Difference between Graphic Illustration and Traditional Ill?

[dandy.lion]

I was looking at the illustration course breakdown at Academy of Art and they have it split between Graphic and Traditional, what's the difference in terms of the sort of work I'd be focusing on? Thanks!

:mod:
This is an awesome smiley I just had to post it. :D

[Storyboard Dave]

I think that's a question best left to the administrators over at the Academy to answer. Ask for examples if you can get it; it should help.

[MCM]

I think it all comes down to your own personal comfort. What do you feel most comfortable with and what focus will allow you to project your own personal vision? Industry standards find graphic illustrators to be faster and cheaper to hire. Materials are also much cheaper in terms of graphic illustrators. Time is a great factor these days...people want things 5 hrs. ago. It is a tough pill to swallow in general. If you are proficient in traditional illustration it will only help you more with graphic illustration. Just like the camera killed painting.. the computer killed the traditional illustrator. Just a point of view.. and I am a traditionalist.

[WhizBang]

I think it all comes down to your own personal comfort. What do you feel most comfortable with and what focus will allow you to project your own personal vision? Industry standards find graphic illustrators to be faster and cheaper to hire. Materials are also much cheaper in terms of graphic illustrators. Time is a great factor these days...people want things 5 hrs. ago. It is a tough pill to swallow in general. If you are proficient in traditional illustration it will only help you more with graphic illustration. Just like the camera killed painting.. the computer killed the traditional illustrator. Just a point of view.. and I am a traditionalist.

You speak like you know the difference between the two tracks from experience at the Academy of Art. Do you?

And "Industry standards find graphic illustrators to be faster and cheaper to hire."??? Wha? I know a ton of art directors and creative directors and they hire because they want results AND speed- never a mention of price. By your estimation an accomplished simplistic graphic illustrator like a Michael Schwab is cheaper than say a Jack Unruh? I think not.

I also have issues with your offbeat comment of "Just like the camera killed painting.. the computer killed the traditional illustrator." Isn't the computer just another tool or media for us to use? That's about as smug as saying acrylics killed off oil painting. Are you serious when you want to compare mediums to trends?

[MCM]

There is no need to get irritated. I think it is pretty self evident in retrospect. Traditional illustration takes a lot of time. There is also scanning of the image and cleaning it up for print. In a publishing sense there is a crap ton of pre press preparation involved. There is also color correction. Hands down it takes more time and effort for traditional illustration in all aspects of its creation,execution, and post distribution. Graphic illustration is far more time savvy and has far better results in the end because you can create imagery following a certain color profile as well have monitors already calibrated for the perfect printing outcome if you know the profiles that are set to the publishers press. I worked for a publishing house and I was also an illustrator for them for around 5 years before I went to college for Fine Art. The most annoying aspect of the job was hearing the outside illustrators whine about how their images color was not "exactly" what you see in real life. So in return you go back again and again correcting and correcting and correcting. Not sure if you have ever printed things to plate or whatnot but if you think it's easy to get colors spot on then you try it? Prove me wrong.

When illustration is executed correctly in a "graphic manner" it is so much easier to have an exact duplication of the original. You have in essence cut out a lot of processes that can consume time and save money by cutting out the middle man. Publishers love that. It saves them material costs and usually gives a publisher's pre-press technicians time to work on other projects under deadline pressures. Also think about the set up material costs for any illustrator using traditional mediums.There are a lot of pigments,inks,paper,paints,time,adjustments,remake s,multiple examples, that can become extremely costly..The list goes on.


So yeh... Graphic illustration in terms of ease and cost far outweigh the traditional use of illustration. This is coming from a traditional illustrator. I do believe the camera killed painting.. I also believe that art and mediums used throughout art's history have more than proved that they are constantly being shot down due to technological advancements. It's just the way it rolls.. You can hold on to your traditional values and apply them but if you fail to evolve with art then you are pretty much shutting yourself out from new experiences and techniques. cameras did kill painting along and Giclee printing killed the Lithograph. You can't deny it..

I am by far no luddite. Don't hand out candy and then rip it from people's mouths if they decide not to hang with you in the playground. And as mentioned above, You may want to seek the omnipotent wisdom of the AoA Gurus and not ask questions to such lowly servants of art.

