Am I an Artist or an 'Illustrator'

[Eldanesh]

Sorry I'm new to this forum so forgive me if this is addressing an old line of discussion, but I find myself in a bit of a quandry these days at school.

I'm 34 and I've been back at a major university for 2 years now, finishing a Fine Art degree. For the last 9 years I've been a professional graphic designer, flash animator and web designer (I wear a lot of hats where I work), but have consistently received comissions for freelance illustration so I decided it was time to go back and complete my degree.

One of the major problems I've encountered in college thus far is this Artist vs. Illustrator mentality in the faculty and students in this department. It's as if there is this attitude that you aren't an 'artist' if you do illustration or anything that displays a talent with regards to rendering technique. It's like, if you don't do abstract expressionism or performance art you aren't pushing to be an 'artist'.

I'm posting this here to open a discussion on this because just yeterday I butted heads with an artist in residence and a staff member here due my disagreeing with their philosophy on what defines an artist. I don't approach my art from a need for some kind of self analysis or psychotherapy. Nor am I drawn to the 'artist as activist' idea that an artist has some sort of social responsibility to make a public 'statement' as an integral part of their work. They were verbally opposed to my notions that artistic merit isn't necessarily based on these tenets.

I'm more than a little tired of being looked down on for my technical ability (that very few in the department seem to posess), while listening to 'artists' rave about the latest found art instalation piece. Has anyone here run into this?

[jezelf]

Hi Eldanesh

I can understand your frustration. when I was going for a degree inveriew once, I was telling them how I wanted to pursue comic strip art. and trying to get on an illustration course.

the interview was set up with me facing a tutor with a final year student there as well, directly behind me was another applicant, facing the other way with the same for him.

the tutor and student just didnt seem interested at all in what I had to say - the final year student even got up to go an look at the other guy's work behind me which I found insulting - anyway the point is this other applicant was into 'fine art' - I just got the impression that that college was more interested in creating new Damien Hursts for it's reputation. I could very easily go that route - I don't think I'll have much interest - I guess I'll probably do life paintings in an expressionist style, but no further.

Anyway, the bottom line for me is no matter what you create - it's about being emotional about your work - about making your marks, creating something that has been a passion - that's kinda what art is - if people want to look down on you then it's their problem. ok some illustration jobs that come along are not the best jobs and it's hard to be passionate about it, but you're still be creative - it's flowing from YOUR mind.

I'm so tempted to go do a degree,deliberatly paint rubbish then talk a load of bull about my abstract art just to see how tutors react. anybody can talk about something, explaining it away till the end of the day. it seems just how convincingly you do it.

it's a touchy subject I guess. I believe all art is 'art' as long as the artist is truly sincere about their work - no matter the standard, and therefore, you are an artist. an illustrator is still an artist. All artists should respect one another.

I don't know - perhaps I'm talking out of my rear end with the rest of them! :)

cheers
jez

[Eldanesh]

I understand the 'talking' yourself into being taken seriously. There a simply loads of students here that drone about what this piece meant to them at crits and I can't help but think it's a hard sale pitch for instructors to congratulate them on what displays minimal ability. Of course most instructors eat it up and happily pat these kids on the back for stapling together magazine clipping or scooping up whatever they can find off the ground in the parking lot before they come in to class.

[JoshuaTheJames]

"Dooo what your heart tells you." -Fat Tony (Simpsons)

[Fipse]

I think the discussion is as old as there are institutional academies and distinctions between "free art" and "conceptual art". The old masters seldom made their work as "art pour l´art" but as work by order. in fact the really old stuff like the medieval and Renaissance painter often didn´t do de facto anything but ILLUSTRATING the bible, stories of the saints or later classical themes.

I had some discussions with people from the art-business and they really couldn´t tell me the difference between the art they´ve been selling and the art many of us are selling to the companies. I myself see good technical abilities (as e.g. Picasso or Beuys had) as an important part in the production of art. You just have to cope with the reality (or an invented reality) to have the abilities to interpret it.

I see it with Joshua (and fat Tony :-) and a great "real" artist like Beuys: when YOU think it´s art it is. You just have to sell it to the people :)

I myself was thinking 18 years ago to study fine arts, too but decided to earn money instead and went into the ads ;).

As usual I hope my english is making sense ;)

Thorsten

[SamusNeo]

Ah, another great topic for a thread. I am an illustration major. I was talking to a friend of mine who is a fine art major and we got into a debate about this very subject. He really believed thier was a difference and yet had a difficult time verbalizing it. In the end he claimed to "know when he sees it". I thought that was rather vague, but he did touch upon something that I agree with- that fine artists always want to emphasize the difference and illustrators always want to make it seem minimal(or non-existant).
I think a lot of it has to do with the age old artistic dogma which states that artists are somehow "special". Quite a few fine artists are at the extreme end of this spectrum. Many of them want BADLY to be special and they are convinced anyone who puts bread on the table with illustration work isn't a true artist. It's funny because a lot of people do this just so that they can spend thier spare time doing thier own personal art. I personally hate the "art world" with all its snobbery and elitest views. It is worth noting that many famous fine art pieces were commisioned, and were usually created to flatter the patron. Illustration is the same damn thing, only in our day and age publishers and advertising agencies are the patrons (instead of wealthy people and the church).
The sad thing is that these ridiculous views are so deeply entrenched that geniuses like Rockwell declined to call themselves artists! The good thing is that even as we speak the two seem to be merging. I have seen several illustrators who also do easel painting and show work in galleries. There are also artists working within illustrative field who could concievably be viewed as fine artists (Dave McKean is a wonderful example). People will eventually be forced to accept that the line that divides these two groups is hazy at best.
I just regret that until that until that time we must live in this small minded over-compartmentalized society where, as ilustrators, we feel forced to defend our artistic integrity.
Ultimately I think it is best to just ignore all the egotistical bastards who want to believe that fine art is some sacred thing high upon its own pedestal. They can say whatever they please, but if I know in my heart that my work is an expression of myself, they cannot touch me, but rather, they only make themselves look foolish and short-sighted. End Rant.

