knowledge of art history and art “rules.”[/quote]

These are two different (and, IMO, unrelated) processes. The technical aspects of art have little (if anything) to do with the process of introspection, of finding one’s own unique visions–whether they be images from childhood, or dreams from the night before.

[quote]Perhaps Aubrey Flack, a respected American artist, has expressed this better than I:

“When you’ve worked at it long enough, you arrive at a point where you can make images that you always have known; images that you knew, as a child, were your own definition of art. These initial images come from our inner truth. They triggered an impulse to go into the field of art.

You then learn what the world tells you art is, and you become a “professional artist.” Finally, with enough courage, discipline, detachment, passion, and resistance, you can temporarily put this volume of historical data and art information aside and reconnect with your initial impulse – that which you always believed. The thread of belief has been sustained.[/quote]

But, she’s not talking about forgetting one’s knowledge of the technical side of art-making. She’s talking about resisting the urge to create images that are similar to the respected, revered images from the vast history of art.

(A big difference, IMO…)

[quote]Now you can blend all the learned information with the inner image into the fact of your art. You have now appropriated art. Until that point, art appropriated you.”

Nance

I have followed Audrey Flack’s work for many years; she started out as an airbrush artist (like another well-known realist, Chuck Close), and I have numerous articles about her and her work, in several books on airbrush art, and in articles in several airbrush magazines.

The only point with which I don’t agree in the above quote is that one ‘can blend all the learned information with the image and fact of’ one’s ‘art’.

I think one must pick and choose which information is relevant; not simply use it ‘all’…

K

Forcing the waveform to collapse for two decades...
http://www.syntheticskystudios.com
Hilliard Gallery, Kansas City, "Small Works", December 2019

[philwms]

I could not disagree more.

K

Well… I shall elaborate a bit more on what I feel is a rather simple point.

Given that the question relates to a subject that is so fuzzy it probably should not be asked … my best attempt at answering it is to set up a contiuum with fine art at one end and illustration at the other.

At one end of the continuum is fine art in its purest form, created for no other purpose than to create the art, the implication being that it comes from an inner need or motivation on the part of the artist rather than a commercial or political purpose.

At the other end is art created totally without the artist’s personal or emotional involvement, completely skill based and for a commercial or political purpose.

…And between the two is where most art lies, somewhere on the continuum between the two end points.

"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."
- Albert Einstein

websites and blogs

[amimari]

Keith…

Perhaps Aubrey Flack, a respected American artist, has expressed this better than I:

“When you’ve worked at it long enough, you arrive at a point where you can make images that you always have known; images that you knew, as a child, were your own definition of art. These initial images come from our inner truth. They triggered an impulse to go into the field of art.

You then learn what the world tells you art is, and you become a “professional artist.” Finally, with enough courage, discipline, detachment, passion, and resistance, you can temporarily put this volume of historical data and art information aside and reconnect with your initial impulse – that which you always believed. The thread of belief has been sustained.

Now you can blend all the learned information with the inner image into the fact of your art. You have now appropriated art. Until that point, art appropriated you.”

Nance

sounds good to me

"Who speaks of art speaks of poetry. There is no art without a poetic aim. There is a species of emotion particular to painting. There is an effect that results from a certain arrangement of colors, of lights, of shadows. It is this that one calls the music of painting" -Vuillard

[Thomas Nackid]

Here is the only real difference between an illustrator and a “fine” artist. An illustrator creates works specifically to be seen as reproductions whereas a fine artist creates works to be seen as originals. Of course many illustrators exhibit and sell their originals and many great works of fine art are reproduced as prints, posters or in books.

In the old days this distinction was even more critical–illustrators were artist who could create decent images despite the primitive printing methods of the day. The most popular techniques were engravings and woodcuts since they produced black and white line art that could be reproduced economically. Even when full color reproduction started to become more common painters like NC Wyeth, Parish, and Rockwell complained that their paintings needed to be compromised in order to make them suitable for reproduction.

I think the idea that the subject matter of the art defines an illustrator from a fine artist is bunk (“An illustrator paints what someone else tells him to while a artist paint what he wants.”) By this definition all of the old masters where illustrators. For example the contract for da Vinci’s “Madona of the Rocks” still exists. It spells out in great detail what the clients wanted in the painting–pose, colors, background. The clients even rejected his first version and made him paint another closer to their specifications! Any illustrator who has ever worked for a micromanaging art director can certainly empathize!

https://PaintingsByTom.etsy.com
https://GeeksBearingGiftsTNA.etsy.com

[artbyjune]

Joy,
I like your quote from Flack..about regaining that Original Impulse.

Now to find ways of contacting it. I touch it occasionally in my mind but its elusive. I feel its there waiting for me. I hope to get closer to it.

Personally, I want to move from illustrating things to making personal statements. Could still be a detailed style (as illustrators often use…though not all) but one that is mine. You know, you could look at the painting and say: yes its by…June. At the moment, my work is still at the untidy stage of a mishmash of other influences.

My drawings are more personal, haven’t shown them anywhere yet.

I guess the thing is to keep going, and work more from that inner vision when it comes.

I did not really intend a discussion on the merits of fine art versus illustration (though its an interesting discussion), I really wanted to find out how to move from an illustrative style to a personal stamp. I love book illustrations, e.g., children’s book illustrations, etc. I’ve had some published. I just want to do other stuff too.

Maybe there are more artists here in that same boat???

http://june-walker.pixels.com/
Life beats down and crushes the soul.... and art reminds you that you have one. Stella Adler

[Author]

Posts