Artist or Illustrator?

[brianhamner]

Just thinking out loud. I am struggling to define this divide between we people of art.

Artists: who evidently are those that do not work from reference, and hang their art in galleries. They are more focused on presenting a unique idea than with technical skill. They dont usually publish their work or sell rights to it, but they take comissions and sell originals for higher prices. They usually become very rich or very poor. They generally look down on illustrators (as has been my experience) as sell outs or think that they are devaluing the field of art.

Illustrators: work towards selling publishing rights of their work. Paid less amount but more frequently. Often do not display work in art galleries. More concerned with presenting a technical execution of a concept. An illustrator can sometimes be seen as an artist as well and usually have no prejudices against them.
The funny thing is, illustrators are often better than artists at creating art (IMO)

This may be a regional experience- I live in the bible belt, so I wouldnt be surprised. Am I missing anything?

[Ilaekae]

It's not hard at all...

Illustrators are artists. Period.

[MidgardSerpent]

@ Brianhamner

Your post is rife with some rather big assumptions, imo. I don't even know where to start.

[Seedling]

It's not hard at all...

Illustrators are artists. Period.

Quoted for truth.

Defining "artist" is a dangerous thing to do, because always there will be someone peeved to have been left off the list. It's especially bad to cut illustrators out of the loop, since the bulk of the people here are either professional illustrators, or hoping to be.

[dose]

I usually like to think of something Jerome Witkin once said a few times- something to the effect of he never calls himself an 'artist', he always calls himself a 'painter' & that 'artist' is a word that you reserve for other people that you respect highly, not a profession.

[DavePalumbo]

both of those definitions are, at best, highly debatable. I'd argue just about every point you mention actually.

But the key issue is that, as Ilaekae said, Illustrator is just a sub-classification of artist. Would you make separate categories between a musician and a jazz pianist? Personally, I prefer to give my occupation as illustrator, or just painter, rather than artist should it ever come up just because I like to be specific (and, as you've shown, some might interpret the word artist to mean alot of things I don't agree with)

I think what you mean is what people call a "fine artist", which is still pretty confused and stereotyped. Actually, every item in your image of a fine artist is pretty suspect. There are plenty of fine artists who work representationally, use refs, sell at modest prices (though enough to make a good living), publish collections, license their work, respect illustration, and/or value technical proficiency very highly.

words :shrug:

[FactorZero]

I don't understand why people want to define what 'Art' is, and who are real 'artists.' If we spent more time doing art and less thinking about what is and isn't...we'd all be artists.

[sloromon]

yes! i completely agree with everyone here, and if you were to consider the artists of the baroque period, or most classical artists, for that matter- they were all illustrators in essence. they worked for a commission, the church usually, or the state, and made art in a certain genre in order to satisfy the client's wishes. we're all in the same boat, man!!

jon

[Elwell]

Am I missing anything?
Everything.

[Puck]

I think brianhamner has a decent idea of a common divide in the commercial arts. Not that his definitions are true, but that they can often represent the type of person that would label themselves as either an 'artist' or an 'illustrator'. I have to make that distinction though - that these definitions sometimes work because the labels are usually self imposed. Other people (like those of CA) who might be a bit more educated to the inadequacies of such labels would more likely not fall in to such restrictive categories and probably not even notice that they exist.

But I believe that they do exist quite strongly in some areas; I can personally name almost a dozen people I know that fall almost perfectly into one of those categories. Of course I can name quite a few that don’t as well - there are many people who label themselves as 'fine artists' who use reference and value technical skill.

I think that people are defensive and dismissive of such categories because they are thinking of the way art really should be, not the way it is often practiced.

[MephistoLV]

:frustrated: In the name of all that is sane, do we really need another one of these threads...?

[Flake]

Am I missing anything?

Art History.

[Elwell]

brianhamner, your homework assignment is to read this (http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00068) and this. (http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00070)

[Magic Man]

:frustrated: In the name of all that is sane, do we really need another one of these threads...?

I'd love to see more to be honest.

