|| HOME || || GALLERY || || THE COLOR OF ART || || PIGMENT DATABASE || || BLOG || || ABOUT || || CONTACT ||

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

There is no such thing as Art

*Sarcasm alert.*
In the art circles composed of critics, galleries and their rich patron sheep, there is apparently a difference between art and illustration. A great artists like Frank Frazetta or Norman Rockwell are not considered artists, but a "illustrators". This is because they paint scenes from books or other commercial work.
What makes an illustrator a illustrator instead of an artist? If it is because he was paid for it, then any artist who makes money on their art is an illustrator. If it is because his paintings tell a story or are scenes from books then all the old masters were just illustrators too. What's the difference between painting scenes from Myths, The Bible or Tarzan of the Apes? They are all storys.
It seems to me that all representational art tells a story, including still lives, Surrealism, Expressionist,Impressionist,Pointillism,Pop Art and indeed almost all art.

Now that we've established that all representational, and abstract representational artists are not artists but "illustrators", what do we have left?
We have the pure abstract artists who paint abstract images, colors and shapes that have no meaning (if they had meaning they would be illustrators). It can be said that abstract art isn't art, but merely design. Arranging shapes on a space for a pleasing effect. It takes little skill or craft as many episodes of "trading spaces" can attest. With some forms of abstract art it is doubtful that anyone could be able to tell the difference from work done by a artist and one painted by an elephant if they were not told.

In conclusion let's sum things up:
Representational artists are not "real" artists but "Illustrators". Abstract artists are not real artists, they are just "Designers".

This proves that there are no "real" artists and there is no such thing as real art.

1 comment:

billy tackett said...

I recently read a book called "A New History of Art" and the author made a good point in regards to Rockwell. He says the reason that Rockwell is not as revered as an artist as he should be is because his art is too accessible. Every thing that needs to be said about the image Norman said it himself and made it very clear.

Therefore the art lovers and and regular "Joes" don't need art critics or "experts" to explain what is happening and we don't need "experts" to tell us if it's good or bad art. It speaks for itself and therefore makes the "experts" job obsolete...and they hate that.

So if the "experts" tell us it isn't art, well, that might as well come straight from God's mouth! And we all know how much we as a society hate to think for ourselves! It's a lot of work having your own opinion :)

I recently found your website and found it very useful. Just started reading your blog this morning and I find it just as useful. Love the money saving tips. You're a man after my own heart!

Billy


visit my main website