Illustration with some bite

November 29, 2004 5:04 AM

The Art of Celia Calle
Dismiss any preconceived ideas of fine art as you step into the mindset of Celia Calle. Calle's art aesthetic is strangely alluring and undeniably powerful. Her awesome images are ominous, commanding, sometimes warped, but always spiced with a generous injection of humor, in keeping with the artist's effervescent personality.

My favorites are this, this, this and especially this
posted by Hands of Manos (33 comments total)

related, see: 1, 2
posted by atom128 at 6:24 AM on November 29, 2004

Pretty good illustration, not fine art though.
posted by doctor_negative at 6:26 AM on November 29, 2004

doh! I meant to put the illustrations of Celia Calle (I don't regard her as fine art either).

whoops & thanks :)
posted by Hands of Manos at 6:28 AM on November 29, 2004

Reminds me of Michiko Stehrenberger
posted by Robot Johnny at 6:38 AM on November 29, 2004

Holy Cow! It's Robot Johnny! We've Spoken before. (I'm sThig)

it's a small meta world after all
posted by Hands of Manos at 6:47 AM on November 29, 2004

paging doctor_negative-
care to explain the difference? i don't see a difference.
posted by fake at 6:53 AM on November 29, 2004

fake. I can answer that.

Illustration (in this sense) is used commercially. Like say Red Cross commissions Celia out to do something related to promote an event they are doing (or something like that).

fine Art: is when you draw a hawt chick that's got some junk in that trun...no wait, the best description would be here

Fine art is a term used to refer to fields traditionally considered to be artistic. It is also used to describe "high-quality" works from these fields.

"Fine art" differs from "useful art" (craft) in that it is purely aesthetic, whereas crafts are made to serve a practical purpose. Example: a sculpture of a teapot that does not actually work is fine art, whereas one that does work is craft.

The line is blurred when fine decoration is applied to a useful item, such as a quilt, eating utensils, furniture, or decorative architecture such as caryatids. In some cases, a finely decorated useful item may be put on display for its aesthetic value rather than used. In a few cases, classes of items that were formerly useful are now regarded as belonging to the fine arts; for example, tapestries, which used to be used as insulation, are now used purely for decoration in many cultures.
posted by Hands of Manos at 7:01 AM on November 29, 2004

She's gotta big future in advertising.
posted by fungible at 7:28 AM on November 29, 2004

It may not be fine art, but it's damn fine cartooning. She has an almost unfailing sense of line that a lot of "artists" would kill for.

But I did find a little unfortunate dissonance between the freewheeling, spunky style and the "serious" Sept. 11th graphics (other than the Red Cross one, anyway).
posted by soyjoy at 7:32 AM on November 29, 2004

She's gotta big future in advertising.

change "future" to "present" she does pretty well already.

soyjoy: yes, her line work is amazing. and if I can ever hammer out this contract I've got with the devil, I'll have her hands soon enough (kind of like that Futurama episode).

I actually liked her 9/11 ones. She did those shortly after the disaster.
posted by Hands of Manos at 7:38 AM on November 29, 2004

Small world, Hands of Hands!
posted by Robot Johnny at 7:41 AM on November 29, 2004

Fine art used to be commissioned too and was very much a craft as this is. Though personally, I would associate fine art more with oil paintings and romantic depictions of a scene then by the motives of the artist or who ever commissioned the work.

If I where to class it, I would call it contemporary art until historians find a better name.
I wouldn't consider Liechtenstein fine art either.
posted by Timeless at 7:53 AM on November 29, 2004

You're good with these illustration links, Hands of Manos.

If we're gonna bust heads over Pop Art, I'll defend Lichtenstein and throw Alex Katz over the side of the boat. Roy gets a bad rap.
posted by furiousthought at 8:20 AM on November 29, 2004

timeless = good point

furious. thanks! I really like "today's creatives" a lot.
posted by Hands of Manos at 8:30 AM on November 29, 2004

I'm with furiousthought. Hands off my Liechtenstein, and my Toulouse-Lautrec as well. Fine art, commercial art, tomayto, tomahto. Such a tired argument.