...also, I'd like to see more messages from people wanting to commission me to do free work.

Now that I think of it, I'd also like to have my head amputated since I'm trying to lose about 10lbs of excess weight and I hear thats how much my head weights.

- m

[Ilaekae]

I'd like to be forty years younger and have a team of cheerleaders living in my studio...:P



...all studying art, of course...

[Omega Iceman]

It's not hard at all...

Illustrators are artists. Period.

/thread


Anyone who produces art is an artist, simple as that really..

[DavePalumbo]

have a team of cheerleaders living in my studio...

I imagine them doing cheers for you and building human pyramids and such while you paint

[brianhamner]

I posted this precisely because it is debatable.
You all must excuse me if cynicsm is hard to relate. Some of you guys are taking this to mean that these are my personal opinions, which they are not. These are observations. Personally I think the whole thing is a load of crap.
But, this is what I see in the artists that I know, which include imprssionists and abstract artists and such. I was actually apprenticed to a very famous fine artist, for about 5 years, which is where I found most of these assumptions to be prevalent, among gallery owners and fine artists in general. There is a sad lacking of art galleries who will even consider showing comic style art or illustrations- which is where I derived most of these rather biased judgements.
You may all have a different experience, depending on where you live and the outlets available to you-which is really what I was trying to find out, Especially since I live in an area where fine art is the only thing available.

Elwell- your homework assignments actually convey better the point I was trying to make:
"...The only people left in America who seem not to be artists are illustrators."
So what am I missing?


Flake - What is it with art history that changes this bias? Back it up.


I personally think there should be no division. But it sucks to be though of as less because I am an illustrator.

[Seedling]

. . . this is what I see in the artists that I know, which include imprssionists and abstract artists and such. I was actually apprenticed to a very famous fine artist, for about 5 years, which is where I found most of these assumptions to be prevalent, among gallery owners and fine artists in general. . . . So what am I missing?


Those peopleare welcome to their opinions, just as we are welcome to hold the opinion that such people are morons.

My question is this: why is it relevant? If someone wants to own a gallery that doesn't sell a particular art, it's their business to run. If you would like to see your particular type of art sold in a gallery, you could take the financial risk of opening such a gallery yourself.

[brianhamner]

...you could take the financial risk of opening such a gallery yourself.

Theres always that.

[Costau D]

Man, they should have never invented the printing press. Then we wouldnt have this problem... Mass produced images, what a bunch of bull.

[HunterKiller_]

What's with these discussions?
If a person creates a work for aesthetic pleasure and enjoyment, then he is an artists. Whether they are a good artist or a bad artist, that's another story.

[Abigail the Strong]

Sometimes I think these word are much too politically correct. Illustrator, sculpter, scrapbooker, or guitarist. We are all artists in a way. Artist, I think, is just a word to describe creative person. I mean, a little girl can be called an artist, or an old painter can, if they do what they do with the same heart.
I mean we are all doing art, right?

[Kman.]

I would imagine a fine artist works less from imagination than an illustrator would.

[Elwell]

I would imagine a fine artist works less from imagination than an illustrator would.
heywhatwhat?

[DavePalumbo]

Artist, I think, is just a word to describe creative person...I mean we are all doing art, right?

true. another reason that I hate to use the blanket term of "artist" on myself. It really gives practically no information and leads to all kinds of random assumptions. What we all should be saying here is "professional artist", as in a person who makes their living through their art.

[kingshaj]

is being an illustrator so bad? that term once was something claimed with pride.
people rather say they are artists now.

i say we try to re-introduce the pride...and say im an ILLUSTRATOR!!!
I know I feel proud when I say it.

[Ilaekae]

I'm not very energetic anymore...

I think I'll wait for the tee-shirt...

