I had a conversation recently with someone who was aghast that I created both watercolor paintings and production art. She seemed to feel like “real” artists don’t “sully” themselves with purpose-made visuals, and that because I do, my fine art isn’t really art, that I can’t call myself an artist.
I think that’s nonsense.
There’s a whole longstanding debate in the art world between art and craft that I’m not going to resolve in one musing post. But I hate these artificial barriers we put up to silo people.
One argument that I hear frequently against considering production art/illustration as fine art relates to the artist’s vision. If you’re making art to someone else’s specification, it goes, then your voice and vision are hampered. To that I say: Most of the art we consider a masterpiece and go see in a museum? That was made on commission, to a client’s specification. Age is the only functional difference between the Mona Lisa and a custom pet portrait. The “Old Masters” were just people trying to make a living with their paintbrush, same as we are. They painted portraits and decorated chapels at the direction of people who paid them for their skills. Most of the Art Nouveau period’s work that we venerate now was created for printed advertising or for book illustrations.
I think a hundred years, fives hundred years from now we’ll be doing the same with today’s graphic design, illustration and custom artwork.