Thanks for the link, hands of hands! Fabulous illustrations.
posted by whatnot at 8:58 AM on November 29, 2004

This is very much a "I know it when I see it" distinction. It just doesn't occur to most people to classify most advertising work as "art"—but, on the other hand, few would deny that, say, Apple's famous 1984 commerical is art. A beautiful composition, exciting use of color and form—these things can appear anywhere and it doesn't matter what the financial background is. Each page in a magazine, say, is crafted with creative deliberation by a real human being, whether it's a vodka ad or a full page "art" photograph.
posted by rustcellar at 9:07 AM on November 29, 2004

"Fine," though, is really a cultural term, like "classical" or something. We accept that the Fine Arts are a certain set of established media and styles. It's a concept that's on the way out, obviously, although of course many people still use it. Is this Fine Art? Not really; it doesn't fit within the long-established boundaries of that category. Is it Art? Of course.
posted by rustcellar at 9:11 AM on November 29, 2004

I don't think you can separate commerce from art- "Fine" or not. Almost every painting/sculpture was for sale at one point- or will be.

Often "fine art" is used in advertising as well- whether it's Toulouse Latrec or the mona lisa. This happens with and without the participation/approval of the artist.

Let's take a rock. Call it "Fine Art" once. Did it change any? No.
Call it "mathowie" if you want. Doesn't mean anything.

Often, however, people use terms like "craft" and "illustration" to degrade someone's work to a level less than whatever this nebulous "Fine Art" is. The purpose is only a negative one- saying something isn't fine art is just to knock it down where you can ignore it and safely sit in your ivory tower.
posted by fake at 9:17 AM on November 29, 2004

The street look of it doesn't make up for the Olivia De Berardinis content. I get bored after looking at a couple of these. I'll trade one Egon Schiele for a hundred of these.

sorry, no links... I gotta run.
posted by lazymonster at 10:23 AM on November 29, 2004

Calle's work just freaks me out. The fantastic, energetic chaos in her illos is hugely inspiring. It seems that she is not limited to the pre-made lines of the world around her, but that she loosely invents them herself.
posted by digifox at 10:31 AM on November 29, 2004

Often, however, people use terms like "craft" and "illustration" to degrade someone's work to a level less than whatever this nebulous "Fine Art" is. The purpose is only a negative one- saying something isn't fine art is just to knock it down where you can ignore it and safely sit in your ivory tower.

As someone who's done both illustration and fine art, all I can say is, that, while you're welcome to your opinion, that wasn't my intent. I frequently prefer illustration to fine art, but I do know the difference. Illustration is meant to accompany a written work, fine art is meant to stand on it's own merits.
posted by doctor_negative at 10:39 AM on November 29, 2004

I agree with Dr Negative on that.
posted by Hands of Manos at 11:54 AM on November 29, 2004

I love Celia's work. As far as I'm concerned she's tremendous (i'm no slouch, but she kicks my ass fer sher).

Too bad she's on the other side of the country, and probably got a boyfriend anyway, or I'd send her flowers and ask her out. :)
posted by zoogleplex at 1:11 PM on November 29, 2004

I frequently prefer illustration to fine art, but I do know the difference. Illustration is meant to accompany a written work, fine art is meant to stand on it's own merits.

How could something not apparent looking at the work itself be at all relevent?
posted by rustcellar at 2:03 PM on November 29, 2004

. . . by which I mean, "illustration" seems to be a category not parallel with "fine art," since it deals with the context/placement of a work rather than the qualities of the work view alone.
posted by rustcellar at 2:06 PM on November 29, 2004

How could something not apparent looking at the work itself be at all relevent?

It's pretty apparent to me, and so, relevant to me. Illustration is it's own distinct art form.
posted by doctor_negative at 2:32 PM on November 29, 2004

It's pretty apparent to me, and so, relevant to me. Illustration is it's own distinct art form.

