Greg Lockrey: "and the fact that most photographers can't draw...."
I suppose I just don't believe that art cannot be concerned with things (objects) and illustration cannot be concerned with space. Seems like an arbitrary distinction to me, and thus a quote that doesn't really tell me anything. I may be missing something....
"Hey, Mike! Michelangelo! Yeah, you, Simoni! That David is just an illustration! Nyah nyah nyah nyah!"
Are astronauts and cosmonauts the only true artists? Is NASA the only truly artistic agency? Is astrophotography the only truly artistic photography?
At one time "art" was only applied to that which had to be performed. The art of music, the art of discourse, and so on. An inanimate object was not art, but an object produced by an artisan. (That's how I look at it. The print is not art, it is a print produced by a person performing the art of printing.)
Who was the artist? Salvador Dali, Michael Escher, or Vincent van Gogh? By the definition above, van Gogh wasn't producing art. How about Pablo Picaso? Was he an illustrator or an artist? Was Auguste Rodin an artist? Can any sculptor be an artist?
Since the Dada movement has basically overwhelmed everything, why bother making the distinction between art and illustration?
"It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans
Brian C. Miller: "why bother making the distinction between art and illustration?"
I couldn't agree more!
Built another new darkroom for the betterment of mankind: http://newdr.blogspot.com