Why aren't illustrators respected as much as fine artists?

>>3005925
How long would it take to learn to draw/paint like THAT?

>>3005925
The only people who don't respect illustrators as much as fine artists are fine artists.

There's barely any room for pretentiousness in illustration so it's deadly fucking poison for all the intellectual circlejerkers.

fine is literally in the name, it sounds more respectable

>>3005929
This

Actually averall people like illustration more than fine arts

>>3005925
They aren't?

>>3005925
because fine art is about art and illustration is about illustrations

>>3005925
This was true 50 years ago but its not the same now.

>>3005925

Illustration is more applied art. The most would be graphic design. Let's focus on graphic design and fine arts for a moment because on extremes concepts are easiest to explain.

It's actually the two very different contracts between client(viewer) and the artist.

In graphic design, you promise client that no matter what, you will put his needs and ideas/visions ahead of you. That you will do everything in your might to do what clients wants and you will not interfere with your need to self-express.

In fine arts it's the opposite - client buys your vision and self-expression, he gives you money for what you already made, what is your artistic vision.

Illustration is in the middle between those two - clients have some needs that have to be adressed by artist, but at the same time he buys the style and vision in which the artist illustrates.

Thus illustration is less pure art and more commercial. Also sucks dicks and you are loser if you pursue it nowadays :DDDDDDDDD

>>3005925
I would say this >>3005929 and this >>3005971
fine art is a about "art" while illustration is about commercial art both are recognized and appreciated differently and both both seem to intertwine at times. However in many cases even now the fine arts community is more known to respect people who have gotten an mfa in fine arts instead of people who had illustrated previously and slowly drifted in fine arts. That being said many illustrators are starting to pursue a career in both. Whereas, many of the older illustrators are transitioning much of the young genration seems to try a balancing act of fine arts and illustration. In regards to the many that do though, most I feel, have to go beyond their illustrative style, and craft a more complex or broken-down fine art form, to get to a more acclaimed fine art status I feel. Either that or they should really polish their process of how their fine art should have a 360 degree look, I believe at least, compared to their illustrative one if they hope to show really success depending on that form of fine arts.

>>3005945
>i don't understand it therefore it is pretentious

Go back to drawing anime lolis, fag

>>3005925
because illustration is commercial and shit heads hate that shit despite being part of the problem

File: death.gif (2MB, 360x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x270px

>>3005945
>There's barely any room for pretentiousness in illustration

Fine art is too broad as a category. History painting by old masters is fine art, but so is a contemporary portrait painting.

A lot of /ic/ thinks paintings with story by old masters are nothing more than illustrations for their own time, but that's just what illustrators tell themselves to make their art seem worthy.

However, most fine art created today, even when discounting the various sort of abomination by postmodernist art, are still bad. And there's a new sort of bad fine art that arises from a mixture of illustration and fine art, because the baseness of the illustrator's spirit taints whatever it touches, or the fine artist being careless with such trifles taints their own spirit and art.

>>3005929
Because they know the difference and how much more it takes to even determine one's self to create actual art, so they don't want to be lumped in with a lower class. Kind of like how Romanians dislike gypsies, and especially when they are lumped together.

>>3006117
>A lot of /ic/ thinks paintings with story by old masters are nothing more than illustrations for their own time, but that's just what illustrators tell themselves to make their art seem worthy.

So what's the difference?

>>3005925
They're not? Some are. Wyeth was a beloved illustrator, as was Arthur Rackham, Maxfield Parrish, Norman Rockwell, Gustav Dore, and many, many others. Their work hangs in the biggest and most prestigious galleries and museums in the world.

The only place illustrators get disrespected is in the fine art studios and classes. I dealt with those shitheads, "Oh, I guess it's fine if you want to get PAID for your work...", yeah, asshole, and so do you - what difference does it make if I take a check from a magazine, and you from an art gallery. (Plus, none of them ever amount to anything - I'm a published artist. I win!)

>>3005926
With talent, a couple of years, with a lot of practice and study.

>>3005978
Let me guess, you can't sell any illustrations, right?

I've worked as an illustrator for over 25 years, made a lot of money at it, and it paid for my personal painting and drawing supplies. And, because some of it was album covers, I got perks like backstage passes, free albums, etc, and got to know musicians on a personal level.

Yeah, it really sucks dick. How I agonize that I didn't focus on drawing fan art for $10 a pop.