As far as an illustrators hourly rate/speed.. You can throw out names and compare Coke to Pepsi. It is a circular argument and borderline trolling.

[dguy]

The post up above is so full of WRONGs that I don't know where to begin.

Please don't take the "camera kills painting" attitude to an art school. You will be lynch on sight for your ignorance. What art program did you come from that teaches such blasphemy? How did camera kill painting in your opinion? Because there are plenty of painters around.

Camera didn't kill painting. It freed painters from having to paint boring portraits for rich people all their lives. Because that was the biggest market for painters before the camera.

Modern Art came as a the result of the camera. Artists no longer have the burden of representational images, so they can explore abstractions. The Modern Art movement, from Malevich to Pollock all came as a result.

Is it your opinion that if somebody wants a painting to hang on their wall, they would got to a photo store and take a picture instead? Photography and painting has co-existed for like 200 years. Photography was around when Van Gogh painted his "Starry Night." It was around for the Cubists, and the Surrealists. So if the camera "killed" painting, how do you explain that?

Phew, I'm gonna take a break, but I will be back. There's too much WRONGs to be addressed in one post.

[MCM]

I fail to see any type of misleading information and it is all very subjective either way. Take the challenge. Give yourself an allowance of 20 dollars. spend 10 dollars on traditional illustrative materials to produce an image for print or whatnot.Then when the person who hires you tells you to change something and you have to start over just rework on top of your original image.over and over and over.. You spent your allowance. Then keep the other ten in your pocket and use Photoshop and use the ten bucks on a big plate of nachos and reward yourself for not spending money on material costs.When the buyer wants you to change something you just pop a nacho in your mouth and use your eraser tool or open a pre saved version of what you are working on. Just saying..


Instead of taking an extra week to redo something you can edit it in minutes with a computer.. Efficiency = lack of material costs = lack of overtime = deadline finished. i think the best form of illustration is the hybrid form. The one's who can use painting/drawing etc in combination with computers are the real astronauts of illustration. 90% of all the tutorials I have seen on here "illustration wise" start off as a line drawing on some cheap paper then is scanned in.. Wacom tablets reduce costs even more.

I stand firm on the camera killings. The Modern Art movement killed Warhol and possibly God himself :)

Ignorance is not allowing yourself to see the other side of the glass. Getting emotional over anything debated is a sign of weakness and good luck defending a thesis if you call people ignorant. I can handle a lynching if needed. It's not like I am reinventing the wheel or anything. It's been a common argument for years. Buy an Artnews once in a while. The cynical and pessimistic reality is in plain view of anyone who isn't "ignorant" themselves. Hell.. even most "Master Painters" used a frigging camera to paint. It's debated that Early Renaissance painters even went as far as projecting what they painted onto canvas. Hence the reason that most people were left handed in a lot of the paintings.So in a sense.. the camera or projection of light to canvas killed painting way before modernism. You can't make some people see the truth no matter what facts you present them sometimes and I have no plans on spreading the frigging Sea.

[dguy]

I stand firm on the camera killings. The Modern Art movement killed Warhol and possibly God himself :)


What on Earth are you talking about? You need at least a doctorate before you can make that statement, without sounding amateurish and arrogant. And no reading an article in ArtNews won't do it.

You still haven't account for the Constructivists, Futurists, Neo-Classical, etc, etc, that the camera supposedly killed. Until you can resolve their existence in your argument, then it is baseless.

I am actually curious to your exact argument. And you would love to hear it with an open mind.

to be continued...

[dguy]

What "Master Painter" in the Renaissance painted with projection? How many did it? So if a few does do this does it negate the many that doesn't do it?

Whatever "projection" method that they have then is rudimentary at best. And it certainly was not wide spread. It's certainly not the projector we have today. And artists are always experimenting with technologies. Which brings me to another deficiency in your thoughts. Which I will address in some time.

[WhizBang]

There is no need to get irritated. I think it is pretty self evident in retrospect. Traditional illustration takes a lot of time.

And other forms of illustration don't? That's an awfully cavalier statement to make. So if I can find a digital painter who paints slow, takes forever and wants to finesse the heck out of their paintings, I can shoot this statement to bloody pieces, right?

