School Studies

[AjTron]

If you have not heard of the school then i strongly suggest you check it out!
http://www.geminischool.com/

[the_allejo05]

awesome work..i do not try to undermine illustration..(i took it for 4 months,then quit) but the reliance of pictures or having a photographic/too realistic art just makes art sink to the lowest places in art history :)..

[AjTron]

What do you mean?

[MrJackson]

Hi, this is art history speaking and I just wanted to drop by and say that allejo must not have done his research, because the majority of all art in the immensity that is art historical time is illustration. Only in the past several centuries has art actually started to not be illustration as artists become more and more secular.

Almost every famous painting prior to 1550 BCE is an illustration. Most often of the Bible, but some times of a patron's fantasy.

Let's start by naming the "greats" of painting--the ones that every average joe who hasn't taken an art class since middle school knows of.

Giotto. The father of western painting. Find me a piece of his that is not an illustration of the Bible. I dare you.

Jan Van Eyck. Ho-ho, Bible illustrations again, but also quite a few portraits. Portraiture is a fine art, yes, but it is also an integral part of illustration. Illustration merely integrates portraiture into grander scenes, giving characters more development. Character Development Team anyone? Or how about his famous "Self-Portrait with a Turban." That is a strict fine-art portrait, yet it is certainly an illustration.

Donatello, Michelangelo, Raphael and Leonardo. You guessed it, all illustrators. Architects too, but there's nothing stopping anyone from being a polymath.

Titian, Tintoretto? Both illustrators.

El Greco? Yessir he illustrated as well.

The entirety of classical Dutch painting from the 1500's to 1800's? All illustration. Some Biblical, some genre.

What about older art. Ancient Near Eastern, pre-historic or even Greek Antiquity? Illustrations to guide the dead Ka through the afterlife lined the tombs of Egyptians. Cave paintings in umber pigments dot the walls of caves depicting hunts. Bronze sculptures and magnificent reliefs adorn every Greek temple, illustration the works of their leaders and Gods.

Even later in Rome, on the famous statue of Caesar Augustus, an illustration adorns his Cuirass. It is of a diplomatic victory, emphasizing the Pax Romana Augustus was famous for.

The Column of Trajan is a one-hundred foot tall continuous narrative. In other words, an illustration.

Norman Rockwell. I don't think that demi-god needs any description.

I could walk you through art history from the beginning of time to the present and you would find no greater player in art history than illustration itself.

AjTron your work is magnificent and don't let anyone tell you you've sold out to the "man."

[Matsign]

Top notch. Are you trying to advertise the school? Theres a forum for that a ways down in the list. If you trying to showcase, post some of this stuff in the FF section.

So this school provides a four year degree eh? Why?

[Maligna]

I actually think the forehead of the nude woman seems a tad low. But talking about microscopic proportions now. Else the technique is very good. Much of working with images are reliant on creating images from one's own head which is difficult. Still, photo referances are a great way to hone one's skills. I want to go to the same class that you do.

Good luck with your work :)

[AjTron]

Yeah its 4 years of Intense training for a career in art.
weather it be illustration, concept-art or whatever you really want to do.
check out the website if you are interested.
www.geminischool.com

[Seedling]

AjTron,
Your work is great, but the advertisement is excessive. If you would like to promote your school, please do it in the education (http://conceptart.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15) subforum. That way it will be found by the folks who want to find it, and it won’t put off the folks who don’t.

As much as it pains me to agree with the allejo05, I see in your work a heavy reliance on photography. Using photos can be a great shortcut when you already know how to build an image from imagination. Your images are great, don’t get me wrong, but seeing as you are still an undergraduate and as you haven’t shown an image that isn’t a clear copy of a photograph or direct observation, that suggests that you have neglected a wide swath of your education in order to get to photorealistic results in a hurry. If this is the case, you are going to find yourself up a creek without a paddle if you are ever in a situation in which you must produce an image and can’t rely on a photograph.

What are your career goals, AjTron?

[AjTron]

Thanks!

I plan on making a career as a concept artist in the near future.

[Gunther409]

Come now Seedling, I'd say he's just proud of his school and what it's done for him. No need to get testy, though I do see your point. Just a little over-excitement on his part methinks. After all, for just four years of training that is pretty incredible. Actually that's damning it with faint praise, it's pretty incredible any way you slice it.

BTW 1st and 5th pics are my favorites. ^_^ outstanding work! You captured the very crazy looking Japanese man quite well.

[Seedling]

Hi there AjTron,

I used to play the piano, and I was pretty good at it. I used to get totally into some thundering piece, and go galloping through it without error until suddenly one wrong note would trip me up entirely. My teacher would raise an eyebrow and say “you got cocky”.

