Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jim Schaffer on August 14, 2008 at 2:04pm

I personally find that the barrier between the two becomes fuzzier and fuzzier every single day. I think it will reach the point where art is classified by Intent rather than, or in addition to, Style. We already have Commercial Vs. Fine in that Regard, what other Intents can we come up with?

Permalink Reply by Jeremy McHugh on October 9, 2008 at 2:26pm

I agree with Jim that the line is blurred and it comes down to intent over style.

Rachel, you make a wise point that there is little distinction to be made stylistically.
The Brothers Hildebrandt, best known for their work on the Lord of The Rings Calendars of the 70's and the original Star Wars movie poster, were asked much the same question.
What is the difference between an illustrator and a fine artist?
Their answer, " An illustrator sits while a fine artist stands..."

The answer is humorous on the surface of it, but it makes a clear argument that there is precious little difference in terms of technique and intent.
The intent that I think Jim is referring to ( in my humble opinion and please correct me if I'm wrong, Jim), is whether or not the image is meant to be reproduced in print or some other method of dissemination.
In the end, the definition of illustration that holds truest in my mind is "artwork produced for reproduction and to communicate concepts visually."
Broad enough to encompass fine art to an extent, but making a clear distinction.
But, really I just draw silly pictures for a living so take it with a grain of salt. :)