The most annoying aspect of the job was hearing the outside illustrators whine about how their images color was not "exactly" what you see in real life. So in return you go back again and again correcting and correcting and correcting. Not sure if you have ever printed things to plate or whatnot but if you think it's easy to get colors spot on then you try it? Prove me wrong.

Easy. I know of graphic designers who whine about their color correction on flat colors. It's not just an illustrators' bitch about being color perfect. And what about photographers who are nit picky when it comes to their pics being reproduced correctly? Is it their faults as well? As an illustrator I have to accept a margin of color flub up; what nuances I created is trying to be reproduced in a CMYK world and with microscopic dots- I know it won't be 100% correct. So rather than label all traditional illustrators as whiners, has anyone at your job ever tried to explain to the illustrators/ designers/ photographers that mass printing has its limitations? Learn to accept that 2528th print off the run might not be as crisp as the first three pulled off the press too.

When illustration is executed correctly in a "graphic manner" it is so much easier to have an exact duplication of the original. You have in essence cut out a lot of processes that can consume time and save money by cutting out the middle man. Publishers love that. It saves them material costs and usually gives a publisher's pre-press technicians time to work on other projects under deadline pressures.

I think you're taking away a lot of credit from pre-press techs and printers who take the time to do a darn good job of getting colors accurate.

Also think about the set up material costs for any illustrator using traditional mediums.There are a lot of pigments,inks,paper,paints,time,adjustments,remake s,multiple examples, that can become extremely costly..The list goes on.

And buying Cintiqs, color corrected monitors, sweet printers, huge scanners, and learning all of this technology is cheap? Art's only as cheap as you want to make it.

So yeh... Graphic illustration in terms of ease and cost far outweigh the traditional use of illustration. This is coming from a traditional illustrator. I do believe the camera killed painting.. I also believe that art and mediums used throughout art's history have more than proved that they are constantly being shot down due to technological advancements. It's just the way it rolls.. You can hold on to your traditional values and apply them but if you fail to evolve with art then you are pretty much shutting yourself out from new experiences and techniques. cameras did kill painting along and Giclee printing killed the Lithograph. You can't deny it..

Gee, I better tell all of those great illustrators who use traditional mediums they're done for then. They should all switch over to photography and quit drawing & painting based upon your argument then. Separate the creativity from the mediums/ technology argument here.

I am by far no luddite. Don't hand out candy and then rip it from people's mouths if they decide not to hang with you in the playground. And as mentioned above, You may want to seek the omnipotent wisdom of the AoA Gurus and not ask questions to such lowly servants of art.

Nobody ever said you were anything. You were the one jumping onboard extolling the virtues of "graphic illustration". If you check dandy.lion's original post and they wanted to know the difference of the two titles as it applies to Academy of Art's program. It seemed like an honest question of someone who wants to go there. Were you answering it on behalf of AoA as an expert on their program? I don't know their program and would concur with SB Dave to have dandy.lion ask AoA for their explanation.

As far as an illustrators hourly rate/speed.. You can throw out names and compare Coke to Pepsi. It is a circular argument and borderline trolling.

Are you even familiar with which illustrators I was talking about?

[WhizBang]

I stand firm on the camera killings. The Modern Art movement killed Warhol and possibly God himself :)

WTF??

:nohope: :nohope: :nohope:

[WhizBang]

I fail to see any type of misleading information and it is all very subjective either way. Take the challenge. Give yourself an allowance of 20 dollars. spend 10 dollars on traditional illustrative materials to produce an image for print or whatnot.Then when the person who hires you tells you to change something and you have to start over just rework on top of your original image.over and over and over.. You spent your allowance. Then keep the other ten in your pocket and use Photoshop and use the ten bucks on a big plate of nachos and reward yourself for not spending money on material costs.When the buyer wants you to change something you just pop a nacho in your mouth and use your eraser tool or open a pre saved version of what you are working on. Just saying..

And your version of Photoshop costs how much?

Hell.. even most "Master Painters" used a frigging camera to paint. It's debated that Early Renaissance painters even went as far as projecting what they painted onto canvas. Hence the reason that most people were left handed in a lot of the paintings.So in a sense.. the camera or projection of light to canvas killed painting way before modernism. You can't make some people see the truth no matter what facts you present them sometimes and I have no plans on spreading the frigging Sea.

