Should artists and illustrators (myself included) just disappear?

[Rosaline_L]

Don’t be one. Being an artist/illustrator is nothing to aspire to. Not much perks to it save for having a lucrative and long career. Sure, you get to create beautiful paintings and drawings/artwork and you go to school to get a degree in the Arts, but what for? Save for commissions and a number of jobs by various clients here and there, you pretty much work for yourself. You’re your own boss so you pretty much are getting a degree to be your own boss.

Plus, while you’re able to work with international clients, you pretty much spend the vast majority of your time doing it in front of a computer screen or canvas. That’s it. No travelling, no verbal, interpersonal connections or relationships with those clients, nothing.

I find it shameful that artistic abilities boasted to be very special and magical–something coveted by millions–get wasted in front of a computer screen.

I mean, no insult to anyone who really treasures illustration and art, and I believe that they are departments to be treasured greatly. But I feel they’re being wasted this way. If only the art is important, why even have the creator exist? After all, the creation is the important thing. The creator just sits there and paints and draws, almost like this rock sitting there, with very little purpose outside of that.

Again, I mean no offense to other artists or illustrators out there, but I feel that considering the circumstances, we aren’t being done any justice.

 

[Mary_Estelle]

Do you need a computer screen to create great works of art? Peace.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Don’t be one. Being an artist/illustrator is nothing to aspire to. Not much perks to it save for having a lucrative and long career. Sure, you get to create beautiful paintings and drawings/artwork and you go to school to get a degree in the Arts, but what for? Save for commissions and a number of jobs by various clients here and there, you pretty much work for yourself. You’re your own boss so you pretty much are getting a degree to be your own boss.

Plus, while you’re able to work with international clients, you pretty much spend the vast majority of your time doing it in front of a computer screen or canvas. That’s it. No travelling, no verbal, interpersonal connections or relationships with those clients, nothing.

I find it shameful that artistic abilities boasted to be very special and magical–something coveted by millions–get wasted in front of a computer screen.

I mean, no insult to anyone who really treasures illustration and art, and I believe that they are departments to be treasured greatly. But I feel they’re being wasted this way. If only the art is important, why even have the creator exist? After all, the creation is the important thing. The creator just sits there and paints and draws, almost like this rock sitting there, with very little purpose outside of that.

Again, I mean no offense to other artists or illustrators out there, but I feel that considering the circumstances, we aren’t being done any justice.

Not sure Michael Angelo would agree.

Most artists struggle in poverty, or are little understood. Like Banksy.

 

[patrick457]

Don’t be one. Being an artist/illustrator is nothing to aspire to. Not much perks to it save for having a lucrative and long career. Sure, you get to create beautiful paintings and drawings/artwork and you go to school to get a degree in the Arts, but what for? Save for commissions and a number of jobs by various clients here and there, you pretty much work for yourself. You’re your own boss so you pretty much are getting a degree to be your own boss.

Plus, while you’re able to work with international clients, you pretty much spend the vast majority of your time doing it in front of a computer screen or canvas. That’s it. No travelling, no verbal, interpersonal connections or relationships with those clients, nothing.

I find it shameful that artistic abilities boasted to be very special and magical–something coveted by millions–get wasted in front of a computer screen.

I mean, no insult to anyone who really treasures illustration and art, and I believe that they are departments to be treasured greatly. But I feel they’re being wasted this way. If only the art is important, why even have the creator exist? After all, the creation is the important thing. The creator just sits there and paints and draws, almost like this rock sitting there, with very little purpose outside of that.

Again, I mean no offense to other artists or illustrators out there, but I feel that considering the circumstances, we aren’t being done any justice.

I studied art, and I get what you mean, but at the same time I do think that if the creators disappeared, where would the creations go? Who would create?

 

[inocente]

I find it shameful that artistic abilities boasted to be very special and magical–something coveted by millions–get wasted in front of a computer screen.

Everyone has seen The Starry Night by van Gogh, on chocolate boxes and calendars.

I was in New York on business, and went to MoMA, and saw the original across a room. Waited for the people who were looking at it to move on, then stood in front to look at the brushwork. And it was different from all those reproductions. Something in the paint, in the light. And suddenly van Gogh downloaded his soul to me, and I saw what he saw, and teared up. Because he could communicate so much with so little.