Huh. Now I'm curious. What things would you look for in a work of art that would tell you it's an illustration?
posted by rustcellar at 2:46 PM on November 29, 2004

Nike. Pepsi. Tommy Hilfiger. Abercrombie & Fitch. ESPN. Coors. Gatorade. Adidas. Any SVA graduate who boasts on her Web site a client list to rival that of any top corporate law firm, probably does not care all that much if critics consider her a fine artist, or merely a commercial illustrator, designer, an advertiser or just some slick businesswoman from art school with talent to burn.

I like the work and am tempted to buy a print (but I'm not drinking any Pepsi with it.)
posted by jellybuzz at 3:22 PM on November 29, 2004

Where does one find women like that in real life? Finely drawn and quiet...
posted by Cryptical Envelopment at 3:49 PM on November 29, 2004

Hmm. "Illustration" I often think of as "drawing someone else's ideas;" creating a communicative piece that's designed to get across someone else's story or message. That seems to apply well in my mind to advertising illustration and story illustration, and other sorts of "representative" imagery. In a strange way, that even applies to people who illustrate their own stories as in comics or illustrated books - because their "drawing" part is illustrating their "writing" or "storytelling" part's story. I'm speaking from my own experience as comic book artist & cartoonist, or course, where I feel a distinct dichotomy between the "writer" and "artist" in myself; YMMV.

"Fine Art," to me, is more about expressing personal emotion through some artistic medium, something a bit deeper and less definable, more ambiguous than "telling a story with a picture."

If I do a cartoon, I have a story in mind first (or someone else's story), which I illustrate by drawing it out in representative form. There's a start point and progression. When I finish the last panel, I've systematically told a story.

When I do a piece of what I personally call "fine art," I usually just start experimenting with some medium, work with it until I've got something that looks cool to me, and then discover the internal meaning of it very late in the process, or afterwards as I look at the finished product. I figure out what the piece means to me, why I made that mark, what that color is, where it came from inside... after I'm done.

That is a very, very different experience from illustrating. Just my $0.02 as an artist.

And now I'm kicking myself for not knowing she was at San Diego Con, where I could have gone over and given her flowers and asked her out. *Sigh*
posted by zoogleplex at 5:56 PM on November 29, 2004

Where does one find women like that in real life? Finely drawn and quiet...

art school.

they are there in droves.

I just gave a lecture at the Atlanta College of Art...all I saw were tiny, horn rimmed glasses sportin', Janeane Garofalo lookin', cute little low ridin' bell bottom wearin' looking girls.

Web site a client list to rival that of any top corporate law firm, probably does not care all that much if critics consider her a fine artist

yep, and I am right behind Celia with a client list on my website as well. I'm more concerned about being my own boss, putting food on my family's plate and munching on a few crumbs of the stale American Pie.

I'll worry about doing some fine art when...ah hell, I probably won't. I'm just happy not having to kiss a supervisor's lilly white ass
posted by Hands of Manos at 6:38 PM on November 29, 2004

I see what you mean, zoog. It does seem like a funny category to me, though—what about all the Renaissance art drawing on classical and biblical stories? Is that illustration or fine art? Those particular works (The Sistine Chapel, say) are often what precisely come to mind when people think of "fine art," and yet it is a visual telling of someone else's story. The artist put in his own feeling, of course, but I would expect (correct me here, I don't know anything about such things) that an illustrator's personality shows through in his work as well.
posted by rustcellar at 6:58 PM on November 29, 2004

It's hard to tell, rust - note that ol' Mikey got paid - and paid rather handsomely, as I recall - for painting that chapel ceiling. He was, in effect, doing an illustration of "government propaganda" for the Catholic Church, which still carried immense rulership over most of Europe at the time. So, was he using his fine art talent in a paid illustration? Hmmm!? Hard to tell...
posted by zoogleplex at 3:18 PM on November 30, 2004