And all of the artists that were around before the camera was invented must've been total hacks then?

[MCM]

And other forms of illustration don't? That's an awfully cavalier statement to make. So if I can find a digital painter who paints slow, takes forever and wants to finesse the heck out of their paintings, I can shoot this statement to bloody pieces, right?

Not really.. because time is money. A lot of clients want a fast turn around and traditional illustration can be a great hindrance on getting something out by a certain date or time frame. Quality is another issue in general and it is up to the client to determine what his/her own comfort level for getting a product out into the open market.So I can't do anything but assume or have a heavily bias opinion on that aspect.



Easy. I know of graphic designers who whine about their color correction on flat colors. It's not just an illustrators' bitch about being color perfect. And what about photographers who are nit picky when it comes to their pics being reproduced correctly? Is it their faults as well? As an illustrator I have to accept a margin of color flub up; what nuances I created is trying to be reproduced in a CMYK world and with microscopic dots- I know it won't be 100% correct. So rather than label all traditional illustrators as whiners, has anyone at your job ever tried to explain to the illustrators/ designers/ photographers that mass printing has its limitations? Learn to accept that 2528th print off the run might not be as crisp as the first three pulled off the press too.

I never labeled "all" illustrators as whiners.. You are assuming. I am going from what I know based off of 5 years in a publishing industry which holds a definite amount of validity in an argument. You can explain all you want to someone who is paying 10 grand that their books may not look the same. I wouldn't recommend doing that though. Especially if you don't want a repeat client.




I think you're taking away a lot of credit from pre-press techs and printers who take the time to do a darn good job of getting colors accurate.

I was one of those people.But there still is deadline pressure to get something done and get to the next project. Maybe not for some companies but for most I would have to say their intent is to make money and move to the next project.



And buying Cintiqs, color corrected monitors, sweet printers, huge scanners, and learning all of this technology is cheap? Art's only as cheap as you want to make it.

That pretty much validates my point.. If an illustrator knows what they are doing then they won't send a crap image to get printed. Plus those resources and printing standards are sole property of the publishing company. They have nothing to do with the amount of cost indebted to the actual illustrator. "UNLESS" The traditional illustrator is asked to redo something and then they have to rebuy their own materials.. Graphic illustrators don;t have to buy a new version of Photoshop or buy a new monitor if they have to change the composition of something.



Gee, I better tell all of those great illustrators who use traditional mediums they're done for then. They should all switch over to photography and quit drawing & painting based upon your argument then. Separate the creativity from the mediums/ technology argument here.

I think the one's who are able to evolve with art and the way things "are" will figure that out for themselves. You should have faith. That's a pretty sarcastic rebuttal and very telling. There is no way to separate the medium/technology from creativity. It's a paradox. I would hate to see people stop painting and ending their traditional methods. people always revert to the past for new ideas and it would put a real damper on the progress of illustration and the arts in general, I think. I just wouldn't expect the traditional artists to get as many jobs. Look what is happening to 2-d animation?



Nobody ever said you were anything. You were the one jumping onboard extolling the virtues of "graphic illustration". If you check dandy.lion's original post and they wanted to know the difference of the two titles as it applies to Academy of Art's program. It seemed like an honest question of someone who wants to go there. Were you answering it on behalf of AoA as an expert on their program? I don't know their program and would concur with SB Dave to have dandy.lion ask AoA for their explanation.

Don't play Jesus. It's a "forum" People talk and share ideas...or at least I thought. Just because it is slightly off topic doesn't turn the discussion into a black cloud that rains disinformation to the masses.



Are you even familiar with which illustrators I was talking about?

Looking into it. I am not an encyclopedia of illustrator knowledge. I could throw examples your way if you want? I don't think it would prove much though.

[MCM]

What on Earth are you talking about? You need at least a doctorate before you can make that statement, without sounding amateurish and arrogant. And no reading an article in ArtNews won't do it.

You still haven't account for the Constructivists, Futurists, Neo-Classical, etc, etc, that the camera supposedly killed. Until you can resolve their existence in your argument, then it is baseless.

