Frank Frazetta vs. Boris Vallejo

As someone very interested in concept art and illustration, I find myself constantly debating who my favorite artist is. I do know that some of my favorite illustrators are in the fantasy art field, and who else has had more of an influence on fantasy art than Frank Frazetta? Now if you are unfamiliar with Frazetta, you can click on the the following link to check out his work: http://frankfrazetta.org/

Fantasy art as a genre of painting can include anything from sci-fi art for book covers to action-adventure illustration. Frazetta was considered one the masters in his day, creating vivid pictures with compelling artistry. What I admire most about his paintings is not only his impeccable draftsmanship, but the movement he conveys in his compositions. The strength of Frazetta's design skills lie in his ability to accentuate certain elements of a picture that are necessary and neglecting unnecessary details.

This brings up one of my other favorite artists, Boris Vallejo. In the fantasy art arena, Vallejo is another giant. Like Frazetta, his work represents the human figure flawlessly, almost reminiscent of the Old Masters. The main difference between the two revolves around execution. Frazetta's work is more general and spontaneous, while Vallejo's work is meticulously detailed. Each style has merits and I love them both, but I have to give a nod to Frazetta. I say this because Vallejo's detail-oriented style can sometimes be his biggest weakness, resulting in static pictures. Here is a link to Vallejo's site, where you can make your choice of whose style you prefer: http://vallejo.ural.net/

Defending Bouguereau

The late-19th century was a pivotal era in the history of art. This period ushered in the Academic Painters, Impressionists, and Post-Impressionists. The latter two groups are considered pioneers whereas the first category of artists are relegated to general obscurity. I say this because the term "academic painting" was and still is considered derogatory. If you are unfamiliar with academic painting, it is basically an art style that is conventional in nature and generally adheres to strict classical ideals. In a nutshell, the Academic Painters represented tradition and the Impressionists and Post-Impressionists sought change.

William Adolphe Bouguereau was a French academic painter, whose works reflected a long tradition of Western style painting. He wanted to keep the art of the Renaissance alive, citing Titian, an Old Master, as inspiration. The problem was, although he was popular among his contemporaries for creating realistic paintings with a fine polish, he would become ignored throughout the 20th century once Modernism took over. The preference for the "new" would be the end of him for a long time.

There's no doubt that Modernism introduced many compelling works for us to enjoy today. Despite the positive aspects that this period brought, the negative ideas revolved around seeing tradition as being useless. When it comes to Bouguereau, critics assaulted his works because they deemed them "too pretty" or "too polished". Other critics today say that many of his paintings look like something you would see on a Hallmark card, cute and cheesy. Another one of the biggest knocks on Bouguereau is that he was a master craftsman with no substance. He could paint with the best of them but he had nothing to say. Here's a link to some of his work so you can get an idea of where they're coming from: http://www.artrenewal.org/museum/b/Bouguereau_William/bio1.asp

Although such critics make arguable points, I feel the need to defend the strengths Bouguereau did possess. Viewing his paintings from our current time in history can indeed make his work seem a bit sentimental and dated. However, his ability to compose figures for the most impact is second to none, not to mention he was a virtuoso with color. When you gaze at some of his portraits, he does idealize certain aspects of a person, even if it doesn't reflect the misfortunes they face in life. He doesn't paint realism, which is why many critics do not appreciate him. Instead of painting what he sees, he tries to convey the unapparent beauty that remains obscured. This comes across as sentimentality but I think it is just another way to make art. In my opinion, some people make art to express beauty unseen, while others capture the hard reality of the subject. Bouguereau accomplished the former.

Painting in Darkness

The art of painting is generally thought of as a profession for those who can see clearly. Artists value their eyes as much as they do their lives. However, what happens when you can't see? I stumbled on this website http://bramblitt.net/ , where such an artist creates breathtaking work without the ability to see his subjects. When I saw his gallery of paintings my jaw dropped. His sense of design reflects the tactile relationship he has with the canvas and paints. The fact that he cannot see what he is painting makes the feat that much more remarkable.

This brings up many questions. Does an artist need to see in order to effectively convey what they need to on canvas? I think not. All a painter needs is an imagination and the willingness to express that vision rather than constantly depending on the subject matter in front of you. The only drawback I see to this is that the person creating the works will not be able to fully appreciate them. In the end, no one but the audience will be able to actually see the paintings. This in of itself requires a certain selflessness, with the mentality of contributing something that can inspire the world.