[jester]

Fine artists are sometimes an ignorant bunch of people, even denying their own roots. For me there are two sayings who have it all, unfortunately both are in German and loose a lot when being translated into English (since they are playing on language). However, I try:

1) Kunst kommt von Können - Art derives from being able. (Don't know whether it's a common saying or someone famous came up with it).

To me this means that it's up to what you can do. The artist is allowed to distort proportions for example, if this is what he intends, but only as long as he still is able to draw the proper ones. I get the impression that today's fine artists just "can't" and that's why they decided to do fine arts instead of illustration - and that's why they defend themselves so fiercely.

2) Eine Gabe ist eine Aufgabe - A talent is a task. (this was said by Käthe Kollwitz, a rather famous female artist living and working mainly in the 1st half of the 20th century. If you don't know her moving work on the inhumanity of war - go and check it out!)

This is also something most contemporary fine artists seem to deny - and to me this is utterly wrong (to deny, that is).

Those two sayings are arguments I usually use, as well as a hint to them stating how absolutely intolerant they are.

:bash:

Jester

[gekitsu]

oh, this is a touchy subject... :) but interesting

i in general don't think drawing the dividing line between illustrators and artists is the best way to go.

i usually draw it between "art assholes" and artists.
art assholes are those people who do just something fancy and say it is art. there are such a lot of abstract artists out there who throw around with paint and have one pic out of ten or twenty that doesn't actually hurt the eyes.
these people usually are too self confident about themselves creating art and behave "artsy-fartsy".

artists on the other hand are a more fine-minded kind of people. caring more for doing what they want, no matter if it is trendy or not and developing their skills and themselves.
for me it also makes a difference if someone calls him/herself an artist (despite names of professions like "concept artist" etc... ) or not. i think it's the other people's part to decide whether i'm an artist or not & not mine.
no problem with an artist painting abstract thing as long as (s)he has a background about it. a reason, a development, an idea.
example: picasso. he started the "craftman's way" and developped to new lands, new styles etc...
counterexample: beuys(sp?). quote "whatever an artist touches is art". this -in my ears- sounds ignorant, making a difference between people with the license to art and the people without. who the f*ck told him that he is an artist? where does he know from whether he actually IS creating art or just THINKS he is, because he isn't an artist but thinks he is one? due to his definitions i think, you can do what you want, as a non-artist, you won't create art. period.
it's the same with people doing what is just trendy at the moment and selling themselves as an artist. these people are pop stars... my fav example for this type of people is berthold brecht. imho, he's famous because he had the right political opinion at the right time and not because of his skills in literature (that i find are flat propagandist phrases)

i made the experience that there are more artists among illustrators than among the noble league of fine artists. there are exceptions, of course.

being an artist, for me, also is a question of behaviour and of respect.

there aren't really rules i guess. it's determined individual for individual...

[Fipse]

Three postings out of seven from german people. Unusual big fraction in this thread ... What does this say about the german state of mind? Hopefully not too much :D

Fipse

[gekitsu]

haha, this tells that we care way to much about none-of-our-business :)
our polity is buerocracy :D
:chug:

[retro002]

dass es sich um eine art perverses mitteilungsbeduerfnis handelt, dessen ursprung (natuerlich) aus der nazizeit herruehrt. ;) .sorry for talking crap - couldn't resist

[jester]

I think we've got so many Germans reply to this thread because here there are quite a lot of these so called artists around. Fipse and me shared teachers with a certain predisposition on this topic, suffered from this while applying to design schools and probably therefore are sort of sensitized. I agree highly with what gekitsu said. As for your contribution retro, yes, it's crap. ;)

:D

Jester

[Eldanesh]

Thanks for all the responses it's been good to get different perspectives on this, I kinda got really wound up over this on Tuesday. I just got back from an opening at our university's gallery and i can say with some definity that about 2/3rds of it was exactly the artsy 'hard-sale' art I've brought up in this thread. I think what I have the biggest problem with are examples of art where the 'artist' has to be present to explain the thing to his/her viewers at a reception or needs to write a paragraph about it and tack it to the wall next to the piece. I dunno maybe I'm overreacting to the whole thing, but I just couldn't get over the feeling of how self-congratulatory the whole thing was. There were some pretty interesting pieces there, but these invaribly stood on their own without having to be fluffed up.

Maybe that it's because I agree with JESTER, art is most definitely derived from being able and talent is very much a task as well as a responsibility. I think I'm just uncertain whether 90% of the students and faculty are indeed 'able' and make up for it with rhetoric. I just get concerned since I've been on the other side of turning a $ in advertising and freelance work for 9 years before returning to school and I'd like to think I know what flys and what doesn't. I can't imagine one of these students coming to me for an artists position with the kind of portfolio they have out of school.