[Jasonwclark]

When in doubt about the meaning of a word, explore its etymology:

Artist
1581, "one who cultivates one of the fine arts," from M.Fr. artiste, from It. artista, from M.L. artista, from L. ars (see art (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=102867)). Originally used especially of the arts presided over by the Muses (history, poetry, comedy, tragedy, music, dancing, astronomy), but also used 17c. for "one skilled in any art or craft" (including professors, surgeons, craftsmen, cooks). Now especially of "one who practices the arts of design or visual arts" (a sense first attested 1747). Artistic first recorded 1753; artistry 1868.

Illustrator cf.
Illustration
c.1375, "a spiritual illumination," from O.Fr. illustration, from L. illustrationem (nom. illustratio) "vivid representation" (in writing), lit. "an enlightening," from illustrare "light up, embellish, distinguish," from in- "in" + lustrare "make bright, illuminate." Mental sense of "act of making clear in the mind" is from 1581. Meaning "an illustrative picture" is from 1816. Illustrate "educate by means of examples," first recorded 1612. Sense of "provide pictures to explain or decorate" is 1638.

Both words are modern according to our usage, so I don't see why there's such a strong inclination to prefer one over the other. It certainly seems weird to deride one group of painters as "illustrators", and priviledge another as "artists," when both terms are applied pretty arbitrarily these days anyways. You'd think someone would be just as stoked to be called 'illuminating,' as they would to be called 'good at what they do.' Some people can get touchy about these things though. If you want a term that's a little older and more inclusive, I'd go with draughtsman or painter... since that explains what they do, but doesn't ascribe any qualitative attributes to it.

Also, just as an interesting aside...

"By definition, there is no such thing as an 'unskilled artist;' only people who don't know what the word art means, and people who disagree about what qualifies as skill."

-Pedanticus Maximus :)

[Ramennoodles518]

Before I jump in on this discussion, I want to state my personal opinion: Artists are artists and need no categorization. We all make art, so why bother with who is better, and what everyone should be named?

That said, I'm afraid that Brianhammer's observation is quite valid, at least in my university. I go to Kennesaw State (near Atlanta, GA), and the attitude of most of the students and professors who call themselves "Fine Artists" blatantly look down upon others who do work that is considered "Illustration." It's a very hefty divide, and seeing as how KSU doesn't even have an Illustration major, it makes life for those of us interested in the field fairly difficult.

I certainly don't agree with the attitude that "Illustrators" are "lesser" than "Fine Artists" but it does exist. It is very frustrating and exists very plainly in my current environment. It's tough not getting any sort of feedback or critique in class when I present my work. I get nothing but blank stares and silence, and I'm quickly brushed to the side for figurative, "Fine" artists. Whenever I complain that I'm getting no help in furthering my artwork, I get told all sorts of things ranging from "well you're JUST an illustrator, after all,"to "I just don't understand Illustration or Concept Art. I don't ever know what to say to you."

Terrible, IMHO, but the prejudism exists. I've dealt with it for my entire (almost completed) college career and look forward to getting a job. Then I won't have to hear this garbage anymore.

This is also part of the reason why I came here to conceptart.org. It's an outlet for me to get feedback from people who don't care for this differentiation, and will just help instead of judging.

[Jasonwclark]

I see what you guys are driving at now... Sounds like one of those academic prejudices that you find in almost every discipline these days. Herd thinking, where everyone wants to hop on one side of the room, or the other. In Philosophy you have the Anglo-American/Continental divide, in Classics there are Hellenists and Latinists, in Science you have Cosmology vs. Particle Physics etc. etc.
People just like to pick teams I guess. Seems that in the Visual arts we have Illustrators and Fine Artists, is that the deal?

Its unfortunate that your instructors are falling into the same binary way of thinking/teaching that everyone else adopts. That usually makes for a pretty weak sauce learning envirnment. My advice in that situation would be to seek out the teachers who exhibit the most personal gravitas, and those who share your sense of humor. Hunt down one of those crazy old professors, who isn't afraid to crack the whip and tell you what's what. The one who pushes you to improve your technical abilities will be of more use in the long run, than the one who wants you to wax on endlessly about the ideas behind you work.

[ReCreate]

I believe that illustrators are artist whom work commercially.

