In my travels
I come upon a number of ‘art lovers’ that stick their noses up at
illustrations. They often dismiss it as a lower art form, especially here in
Colorado. You would think it was the other way around coming from New York
City. Prestige is found at booths during local art fairs and not on the pages
of magazines. Painting and sculpture, it seems, are fine wines and caviar while
illustrations are mere chips, gluten free at that. No substance apparently.
Wine also comes in cartons you know.
I understand
that technically illustration is an applied art and its purpose is to explain
or decorate an idea, while fine art exist for aesthetic only. The problem is
viewers confuse ‘fine’ with quality. The fact of the matter is there are great
and poor examples of both. A good illustrator will find a way to solve the
visual problem and make it a thing of
beauty. In fact, the only difference I have found between the two, since
subject, medium, technique, time period and style occur in both, is that an
illustrator negotiates the price first while a fine artist leaves it to chance.
Please don’t
believe the falsehood that seeing work in a museum gives it some sort of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. The
Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum’s first curator was Hilla Rebay and, in my
opinion, has one of the poorest collections of modern art. If not for Frank
Lloyd Wright’s interpretation of a seven-story flower pot the place would be
vacant (The rooftop is ideal for placing the holiday Christmas tree!). And
while the Museum of Modern Art has a superior collection, it was started by a
group of New York socialites that wanted to increase the value of their
purchases. Not exactly ordained by Aphrodite.
Art from the
Middle Ages fares little better with museums displaying hallway after hallway
of repeated subjects, mainly The Madonna
and Child and The Crucifixion.
Yes, they are beautiful, but they also represent a millennium of monotony.
After the first hundred or so pieces you witness museumgoers picking up the
pace, seeking something fresh around the corner their cultural obligation
satisfied. Is there really that much difference between bishops asking for a
decoration to hang on the walls of his church and a publisher decorating the
pages of his magazine?
You could say
that the history of art in some ways is really the history of illustration. The
preponderance of art produced during the Middle Ages and Byzantine periods as
well as the Early Renaissance was done for the edification of the church, in
other words illustrations from the Bible. Whether it’s Michelangelo’s ceiling
in the Sistine Chapel, the Ghent Altarpiece, or the domed ceiling of the Duomo
in Florence (although that one reads more like a graphic novel) they all
illustrate text. Murals, grand and splendid works of art, are there to decorate
and explain, to illustrate. They taught an illiterate Europe everything they
needed to know as prescribed by the church and state. And of course not just
the Bible, but scenes from mythology, as well as historical events, were also
popular subjects to illustrate, I mean in which to create fine art. It wasn’t
until the growth of the middle class, which developed after the guild system,
that many artists were able to create for themselves…art for art’s sake.
As printing
developed so did book and newspaper illustrations. Whether it was Thomas
Eakins’ drawings from the Civil War battlefront, or Gustave Doré’s work in
Dante’s Divine Comedy, no one
questions their talent. Now that we know Eakins worked directly from
photographs, like an illustrator, has his work lost value? If we compare Grant
Wood’s American Gothic with Norman
Rockwell’s Freedom of Fear from his Four Freedoms series does one deserve higher status than the other? They are similar in
subject, and technique. Both have become icons of American life. Both appear
plain almost simple upon first viewing, but the composition, structure,
expressions, handling of paint are both very complex and beautiful. Equals, in
my eyes, of 20th Century Art
in America.
I admit that
illustrations can become overly sweet and sentimental, corny and pedestrian,
even cheap. But they can also be works of great art that grab hold and keep us
coming back for more. There is the sublime gentleness of Jessie Wilcox Smith
and Andrew Loomis, the bold and expressive brushstrokes of Harvey Dunn and Dean
Cornwall, the inventiveness of Heinrich Kley and Al Parker, and the
storytelling of N.C. Wyeth and Howard Pyle. Hundreds of artists that created
thousands of works of art that are no less beautiful, no less skilled, than
what many museums have to offer. Thankfully, galleries are starting to take
notice as well as collectors. Illustration may be junk food, but life is too
short not to enjoy a piece of cake now and then.
Okay, I'm not saying this is fine art, but I do like the way this large nude came out.
