|
The Art of the Illustrator |
|
Chris Fauver, 2012 |
|
This essay
appeared in moderately different forms in catalogues for the exhibition held at the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C., between June 2 and
November 28, 1997, and for the exhibition "Stories To
Tell: Masterworks from the Kelly Collection of American Illustration"
held at the
Dahesh Museum of Art, New York, New York, between February 14 and May
21, 2006. Our thanks to Mary Anne Goley and Sherrell A.Varner, editor,
at the Federal Reserve and to Stephen Edidin, Peter Trippi and Lawrence
Sunden, editor, at the Dahesh museum. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was a time when people of all classes and
walks of life were regularly informed, entertained, and influenced by
painted images. The names of living artists were as well known as those
of presidents and movie stars. It wasn’t unusual for these celebrated
artists to be paid more than baseball players and to live in grand
mansions. In time of war they were considered a vital national resource.
Talented artists were in great demand, and enrolling in art school could
be as sound a decision as going to law school. The place was the
United States, and the time was only a century ago. From the
1880s through the 1930s the illustrators of American magazines and
books, in tandem with art directors and publishers, put as distinct a
stamp on the visual life and imagination of a great nation as any group
of artists and patrons ever had. During this "Golden Age of American
Illustration" reproductions of paintings and drawings commissioned for
books and magazines comprised the first visual mass medium. The product
of the artist’s studio had never been so culturally relevant. Artists
working as illustrators exercised unprecedented influence over how
people dressed, styled their hair, and furnished their homes. Artists
shaped how the average man and woman saw the world around them as well
as how they viewed themselves.
The illustrators active during this period were typically men and
women of genuine ability and occasional genius. The line separating fine
art from illustration was not drawn as sharply then. Many of these
illustrators had received instruction at the nation’s best art schools
alongside the leading fine artists of their day, and though most of
their artwork was commissioned to accompany and interpret specific
texts, they did not discount the importance of their work. In fact, as
can readily be seen in the current exhibition, they first executed many
of their illustrations as large, vigorous paintings that were
technically—and even stylistically—comparable to the "serious" paintings
of the period.
Although commercial illustrators gave up a measure of artistic
freedom, they nevertheless gained something no artists had ever enjoyed
previously: mass exposure. A handsome color reproduction of an
illustrator’s work could be seen by over a million people in a few days’
time—more than might view a given museum-bound masterpiece in a decade.
Maxfield Parrish's "Daybreak" was the most popular art print of the 20th
century and one copy existed for every four American homes. During World
War I, when the population of the U.S. was only 100 million, the U.S.
government distributed four million copies of
James Montgomery Flagg’s iconic "I Want
You" recruiting poster.
These illustrators created popular standards for male and female
beauty much as fashion advertising does today. [1]
J. C. Leyendecker is best remembered
for his "Arrow Collar man," a stolid but polished embodiment of male
self-satisfaction.
Charles Dana Gibson’s
name was immortalized thanks to his drawings of the "Gibson Girl", a
type of patrician beauty whose "suffer no fools" attitude and
self-confident bearing became the paradigm of smart young American
womanhood. In some ways the golden age of illustration represented
painting’s greatest triumph: the full realization of the power of the
brush to move, astound, delight, and even to persuade. In other ways,
however, it reflected the nadir of the art of painting. The
democratization of art created a demand for increasingly vulgar, trite,
and sentimental pictures. Irrespective of the aesthetic merits of these
mass-produced images, there had never been a greater public appreciation
of visual imagery.
Despite—or perhaps because of—its great popularity, illustration art
had few critical proponents during its heyday and fewer still after its
decline. By 1970 illustration’s former prominence had been all but
erased from our cultural memory. A popular college-level survey text
published that year was dedicated to "the thousands of forgotten
artists, artisans, and craftsmen who have helped shape the face of
America," yet not a single professional illustrator was mentioned in the
exhaustive index. [2] Given the fact that American illustration was one
of the first visual mass media and that American cultural history since
Reconstruction is primarily the story of mass media, it is bewildering
that a survey text—one that devoted hundreds of pages to American
architecture, furniture, and even industrial design—scarcely
acknowledged that illustration had ever existed in America, let alone
that it was the dominant form of American visual expression for more
than a generation. Since the 1970s public interest in vintage illustration has
increased, and though the art form is still critically under-apreciated, its existence is generally acknowledged.
[1] The
illustrator's role as arbiter of beauty and style was so accepted
that the first several Miss America contests were judged only by
magazine illustrators. The first annual contest, held in 1921, was
judged solely by
Howard Chandler Christy. The second was judged by a
group of illustrators, including
Norman Rockwell, Christy and
Coles Phillips. |
[2]
Daniel Mendelowitz, A History of American Art, (Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston, 1970). The fact that Winslow Homer was once an
illustrator is mentioned, and editorial cartoonist Thomas Nast is
cited, though primarily for his political influence rather than
for any aesthetic accomplishment. Aside from these two comments,
illustration in America is covered with the statement that "few of
those who made a lifetime career of illustrating books, magazines,
and newspapers were sufficiently forceful to achieve genuine
distinction." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|