Looking at the rest of your work over on your webpage confirms what I see in your work here – you are really good at using a camera and a lot of meticulous work to arrive at a very polished finished product. That will be great if you want to make a career selling art through galleries. However, your imagined works aren’t nearly on the same level. Your competition in the concept art arena is stiff, and I am afraid you have a touch of that same cockiness that fouled me up when I was playing the piano.

If you do want to make a career as a concept artist, you are capable of it, and your work habits are certainly up to the task. But you are going to have to change your focus – you need to work on painting quickly, from your imagination, with no photo reference and no photo inclusion. You will need to be able to do everything from readable sketches to finished illustrations. You will have to be able to sketch humans, architecture, animals, landscapes, costumes, weapons, furniture - you name it, all from your head, without leaving the building to find a model. And copying photos found on the internet is not a professional or viable alternative – they are permitted as reference only.

[John]

MrJackson, just a short heads up, saying now that the art of more than a couple hundred years ago is illustration is a label that is tacked on as an afterthought. Back then they didn't think of it as illustration and not as fine art. By adding that name now, you take the art out of the context it was conceived in. In that regard, there is a huge difference between Rockwell and Michelangelo.
It may be right that art "illustrated" scenes from the bible, but that is not entirely what it's creators set out to do.
By using the term you create a superficial connection between two very different things ignoring the cultural background. Let's say that one represents the probably biggest organisation of the last ~2000 years and the other usually represents cultural concepts of the past 100-200 years, sometimes much less. This difference shaped the works considerably. Not to knock illustration, just don't make it look like something it is not.

[the_allejo05]

hmm whatever..Jackson.. Michelangelo ,raphael,donatello and leonardo illustrators.. hmm yeah sure..

[the_allejo05]

hmm whatever..Jackson.. Michelangelo ,raphael,donatello and leonardo illustrators.. hmm yeah sure... you might know history,but you sure dont understand it..

[Seedling]

hmm whatever..Jackson.. Michelangelo ,raphael,donatello and leonardo illustrators.. hmm yeah sure... you might know history,but you sure dont understand it..

All right, Mr. Know-It-All. If you're going to make annoying blatant assertions, the burden of proof falls on you. Prove your point.

[Seedling]

MrJackson, just a short heads up, saying now that the art of more than a couple hundred years ago is illustration is a label that is tacked on as an afterthought.

My definition of illustration is “an image that communicates an idea”. That definition includes any representational art from any time period. What is your definition of illustration?

[John]

It's not a question of the definition of illustration i suppose. Notice i didn't say that the term illustration was wrong. I just think it's vague and can create the wrong impression.
an image that communicates an idea is ok, while broad, it can mean way more than what is usually seen as illustration today if you go to a bookstore and pick up a book on illustrators.
All i'm saying is that Michelangelo did not head out to create an illustration of gods love with the same approach an illustrator of today would use to create an illustration for an article on changes in the stock marked, for example. I don't know the exact etymology of the word "illustration", but i'm pretty certain that the word was not used for the mostly christian motives quoted above at the time they were created. Saying today that our term illustration fits on these works is pretty vague.
I think the sentence that brought up this question is the reliance of pictures or having a photographic/too realistic art just makes art sink to the lowest places in art history .. which i disagree with.
Anyway i don't think any of this has much to do with the nice school studies :P

[Seedling]

I think the sentence 9bla)that brought up this question is which i disagree with.

No kidding. Allejo has demonstrated elsewhere an over-the-top love of things past and dislike of things present, so take his posts with a grain of salt.

(Seedling’s definition of illustration). . .is ok, while broad, it can mean way more than what is usually seen as illustration today if you go to a bookstore and pick up a book on illustrators.

I see this as a fault of said book. I studied illustration in college, and nobody there tried to put any sorts of limits on what could be accomplish with their illustration education. I make graphics for games now – and I fully consider that to be a form of illustration.

[John]

I agree that the term illustration is open, and seeing how close models come to concepts sometimes, concept art and texturing are very close to animation and illustration.
My point was more the distinction of earlier art being made as an object of religious appreciation, and more modern illustration that can be a distraction, informative, or maybe mostly functional as the basis for something different, like in storyboards for advertising for instance. It can of course be an art in itself like in some graphic novels. The figurative aspect may be similar, but in the way it is perceived and used the art has changed a lot. If you use the term illustration for both, you override this distinction. This doesn't make modern work useless or worthless, just different. The amount of time and thought spent is probably similar.
Edit: Not to spam this thread with even more off topic posts, i do understand your point of view Seedling. I respect what you do here, i like your threads on game art and concept art. One of the reasons i answered in the first place was that something like this sometimes gets dragged in as a point in good art / bad art discussions, so i like to keep distinctions. :/

[Seedling]

My perspective is this: I am here informally as a teacher; the way that I look at these topics is “how can I present this idea in the best manner to help students become what they want to be?” In this context, concept art is just another form of illustration, reachable as a career by way of an illustration education. Also in this context, there is such variety in the ways that different sorts of commonly accepted “illustrations” are perceived and used that I don’t see any benefit in making a distinction between illustrative arts of today and illustrative arts of the past. The same image-making skills can be used to sell a product, decorate a book, furnish a game with art, promote religious ideals, or make fine art.