>>3006485
you can't say that on tv without proof

>>3006485
I think the last part is meant to be hyperbole. The :DDDDDDDDD should have made it obvious.

>>3005964
Provide citation, please.

>>3005925
Commercial art.

File: zika pepe HD.jpg (211KB, 748x600px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 748x600px

>>3005925
what exactly is the difference
what makes art 'fine'

>>3006841
>fine art
"pure" artistic expression for the sake of its own creation (this has nothing to do with money, the work's purpose is the thing that matters)

>applied art
art made to serve a specific commercial purpose as part of a larger work (logos, illustration, posters, etc.)

Shitting on a canvas to express your disdain for ribbed condoms = fine art.
Being paid to shit on a canvas because your patron wants to hang your shitty canvas in his bedroom = fine art.
Being paid to shit on a canvas by a shit-producing company that intends to use your work to better present their shit = applied art.

shit, why does everything have to be a thing? i just like pics i like and thats that

>>3007033
That's fine, anon. I think that way too. But the world as a whole relies on these categories otherwise people get anxious about not having things to argue about

>>3007018
>fine artists didn't get paid for their work

Retard alert.

File: JMFlaggDoll.png (223KB, 562x407px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 562x407px

>>3005925
This guy had a life sized mannequin he could pose. Meanwhile everybody shits on people that use 3D dolls to create scenes.

>>3005925
I respect 1950s Era illustrators more than the fine artists of that time. Fine artists fell for the CIA art degeneracy propaganda while illustrators were still holding on to all that knowledge of hierarchy and composition. Ever since then both fine arts and illustration eventually became degeneracy.

>>3007056

Mannequins like that were widely used to study drapery and clothing, not to set poses for humans.

>>3007056
people that use 3D dolls to create scenes usually use it to try and make up for a lack in skill, rather than to supplement existing skill.

>>3005925
Considering normies are more likely to name Mucha, Waterhouse, Rossetti, Rockwell, Leyendecker, Frazetta, De Berardinis and Brom as their favourite painters right after art history juggernauts like Leonardo, Michael Angelo, Velazques, Dali, Picasso and Van Gogh. I say illustrators are very well positioned in the public opinion and only despised by "art critics" because their work is self contained and demonstrates the futility of their profession.

>>3005925
Fine artists have cultivated a certain image that's associated with wealth and prestige.

The other side is that illustration is viewed as commercial, uncreative, and illustrators regarded as "sellouts." Which is bullshit when you consider how fine artists sell pieces for way, way more money and generally are closer to snake oil salesmen while illustrators are more like tradesmen. It's part of a larger problem where people think art should be done "for art's sake" and regard negatively those artists who work for money. See also: the For Exposure twitter.

>>3007103
>Considering normies are more likely to name Mucha, Waterhouse, Rossetti, Rockwell, Leyendecker, Frazetta, De Berardinis and Brom

I don't think your standard normie would recognize any of them.

>>3007056
illustrator poses with brand new sexdoll - circa 1929

>>3007214
and what about art comissions?, when nothing has been created but your patron pays you to make a painting/sculpture to put on their livingroom

>>3007103
Normies dont know any of the illustrators you named and all of those fine artists tho.

Btw, that video popped up on my first page of youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdbjzs2_1rY

Basically a guy is illustrator with no taste butthurting over his fine art professors who wanted to teach him to do fine art and him failing at doing something else than tacky heads.

>>3007103

>Rossetti, Waterhouse
>illustrators

Rossetti did really few illustrations and they are really of pretty shit quality, nobody remembers him because of those but because of his fine art pieces.

And with Waterhouse I don't think he ever did single illustration and again he is known as fine artist.

>>3005929
It is undeniable that fine artists have more cultural capital than illustrators

>>3005925
Because every Illustration major I've ever met has been a huge cunt.

>>3007416
>that deliciously salty illustrator whine in euro accent
I have no hope for the abstract mannerist art professors, but tacky illustrators just unwittingly provide strawman for these teachers to attack something with any semblance of skill and technique, and thus gain even more cultural power.

>>3007045
That is the opposite of what he said, you retard.

>>3007103
>Considering normies are more likely to name Mucha, Waterhouse, Rossetti, Rockwell, Leyendecker, Frazetta, De Berardinis and Brom
You only reason you'd think that would be because the only art exposure you have is /ic/ or some similar communities which is a mixture of concept art/illustration/comic book with a bit of fundie grinding thrown in.

