tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-856223591269595696.post1847691608462802499..comments2013-08-21T05:13:28.258-07:00Comments on Danielle's A-muse-ed: Artists who illustrateDanielle Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16756162654157232632noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-856223591269595696.post-51198690618157830152009-06-09T10:01:10.498-07:002009-06-09T10:01:10.498-07:00Danielle, great post!
You write, "As art his...Danielle, great post!<br /><br />You write, "As art history expands to include visual studies, as we begin to consider seriously the continuing traditions of illustration art, how can we as students, scholars and apologists avoid the trap of this dichotomy between "fine" art created on speculation, versus commercial art for hire, functional art?"<br /><br />I think this is a good question. <br /><br />I confess that my own inclination is to embrace the functionality of illustration as a defining factor. The functionlessness of the modern art object (thanks mostly to Kant) cuts it off from any interest but an aesthetic one, like a Petri dish for the cultivation of taste. That's old, old stuff, deep in the culture of art history and art theory. The embeddedness of other kinds of cultural objects (say, sponsored television shows) cannot be ignored. I think illustration and cartooning belong in the latter category analytically speaking, because their cultural contingency is so blatant. That's why they don't fit in the (mostly imaginary) detachment of Art. <br /><br />You ask: "How is the artfulness of illustration art to be defined?" According to a set of rules designed to evaluate something else, I'd say. <br /><br />What are the relevant dimensions of illustration images? They include commercial, technological, cultural, and aesthetic considerations. The aesthetic is crucial, but still only one of several defining aspects. <br /><br />From my perspective, "artfulness" is a blind alley. The artful will never challenge Art. Better to find more appropriate terms for the subject. I don't see it as a dichotomy so much as a different, more contingent view of culture. <br /><br />Laurie, your observation that "fine" and "applied" don't live in the viewer is intriguing, but also assumes a culturally blank person who may not really exist. Because viewers live in the world, and are subject to the judgments that critical and academic circles have been making since Winckelmann. <br /><br />Thanks for a great discussion here and last weekend!DB Dowdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15883323769581256192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-856223591269595696.post-61962123140165056492009-06-08T21:08:33.911-07:002009-06-08T21:08:33.911-07:00Some illustration artists like Norman Rockwell tol...Some illustration artists like Norman Rockwell told complete narrative stories within their paintings, for the covers of magazines, for example. The viewer derives pleasure from 'reading' the story within the visual image. Understanding the visual culture of the times was a necessary skill for visually literate viewers.<br /><br />Interestingly enough, the dicotomy referenced between "fine" are and "applied" art does not reside in the viewer - it is a construct designed within critical and academic circles. The "reader" of a work of art requires certain cultural knowledge, generally possessed without the intermediary of art critic or scholar. Quality standards, however, must always apply for a work to be successful - more on this another day.laurie norton moffatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15892872842620888040noreply@blogger.com