Frazetta, is he a fine artist?

[the_allejo05]

well i just got the video painting with fire..awesome..Im convinced he is a genius..I recently discovered the artist by chance..i have one of his devil designs on the hood of my car..i liked the illustration then i found all the wonderful paintings he has done..im hooked..i always admire Boris Vallejo since he is also from Peru (where im from) and when i was a kid a saw one of his illustrations..he is awesome too, but frazetta is way way better in my opinion.
I was wondering in the topic of considering frazetta being a fine artist instead of just a fantasy artist..what do you guys think?...tecnically he would not be considered a fineartist because of his subjects..but to me he is a born artist..I mean.. he could put what he saw in his minds eye on the canvas..and most of all his paintings have life and that requires a high sensitivity (that you are born with, either have it or not) besides being a master of draughtsmanship . I bet if he would have gone to an academy of fineart he would have kicked more a**...and this "experts" need not forget that what maters is not the subject you paint,nor the music you play,nor the poetry you say only the feeling and reaction you convey to other, and that he has done.

[Molly]

..how about a damn Fine Fantasy Artist.... :wink:

Mx

[Denart]

you should post this on the official frazetta forum right here! (http://www.denwhat.com/phpBB/) :)
sorry CA.org, I'm so cheap in my advertising... >:|



Frazetta DID create some fine art piece. A whole series of African warriors. Technically he's not considered a fine artist because the vast majority of his works were illustrations. Frank doesnt like it when he gets labels put on him. Illustrator, comic artist, fantasy artist...he just wants to be known as an ARTIST! :blah:

[Cthogua]

Well as far as fantasy artist vs. fine artist, he's an illustrator, so most of the peices that anyone sees were commissioned and based on the genre of whatever the illustration was for. That, in my mind is a significant difference between fine art and the work of an illustrator. A fine artists work is his/her own to create and is created, ideally (ah ha, the catch) for no other reason than to exist. An illustrator is creating imagery for someone elses idea as a service. Does that mean illustration is not art...fuck no, of course it's art, and plenty of "fine art" is created by the artist to sell so he or she can make rent...I don't know where I was going with that..damn sleep deprevation.

Anyway, Frazzeta did other things, he was a very talented cartoonist and early in his career made a living drawing for Lil'Abner and a few other comic strips. I think he even did some popeye work. One of the books that I have of his artwork also has some of the paintings he did for western novel covers that are very nice. I think more than anything he is an artist, period. Narrow labels like "fantasy artist" are dangerous, especially when trying to encapsulate someone like THE MAN (and by that I mean Frank Frazzeta :P ) And I have my own problems with even the idea of "fine art".

my 2 cents

James Ball

and yeah Frazzeta is the shiznittlebam

[the_allejo05]

"A fine artists work is his/her own to create and is created, ideally (ah ha, the catch) for no other reason than to exist. An illustrator is creating imagery for someone elses idea as a service"..hmm i dont agree..how about all the famous clasical painters..they created art for others..hell..Mike painted the sistine chapel..because the pope told him to..he was forced to do it..i dont think he just created it because he wanted to ...but still he is considered one of best ever..if Mike would have been a pure "fine artist" he would have sculpted all day long" the same applies to portrait painters..they create images for service..they are commissioned..they need to pay the bills ,..you can see Velasquez..he created the best portrait when he did the one of his slave..so to me when you are "free to create" is when you do your best work..from start to finish..nobody telling you what to do or when or where.

also fine art is not only still lifes, nudes,landscapes,portraits, is also imagination..look at goya..he did some bad ass monsters even durer..also look at all the narrative/historic painters.. an ultimate artist can do anything..he is not limited by medium or subject..he is open to everything frazetta could do everything..he just employed his imagination more..because he liked it ,it was fast..if he would have use models it would have taken him longer..than just 6 hours :) and is "freer" you dont depend on nature..that is the only diference i see between the masters of the past and him...
so technically nobody will ever be a pure fine artist..you starve to death..hehe..i dont like that term anyways..i always tell people Im a painter..not an artist ..."what? you paint houses?...:)

[dbclemons]

My own perspective is not whether or not an illustrator is a fine artist, but that ALL artists are illustrators. Mr. Frazetta is one of the finest.