[Chris Bennett]

I think that what is usually meant by illustration is something that puts what it is 'about' above and before the plastic means used to achieve it. The best example of this would be a crude lavatory wall drawing. On the other hand Rembrandt was an illustrator of bible stories and the master himself of formal paintings, Poussin, was a 'history painter' as well. In fact practically all the european art of the past was 'about something' and therefore illustrated it. The difference is that the formal or plastic means were a fundamental part of this activity - its what give the images power and authority. What is usually meant by the term 'it's just illustration' is that the 'story' is indicated but without 'formal' power.
A good example would be the comparison between a stone knome and Michealangelo's David. They both are about roughly the same thing - a standing figure with not much to do at the moment - but one has this marvelous 'frozen music' of formal rythmns and fantasies of mass and volume playing off each other that convey the idea of man as a trascendental racehorse.

[Seedling]

Chris, it sounds suspiciously as if you are categorizing illustration as some crappy second-class citizen to fine arts, and that only the most highbrow illustration is able to somehow stop being a lowly illustration and transcend into the realm of fine arts.

Come on, there is crap in the fine-art-medium-is-more-important-than-communication camp, too.

A stone gnome, were it carved with the love that David was carved, could be just as moving.

[the_allejo05]

"All right, Mr. Know-It-All. If you're going to make annoying blatant assertions, the burden of proof falls on you. Prove your point."

ok..REAL ARt is only felt... the others just pretty pictures...

[Flake]

Michelangelo ,raphael,donatello and leonardo illustrators.. hmm yeah sure..

"Art Whores" is probably a better term I think.

[Chris Bennett]

Chris, it sounds suspiciously as if you are categorizing illustration as some crappy second-class citizen to fine arts, and that only the most highbrow illustration is able to somehow stop being a lowly illustration and transcend into the realm of fine arts.

Come on, there is crap in the fine-art-medium-is-more-important-than-communication camp, too.

A stone gnome, were it carved with the love that David was carved, could be just as moving.

On the contrary Seedling!
Perhaps I should have explained myself a little better. What I was saying was that the term illustration is often used as a word describing work that lacks 'plastic expression', that's all. This is not the same thing as saying that those who illustrate are practicing something sub-standard. This is why I brought in Rembrandt who was a magnificent 'illustrator' or teller of implied stories in his pictures. Waterhouse is another supreme example. I understand illustration as 'the activity of telling a story or idea through an image' - whether this is done well or badly is down to the abilities of the artist and has nothing to do with the buisiness of illustrating per se which I consider a noble and perfectly valid branch of artistic activity in it's own right.
If you don't believe me look at my own work as a 'fine artist' - it's life's blood comes from an illustrator's point of view. In fact it's one of the reasons I have joined this forum, because I see a kinship in what a lot of people are doing here with the so called 'fine arts'; The 'expression of ideas through images', in other words; illustration! I got a lot of flak at the Slade (Art school in London where I studied) because I supported this point of view!
I hope this has cleared things up.
Your own work, Seedling, proves my point exactly: The painting of the ticket imlpies all sorts of things, but it would remain only a 'literary idea' if it wasn't painted with some kind of 'plastic expression' to it and its relationship to the space around it. Putting the two together as you have done is the thing that's important.

[Seedling]

I hope this has cleared things up.

Oh good, yes. For a moment there, I thought we were on different sides of the fence concerning illustration, and that made me sad, because I like your work. :-)


ok..REAL ARt is only felt... the others just pretty pictures...

That’s not a proof, dear. Is English not your first language?

[the_allejo05]

Seedling .no English is not..and im glad i speak a Romantic language..anyhow.. that was your proof if you cannot "see " the diference between them is a waist of time for me to try to explain it to you hehe.

[Seedling]

Allejo,
If you want to be taken seriously in a discussion in any language, then you have to support your assertions. For example, instead of just making the assertion “marshmallows are disgusting,” you should say “I think marshmallows are disgusting because they are squishy and because they have no nutritional value.” The important word is “because”.