[Chris Bennett]

Since the bulk of european painting in the past has been 'history painting' that means it's very premise and remit was to illustrate something. Giotto, Piero, Rembrandt, El Greco, Titian, Delacroix all told stories. They were doing illustration.
The word illustration is often used to describe work that does not have formal values as it's prime concern. However, an artist like Leyendecker who was a full on, hugely successful illustrator first and formost, put formal concerns right at the top of the list he was concerned with. Rockwell, on the other hand, was not anywhere near as concerned with putting formal values at the head of what he was doing. Telling the story came first.

[Ramennoodles518]

I see what you guys are driving at now... Sounds like one of those academic prejudices that you find in almost every discipline these days. Heard thinking, where everyone wants to hop on one side of the room, or the other. In Philosophy you have the Anglo-American/Continental divide, in Classics there are Hellenists and Latinists, in Science you have Cosmology vs. Particle Physics etc. etc.
People just like to pick teams I guess. Seems that in the Visual arts we have Illustrators and Fine Artists, is that the deal?

Its unfortunate that your instructors are falling into the same binary way of thinking/teaching that everyone else adopts. That usually makes for a pretty weak sauce learning envirnment. My advice in that situation would be to seek out the teachers who exhibit the most personal gravitas, and those who share your sense of humor. Hunt down one of those crazy old professors, who isn't afraid to crack the whip and tell you what's what. The one who pushes you to improve your technical abilities will be of more use in the long run, than the one who wants you to wax on endlessly about the ideas behind you work.

Yes it does indeed make for a weak environment. Sure, I've learned plenty about the elements and principles of design. I can easily create images that are figuratively realistic, have good composition, balance, etc. I never get much input on the concept sides of things.

Seriously, I do character turnaround sheets, mock CD album covers, and magazine article illustrations and the students suddenly don't know how to give me feedback. I can't get my head wrapped around what it is that makes it suddenly different when you're just illustrating someone else's ideas. *shrug*

[kingshaj]

illustration is collaborative

[Elwell]

I believe that illustrators are artist whom work commercially.

Unless you're Emily Dickinson or Henry Darger, ALL art is commercial.

[otis]

I'm an Illustartist. :P

Who cares what people title you? If you are succe$$ful at what you do then does the pissing contest really matter?

[chaosrocks]

you either communicate or you don't

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;--
Thou art thyself, though not an artist.
What's Artist? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Artist would, were he not Artist call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title:--Artist, doff thy name;
And for that name, which is no part of thee,
Take all myself.

Artist.
I take thee at thy word:
Call me but love, and I'll be new baptiz'd;
Henceforth I never will be an artist.

[Red_Rook]

I believe that illustrators are artist whom work commercially.

Please, Fine arts is big business, its just as much about money as illustration is. Also I dare anyone to tell me that a Bernie Fuchs or a Dean Cornwell doesnt belong in a gallery, even though they are illustrators. And where do you get the notion that "artists" don't use reference look at someone like Alex Kanevsky or Jeremy Lipking for gods sake.

[Grendel Grack]

There is a sad lacking of art galleries who will even consider showing comic style art or illustrations- which is where I derived most of these rather biased judgements.

I personally think there should be no division. But it sucks to be though of as less because I am an illustrator.

You have to consider the market. Of course a "fine art" gallery wont show comic art, so don't blame the fact that you can't sell your art in your area on the galleries. If you have such a huge problem with it then move. There are many others artists making a very fine living in various parts of the country (including the south). A lot of it has to do with your attitude. You can work with what you have, or you can bitch about it. The choice is yours.

I thought that I should mention that if there were no market for fantasy and sci-fi illustration in the south, then Dragon Con wouldn't be held in Atlanta.

[lumar]

oh man the thing i love about subjective or philosophical topics is that you can just make crap up (not sarcastic).

just because the illustrator might have a few rules to follow from the writer/publisher doesn't mean they arn't producing art and therefore not an artist. if an 'artist' picks up a canvas to paint on then the size of the canvas is a rule itself. the limits of the artists imagination are rules.

art is really whatever you want it to be - i don't understand why so many people seem to struggle with that, or why it should even matter to them.

edit: oh wait i remembered why - intellectual masturbation

[AmeCassee]

I apologize if I am coming into this rather late, but being a fine artist myself, I wanted to comment.