-David

[Dizon]

"A fine artists work is his/her own to create and is created, ideally (ah ha, the catch) for no other reason than to exist. An illustrator is creating imagery for someone elses idea as a service"..hmm i dont agree..how about all the famous clasical painters..they created art for others..hell..Mike painted the sistine chapel..because the pope told him to..he was forced to do it..i dont think he just created it because he wanted to ...but still he is considered one of best ever..if Mike would have been a pure "fine artist" he would have sculpted all day long" the same applies to portrait painters..they create images for service..they are commissioned..they need to pay the bills ,..you can see Velasquez..he created the best portrait when he did the one of his slave..so to me when you are "free to create" is when you do your best work..from start to finish..nobody telling you what to do or when or where.

also fine art is not only still lifes, nudes,landscapes,portraits, is also imagination..look at goya..he did some bad ass monsters even durer..also look at all the narrative/historic painters.. an ultimate artist can do anything..he is not limited by medium or subject..he is open to everything frazetta could do everything..he just employed his imagination more..because he liked it ,it was fast..if he would have use models it would have taken him longer..than just 6 hours :) and is "freer" you dont depend on nature..that is the only diference i see between the masters of the past and him...
so technically nobody will ever be a pure fine artist..you starve to death..hehe..i dont like that term anyways..i always tell people Im a painter..not an artist ..."what? you paint houses?...:)


The pope might've told Michelangelo to decorate the sistine chapel but did he tell him what to paint? That's the difference between a Fine Artist and an Illustrator. Same thing with portraiture-it's the artist that decides what pose or what clothes the sitter should wear for the sake of a good composition.

[pvrhye]

The term Fine arts sounds so judgemental. Franzetta is an illustrator, not a fine artist. I am a fine artist, not an illustrator. Franzetta could artisticly kick my ass.

[Cthogua]

the_Allejo05: I think you basically said what i was saying...I was nodding in and out of conciousness (damn my 2 hours of sleep) while I was writing that so sorry if it didn't make any sense...I totally agree that the distinction between comissioned art and fine is stupid, however I had an art teacher that would not let it go and refused to see any illustration as fine art...or see the hypocrasy in most fine art having some sort of financial backer. The school I went to kinda ruined the fine art world for me...I just met too many pretentious idiots that mostly used their art to whine about their perceived problems. That very same teacher would point to ANY representation of a woman in art and cry "OBJECTIFICATION!" A friend of mine did a photomanipulation piece where he took a bunch of pictures of his girlfriend seminude and used her to make 3 or 4 fairies that were scattered around a patch of woods. The teacher hated it and basically told him that he was masqurading pornography as art, and that she thought it was very negative of him to turn women into "things" ie fairies. I gave it alot of thought and you know what...so what. You can't make a picture of something without objectifing it in some way....ah well...This relates to Frazetta because she HATED his work and his depiction of women...which I think is funny because the rest of the time she was ranting about media's unrealistic standards with the skinny 14 year old boy figures most models have these days...oh well

James Ball

[Tetsuo]

I think his stuff is sick art. As in phenominal. I too found art school to be a pain in the ass. I only had two teachers who fostered my personal art instead of trying to push their own styles on me....that and the fact that one of my teachers was the biggest @#$@#$ slacker on earth and couldn't teach someone how to flush a toilet:P

Anyways. Art is subjective...there will always be naysayers....but in my world frazetta is king.

[Bryceart]

Not all of Frazetta's work was sword wielding barbarians. Reference -Frazetta book "LEGACY" page 30. This is a portrait of his wife Ellie, and that is undoubtedly the work of a Fine Artist.

Bryce

[madster]

From Artlex:high art - Fine art, also known as beaux-arts, art that is of universal transcendence, having withstood the test of time and representing the epitome of artistic achievement, as opposed to low art, which is also known as mass culture. Until recently, a distinction was typically made between high and low art. Traditionally, high art consists of the meticulous expression in fine materials of refined or noble sentiment, appreciation of the former depending on such things as intelligence, social standing, educated taste, and a willingness to be challenged. Low art is the shoddy manufacturing in inferior materials of superficial kitsch, simply catering to popular taste, unreflective acceptance of realism, and a certain "couch potato" mentality.

illustrator - Among those in art careers, a person who creates designs and pictures for books, magazines, or other print or electronic media. Specialties among illustrators include fashion illustrator and medical illustrator.
From American Heritage Dictionary:fine art - NOUN 1a. Art produced or intended primarily for beauty rather than utility.
b. Any of the art forms, such as sculpture, painting, or music, used to create such art. Often used in the plural.
2. Something requiring highly developed techniques and skills: the fine art of teaching.
illustrate - TRANSITIVE VERB: 1a. To clarify, as by use of examples or comparisons: The editor illustrated the definition with an example sentence. b. To clarify by serving as an example or comparison: The example sentence illustrated the meaning of the word.
2. To provide (a publication) with explanatory or decorative features: illustrated the book with colorful drawings.
3. Obsolete To illuminate.

