"Standards" Another must-read from ILLO ART blog

[Irene Gallo]

http://illustrationart.blogspot.com/2006/08/standards_31.html

[Shamagim]

A very nice read......:)

[Victor B]

thanks for the link Irene a very entertaining read.

[John]

[...] the difference between art and illustration is that there are no amateur illustrators.

Nice.

[Bowlin]

In view of all this, who is to say what’s good and bad? If people get genuine pleasure from mediocre art, one has to think twice before telling them they are wrong to do so.

I completely agree with this, but ... as far as commercial art is concerned, isn't art books like Spectrum and even the new Ballistic art books showing what quality scifi/fantasy art is? Plus isn't places like "Realms of Fantasy", "FX Magazine" and Bud Plant showing what this standard fantasy art quality is? (wellll Bud Plant just sells it all, but he effects a lot of things from his own comments).

Not to sound like I'm brown nosing or belittleing in any way, but in theory it would seem it's the art director for these publications that determine the "standards" or "quality" that's published? So the art director needs to find the best art that will help sell the book. I assume that big name artist get popular, like Frazetta or Whelan because they sell more books and so get more big assignments. The more book covers they do, the more the artist and art director determine a finer quality in fantasy art.

So I guess then the mass market determines a the better quality book by these standard quality art book covers and buy from similar types of artwork from other artist? And thheeennnn use ametuers come along and idealize these artist that made their own work popular and accept this type of work as the standard and try to push the standard into different directions.

Is this how in a nutshell how it happens? Am I pretty correct about this or wayyyy off base? There doesn't seem to be anything that really determines the standards except what sells?

[evildisco]

I completely agree with this, but ... as far as commercial art is concerned, isn't art books like Spectrum and even the new Ballistic art books showing what quality scifi/fantasy art is? Plus isn't places like "Realms of Fantasy", "FX Magazine" and Bud Plant showing what this standard fantasy art quality is? (wellll Bud Plant just sells it all, but he effects a lot of things from his own comments).

Not to sound like I'm brown nosing or belittleing in any way, but in theory it would seem it's the art director for these publications that determine the "standards" or "quality" that's published? So the art director needs to find the best art that will help sell the book. I assume that big name artist get popular, like Frazetta or Whelan because they sell more books and so get more big assignments. The more book covers they do, the more the artist and art director determine a finer quality in fantasy art.

So I guess then the mass market determines a the better quality book by these standard quality art book covers and buy from similar types of artwork from other artist? And thheeennnn use ametuers come along and idealize these artist that made their own work popular and accept this type of work as the standard and try to push the standard into different directions.

Is this how in a nutshell how it happens? Am I pretty correct about this or wayyyy off base? There doesn't seem to be anything that really determines the standards except what sells?

I think you are misunderstanding the whole article, the problem cited was that critics have become sort of shy in a sense to condemn or put down crap, which in return has made the 'fine art' field into a rotting pile, because there are no standards to measure what's acceptable.
He also says that illustration and comic art is not susceptible to this trend because both are professional crafts that need training and experience.
I completely agree with the article in so many ways and much more.
And although I would love to perforate a new asshole to people who do 'excremental art' and such, laws forbid me to do so.

[Bowlin]

Yeah, but at the begining of the article he's talking about critic's view often coming up in newspapers and magazines (and so forth) that just sounds silly. Kinkade as a modern day Leonardo da Vinci or Monet.

yeah.... right.

So he's saying there's no standard for commercial illustration. I believe he's saying that commercial illustration goes out into different directions for different taste, for different types of intrest that people might have. Whereas fine art is too self indulging.

This is true, but I think he's missing the point that there are standards for commercial illustration too, these days. the difference between art and illustration is that there are no amateur illustrators. There ARE amateur illustrators. That's the majority of us on this site.

I was just saying in my previous post of what I think determine the standards for illustration... comics... commercial art.

[TheGnoll]

i think it meant something like "amateur contemporary artist can make a livig out of their profession and sell their shit for a lot of money, while amateur illustrators won't even find a job before they reach a professional levl of quality"

very interesting read anyway.

[Michael Jaecks]

I, for one, have spent some time now in both the fine art and commercial art camps.

In all the forms of art that exist on this planet, I don't think there is a larger gap dividing the "fine" sector and the "commercial" sector than there is in the visual arts. The gulf between "concept art" and "conceptual art" is so vast you can't see one when sitting on the shores of the other. I don't think I've ever heard writers of non-fiction or technical books deriding people for writing fiction... although there is occasionally a fairly strong cultural outcry against bad poetry. Even music, in all its many forms has a whole ambigious sub-category for "crossover" artists, one of the few examples where cross-pollenation between styles or forms is actually a virtue.

I can tell you however that the snobbery between illustrators and fine artists is a two way street. The last thing an exhibiting fine artist would ever want to read in a review of their work was that a critic considered it "mere illustration." In fact, in the lexicon of contemporary fine art criticism the words "mere" and "illustration" have enjoyed a long marriage. The marriage began around the time the camera was invented, and the phrase has existed ever since.

I've always found comparing fine art and illustration to be so baffling, as their aims are really so completely different. Illustration exists to make life a little easier. A little more beautiful, a little better explained, a little easier to get a handle on. Fine art, especially in the 20th and 21st century is here to make life a little more complicated. It exists to point out the ambiguities in life, the parts for which there is no easy answer and for which an answer might only breed more questions.

I know both have their place in the world. I just wish more people understood that.

By the way, Gnoll: I can tell you in no uncertain terms there have always been many really talented fine artists that never make a dime in their lives. Conversely, I think we both know there are financially successful illustrators we don't think are particularily skilled. No one said life was fair.

[HugeHarHar]

I'm going to have to disagree about there not being amatuer illustrators who make money off of mediocre art. I've seen it plenty of times. I've seen comic book art that was embarrassing just to look at.

I also know that there is plenty of fine art that is so horrible that I would rather stab my eyes out than to have to see them again. But I also know that there is a lot of modern contemporary art that is good but is out of favor with the public because it's hard to look at.

[Elwell]

There ARE amateur illustrators. That's the majority of us on this site.
No, The original statement is correct. There are aspiring illustrators on this site.
I'm going to have to disagree about there not being amatuer illustrators who make money off of mediocre art. I've seen it plenty of times. I've seen comic book art that was embarrassing just to look at.
If they're making money off it, like it ot not, they're not amatuers.

[_Mario]

No, The original statement is correct. There are aspiring illustrators on this site.

If they're making money off it, like it ot not, they're not amatuers.What if someone is creating illustrations for free? Is that now finally an amatuer illustrator because there is no money involved, or is that now just a poor illustrator? ;)

What I really wanted to write is this: Any quote may sounds funny, witty or wise but quoting a sentence out of context (context being the whole article that this quote originated from) and then fighting about the meaning behind this quote is useless logomachy. That just devalues the good parts of this article.

[Bowlin]

No, The original statement is correct. There are aspiring illustrators on this site.


Hehehe. Aww c'mon Elwell, you know what I mean. How about the majority of us are amateur aspiring illustrators? heh.

I mean, even if you look up amateur on dictionary.com it says:
5. characteristic of or engaged in by an amateur; nonprofessional: an amateur painter; amateur tennis.

heh:blahblah:

[Shamagim]

Can you easily spot bad illustrators?

can you easily spot bad "artistes"?


Is about the obvious, that standards are not an illusion....You might think "why stating the obvious??!!!"....Well, people forget and they need to be reminded once in a while.


...no need to overread this article, is quite direct and is something that you will find awefully familiar, because this idea is the common feeling you get from CA.org.