Fine art practitioners and corresponding institutions have for a long time given the field of Illustration a bad rap. I mean, any of us who have spent any time in an art school or program has heard all too often the ridiculous idea that because illustration is "commercial" it's a form of "selling out." Aside from the fact that this is partly true because illustration often relies upon big industry like publishing to exist, here I would like to point out that any art that makes its living on the corporate pocketbooks (I'm looking at you, Richard Serra and your Wagnerian rolled-steel projects) is an acknowledgement that art requires some kind of commercial backing. And while it is exceedingly rare, there are those artists indeed, who *never* seek private funding and just make art through non-profits or purely for their own pleasure.
Why is one considered "selling out" but the other not? If we examine this bias more closely, we might begin to tease out the reason. I think it is found in the fact that meaning in Art is gotten not only from whatever intention the artist gives it, but from the un-intentional aspects that are embedded within the work, aspects of which the artist might not even be aware.
We can see how intention functions in a work of art as that of which the artist is conscious. It is all of the elements that an artist has studied and uses to carefully craft an image. The illustrator, very consciously, uses pictorial strategies to proscribe all aspects of an image, the color theory, the value structure/ lighting, the design, the characters, subject matter, environment, the perspective, all the drama, etc.. This is done in order to elicit a certain psychological or ideological response from the viewer who is typically of a certain demographic to whom the product is aimed. Successful solutions for a particular illustration job can end up being very much in demand so as to produce cookie-cutter variations if its end-product adorns mass-market products, such as book covers. Of course, at this juncture we could and should point out that some fine art fits this description. The work of a certain "painter of light" is a good example of an artist in the fine art industry who has developed a very profitable "pop" formula. There are numerous examples of formula to be found in landscape, abstract, portrait, pet, and other kinds of genre art, which are successfully mass-marketed.
Let's also acknowledge here that illustrators who take commissions from commercial publishing companies are not creating "personal work." Illustrators are almost always being asked to create images to fit a particular text, which means that the subject matter is a given and it is the job of the artist to find an "elegant solution" upon which both client and artist can agree. This "intentional," planned aspect of art it is much more prominent a feature in illustration or other forms of commercial art. Submitting something other than what the art director wants is almost universally frowned upon.
But then something wonderful and mysterious can happen in Art.
The artist can plan out a work of art-- but if the artwork has even a little room to breathe, the piece will surprise us by asserting something *it* intends to say. Because the artist can never escape her ideology and values, nor can she scrub them from the practice of her work, the real meaning-- the true intent of the work-- is indelibly stamped into it whether the artist meant it or not. The artist can consciously build into it everything that seems to be pertinent to the idea-- however, the real meaning will be embedded into the piece despite the artist's conscious intent.
When I first heard about this idea it really baked my noodle. It seems a bit of a contradiction to say that even though the artist can be very deliberate to consciously corral all of the decisions pertaining to the subject matter in a work, the real content will be what is read by the audience.
There are many ways in which the true and underlying meaning of the piece is clearly read by an audience. How? Facture, the way the marks and effects are applied to the object, matters. Media matters. An oil painter is saying something quite different about how she sees the world than say, does someone who uses a video camera. The nuance of gesture, expression, or perspective / proportional shifts within the subject matter can suggest or add a particular meaning that the artist didn't originally intend but is there anyway. The way light and colors are selected and juxtaposed can drive an odd feeling that otherwise permeates the piece. There is no way of telling what will give a work of art its overall effect until it is finished and seen by an audience that is not the initial audience of one (the artist).
Unintentionality is given primacy as the main aspect of art that makes it a very effective tool of human communication; it is what drives us to create. When our emotional and subconscious selves participate in the creation of our work, we end up with something that more closely approximates our original intent. The more successful illustrator will find that the trick is to find the publishing venues that trust her, that allow a little breathing room and some creative liberty for the artist to stretch a bit so that her artistic voice can rise above the din of the logistical requirements.
Why is one considered "selling out" but the other not? If we examine this bias more closely, we might begin to tease out the reason. I think it is found in the fact that meaning in Art is gotten not only from whatever intention the artist gives it, but from the un-intentional aspects that are embedded within the work, aspects of which the artist might not even be aware.
We can see how intention functions in a work of art as that of which the artist is conscious. It is all of the elements that an artist has studied and uses to carefully craft an image. The illustrator, very consciously, uses pictorial strategies to proscribe all aspects of an image, the color theory, the value structure/ lighting, the design, the characters, subject matter, environment, the perspective, all the drama, etc.. This is done in order to elicit a certain psychological or ideological response from the viewer who is typically of a certain demographic to whom the product is aimed. Successful solutions for a particular illustration job can end up being very much in demand so as to produce cookie-cutter variations if its end-product adorns mass-market products, such as book covers. Of course, at this juncture we could and should point out that some fine art fits this description. The work of a certain "painter of light" is a good example of an artist in the fine art industry who has developed a very profitable "pop" formula. There are numerous examples of formula to be found in landscape, abstract, portrait, pet, and other kinds of genre art, which are successfully mass-marketed.
Let's also acknowledge here that illustrators who take commissions from commercial publishing companies are not creating "personal work." Illustrators are almost always being asked to create images to fit a particular text, which means that the subject matter is a given and it is the job of the artist to find an "elegant solution" upon which both client and artist can agree. This "intentional," planned aspect of art it is much more prominent a feature in illustration or other forms of commercial art. Submitting something other than what the art director wants is almost universally frowned upon.
But then something wonderful and mysterious can happen in Art.
The artist can plan out a work of art-- but if the artwork has even a little room to breathe, the piece will surprise us by asserting something *it* intends to say. Because the artist can never escape her ideology and values, nor can she scrub them from the practice of her work, the real meaning-- the true intent of the work-- is indelibly stamped into it whether the artist meant it or not. The artist can consciously build into it everything that seems to be pertinent to the idea-- however, the real meaning will be embedded into the piece despite the artist's conscious intent.
When I first heard about this idea it really baked my noodle. It seems a bit of a contradiction to say that even though the artist can be very deliberate to consciously corral all of the decisions pertaining to the subject matter in a work, the real content will be what is read by the audience.
There are many ways in which the true and underlying meaning of the piece is clearly read by an audience. How? Facture, the way the marks and effects are applied to the object, matters. Media matters. An oil painter is saying something quite different about how she sees the world than say, does someone who uses a video camera. The nuance of gesture, expression, or perspective / proportional shifts within the subject matter can suggest or add a particular meaning that the artist didn't originally intend but is there anyway. The way light and colors are selected and juxtaposed can drive an odd feeling that otherwise permeates the piece. There is no way of telling what will give a work of art its overall effect until it is finished and seen by an audience that is not the initial audience of one (the artist).
Unintentionality is given primacy as the main aspect of art that makes it a very effective tool of human communication; it is what drives us to create. When our emotional and subconscious selves participate in the creation of our work, we end up with something that more closely approximates our original intent. The more successful illustrator will find that the trick is to find the publishing venues that trust her, that allow a little breathing room and some creative liberty for the artist to stretch a bit so that her artistic voice can rise above the din of the logistical requirements.
Read more about intentionality and unintentionality in art in Jan Mukarovsky's text, Structure, Sign, and Function: Selected Essays. Ed. and trans. Peter Steiner and John Burbank. New Haven: Yale UP, 1978.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please feel free to kvell, or kvetch~ I'd appreciate having a conversation with you.