Although Frazetta did produce some fine art, he was not a fine artist, because he did not produce such works as his mainstay. They were exceptions, rather than the rule, which for Frazetta, were illustrations.
Personal definitions, opinions, likes, and admirations aside, Frazetta was an illustrator.

[the_allejo05]

"Traditionally, high art consists of the meticulous expression in fine materials of refined or noble sentiment, appreciation of the former depending on such things as intelligence, social standing, educated taste, and a willingness to be challenged"

I like that definition and I would apply it to his oil paintings..frazetta even says when he started painting he really "worked"...off course you cannot consider his comics fine art..but look at this man's ink drawings and pencils..I "see" knowledge in his paintings not a damn error..every other painting is bested by the one he painted before..(thats challenging yourself not repetition)..
"art that is of universal transcendence"..his works are..well the reaction you have when you look at his work..he takes you inside the picture..no matter how "educated" you are in the subject..just because he did fantasy dooes not mean is not fine art..when i looked for the first time at one of the classical paintings i did not now about the "mythology" behind it or history..hell i know half the story of the bible and that is most depicted on clasical art..but they transend and evoke a feeling ..so i think frazetta is also universal..i see his work and it gives me a message ,like somebody said on on the site "it speaks to you" , i dont know all of his fantasy stories..nor where the hell conan came from..or his death dealer..but you look at that picture with the black knight on the black horse..such perfection such feeling..i dont know..
Im pursuing "fine art or whatever" realism as they call it..and Im studying Frazetta..just like I study rembrandt, Raphael or Degas..these guys have something to say to me,
I think that definition they gave on art might be gear toward the High Class "educated" people..Im attracted to the "refinement" or the craftsmanship in the fine art pieces..but when they dont evoke the lifeness and feeling Frazetta and others trascend thru the pictures..they have failed..but anyways..I stop talking and I will study his animals...I like them so much...

Padzton: "he pope might've told Michelangelo to decorate the sistine chapel but did he tell him what to paint? That's the difference between a Fine Artist and an Illustrator. Same thing with portraiture-it's the artist that decides what pose or what clothes the sitter should wear for the sake of a good composition" hmm if im correct when Frazetta was at the peak of his career he was painting whatever he wanted and the publishers were finding a book to suit his artwork..so he painted what he liked..he was a tough guy.."

[Eric Lofgren]

Frazetta isn't a fine artist. He's a damned fine artist :D

[gusbus]

How can I apply a transparent, textured feel to a plastic finish? I need something that is uniform, like an aerosol spray, and feels a bit like fine sandpaper. Thanks for any advice!

[nofingers]

gusbus: wrong thread dude, try the life drawing and technique section, or the 3d/sculpture section.

Technically speaking, he was an illustrator for 95% of his work. I don't really appreciate labels like that though. Whether or not art was creating for someone else (ie. a friend, company, publisher, etc.) or for the sake of making art, one should judge art on it's own merit, not the motivation.

ps. if frazetta's hands weren't so shaky, he would still be blowing the sh*t out of the art world

[jetpack42]

What I want to know is:

Why does doing student work for 50 years (nudes, still lifes, landscapes) somehow qualify people as better artists (fine artists)? wtf is there to relate to a bowl of fruit? The superiority of "Fine Art" is a house of cards.

[pvrhye]

Well, you're belittling fine artists a bit here. To use an awful aold 50ism, Separate but equal. That's pretty well how the art work currently sees it. I like to use the terms Gallery Art and Illustration. One is for print, the other hangs over the couch. That's pretty well where I draw the distinction. Fine art is generally more concerned with the physical properties of the work (texture, dimension etc...) than Illustration, whereas illustration is generally more concerned with conveying the subject in the way the client wants it conveyed.

