It's all been said before, but...
Art. For any and all of us who tend to lean more towards figurative work, it's usually considered 'illustration,' regardless if it's meant to be narrative or not. One thing many of us illustrators run into is our work being snubbed or unfairly critiqued as being 'kitschy' or 'overdone' or 'cliched.' Fantasy work especially is attacked (of course I'm biased for a reason in this regard). So, for proper perspective, I'd like to present a list of what I consider 'cliche' when it comes to fine art, from my own observations of being in a fine art undergraduate program, and seeing painting majors' work.
* Using newspaper/book pages/other printed medium for objects: I've seen this done to death in art trying to be 'edgy.' If you draw a woman wearing a dress made of fabric, it's too plain, but if you cut out newspaper in the shape of a skirt, well gee, no one's ever done that before. It CAN be done well, but I've seen too many people who seem to not be able to make up their minds and resort to the "Newspaper plan B".
* Splattering paint all over the goddamned drawing: Uh oh, that figure you drew is too clean! Too recognizable as a nice drawing. Better drag out the housepaint and your find your inner Pollock. Remember, composition and color matter in all fields of art. Being in the fine art world does not excuse you from knowing and using the principles of art.
* Bad anatomy 'on purpose': No, sorry, you can't abstract the figure just because 'it's your style.' And don't try to use Picasso as an excuse. I can show you early figure studies and still lifes he did that will make you weep.
* Gratuitous photos of homeless people/urban filth and decay/depressing photos of old/sick people: First off, I think there's an honest, serious need to help the less fortunate and clean up a lot of the pollution and unhealthy urban decay. That doesn't mean you have to plaster your canvas with photos of miserable homeless people or the toothless elderly to 'get a reaction.' Unless you have a damned good reason and put a lot of thought behind the work, then don't take advantage of the less fortunate. Donate or volunteer. Want to take a photo of a litter-strewn street? Do some good and clean it up.
* Plastering trash to your canvas: If it works compositionally, if it has relevance to your work, then all the power to you. If you just want to do it because Duchamp was able to get away with it, then gtfo of the art world. If you love trash so much, work as a janitor, or a garbage collector. I'm sick of seeing Coke cans and tampons plastered on canvases because 'it's art.'
In the end, stop attacking illustrators and accusing our work of being any 'less' than fine art. In case you didn't know, the difference between fine art and illustration is fairly recent, from an art history standpoint. The Renaissance masters? They were paid to paint specific scenes, stories, and people. By definition that's illustration. And next time anyone wants to attack an illustrator for subject matter, take another gander at the little list up above. Fine artists aren't faultless either. Cliches move both ways.
* Using newspaper/book pages/other printed medium for objects: I've seen this done to death in art trying to be 'edgy.' If you draw a woman wearing a dress made of fabric, it's too plain, but if you cut out newspaper in the shape of a skirt, well gee, no one's ever done that before. It CAN be done well, but I've seen too many people who seem to not be able to make up their minds and resort to the "Newspaper plan B".
* Splattering paint all over the goddamned drawing: Uh oh, that figure you drew is too clean! Too recognizable as a nice drawing. Better drag out the housepaint and your find your inner Pollock. Remember, composition and color matter in all fields of art. Being in the fine art world does not excuse you from knowing and using the principles of art.
* Bad anatomy 'on purpose': No, sorry, you can't abstract the figure just because 'it's your style.' And don't try to use Picasso as an excuse. I can show you early figure studies and still lifes he did that will make you weep.
* Gratuitous photos of homeless people/urban filth and decay/depressing photos of old/sick people: First off, I think there's an honest, serious need to help the less fortunate and clean up a lot of the pollution and unhealthy urban decay. That doesn't mean you have to plaster your canvas with photos of miserable homeless people or the toothless elderly to 'get a reaction.' Unless you have a damned good reason and put a lot of thought behind the work, then don't take advantage of the less fortunate. Donate or volunteer. Want to take a photo of a litter-strewn street? Do some good and clean it up.
* Plastering trash to your canvas: If it works compositionally, if it has relevance to your work, then all the power to you. If you just want to do it because Duchamp was able to get away with it, then gtfo of the art world. If you love trash so much, work as a janitor, or a garbage collector. I'm sick of seeing Coke cans and tampons plastered on canvases because 'it's art.'
In the end, stop attacking illustrators and accusing our work of being any 'less' than fine art. In case you didn't know, the difference between fine art and illustration is fairly recent, from an art history standpoint. The Renaissance masters? They were paid to paint specific scenes, stories, and people. By definition that's illustration. And next time anyone wants to attack an illustrator for subject matter, take another gander at the little list up above. Fine artists aren't faultless either. Cliches move both ways.