I am in college right now, my third year in fact, and I won't lie when I say as a "fine artist" I feel pressured to do things no one has ever done before. I love the reality of my work, and cannot, for the life of me draw in a animated style well. However, that being said, my best friend happens to be an illustrator, and I envy her. Greatly. I look at how she can take a blank page and in minutes complete a piece from her head! While I know that some people may separate the two, there really is a fine line that divides them, and in truth I love to comment on my friends work, I find it exasperating when you go to critique and the wall is the only thing talking back to you.

That being said, I truly believe that the division of illustration and fine art is there because no one sees to change it. I myself take illustration classes, and love them. It will only stay divided as long as we, the artists today allow it to happen.

It angers me so much that such great distinction is placed on who is what and what they can do. If theres anything, anything I have learned that drives me forward in my goals, its that YOU are the artist of your own work, period.

[Ramennoodles518]

I apologize if I am coming into this rather late, but being a fine artist myself, I wanted to comment.

I am in college right now, my third year in fact, and I won't lie when I say as a "fine artist" I feel pressured to do things no one has ever done before. I love the reality of my work, and cannot, for the life of me draw in a animated style well. However, that being said, my best friend happens to be an illustrator, and I envy her. Greatly. I look at how she can take a blank page and in minutes complete a piece from her head! While I know that some people may separate the two, there really is a fine line that divides them, and in truth I love to comment on my friends work, I find it exasperating when you go to critique and the wall is the only thing talking back to you.

That being said, I truly believe that the division of illustration and fine art is there because no one sees to change it. I myself take illustration classes, and love them. It will only stay divided as long as we, the artists today allow it to happen.

It angers me so much that such great distinction is placed on who is what and what they can do. If theres anything, anything I have learned that drives me forward in my goals, its that YOU are the artist of your own work, period.

Well said. I wish we had more of your type at my school. :)

[Forecast]

EVERY ARTIST SHOULD HAVE TECHNICAL SKILL
EVERY ARTIST SHOULD HAVE TECHNICAL SKILL
EVERY ARTIST SHOULD HAVE TECHNICAL SKILL

I don't care if you want to make money throwing buckets of blue paint on a canvas, I don't have one OUNCE of respect for you if you're not a master draftsman.

If illustrators are slaves to their clients, then fine artists are slaves to the art world. Most often, the latter is true regardless of your opinion on the former.

[DannySketch]

for me fine artists and illustrators are exactly the same animal except for one factor, where as fine artists can go swanning off into the post modern distance without a single glance back at your average joe bloggs, illustration can not. It needs that connection, or it does not survive. Illustration takes the discoveries that fine art has made and translates them back to your average joe, i would even challenge the point about titan and the other renaissance artists being illustrators, i believe they were simply fine artists tackling the major visual problem that they were faced with at the time, beauty within realism. Its merely coincidence that this coincided with what we now know as illustration. once the realism horse was battered to death by fine artists, they hungered for a new problem which took the form of impressionism, and they have been continuously fishing in the ever more abstract well of visual problems to solve ever since, whether the pool is soon to run dry, or indeed has long since run dry is another argument. for me now the greatest problem of all to solve is the giant cleft that’s left between the two, in connecting fine art and illustration i think you'll find a problem worth solving.

[Flake]

i would even challenge the point about titan and the other renaissance artists being illustrators

They were paid money to illustrate a patrons picture, concept or idea.
They were illustrators.
Unless you have a radically different definition of the term, that's Illustration.

They weren't doing it for fun or personal expression, it was a trade, much like architecture, plumbing or baking.

[Elwell]

The distinction between fine art and illustration is irrelevant prior to the past hundred years or so. Illustration as such doesn't exist until you have the technology for reproduction and widespread distribution of images.