Where do you sit between the Imaginative and the Scientific?
-
I have recently been thinking about the spectrum of illustration and where I sit. I think it is important to know where you sit. I see one end of the spectrum as the Pure Imagination and the opposite end possibly Science Illustration. In that one end the Imagination purely comes from the inner more abstract world and is bridged to the outer world, and science illustration starts with the very concrete physical reality and interprets that and bridges that to the world. (As well as showing the unseen inner physical realities, and the past and more)
I see that my work sits closer to the imaginative end, with imaginary creatures and only barely touches upon the physical reality. Looking at fellow subscribers I see many seem to sit in the middle somewhere.Questions:
How do you see your self and your art?
Do you see how your position affects the problems that you have with illustration?
Do you see that your position shows your strengths and skills?I look forward to reading your ideas.
-
This is a question I have been dealing with for four years, ever since I joined SVS. I've come to realize that creativity is not the same as imagination. I consider myself creative but no matter how many classes I have taken in character design and environmental design, etc. I feel like I'm not innately as visually imaginative as so many of the other SVSers. Artists always say that anyone can develop artistic skills if they work at it, and that is definitely true as far as skills go, but I question whether you can develop a visual imagination just by working at it. The analogy I think of is the difference between learning to play piano and being a composer. Most anyone can do the first but only a few can do the second.
Over the years at SVS, I have moved more toward the scientific illustration end of the spectrum. I spend more time now painting birds, plants, and landscapes I observe and less time creating illustrations. When I do create illustrations, they are much more grounded in nature than fantasy. I use a lot of photos of actual landscapes, animals, trees, houses, etc. as reference and I'd always rather draw a cute fox character than a mermaid or alien not only because I like foxes but also because I can look at fox references to assist in my drawing. There are no photos of aliens to help me out (at least not yet.)
Of course, sticking closer to reality can sometimes appear pretty imaginative because reality can be bizarre especially if it's not part of your experience. When I did an illustration for an SVS contest of a squirrel filling a garage with nuts, basing it on my real life experience of squirrels wreaking havoc by nesting in my sheds, Will Terry denounced it because he said the concept was implausible. What is implausible to him and overly imaginative is a daily reality for my neck of the woods.
Having said all of that, I do think there is a place in children's illustration for those on the scientific end of the spectrum. For every Monster's Inc, which requires a lot of visual imagination, there is a Bambi requiring more observational skills. (Walt Disney brought live -- and dead -- deer to the studio during the making of Bambi for his artists to observe.) I do think, however, that most artists tend to be attracted more to art on the visually imaginative end of the spectrum than to the scientific/reality based end of the spectrum leaving those on the scientific/reality end of the spectrum to constantly ask of ourselves of our art, "It's realistically rendered but is it art?"
Way too long of an answer! Are you sorry you asked?
Laurie DeMott
instagram.com/demotlj -
@demotlj Not at all, this is exactly what I was hoping for. It is a real response.
-
@demotlj Yes I don't think one is better than the other, just coming from a totally different direction. In fact the Raymond Briggs books that I love are closer to the reality end, his Father Christmas book was based on his father being a milkman. I see this kind of work as very grounded creative imagination. I think we also should not confuse creativity with imagination. I believe they inter-relate but are different.
Yes it is art! Definitely and amazing too. I love Mesa Schumacher's illustrations of animals, I did a couple of photographic realistic illustrations in the past of a badger and a bat!
And your art definitely has something to say and gift to the world.
I believe you probably can develop your Imagination with a variety of exercises but maybe not all have to be drawing and painting based, for example drama and improvisation helps. -
@PenAndrew I came from observational painting, urban sketching, plein air and journaling background so I tend towards the realistic/grounded side of the scale. I am experimenting with the imaginative side of things after taking SVS classes and watching a few critique arenas and honestly it is taking triple the mental energy to do it I don't know if I can sustain it. However I am pretty early in my journey so I'll see how things unfold!
www.instagram.com/art.melc.illo/
www.artmelc.com
I write weekly on mondayblues.substack.com -
@Melissa-Candrasaputra That's exactly how I feel about life studies! So exhausting, in fact even creating imaginative work for me is mentally tiring.
-
@demotlj Actually I remember your squirrel idea, it was a fun concept. Squirrels are true hoarders!
@demotlj @Melissa-Candrasaputra I have been considering that one end of the spectrum is Imagination and inner vision and the opposite end is 'Seeing' learning to see and the development of outer vision. Both as troubling and as hard as the other!
-
Hi, I am new here, but wanted to respond to this specific topic. I really like the questions.
Originally, I was a wildlife illustrator and dabbled with portraits. However, what I missed most was that I was not able to express a story behind the art. It's been about 20 years since I have actively drawn, and now - I'm trying to start working on art more stylized but still having that touch of realism - but blended with fantasy also. And above all > able tell a story.
I know I will always base my fantasy characters upon realistic ones (proportions, possibility of existing, etc..).
One thing I want most, is to get better at simplifying and using brilliant colors. It's not what I am used to and I think it will take me time to figure out what feels right to me. My strength has always been details... so this is going to be a challenge for me .
I am a creative. It is part of everything I do & everything that I am.
-
@demotlj Your answer hurts my heart! This is so true.
Look at Good Dog Carl, though. I can't say for sure if books like these still appeal to publishers now, but I do use it as a reminder that what you think people would like is not the same as what people will actually like. It's not about the style, but the heart behind what you create.Also, the fact that a real squirrel can fill up a garage with nuts is hilarious. I'll have to disagree with Will's advice on that one!
-
@Debbie-Lyn-Jones Hi Debbie and welcome. So, it sounds like you are moving away from probably a tighter illustration style with a strong base in drawing and representation to a looser style towards the Imaginative end.
To be honest Even though I sit at that end and I can create some forms of story I also struggle to tell the story of my characters and feel like they are patiently waiting for me to bring them to life!
I think one way you can simplify is to work some images smaller and also without any reference materials, that forces you to come up with stylized shapes. -
@demotlj I also disagreed with will on that critique. Illustrations in my opinion bring life to the implausible and overly imaginative. If it didn't we sure wouldnt have illustrations of robot dog walkers, or a blind mole walking a seeing eye ball. If everything had to be predictable and plausible, illustrations would be boring IMO. don't take it to heart, while some will LOVE your artwork, others will hate it. All that really matters is that you saw improvement between this piece and the one before it, and that you enjoyed making it.
-
@AngelinaKizz Thanks. I didn’t take it to heart. I just thought it was a strange critique. I did feel like I progressed in making it which is, as you say, the main reason for the contests so I was happy with that.
-
@PenAndrew I used to only draw from imagination, but lately I’ve been doing a lot more real life sketches to get better. So I think I’m a little bit of both. However, my passion still lies within the worlds in my head
-
I also started with plein air landscapes and still lifes. When I started working on illustrations, I tried doing it from imagination, but I got feedback that it wasn't believable and I needed to use more references. Their advice was to make several sketches from the references first, then put the references away and draw my own. That way, my images are informed by the references without duplicating them realistically. I don't always do that, but I think I should do it more often because it seems to help.
studiojcd.com
she/her/hers
Insta/Twitter: @chengdesautels -
@jenn Yes a good idea, I know I should do that more but I find it difficult to pursue! I think it all depends on where we want to go with our art. You can have believable fantasy or imaginative illustrations that look exactly like life or you can have very stylised work, that's the point. We don't have to follow everyone's advice as they may sit in a different position on the spectrum and be advising us to move in the wrong direction.
