Hope everyone had a suitably sweet Valentines Day. I am freakishly busy at the moment, so again won't have a chance to do Illustration Friday this week, or much else really. I long to get back to sewing and making more brooches with all those new vintage buttons I've acquired, but they'll all have to sit tight and wait a while.I did get to escape for a while last night and go to an exhibition opening at an art gallery. We bumped into a stack of people there that we haven't seen in years. All people I went to uni with. One is an artist who is pretty successful these days who has a residency in LA for half the year and then comes back for a residency at a studio in Sydney for half the year. Another is an artist who is also pretty successful these days and has a residency in Germany, and is currently on a 2 week residency in Sydney. Another... well you get the gist, it went on.
I used to hate going to exhibition openings for that very reason, it's all so sceney, and I'd always bump into someone I no longer had anything in common with. But last night it was fun, I felt good catching up. Still, when I mentioned illustration they took it as a profession rather than an art form.
So my question is this: Has anyone read any good articles about the resurgence of illustration, and how it fits into the world of art? Or indeed where the line is drawn between the two? I tend to believe the line is really starting to blur, and I often think about the art of French poster illustrators (Toulouse-Lautrec, etc), and how they are now considered art. I have read a little about what they've called this new "lowbrow" art movement, which encompasses Mark Ryden. And I am aware of at least one gallery in Sydney that seems to see the world the way I do these days (Outre Gallery), but I'm really keen to find out more about how this whole phenomenon. So if anyone has any good resources, I'd love to hear about them. Thanks.
3 comments:
Here is a discussion on digital illustration as an art form.
http://illustrationart.blogspot.com/2007/01/is-art-byproduct-of-technology.html
Many of the articles I found were not technically and properly supportive but ramblings in the 'I think' type of format. But for my two cents, illustration is an amazing and important art from in any media from advertisements to children's books and so on. It's a lasting impression of our society and how it changes. Look back at the illustrations for Dick and Jane books, we all think of that time frame as looking like the pictures of Dick and Jane. The famous Chat Noir poster immediately brings to life that era in our minds and it was just an advertising poster.
Back to children's books - Audry and Don Woods books with their incredible illustrations are works of art in their own right.
What about the original 'Flight of the Basset'?
I feel sad for those who see 'fine art' as the only true art because they are missing out on a whole world of joy, expression, emotion, and history as well as so much more.
Even advertising art effects us, and that has to be difficult to do, having to make an image that expresses a product and brings the right things to mind.
Illustrative art stands the test of time and is an important part of our society. It also lasts much longer. Who doesn't recognize Dr. Seuss' whimsical drawings or Froud's incredible fantasy illustrations? But, on the other hand, how many paintings, or sculptures or what ever it is those people are doing will be remembered through time?
Hold your head high, you are making a mark on society, and bringing joy, what you are doing is an honored part of the profession. Avoid labels like the plague and keep doing what you are doing. Remember that what is 'hot' today will be old news and frowned on tomorrow. Things run in cycles and what was 'low brow' will come up again as a fad only to be squashed and be replaced by something else. Think about the poor cartoonists who are considered little more than doodlers. I think many of the producers of 'fine art' realize how fragile their hold on fame really is and that is why they need to label other things as low, or not real art, to make sure that they will continue to be considered as true artists. I think they want to thin out the competition.
Oh, and another one who was 'just an illustrator' - Beatrix Potter. Anyone want to tell me that what she did was just pictures in a book and not art?
And I really went off on a rant, there, didn't I? Sorry. I do that now and again.
I just watched an entire documentary on the 'Low Brow' movement and how it is coming into it's own and gaining more of a credability as an art form (which seems crazy to even type out)
Personally, like Rayne, i don't see a difference between something created for print in a book, painted on a pot, spray painted on a wall, melted in wax, whatever.
If a work evokes emotion from you it's art.
Rayne has it so right on when she says: "I think many of the producers of 'fine art' realize how fragile their hold on fame really is "
It's so easy to make everyone around you look bad to elevate yourself. It's also immature.
YOu are awesome, I say so and so do MANY others.
Keep doing what you are doing and one day they'll be talking about you as part of a 'movement' and how the 'illustration' movement was a wonderful time in art history...
you heard it here first.
Love ya flossy!!
illustration IS art. and you my dear are most definitely a very talented artiste. there was time when impressionists were shunned from the "art" world too, so don't let it get you down. check this:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/
mi_m0HMU/is_6_31/ai_n6116676
Post a Comment