I am actually curious to your exact argument. And you would love to hear it with an open mind.

to be continued...

I don't need a doctorate to make any statement or opinion? What is this East Germany? I would consider all of those genres of painting to be the ghosts of painting. It is no more of an invalid statement then people accusing me of "arrogance" or calling me "amateurish" for not sharing the same taste in art or opinions in illustrative theory/economics. Just saying. I think you two guys are absolutely wrong but I am not tying to make you feel like jerks about it. That's just how I roll though.

[MCM]

And your version of Photoshop costs how much?

You are totally straying on me here..



And all of the artists that were around before the camera was invented must've been total hacks then?

No they were the best!! I tend to like paintings by people who didn't rely on patronage though.They were punk rock.

[dguy]

I don't need a doctorate to make any statement or opinion? What is this East Germany? I would consider all of those genres of painting to be the ghosts of painting. It is no more of an invalid statement then people accusing me of "arrogance" or calling me "amateurish" for not sharing the same taste in art or opinions in illustrative theory/economics. Just saying. I think you two guys are absolutely wrong but I am not tying to make you feel like jerks about it. That's just how I roll though.


Of course you can state whatever opinion you want. All I am saying is that unless you know what you are talking about, you will risk coming off as amateurish and arrogant.

For instance, define your "ghost of painting." And how they are exhibited in those genres. I'm really interested to hear it.

Art opinion is an academic pursuit. You can say whatever you want, but you better be able to explain yourself or else you are just a wannabe joke.

[dguy]

I'm not doing this to be a jerk. This is just the example of the discourse you will face in an academic institution.

You view is radical. But there's nothing wrong with having a radical view. What is important is that you can back it up with ideas and research.

For instance if you want to make the bold claim such as "painting is dead." First you have to define what "painting" means to you, and how it "died", and how everything now is a "ghost."

You would take historical evidence to make those points of course. Maybe even referencing a few historians or events. I'm not even asking for much, just a few paragraphs on each point.

In my case, painting to me is the act of putting paint on canvas to compose an image or illustrate an idea. And my evidence is that the camera has been around for 200 years, and through out that time and up to the present, artists has never stop painting. In fact some of the most profound break through in paintings happened during this time.

Ideas like artists no longer are restricted to painting what they see. They paint lights, or images that transcend time and space. All wonderful ideas, and wonderful paintings. So that says to me that painting is very much alive all of this time.

Of course you can have a different opinion to mine. But you are expected to explain yourself. Especially if you opinion is really radical. You should be prepared for that.

You don't want to be one of those posers who says thing just for shock value just to be "cool" without any knowledge to back it up right or wrong.

[gardenrusalka]

I did the traditional (they didn't have the distinction, graphic, at the time I was there) and felt that, if motivated, could easily learn graphic on my own. Seems like it may even be a natural progression of style for some people.

[MCM]

I do my best not to be cool. I have a Bachelors in Fine art.

Believe me, I have had my opinions in art and I graduated with no problems.

It's the internet not an MLA paper.

[dguy]

I'm not asking for a paper. Just like a couple of paragraphs. Because I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say.

[WhizBang]

I could throw examples your way if you want? I don't think it would prove much though.

You sure have a funny way of trying to make a point.

Just because you have opinions on art, you still have to be able to back them up with fact. You want to make a point, then back it up.

[MCM]

What do you specifically want facts for? There are lots of facts out there that can be bent to prove anything. Look at any Michael Moore film.

[dguy]

You need facts to support your opinions. It is simple as that. If the facts are there, people will respect your opinion because it is well informed. Even if they don't agree with it.

Of course you can have opinions that are based on nothing at all. But that just makes you a blabbering know-nothing idiot.

[MCM]

I am fine with being a blabbering know-nothing idiot. I am sticking to my guns.

[WhizBang]

I am fine with being a blabbering know-nothing idiot. I am sticking to my guns.

Well dguy, it's quite the admission here and probably closer to the truth than not. Obviously not the captain of their high school debate team.

