Expert: Ben Mahmoud - 10/22/2007

Question
What are critics and artists saying about the line between fine art and illustration?
I am doing a paper on the subject and N.C. Wyeth because I think he helped people change their attitude toward illustration and elevated it to its rightful place as a fine art expression.
What say ye?

Answer
First, let me not do your homework for you, but here are my thoughts.

There is a substantial difference between illustration and fine art, without regard to the artist doing the work.  N.C. Wyeth was a highly respected illustrator.  His son, Andrew, was a highly respected fine artist.  And his son, Jaime, is a highly respected fine artist.

The difference between illustration and fine art is this:  illustration always has 2nd place to that which it illustrates.  The story or the product illustrated is more important than the illustrations.  The illustrator cannot change the story (or product) because something else would make a nicer picture.  However, the illustrator is compelled to follow the story in content (and hopefully, in style). And the product illustrator is bound by even more strapping limits.

The fine-art painting holds first place in the standard of values to which it obtains.

That is one difference.  Another:  the fine artist does not have to answer to anybody in the making of the work. And it is assumed that by having this freedom of expression the artist can create a painting with greater personal  integrity.  And this is of critical importance in modern, American art. After all, authenticity has taken a very high place in the canon of standards.

I have worked as an illustrator (early on), and spent the rest of life as a "fine artist."  I can tell you that there is a substantial difference between the thing (object) that the illustrator produces and the artist.  When I first started out, I was very idealistic.  My first job was a "gofer" in an illustration studio with about 25 illustrators.  I was aghast at the objects they finished.  Blobs of white-out, blue pencil marking all over the place.  I asked one of the illustrators about this. He told me that they only cared about what would photograph (blue pencil did not photograph in b &w illustrations.  The reproduction was the critical object.  The work, in and of itself, was of secondary importance.  Of course, this is very different in the fine arts.

And, finally, in modern illustration the intent is most often the selling of a product.  When something noble is put to ignoble ends, there is a deterioration of value.

Now, you might suggest to me that a Norman Rockwell illustration might sell for many times what a very good fine art piece would sell for.  Okay, let's look at that:  with whom would you equate Rockwell in the fine arts?  Jackson Pollock, maybe?  I think you can get a pretty good Rockwell for under a million dollars, but it would take ten times that to get a good Pollock.  But, in fact, that is not the point. There are a lot of really good fine art works that sell for much less than an original Rockwell.  The real point is that, in this case, the values of consumerism are being applied to a situation where the values of consumerism are not an applicable issue.  After all, a good football team costs more than a Rockwell, doesn't it?

Finally, since the illustrator is bound by the story line or the product, and the fine artists is not, it is more likely that the fine artists will imbue their works with more of the ethos of the era.  And that is important.  When we look at a Vermeer, or a Rembrandt we are seeing, embedded in the work a rich and magical look into their eras (not to mention their minds).

I hope this is of some assistance to you.

Ben Mahmoud