At what point does one morph
into the other? Not as easy to answer as it might seem. Historically, until the
mid 1800s, most art was what we today would today consider “illustration.” It
told a story: historical, biblical or mythological. Even something as
non-literary as a 17th century Dutch still life or a Turner
landscape painting had an underlying “moral” basis, maybe a condemnation of sin
or a Momento Mori, a commentary on the briefness of life. I recently came
across a book in my library entitled: Modern
Painters and Sculptors as Illustrators, with dozens of examples of famous
artists from Picasso to Matisse, Chagall and Rodin, They clearly had as their
primary intent the creation of a work of
art. The written word, the story it came with, was secondary. On the other
hand, when you compare their work to the great American illustrators like Howard Pyle or the Wyeths, you can see the
difference clearly; their primary goal was to clearly tell a story. I’m not
making a value judgment; Picasso is not “better” than Wyeth, just different.
You can be a hack artist or a hack illustrator. What makes the difference
between artist and illustrator is intent.
Is the purpose primarily to tell the story or to create a work of art? With
shades of everything in between.
As you suspect, whenever
anyone makes a statement about art or artists, the exceptions jump out at you. If you gave a copy of a poem or a
short story to ten different artists and ask them to illustrate it, you would
get ten totally different interpretations – as you should. Let’s say, there is
a continuum, ranging from a totally abstract interpretation of a work of
literature to an image where there is an almost photographic adherence to the
story. “Fine Artists” have always been derisive of illustrators, assuming that
work done for a client is necessarily less valid as of a work of art. Certainly,
there’s no historic or even artistic basis for that. Is Giotto’s mural for the
Arena Chapel less a masterpiece because it tells a story? Hacks are hacks;
mediocre “artists” are no better than mediocre illustrators.
Anyhow, let me give an
assignment to everyone reading this blog, artists and non-artists. Find a piece of literature you like: poem, story,
book – and illustrate it in the manner of your choice. You can interpret it
realistically or fantastically or abstractly. Any way you like. In fact, try it
a couple of different ways. It’s a great way to push yourself, get out of a
rut. For example, the artist Chagall was at his peak, did his best, most
creative work from around 1910 to 1920. Then, he fell into a formula that sold
well, made him rich and famous: his “faux” Vitebsk ghetto scenes, with flying
lovers, rabbis and (cash) cows. It wasn’t until he turned to illustrating works
such as Les Fables de La Fontaine and the Arabian Nights that his genius
re-emerged and he ended up one of the greatest artist/illustrators of modern
times.
Here’s your homework
assignment: Pick a poem or a quote, a proverb, a fable - and create an
illustration for it! I don’t care if you are an “artist” or not – in fact – I’m
curious to see what the non artist readers come up with!
GO!…and send me the results.
Renee Kahn
Artist and Ersatz Illustrator
No comments:
Post a Comment