[Elwell]

MCM, the problem is that the OP asked a specific question about a specific program, one that uses terms in a specific way. You replied with sweeping generalizations about a field which you admittedly have limited experience in. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[MCM]

I think I have sufficient knowledge due to the fact that I have worked for a publisher/did illustrations and book covers etc. I worked both traditional AND graphic at the SAME TIME for a publishing company. If life experience is a sweeping generalization then so be it I guess? I don't see how it could hold any less of an argument. When I worked for the publishing co. and did illustrations for books across the South Eastern United States W e constantly had people coming in and out of the place. They could either draw and take a crap load of time getting things done and all the workloads were shifted towards all the graphic illustrators to take up the slack. The traditional artists were eventually phased out due to the extreme amount of cost and time consumption that the Trads hogged up.. The company in a sense bit the bullet and spent less money on buying new machines and equipment in the long run..Rather than paying some Trad illustrator 50-60 g's a year slowing down production. So do you want the phone numbers of the three or four traditionalist illustrators I "know" for your resources? What makes their word any less than any other working illustrator?

As far as the camera obscura b.s. you can Wiki it or Google it.. It seems redundant to argue something that is floating out there on the History Channel or all over the internet. I not a martyr for the device or the activist that wishes to publish an article for art historians on the matter.

but here are some links that can help one with their own decisions over the debate:

http://brightbytes.com/cosite/what.html

":The image quality was improved with the addition of a convex lens into the aperture in the 16th century and the later addition of a mirror to reflect the image down onto a viewing surface. Giovanni Battista Della Porta in his 1558 book Magiae Naturalis recommended the use of this device as an aid for drawing for artists. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura

"The Dutch Masters, such as Johannes Vermeer, who were hired as painters in the 17th century, were known for their magnificent attention to detail. It has been widely speculated that they made use of such a camera, but the extent of their use by artists at this period remains a matter of considerable controversy, recently revived by the Hockney-Falco thesis."

I stand behind the death of painting in a representational sense. Before the camera the oil painting was the premier medium for artists capture the moment. Hands down.. You can debate it and say well.. sculpture played a part in capturing the moment look at the Sphinx or look at the Pieta blah blah blah.. As far as a 2-d image that captures a sense of reality and an exact duplicate of a point in time it was the painting. Once the camera was invented it gave "anyone" the ability to produce imagery that WAS exactly what they saw. I am not crying about the evolution of any medium such as photography. I am generally saying that after the camera was invented the incredibly gifted painters rolled over and died. Techniques were lost in regards to painting. Yes, you can argue that newer and more progressive classes of painting were spawned from Post Modernism but was it good? People began to analyze art differently as a result of the camera. Artists used to be looked upon as great intellectual minds and were always the life of the party. They were admired and appreciated in ways that today's artists no matter how successful can't imagine. Hard pill to swallow.

When is the last time you saw " Jeff Koons " OR "Mark Ryden" OR "Chuck Close" on The Letterman show or even a debate show like Bill Maher? It seems pretty evident to me that an artists greatest fan is usually other artists. A very closed in little group it has created for itself. Why? The only time you hear about an artists is if the make a pregnant Britany Spears sculpture or on a boring 30 min. doc on PBS...

ANYWAYS,


In all reality it ALL seems rather redundant.. If you read my very first post it was encouraging and not belittling. I simply told the person to do what they felt was right. I can't see that as being a bad thing.. That is unless the people who are negating and combating me are professors undercover and just trying to stir the pot. Then it becomes a matter of them being self righteous. People who belittle or bring up the "Where are your resources" and "you are ignorant because you won't explain yourself" are pretty much stroking their own egos . By all means "EDUCATE ME" instead...Just saying.


This is the main problem that i have found with becoming a Fine Artist.. It is the whole Idea that one has to defend everything they do in life. It's a farce. To have an opinion about something doesn't necessarily give others the prestige to deny that artist's good intent. Simple economics in relation to illustration and art in general is all across the board. You can pick your tidbits of information to argue your statements but it seems to be a metaphor for swallowing your own tongue. Maybe the original poster of this thread should have looked up the professors on the AoA website instead of asking on a forum where opinions and thoughts no matter how invalid are shared openly and publicly? Not sure. One thing I am not going to defend is my good intentions to help another person. If you have a gripe with that then maybe you should step off of your soapbox and help the original poster out instead of arguing with a "Blasphemous, arrogant,uneducated fool". Maybe that is a reflection on your own self worth.. not mine. By all means give me your resources and I will combat them with mine.. It won't prove anything either way. The original poster didn't get a lot of help in the first place.