Less is more. Computers are cool, but real life is cooler.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I also think the way that people act today with phones and computers is too impersonal. It’s putting that essential part of human existence, being social creatures, behind productivity. It’s a matter of priorities being out of place, and as you see, it causes much sadness.

I don’t think computers qualify as a medium for art; I have no idea what the art world thinks about that though. It’s like calling people who sit at their computer and put together synthetic sounds, but can’t play an instrument, musicians. Speaking of musicians, your post reminds me of: “if your not happy, then you must be blue … if your not living good, travel wide”

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Polymaths survive.

It’s right to ask Jesus to help us develop in several directions - whether there is money in it or not - AND especially that He helps us get remunerative work and a livelihood.

We shouldn’t look to the propaganda of institutions around us for 100% of our vision and ideas, by all means use that (name removed by moderator)ut when it’s helpful but don’t be distracted from all other sources for your visions as well.

Visions can include not only visual productions, but empathy for whom they might inspire. We need to lay down new synapses all the time, we never know what good of some kind they might lead to.

(My own craft is mainly in words, history, philosophy and the like, and I’m only just getting going in my old age. I hope to soon book free web pages to interest others in the world around them - even if only a few - a work of intellectual mercy.)

If you are a visual thinker that is almost certainly an extra good quality in almost any nominally unrelated job - many people don’t develop that faculty and many businesses suffer because of it.

Any business or job of work can for example be mind mapped. You might produce training materials for a firm you are rising up the ladder in!

In spare moments, you can draw old interests - animals, machines, flowers, we all in our youth had something we were always nagged to stop being interested in! Catholic things lend themselves to drawing and painting - whether the relational, the mystic, the concrete (loaves and chalices), etc etc.

 

[Catherinabird]

Your statement about motility can be applied to most jobs. Most jobs do not require travel or excitement, although many do interact with people more regularly.

I have some artistic talent and people have asked why I am in the job that I have instead of using my talents. It is because I did not think I could live off of art (I’m not that great anyway). And I worried if I did find a job in the field, it would sour me to the joy of just creating for the sake of creating. It sounds like that is what you’re describing. Would you be happier in another job and only creating art for pleasure or out of love?

You are at least making a career off of doing something you love. Many do not do that at all. Maybe to fulfill your other needs you can take up other hobbies such as travel. Perhaps, being your own boss and if you are not limited to a location, you can take your work with you and create your art in new places.

 

[GEddie]

Since when has a computer been needed to create art?

Most of the world’s great art never saw a volt of electric power in the making.

Yes, a life of artistry has its challenges. Many artists become breathing–challenged before their work is appreciated. Some struggle with poverty.

If you covet a life of world-wandering and the high life, then a career in the visual arts may not be for you.

But I heard once that a Jackson Pollock canvas once sold for $149M. That rocks my mind, that a set of human hands could create an object worth $149M.

ICXC NIKA

 

[juno24]

If only the art is important, why even have the creator exist? After all, the creation is the important thing. The creator just sits there and paints and draws, almost like this rock sitting there, with very little purpose outside of that.

Since you posted this in the Philosophy forum, I will just address this part (especially the bolded part).
Without the Creator, there is no Creation. Creation does not simply flow from a non-sentient, unfeeling, non-thinking rock. Creation may be important, but it is only so because the Creator has deemed it to be so.

 

[Catherinabird]

Since when has a computer been needed to create art?

I think the computer is required for the OP’s particular illustration job.

 

[Arizona_Fat_Gir]

Van Gogh lived in poverty, on a small sum his brother Theo gave him. He never had much and his paintings are priceless today. Maybe that is why so many people don’t appreciate painters or other artists because their source of income is not always steady.

Graphic art is something else, of course. Pagemaker had a software program we used in school to learn graphic art. I remember one of a bear we did at “Big Paws” park (fictitious, of course) and business cards.

I was surprised when adult coloring books first came out. It goes to show many people would like to create, but just don’t have the time or incentive; however, coloring is still relaxing.

 

[Tomdstone]

Van Gogh lived in poverty, on a small sum his brother Theo gave him. He never had much and his paintings are priceless today.

It is unfair that an artist lives in dire poverty, while one of his paintings sells for 82.5 million dollars? Is the free market capitalist system fair or does it unfairly reward speculators instead of the producer of the article?

