DR4lyfe:

when does a mural become illustration instead of fine art? seems like michelangelo did a lot of murals. the line between illustration and fine art seems to be a very subjective one. is it like that supreme court justice's "definition" of pornography--I know it when I see it?

wouldn't any piece of art done on spec or commission technically be illustration, if the subject matter is dictated or understood?

Neptune:

I would say that the line between illustration and fine art is drawn when the artwork in question is essentially a crutch for another form of communication. It is illustration if it absolutely relies on a pre-existing work of art, such as a narrative.

That is not to say that there are some exquisite illustrations that can be appreciated on their own. But for the sake of definition, I think that is where one must draw the line.

Portrait commissions as illustration? If that were the case, then all realist art would be illustration. That would imply that any sort of dictation--"draw this, paint that"--would indicate illustration. That would also mean that the only thing separating illustration from fine art would be whether or not the piece was the artist's own intention. And then the boundaries get even murkier because what defines intention?

I suppose you could make a case for everything being illustration if you wanted, but I don't really see the point.

DR4lyfe:

OK, so a painting or drawing is illustration only if it is used to support written work or some other form of communication. I can live with that definition.

I guess murals would still be a bit of a problem for me. Cistine ceiling seems to be illustrating the "story" of the chapel, of christianity. I don't really know how much leeway Michelangelo had in terms of creative control, but I'm guessing the pope called the shots. And all of it was to illustrate bible stories. hmmmm....

Neptune:

I agree about the Cistine chapel and all other classic Bible depictions being essentially illustrations. But maybe the fact that something is, by definition, an illustration doesn't preclude it from being fine art?

Hmm I don't know. I'm not sure I'm comfortable calling the cistine chapel an illustration...

tricky

DR4lyfe:

I certainly don't feel comfortable calling the Cistine ceiling an illustration...which is why I am uncomfortable with calling ANYTHING illustration outside of something that is clearly a diagram or visual aid to a published work, incapable of standing on its own.

I think some artists insist on the distinction out of pure snobbery, frankly.


david:

Isn't most of what we do as artist a form of illustration, Sure it can be. It may be our feelings or mood, some great landscape, Botanical studies what ever. We are putting our ideas on paper in the form of picture building on thoes thought to get to some greater idea.The Cistine ceiling was a work for hire all focused on one idea based on the bible is that so bad? The guy had bills to pay family to feed. I do portaits Work for hire They are illustration design to show something about the sitter mayby not seen but hiden.

Neptune:

True... I think the problem lies in the specific (or implied) inferiority of "illustration." If we broaden the definition, perhaps it would lose the stigma.

moonart:

I call myself an artist/ illustrator and never did I find the illustration side of my work inferior to the fine art work that I do.When I do any of my pieces, I consider that they are all illustrations to a degree. They are all telling a story in the mind of the interpreter who is viewing my pieces.I don't always dictate the story and it certainly is not supported by the written word except for my custom pieces that use names as a springboard for illustrating a commemoration of a life an event... I find that illustration, telling a story or conveying a feeling or mood, is one of the most appealing forms of art. All of my pieces "speak to me" before they are sold to a patron. When I look at a piece an artist has done, no matter the medium or style and I have to have it because it "speaks to me", to me, that is as good as it gets for an artist to hear!

Autarkis:

One of my teachers explained it that way:

Illustrator get paid and then do it.
Fine Artist does it, then gets paid.

I always thought that was pretty funny!

Paul:

I know that the original post was a while back But I feel the urge to reply sorry for the lenght.

To illustrate is a verb which is at the root of the word illustration which is the noun. The word dates back to 1526.

The Etymology of the word comes from the Latin word illustratus, past particle of illustrare, from in + lustrare to purify, make bright.

In most cases it literaly means to; make clear to clarify: to make clear or by serving as an example.

I guess by this difination the works on the Cistine Chaple woild be considerded illustsrations because they clearly fall into the boundries of the pure word itself.

Remember, we are discussing art and as art goes so does the translative aspects that society seems to like to attach lables too. Michael Angelo was a brilliant human being also a Master Artist. I guess it falls into the lap of the individual. Michael Angelo don't forget did many other things besides paint, he was also a prolific inventor who used illustrations in the form of drawings to make clear to others his many ideas.

Those drawings could be classified as some form of art as well because of the detail put into them, along with the skill and creative imagination which falls into the defination of art.

The works in the Cistine Chaple, I think everyone would agree, took a tremendous amount of skill (especially when you think of the limited amount of supplies that were available then) and a huge amount of inagination to put the thoughts on one peerson (the pope) into reality. This clearly shows an huge amount of imagination that still impresses people to this day.

Subjective? Maybe, but to this artists thinking it falls into the relm of Fine Art.

I hope everyone is still awake. Sorry for the length of this post.

Keron:

Not to be dull...but the way I see it Illustration is art in service of a client. Fine art serves the artists conncept. Yeah that is pretty dull when I look at it. Smiler

Ugo:
I think that an illustration is an image whose target is "to illustrate" something... and no more. An Illustration can be considered really artistic when takes an special value by itself, with independence toward the original target. Then, the Cistine Chappel is an authentic artwork because I don't need to be catholic or christian to enjoy it, and five hundreds years later has the same value.

The snobbery toward illustration is just the bias of people who think they know something.. but don't.
We went to the Norman Rockwell museum this summer with our daughter who as a 16 year old artist understands the true meaning of illustration (and explained it to me by the way!) If the critics don't think his work is also fine art...they should get a meat packing job and leave us alone. The funny thing is...in his work...the story is IN the painting...no book, no naritive...but it's all so there...that you smile...or tear up...whichever is appropriate.
If you don't believe me...go look at "freedom of speech" (look at the mans hands) or "son leaving for college" (look at the boy, the Dad
and then the dog!) again...and look at the quality of the work...I really don't think we have artists with that kind of work ethic today!