[Elwell]

The OP got the most helpful info he possibly could in Storyboard Dave's very first reply. The point is the industry, on the whole, doesn't recognize any sort of universal distinction between/definition of "graphic illustration" vs. "traditional illustration." You gave your definitions, and replied accordingly, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the way AAU structures their program.

[MCM]

Point taken.

[dguy]

I really appreciate you coming around and actually making an argument. Only now can we engage in a meaningful debate.

Having said that nothing that you stated offer any indications that "painting is dead."

All the camera is is another tool at the artist disposal. So what if artists use photographs as references? If that does take away from their work in your opinion, then you should know that there are plenty of artists then and now who doesn't use photographs references. Is painting dead for them?

You then shifted your argument to "painting is dead in the representational sense." Which is different than the original "painting is dead" period. Now this makes a little bit more sense to argue. Because, yes, the invention of the camera negates the need for artists to pursue recreating photo real images. But that doesn't equal the "death of painting in the representational sense" as you have put it.

Painting is never about creating an exact replica of what your eyes see. It's about an artist interpretation of an idea. That's why Caravaggio's paintings are unnaturally dark, and Michealangelo's figures have larger than life proportions. Their goals was not to copy from life exactly, and never have been.

Unless you can pin point to some universal manifesto that dicates that all artists MUST paint exactly as they see from life or else they are a failure. Because such a thing doesn't exist. I'm glad that the camera came along, because it freed the painters to explore much more interesting dimensions, such as light, colors, and the subconscious. I personally despise photo real paintings, because they are fairly soulless to me. I take a Rothko over them anyday.

And then you went on a tangent about how artists are not on prime time TV and how this is a clear indication of their decline in status. Which is completely ludicrous. Prime time TV is CULTURAL GARBAGE! Why would any self respecting artists want to be associated with Britney Spear and all that filth??

Artists have been and continue to be celebrated as cultural elites. In New York they hang with the educated and wealthy. Their works sell for record breaking millions of dollars at auctions. They live a jet setting life and is worshiped where ever they go by the cream of the cream of society.

When Murakami opened his exhibition in the Brooklyn museum this summer, millions of people come out and see it. The same is true for any famous artists nowadays.

Artists and the art world are recognized as the forefront of culture. Whereas Britney Spears and the rest of the people on talk shows are a culture disease. Let's not get the two confuse.

[MCM]

I really appreciate you coming around and actually making an argument. Only now can we engage in a meaningful debate.

Having said that nothing that you stated offer any indications that "painting is dead."

All the camera is is another tool at the artist disposal. So what if artists use photographs as references? If that does take away from their work in your opinion, then you should know that there are plenty of artists then and now who doesn't use photographs references. Is painting dead for them?

I wouldn't go as far to say that it is dead to them. I would consider it to be slowly dying of Parkinson's or something though. The need for realism painters has slowly died over the last century due to the camera. No matter how skilled the painter is he/she cannot capture the image as precise as a photograph. When the "ordinary blue collar" person wants to put a portrait of their family on a wall it is cheaper to go to Olan Mills rather than spend a ton of money on a painter. That's my point. So "to me"painting is dead in that aspect.

You then shifted your argument to "painting is dead in the representational sense." Which is different than the original "painting is dead" period. Now this makes a little bit more sense to argue. Because, yes, the invention of the camera negates the need for artists to pursue recreating photo real images. But that doesn't equal the "death of painting in the representational sense" as you have put it.

I could go as far as saying Art is dead in general?

Painting is never about creating an exact replica of what your eyes see. It's about an artist interpretation of an idea. That's why Caravaggio's paintings are unnaturally dark, and Michealangelo's figures have larger than life proportions. Their goals was not to copy from life exactly, and never have been.

I know, I took Art History classes :)

Unless you can pin point to some universal manifesto that dicates that all artists MUST paint exactly as they see from life or else they are a failure. Because such a thing doesn't exist. I'm glad that the camera came along, because it freed the painters to explore much more interesting dimensions, such as light, colors, and the subconscious. I personally despise photo real paintings, because they are fairly soulless to me. I take a Rothko over them anyday.

