FA+
Shop
324
Views
Views
1
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Traditional) / Fantasy
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 914 x 1280
File Size 241.8 kB
Report this content
★
More from Wooper
So I really enjoy making illustrative types of art. But, my college professors have the strong impression that illustration is not art and therefore has no place in art school at all.
This, as you can imagine, creates problems.
I really don't understand it to be honest. What, exactly, is wrong with illustration? And why exactly is it not art!? My professors seem to think that if you try to make something illustrative, you won't look beyond the literal picture you've created and will totally ignore the "deeper meanings" you are "supposed" to be going for. Now, I want to know, who exactly said that art required going for something deeper? And who in the hell said illustration makes "looking deeper" not possible!!!?!!?
Now don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of deeper meanings, but the fact that I can't explore what I enjoy about art because it is illustrative in nature makes me want to wring my professor's necks. Who are they to say what I can and can't make? Who are they to say that what I am going for is worthless?
Anyway, I digress. This painting was an attempt to meld my illustrative interests with something that my painting teacher would actually find acceptable. I think it turned out well, considering that I spent a ton of time trying to create an image that was composed of many colors and yet not too overpowering. Of course, I was still hit with the illustrative bat as well as the "it looks too much like a dragon" bat. (My second least favorite criticism.) Sometimes I feel like people really don't understand anything that I find interesting in art! Oh well.
Enjoy. :)
This, as you can imagine, creates problems.
I really don't understand it to be honest. What, exactly, is wrong with illustration? And why exactly is it not art!? My professors seem to think that if you try to make something illustrative, you won't look beyond the literal picture you've created and will totally ignore the "deeper meanings" you are "supposed" to be going for. Now, I want to know, who exactly said that art required going for something deeper? And who in the hell said illustration makes "looking deeper" not possible!!!?!!?
Now don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of deeper meanings, but the fact that I can't explore what I enjoy about art because it is illustrative in nature makes me want to wring my professor's necks. Who are they to say what I can and can't make? Who are they to say that what I am going for is worthless?
Anyway, I digress. This painting was an attempt to meld my illustrative interests with something that my painting teacher would actually find acceptable. I think it turned out well, considering that I spent a ton of time trying to create an image that was composed of many colors and yet not too overpowering. Of course, I was still hit with the illustrative bat as well as the "it looks too much like a dragon" bat. (My second least favorite criticism.) Sometimes I feel like people really don't understand anything that I find interesting in art! Oh well.
Enjoy. :)
Category Artwork (Traditional) / Fantasy
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 914 x 1280px
File Size 241.8 kB
I think your professors need to retire. Their way of thinking is old and sinking.
Meaning of a picture depends on the audience point of view, which hardly be the same at the artist. You cannot look at an illustration of a apple and say it is not deep enough. Meaning in art depends much on how you translate it into verbal form. You can say a thousand thing about one picture. You can create a machine that producing sh*t from food and call it the fascinating human machine, and get some score for your art thesis.
Seriously, I think what you do when going to art school is learn how to illustrate you idea in various interesting form and shape which can be misleading but also rewarding.
Never ever think of art the way your professors do, they're just trying to say "I'm much more intellectual than the others" and avoid thinking in different ways.
I don't think your professors are qualified talking about "deeper meanings".
Don't be confused by words, just keep drawing.
I really like your picture.
Meaning of a picture depends on the audience point of view, which hardly be the same at the artist. You cannot look at an illustration of a apple and say it is not deep enough. Meaning in art depends much on how you translate it into verbal form. You can say a thousand thing about one picture. You can create a machine that producing sh*t from food and call it the fascinating human machine, and get some score for your art thesis.
Seriously, I think what you do when going to art school is learn how to illustrate you idea in various interesting form and shape which can be misleading but also rewarding.
Never ever think of art the way your professors do, they're just trying to say "I'm much more intellectual than the others" and avoid thinking in different ways.
I don't think your professors are qualified talking about "deeper meanings".
Don't be confused by words, just keep drawing.
I really like your picture.
I think you have a lot of good points here. I guess my profs are people just like everyone else, and as such they as viewers have their own likes and dislikes which they then will try to impose into my own work. Maybe the important part is to do the art for myself, and maybe one day they'll get a glimpse of what I find interesting. Or even better, maybe they'll finally find something interesting in my art for themselves.
Thanks for your comment. :)
Thanks for your comment. :)
Ahhhh AAaaaaaaaaaahhh art school. :c
Fuck, man, you know who else was illustrative? Van Gogh, Monet, Michelangelo, Bosch, Brueghel The Elder, Eakins, etc etc. :c I think their point against illustrative art is just that in the post-modern era we live in, it no longer presents anything new, post-Picasso, post-Duchamp, post-Warhol. But it all just depends on sincerity.
Also yeah it does look like a monster sort of murdering itself; it almost rides in and out of abstraction which is cool.
Fuck, man, you know who else was illustrative? Van Gogh, Monet, Michelangelo, Bosch, Brueghel The Elder, Eakins, etc etc. :c I think their point against illustrative art is just that in the post-modern era we live in, it no longer presents anything new, post-Picasso, post-Duchamp, post-Warhol. But it all just depends on sincerity.
Also yeah it does look like a monster sort of murdering itself; it almost rides in and out of abstraction which is cool.
Yeah, which is totally true, I agree. And hell, maybe my stuff is like that too! But then I'd rather that they helped me improve my illustrations to a point where they are more then just a crappy drawing with nothing else to it, rather then just tell me to forget about illustrating altogether. Oh well. :)
Comments