The explanation in the link is very much the classical academic explanation and one I am very familiar with 😉 However, I seek to question this classical view because I have found the line between illustration and 'Art' rather blurry at times (as I noted in the bit about Michaelangelo). If art can only be defined according to the classical view then it would mean that a lot of the works that hang in art galleries are not actually art at all.
Please bear with me. You have touched on something that I relate to personally, so I must let off a bit of steam. No insult to you is intended. Thanks. Here goes: Blurring that line is very problematic, especially to me as an artist (watercolor, graphite, colored pencil, pastel, etc.). Norman Rockwell was an illustrator. As much as I admire his work, it was created for a commercial purpose. My paintings (some have won awards and were even on display in Europe, including Paris) are art. They meet that very sensible definition that Ayn Rand put forth. Sadly, art has gone a long way down the path to la-la land. This something I write about in part one of my WIP "Freelan: The Dawning". One of my characters makes useful things from wood. That is his craft (which in essence is what illustration is, no matter how skillful the illustrator). He steps out of that mode into the realm of real art when he creates a statue of a proud man shrugging off the nonsense of this world. His statue is given co-first place. The other winner is a piece made out of junk - a stark comparison and showing what has happened to art these days, esp. since that line has gotten blurred. Only by keeping the line intact can true artists and their work get deserved recognition.
Hi there! I wrote something last night in reply but have removed it because it was very late and reading it again this morning, it didn't really respond to your comment at all 😅
I reread the excerpts from Rand that you linked to, and also noted that you follow the Objectivist philosophy. I could write an essay in response to that and all the ways our views differ but I surmise that at the end of it all, any debate we have would end up in a 'agree to disagree' result. 🙂
I respect what Rand was trying to do, but I fundamentally disagree with objectivist views. Especially those views on art. No disrespect meant to you at all. I just follow a different philosophical school.
My purpose was not to persuade you, since your mind is clearly fixed and immovable, but merely to explain a more rational side. (I moved to Objectivism when meeting my husband and discovering how very logical and rational Rand's thinking is. Not everyone can see that.) Best wishes.
Illustration is a craft, since it is done for something other than art, which is best defined here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/art.html
The explanation in the link is very much the classical academic explanation and one I am very familiar with 😉 However, I seek to question this classical view because I have found the line between illustration and 'Art' rather blurry at times (as I noted in the bit about Michaelangelo). If art can only be defined according to the classical view then it would mean that a lot of the works that hang in art galleries are not actually art at all.
Please bear with me. You have touched on something that I relate to personally, so I must let off a bit of steam. No insult to you is intended. Thanks. Here goes: Blurring that line is very problematic, especially to me as an artist (watercolor, graphite, colored pencil, pastel, etc.). Norman Rockwell was an illustrator. As much as I admire his work, it was created for a commercial purpose. My paintings (some have won awards and were even on display in Europe, including Paris) are art. They meet that very sensible definition that Ayn Rand put forth. Sadly, art has gone a long way down the path to la-la land. This something I write about in part one of my WIP "Freelan: The Dawning". One of my characters makes useful things from wood. That is his craft (which in essence is what illustration is, no matter how skillful the illustrator). He steps out of that mode into the realm of real art when he creates a statue of a proud man shrugging off the nonsense of this world. His statue is given co-first place. The other winner is a piece made out of junk - a stark comparison and showing what has happened to art these days, esp. since that line has gotten blurred. Only by keeping the line intact can true artists and their work get deserved recognition.
Hi there! I wrote something last night in reply but have removed it because it was very late and reading it again this morning, it didn't really respond to your comment at all 😅
I reread the excerpts from Rand that you linked to, and also noted that you follow the Objectivist philosophy. I could write an essay in response to that and all the ways our views differ but I surmise that at the end of it all, any debate we have would end up in a 'agree to disagree' result. 🙂
I respect what Rand was trying to do, but I fundamentally disagree with objectivist views. Especially those views on art. No disrespect meant to you at all. I just follow a different philosophical school.
My purpose was not to persuade you, since your mind is clearly fixed and immovable, but merely to explain a more rational side. (I moved to Objectivism when meeting my husband and discovering how very logical and rational Rand's thinking is. Not everyone can see that.) Best wishes.