by Arnie Fenner on Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:40 am
Tony, my issue isn't with what you like or don't like, it's that you sometimes go out of your way to insult other artists. For what purpose? Because they're successful? Because they're not Frank? First you pay Jim Gurney a compliment then in the next breath take shots at him for his influences (which all artists have), calling his work "pre-meditated, derivative and absolutely soulless."
Bull, Tony.
Sure, Jim is influenced by Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema and other Orientalists...but Frazetta was influenced by Hal Foster, Graham Ingels, Al Capp, J. Allen St. John, et al. Does that make Frank less of an artist, his art calculated and soulless? Of course not. You say Joe Jusko "knows his limits and never pushes them": how do you know what Joe's "limits" are? How do you know what his goals or intentions are, what his challenges are, whether he "pushes" the envelope or not? Who are you to make that determination? And then out of left field you have to try to put down Donato, classifying his approach as "hoighty-toighty baloney." Again...for what purpose? What can you possibly hope to accomplish?
It all comes off as, yes, sour grapes. Envy. Bitterness.
Have computers impacted illustration? Sure. Do art directors and clients care what tools or methods an artist uses to create their art? Nope. All they care about is getting the type of art they want at the price they can pay on the day that they need it: whether that art is created with paint or pixels doesn't matter a lick. If an artist doesn't have a firm handle on the basics—drawing, color, composition, anatomy, perspective, technique—using Poser or scanning a photo, applying the watercolor filter, and smudging the edges won't impress anyone. Jim Gurney was talking about his methodology, about mastering the fundamentals FIRST, and applying them to his own work: what direction an artist chooses or which tools, traditional or digital, they decide to employ is their choice. But...if someone doesn't know the basics backward and forward, it's delusional to believe that any software will magically transform that person into Rembrandt. It's not going to happen. if you were expecting Jim Gurney to give you a set formula to follow for success or wanted him to extoll the computer over oils (hard for him to do since he's a traditional painter) or wanted him to stand in front of the audience and complain about how hard life is or discourage them from being artists...that's your problem, not his. He was talking about his own personal journey, how he got to where he's at, how he does what he does, nothing more or less. How is that disingenuous or a disservice? I assume you went to see him because of what he's achieved...and then you make snarky comments because he talked about what he's achieved and how he did it? Come on.
Sure the marketplace has changed. Competition for work is stiff. What else is new? We've covered this many times in the past. ANY artist or writer or actor or musician is fortunate when they're able to make a living at their craft: many are called but few are chosen. That's the way it is, the way it has always been. If you want to compete with Gurney and Deas and Blackshear and Hickman for an assignment painting stamps for the Post Office, you have to be as good as they are. If you want to get a job from National Geographic, you have to be able to deliver the same quality of work that Gurney, Manchess, Foster, Gurche, or Palencar do. If you want to work for Tor you have to be able to swim in the same pool with Holland, Hunt, Donato, and Martiniere... You can say exactly the same thing about comics, video games, role-playing games, film, galleries, etc, etc., etc. The world's a tough place, but talent and tenacity pay off. Anyone who sits back and expects opportunities to fall into their laps because they're simply so deserving is living in lala land. It takes work, it takes never being complacent with your skill level; it takes hustle, and it takes the determination to pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and keep trying.
So...no, I don't agree with your implication that "there are plenty of talented guys out there, every bit as good as Gurney and Co., plenty who have paid their dues and put in the many years of effort required to develop their talents" who can't get work or are unappreciated. If an artist is "good" and a pro, there's always work. Sometimes things are lean, sometimes they're fat...but there are always jobs.
Finally, the comparisons between Frank and any other artist is, honestly, tiresome, as if there is some sort of absolute in art, some sort of pecking order or carved-in-stone ranking. It's silly and smacks of fanboy bellicosity. One of the things I've said for many years now—and I just repeated it again in my previous post—was that Frazetta is the best Frazetta there will ever be. Frank did many wonderful things, influenced many people, and deserves all of the accolades and attention he gets. BUT there are many, many artists that are the "best" at what they did or do, whose work has a significant impact and influence on audiences and fellow artists alike. When you say that "his stuff is light years ahead of anything these guys could even hope to dream of" it is nothing more than a half-baked opinion spouted as "fact" in an attempt to put down artists whose only "failing" is...they aren't Frazetta. Turn it around and one of Jim's fans could easily criticize Frank for "not being Gurney."
When you conclude with, "I ask you honestly, if this current crop of artists were competing with Fritz, Bama, McGuinness, Berkey, Giger, Jones, etc., how do you think they would fare? I strongly suspect they'd rate barely a mention here or anyplace else," my only response can be...
You're wrong.
Saying that takes absolutely nothing away from Frank or Jimmy Bama or Bob McGinnis or the late great John Berkey or Giger or Jeffrey—but they're only a PART of the culture, a PART of the story, not the beginning or the end or the only significant creators there ever have been, are, or will be of illustration or fantastic art as a whole. There are lots of artists working today, some established, some coming up through the ranks, whose art resonates and will resonate along side every single artist you list—and more emerge every year. Yes, artists like Gurney, Donato, Hale, Foster, Gustafson, Manchess, Jean, and on and on and on DO "hold a candle" to artists of the past, and that includes Frank. Your refusal to accept that doesn't make it any less so.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, Tony; I know that you're sincere in your feelings even if I disagree with them. But I simply can't sit idly by while you snipe at other artists for no reason other than some people like them more than you do. Joe went to the Rockwell to see an illustrator he admires: why try to rain on that experience?
--Arnie