 

[edwest2]

I have spent a lot of time with art and artists. You don’t need a computer screen to draw on. One of our artists works here, does his work on a physical surface, scans his finished art and off it goes. He still holds onto the original which he can sell if he wants to.

No, it’s not for everybody, but If you can create, create.

May God guide you,

Ed

 

[Irishmom2]

If I had to paint to earn a living, it would cease to give me pleasure. I would not be creating to express something as much as to create something that sells.

Being able to paint is a wonderful gift I have been given, but it is not something I do for others. If others like what I do, that’s great, but I have to be happy with it. And I am.

I was never interested in the business end of being an artist either. Exhibiting, marketing, entering work in shows… I have done that in the past. I don’t think my work is any less valid or serious because I don’t sell my work (anymore.) And just because someone can sell their work doesn’t necessarily mean it is “good.” There is a lot of politics in art I don’t choose to be involved in.

My point is, you might be happier doing something else for a living, and saving your art for yourself.

 

[edwest2]

It is unfair that an artist lives in dire poverty, while one of his paintings sells for 82.5 million dollars? Is the free market capitalist system fair or does it unfairly reward speculators instead of the producer of the article?

Say I’m an illustrator working on my own. I go find a job for black and white or color art. I always try to deal with established publishers/companies. We agree in advance that an 8 1/2 by 11, black and white illustration will cost the buyer $150.00. For a color cover or box art, it’s going to range from $500 to 1,000. These are examples only.

The free market system in illustration depends on a lot of factors which you have to know. There is no guide to fair market values. You could ask around before you take a job. The final price often depends on how much the buyer likes your samples, or the buyer just has a deadline, no real artistic sense and just needs something - anything that looks halfway decent.

Ed

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Don’t be one. Being an artist/illustrator is nothing to aspire to. Not much perks to it save for having a lucrative and long career. Sure, you get to create beautiful paintings and drawings/artwork and you go to school to get a degree in the Arts, but what for? Save for commissions and a number of jobs by various clients here and there, you pretty much work for yourself. You’re your own boss so you pretty much are getting a degree to be your own boss.

Plus, while you’re able to work with international clients, you pretty much spend the vast majority of your time doing it in front of a computer screen or canvas. That’s it. No travelling, no verbal, interpersonal connections or relationships with those clients, nothing.

I find it shameful that artistic abilities boasted to be very special and magical–something coveted by millions–get wasted in front of a computer screen.

I mean, no insult to anyone who really treasures illustration and art, and I believe that they are departments to be treasured greatly. But I feel they’re being wasted this way. If only the art is important, why even have the creator exist? After all, the creation is the important thing. The creator just sits there and paints and draws, almost like this rock sitting there, with very little purpose outside of that.

Again, I mean no offense to other artists or illustrators out there, but I feel that considering the circumstances, we aren’t being done any justice.

If you are a real artist you cannot help but create art. Whether there is a market for it is another thing. If you are being employed as an artist, don’t expect it to be full of accolades. You need to do the job. The “creator” needs to produce what is expected of him or her.

 

[edwest2]

If I had to paint to earn a living, it would cease to give me pleasure. I would not be creating to express something as much as to create something that sells.

Being able to paint is a wonderful gift I have been given, but it is not something I do for others. If others like what I do, that’s great, but I have to be happy with it. And I am.

I was never interested in the business end of being an artist either. Exhibiting, marketing, entering work in shows… I have done that in the past. I don’t think my work is any less valid or serious because I don’t sell my work (anymore.) And just because someone can sell their work doesn’t necessarily mean it is “good.” There is a lot of politics in art I don’t choose to be involved in.

My point is, you might be happier doing something else for a living, and saving your art for yourself.

I had a friend working at a physical commercial art studio in an “upscale” town. I visited on more than one occasion, I saw the Art Director in action. People were given jobs and earned a living. Some specialized in airbrush color, and others in different mediums. You interacted with your fellow workers. It was that or get a job not creating anything.

A few people built a name because they were really good, quit and moved on. They had made a name for themselves. Back in the old days, when Disney was alive, you had an ink and paint department where mostly women would paint each cel by hand. That’s been moved to painting on computers. If you don’t have the temperament, that’s OK, but it was a job.

Ed