Sitting with thoughts
A rambling piece on what makes an artist an artist
I decided to take a couple of weeks away from the newsletter, not from a lack of ideas, but from a need to sit and think about some big concepts and feelings I am having about my work and about creativity in general. So, instead of finding words to describe all of these thoughts, I turned to my sketchbooks and to reading the words of others to try and work out how I was going to translate all of the concepts that have been buzzing around in my brain into text. I’m still not quite sure I’m there though.
Still, if there’s anything I’ve learned about newsletter writing, if you fall off the wagon for too long, it’s harder to get back on it and all those lovely readers will move on to other more consistent wordsmiths. Therefore, in this post, I am going to try and write down some of the more coherent-ish ideas I have been wrestling/playing/grappling/toying with. Pick whichever verb you deem appropriate by the end of this piece.
"If you could say it in words, there would be no reason to paint it." - Edward Hopper
I’ve been working my way through a few books during this time of creative reflection. These include Great Women Artists by publisher Phaidon, The Story of Art by E.H. Gombrich (also from Phaidon) and Drawing for Illustration by Martin Salisbury (Thames and Hudson). The first two deal primarily with the so-called Fine Arts, and give sweeping overviews of the great artists who have hung in galleries and achieved renown for their contribution to art history. The latter, however, is the one I have been reading with the most avid attention, because ultimately I’d like to be a full time illustrator one day.
"The world is full of fictional characters looking for their stories" - Diane Arbus
I have a question for you. Do you consider illustration to be art?
Don’t answer too quickly. Think about it for a few moments. Think about the years of training in drawing, painting and mixed media mark making an illustrator will go through before they are ready to go out into the world and earn a living from their craft. Is it so different from the years of drawing and painting and mixed media mark making a fine artist will go through? Does the function of illustration lessen its artistic value?
Personally, most of my favourite artists are, in fact, illustrators. Perhaps it is because I prefer to be immersed in a world of illustrated narrative. I remember the pleasure of reading illustrated Charles Dickens stories in my youth. I had a beautiful full page illustrated edition of Great Expectations and those illustrations left such an impression on me that even when I read a text-only edition later in life, Miss Havisham still appeared in my mind in the same guise as those illustrations. Sadly, both the book and the name of the artist have been lost along the way.
Brian Froud is another artist who will always have a special place in my heart, for he, together with Alan Lee (he of Lord of the Rings Sketchbook fame and the illustrated edition of the Mabinogion Cycle), introduced me to the world of the fae as seen through their eyes. One of my all time favourite books is Faeries, which is an illustrated guide to all of the fae folk one might encounter if one walks down the right pathway at the right time of day. Brian was himself inspired by another of my favourite artists, Arthur Rackham, whose illustrative work will be familiar to any child who has been lucky enough to read a classic illustrated tale like Alice in Wonderland, or Peter Pan.
To me, the work of illustrators is every bit as important as stand alone portraits, landscapes and pictures of dead fish hanging in the major galleries around the world. Illustration translates word into feeling. And anyway, I see just as much narrative in Van Gogh as I do in Tolkien’s watercolour illustrations for The Hobbit. Look at the Potato Eaters!
In the above mentioned book Drawing for Illustration, Brad Holland is quoted from his 1996 article in The Atlantic where he says, and I paraphrase here for brevity’s sake: it seems everyone today can call themselves an artist except illustrators because illustrators receive instructions and a promise of payment before they start creating, not afterwards. So, if you collaborate with your client beforehand and agree on the price, you’re an illustrator and not an artist? I can think of a few great masters who certainly received instructions and a promise of payment for painting certain subject matter on the walls and ceilings of a few famous buildings. Does that make Michaelangelo an illustrator too?
I may be in danger of heading off into a rant here, but that is not my intention. I merely aim to ask the question, why is one artist considered an Artist, and another not? I do not have an answer. I don’t think there is one. What is art to one person is rubbish to another. Some do not consider photographers artists, some do; some think of illustrators as only people who draw things for publication in books, magazines and newspapers. Some think that to be an artist requires formal training, others are self-taught and taking the art world by storm. It is all a matter of opinion in the end, which, like art, is subject the prevailing winds of taste.
And ultimately, does it even matter? Those who are driven to create will create no matter what label they are categorised with. Maybe the trick is to try and avoid the box entirely.
Until next time, happy creating.
Illustration is a craft, since it is done for something other than art, which is best defined here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/art.html