>>3007651
I've been on /ic/ for years, and I only know rockwell, leyendecker and frazetta.

>>3007679

Max pleb/American tier. Out of those all Mucha, Waterhouse and Rosetti are historically most important.

>>3007713
Not to me they ain't.

>>3007246
>>3007334
>>3007651
I teach woodworking at a community college/trade school and everyone of my students has known a bare minimum of art, with Mucha being the most popular right after Van Gogh and Dali. The 40+ crew are also more likely to recognize Rockwell than any other artist on that list because of his Coca-Cola illustrations.

You hang out with the absolute bottom of the barrel, if you even leave your basement at all.

>>3007774
>more likely to recognize rockwell than van gogh or fucking picasso
why would you make things up like that?

>>3007774
Most people who will recognize Rockwell will recognize the works but not the name. It's not the same as saying he's their favorite painter. Many people recognize Raphael's iconic works but Raphael is pretty rare as a favorite painter among normies. Even as monumental of an artist Raphael is, many still can't put his name to the works.

People who have no background in art are more likely to name someone like Degas, Van Gogh, or Monet many times more than Rockwell, Mucha or even another artist like Raphael. It's not even close. There are so much more artists they would name before Rockwell. A lot of people who don't have any interest in art would just throw out the household name for an artist as well when asked who they like. Picasso is a household name and even a byword for "artist." Even Pollock will have a lot of people who will recognize him or at least what he's about so they'll just throw out the name. Banksy is also well known because of the documentary.

Other artists that are more known by name and work by normies more than any of the illustrators listed: Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Rubens (because of muh body positivity), and maybe Caravaggio. Any of these are more well known in name, works, and having just seen their works before but never really looked into, than probably all of those illustrators combined.

After reading the original comment, I admit I may have been mistaken a bit, with "more likely to name..." and "right after" which don't make sense to be in the same sentence. More likely than what? The sentence in my understanding shows its true sense if the word "more" is omitted. In either cases of interpretation however, it's wrong.

File: math-hangover.jpg (38KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x600px

>>3005925
>>3005978
Is this comparable to pure mathematics looking down on people who do applied mathematics? One is self involved and deals with the concept of the subject and the other is a more practical, formulaic, and "real-world"
approach

>>3007954

I...I guess?

File: 343.jpg (10KB, 200x211px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x211px

>>3006478
>"Oh, I guess it's fine if you want to get PAID for your work...",
That line it never gets old ahahahhahahaha

>>3005926
2 weeks tops

>>3007445
maybe 200 years ago. Nowadays imagine being a fine artist must actually be kind of embarassing considering people will immediately associate you with all those drooling postmodernists. If I was a fine artist and someone asked me what my job was, I'd pretend I was an illustrator just to avoid that association.

>>3005945
Even before I started drawing I noticed the single most pretentious jerks I've ever met were all illustrators working at minimum wage.

>>3009922
What do they even have to be pretentious about? Most of them are just doing fanart or cartoons or something equally childish.

>>3005925
Because illustration is seen as 1 full step closer to being a tradesperson rather than a 'true and free' artist

>>3005925
Fine Arts are better than illusration, because illustration limits in technique and style, but fine arts carry philosophy, world view, Metaphysical concepts and allegorys in it.
Illustration is like you tell Nietzsche to just think about company slogans.

>>3011076
Pretentious shit like this is exactly why everyone is laughing at fine artists.

>>3011076
definition of pretentiousness without substance

>>3011084
>>3011085
Everyone is laughing at fine artists because of the Degeneration of arts since 1930.
Look at Jan Vermeer, he uses all this 'pretentious shit' in his art and he is called a genius!

But you know it better with your empty phrases
>doesnt writes causal nor tries to be funny
>how pretentious

>>3011076
> Nietzsche
> ''''''philosophy''''''''''''''''''

>>3009897
Pffff 2weeks? More like 2 hours.

File: really really realy makes you think.png (56KB, 624x624px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 624x624px

>>3011076
>Nietzsche
the guy that wanted to fuck his sister yea no thanks that only means you get away with talking bullshit out your ass while being a degenerate hmm kinda like a fine artist

>>3012382
>My Sister and I is an apocryphal work attributed to German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Most consider the work to be a literary forgery, although a small minority argues for the book's authenticity.

so this being 4chan he definitely fucked his sister, someone please do the rule 34

>>3007056
bet you that doll needs a washing

>>3009897
new meme?