[the_allejo05]

Why does doing student work for 50 years (nudes, still lifes, landscapes) somehow qualify people as better artists (fine artists)? wtf is there to relate to a bowl of fruit? The superiority of "Fine Art" is a house of cards.

Like you said (nudes ,still lifes and landscapes are student work) and no if artists that think they are are doing those for selling purposes or because they are lazy to keep doing that just because that is art, they are crap artist not fine.
I think these so called artists are "afraid" to try to explore new things than just a bowl of fruit..(and well a real artist will see something than just fruit ;)..)maybe the play of light or composition..the fruit reminds him/her of an experience what do iknow?..Some dutch artist specialized in still lifes and they are beautiful..without painting people or monsters..it all depends on the artist in what he likes doing..and using all those tools that qualify a fine piece of art to expresse it..

[GriNGo]

well, I just think his work kicks ass... much like Boris Vallejo's stuff, Simon Bisley's, Frank Miller's... He's another kick ass illustrator.

[Cthogua]

Boris Vallejo's work always kind of bothered me, and this is totally just my taste I guess...but I always thought his work, while techincally quite good was basically just Frazetta minus "the life/energy" that Frazetta's work has. His work just strikes me as way too posed and polished. In Frazetta's work there are brushstrokes everywhere, paint drips, areas so thin you can see the canvas and all sorts of other "painterly" things. Frazetta's figures are also...for the most part, exceptionally dynamic, while Boris' often seem completely wooden. I have read that Frazetta rarely used reference or painted from photos (which is probably true for the most part, but I've also seen photos that are obviously taken for use as reference) Conversely, I have a book of fantasy art technique by Vallejo and he seems to usually have a bodybuilder guy/girl come in and pose, he takes pictures, and draws almost exactly the pose from the photograph. Leaving the figure in the painting totally wooden. I think Boris' sketches and color roughs are more attractive than alot of his paintings....but I guess it just boils down to taste.

Peas
James Ball

[Silvertone]

Take a walk through the Frazetta museum and ask yourself the same question!

There you will find your answer...

[Eric Lofgren]

Take a walk through the Frazetta museum



Man, if I did that I'd never want to leave :( That museum is like the Elysian Fields for me :)

[one2hit]

Technically he's not considered a fine artist because the vast majority of his works were illustrations.

yep, that's the main reason he's not considered fine art. Well some people say rockwell is a fine artist although he did mostly illustration too. I know Frazetta works are copied at some fine art schools...soo make your own decision about it I guess. Btw...wtf is frazetta doing now? he's still alive, why isn't he painting until his death? did he get parkinson's or something =p

[Cthogua]

Actually I'm pretty sure he had a stroke a few years ago and is too shakey to paint...He's in his 80s now. I think he mostly just does photography and some sculpture now.

James Ball

[Gezstar]

this is like arguing about whether no doubt is ska or pop... who give a flying shit as long as you like the music? :)

[Dizon]

Actually I'm pretty sure he had a stroke a few years ago and is too shakey to paint...He's in his 80s now. I think he mostly just does photography and some sculpture now.

James Ball

lol i never thought of that! i thought he was dead long ago.

[darth massacre]

Whatever category we want to put him in....we just gotta admit he's danged good at what he does.

[Ilaekae]

pyrhye, I'm having a little trouble with the first part of your statement...

"Fine art is generally more concerned with the physical properties of the work (texture, dimension etc...)

than Illustration, whereas illustration is generally more concerned with conveying the subject in the way the client wants it conveyed."

I'm what most people would call a "fine" artist by dictionary standards, and I can tell you right here with a straight face, that while I'm concerned with the physical properties of my work as a matter of just plain professional craftsmanship, what I transfer from my "brain" to the surface has a hell of a lot more to do with what I AM than whether my end product is shiney or textured.

I think you inadvertantly crossed off most of the great artists/painters/sculptors,printmakers of recorded history as "pretty good craftsy types..."

"Fine" art, for want of a better term (I am open to suggestions...), is a mental and emotional process first, and a craft second.

"Illustration" is a depictive process, often for pay, and therefore has a high premium on the "craft" end.

Both fields are closely linked and there are many examples of crossover artists (Lautrec, Picasso, Steinberg and Calder come to mind immediately).

Nitpicking the differences is a waste of time. You can recognize either when you come across it. One you feel, one you see. That's all that matters. Everyone of us here (probably) is capable of either. What we do DO, and why we do it, is our choice.