Well.. I know that when someone applies to Ringling the school wants a portfolio that is filled to the brim with examples of that student drawing from "life." That means representational expectations in art are still held in a serious regard right? If they don't draw exactly what they see in life they may not get in to the school of the dreams correct? I can name a ton of Universities that require people to draw directly from "life". If they don't they get passed up very quickly.If they don't do it well then they fail the class. It does exist. I am not saying they are a failure.. but it could be perceived as a type of failure.

And then you went on a tangent about how artists are not on prime time TV and how this is a clear indication of their decline in status. Which is completely ludicrous. Prime time TV is CULTURAL GARBAGE! Why would any self respecting artists want to be associated with Britney Spear and all that filth??

Why not? Because that is what sells? Isn't that why people put themselves through artschool and a majority of these private institutions have such a high tuition? Because they want to make money? Whether or not people like "Britany Spears" is not important. Enough people like her to have bought her crappy cd's and made her rich. Why aren't Artists receiving that sort of attention and Public Notoriety/exposure? I know way more artists that are completely "Out of their minds" and create much more socially important work. But i guess "Hit me baby one more time" is much more important than Jun Kaneko's ceramic forms in the International airports. Believe me, If artists could have their own "Prime Time" platform to express their views the world would be a better place.

Artists have been and continue to be celebrated as cultural elites. In New York they hang with the educated and wealthy. Their works sell for record breaking millions of dollars at auctions. They live a jet setting life and is worshiped where ever they go by the cream of the cream of society

Again, I stress the importance of an overall social acceptance/popularity and not an elite club. Ask a random person on the street if they know who Pee Wee Herman is and then ask them if they know who Joel Peter Witkin is.



When Murakami opened his exhibition in the Brooklyn museum this summer, millions of people come out and see it. The same is true for any famous artists nowadays.

Were a majority of those people were "other artists?"

Artists and the art world are recognized as the forefront of culture. Whereas Britney Spears and the rest of the people on talk shows are a culture disease. Let's not get the two confuse.

I would love to see an artist debate Dennis Miller or John Stewart. What's the difference between Britany Spears and Andy Warhol?

[dandy.lion]

I did the traditional (they didn't have the distinction, graphic, at the time I was there) and felt that, if motivated, could easily learn graphic on my own. Seems like it may even be a natural progression of style for some people.

That's how I feel. As I assumed, graphic illustration focuses more on graphic design.

And my, what a thread this has become!

[Nervous Disorder]

whose Joel Peter Witkin? No... seriously, I have no idea.

And I'd just like to add, I was at the Canadian FanExpo this past weekend. Up in the Artists alley all the famous hardcore artists sit their working with their pencils and inks... and then people pay lots of money to take one of these beauties home. Ask for commisions.. get worked signed. If traditional was dead, surely these artists would be sitting with a laptop, wacom and printer? :P

[sweetoblivion314]

well i dont care to read the whole crazy debate. But I will say that it has little to do with AAU's illustration tracks. From students I know in both parts of the major it can be best described as graphic illustration is a mix of illustration and graphic design and traditional is just the original illustration major with both digital and traditional mediums.

For more info, follow Dave's advice. If you ever have a question about anything concerning a school, call them. Admissions people are there to get you to enroll so they will be very accomodating and helpfull.

[MCM]

I just got a catalog sent to me from AAU. I have read a lot of really bad things about that place. It sounds like a real meat market. It's really confusing though because most of the people who complain are probably really biased and disgruntled from having a bad experience there or just making really crappy work. It is slightly more affordable from what I have seen than Ringling and SVA but not THAT much. I think going to school in the West Coast would be beneficial though if you plan on entering the movie industry or Galleries there. West coast art has really latched onto the whole Lowbrow movement though. If you don't paint robots or tentacles you aren't cool.

AAU doesn't seem half bad though. It sounds very competitive and that is healthy for anyone who wants to progress in technical skills. I would double check whether their BFA and MFA credentials will help or hinder you if you ever decided to teach on a college level down the road.