I find it interesting that photo illustrations, or photoshopmontage, are considered to be second place in the art world. I understand that photo illustrations are more commonly used in popular media such as, magazines and the like, and therefore are used and thrown away. However, I do not quite understand why these great art pieces are not being preserved for later admiration. Though these pieces are not presented in a typical manner that “first class” art would be presented, I feel like any piece of work that has some kind of artistic value is art and therefore should be presented just like the rest. From this, sparks another question. What differentiates an artist from an illustrator? I think they essentially do the same work, with the exception of illustrators working more in the mainstream of mass production. However, even with this exception, why is an artist’s work more of value in which it is preserved and admired, whereas an illustrator’s work appears for a few and then is thrown away?
I enjoyed Duane Michal’s photography simply because they were extremely though provoking. One of the pieces that really reached out to me is the posted in this blog. There are a collection of six photos of a woman looking at herself in the mirror. The image that appears in the mirror is a distorted image of her. This was really thought provoking because I see it as being true when many woman look in the mirror. The image that they see is distorted. This is either because they do not like what they see and therefore always see a distorted image rather than what is actually there, or it is because they altered themselves to suit societal norms and when they look in the mirror they do not see themselves. This piece really puts a cap on showing women identity issues by making it personal, only between the woman and the mirror.
I believe that the reason as to why the artists' works are preserved and more valued is the argument that it was an "original" piece, as we mentioned in one of the first day in classes. But then the next question is, how original can you be? Just because one artist hasn't used a certain style of painting or colors, doesn't mean no one else has. I think then illustrators are those artists that have broken away from the classical ways to show their view of "originality."
ReplyDeleteI guess it'll always be a competition.
I think it's an interesting point that you make about this kind of art not being as preserved at more classic art, but I wish that you would have elaborated and shown more examples. I feel like, of modern day art, these works are fairly preserved. I mean, many of the artists that we have read about were able to make a career out of their art, and people would pay quite a bit of money for a Duane Michals original piece. I would like to understand why you said that. Maybe I just have a different point of view though, because I would consider an illustrator to be an artist, just a sub-catergory of artists.
ReplyDeleteI think the question "What separates an artist from an illustrator" is a very valid question. I think that as technology has increased, the line has blurred more and more. In the past, an artist was a person with natural artistic talents who created wonderful masterpieces that were tangible keepsakes. However, the increase of technology has led to varying forms of "art". The idea of an illustrator being a "second class" artist however, is strange to me. I think everyone has their opinion about what art is and who is an artist, but in my opinion, everything we study is art.
ReplyDelete