This came in from Writer/reveiwer/artist Neil Lucock…
An Analysis of Fantasy Art’s Position in Society
by
Neil Lucock
Much of the problem comes from preconceptions and these tend to be reinforced by the fantasy genre itself. I’ll have to make a few generalisations to discuss the subject.
Fine art tends to be appreciated by people who consider themselves “cultured”. Fine art lovers are typically rich and educated. Fine art has stood the test of time. It is a generally a “safe bet” for anyone to say that they like the works of Albrect Durer or Turner. Anyone who wants to jump on an art bandwagon can claim to like it without anyone contradicting them about their tastes. Rich cultured people might not know a lot about art, but they don’t want to be contradicted by their social inferiors.
Fantasy art is often commercial art. As such, it appears on the covers of novels bought by a (non-mainstream) class of people. I think that fantasy and SF novels are often bought by teenagers and generally non-conforming types (people who have original thoughts in their heads). As such, it does not receive any status by being associated with rich educated people. Teenage males are often attracted by a cover depicting semi-naked women, one of their great interests. Most types of art do not want to be associated with teenage males.
I’m never sure about the validity of such soft porn book covers. A good cover can entice you to pick the book up, a well done cover will show you something about the content. Sometimes that’s all you need to make a sale. I bought Samuel R Delaney’s novel Triton because of the starship on the front. Nothing at all to do with the story inside, but it attracted me for long enough to read the back, to see what it was about. Fantasy book covers are driven by marketing needs. The Author Patrick Tilley is a graphic artist and he asked his publisher if he could do his own book covers, as he did not like what was being put around his work. He produced something that was rejected. The marketing people said that their downmarket covers sold his books to the kind of person who would enjoy them. Putting a better cover on would harm sales, as most of his books were sold in railway stations, airports and particularly, in newagents. They knew his market better than he did. They knew who bought his books and where they bought them.
That’s not to say that fine art isn’t commercial too. People like DG Rossetti would spend months or years doing a painting. Many fine art painters were independently wealthy, they could not have done it for a living, but most fine art was done to order. Look how expensive William Morris’s stuff was, the only people who could afford his wallpapers and prints were the very rich. The reason people liked Rossetti, Morris et al is that they were the good artists whose work was endorsed by their rich standards-setting clients. Someone was willing to pay for that standard of detail. The artist who did the Victorian Pears Soap posters was a decent artist, but could not afford to spend a day just doing a square inch of canvas. The book cover artist has to quickly produce work that will sell the book to its intended market, make a prospective buyer’s eyes fall on it, make them want to know more. If you can get someone to pick it off the shelf, you are halfway to a sale. Mass market commercial art has never had the status of custom work.
Many fine art pictures are actually fantasy. There is no bias against the fantasy genre as such. When Tennyson wrote The Lady Of Shallott, nearly everyone during the next 30 years went out and painted her. Waterhouse painted scenes from Greek mythology (and the Lady of Shallott), Sir Edward Burn-Jones (nearly everything he did was fantastical) and Rossetti (Prosperine), Millais (another Lady of Shallott amongst his collection of work) were all fine fantasy artists. Perhaps in another 90 years people will be collecting Frank Frazetta originals for museums.
Perhaps we are not talking about commercial art when we discuss fantasy art? Many artists draw for their own reasons, myself included. We want to show what’s in our heads and our art is a form of self-expression. Unfortunately, not everyone expresses themselves well and fantasy art is rarely original, even when well done. How may times have you seen someone re-interpret a scene from Lord of the Rings or similar? Imitation is okay, being inspired by a book or a movie is reasonable, but How often does “fantasy art” serve as nothing more than a vehicle for soft porn? Draw a nude woman, give her a sword and you have done a fantasy scene. Perhaps that’s the second thing wrong with fantasy art that gives it a poor image. It attracts people who are not fantasy artists.
Women historically did not fight. Men fought to protect women and their homes, kids and possessions (which often included women). Women stayed at home. No one would let his wife or daughter go off to war. They were not strong enough to protect themselves from their own comrades in arms, never mind standing as a warrior. They were not trained for it, either physically or psychologically. Even the Spartans didn’t put their women into battle. So, we see Brenda the Berserker battling with a monster and, as usual, she’s in her underwear. Even if the art is technically good, what does it say about the artist who created the picture? Perhaps the artist wanted to express his admiration, to show that he is okay with women as fighters (not impossible, Ripley (Signourney Weaver) from the movie Alien is a decent example of the female fighting type), but the more likely conclusion is that they wanted an excuse to draw women wearing minimal underwear.
Many fantasy worlds don’t have a realistic internal economy. (Look at the works of Barbara Hambly for worlds that definitely do have a decent background). Fantasy has to be internally consistant with the society shown. If you show what appears to be a dark ages scene, people presume that it is our historical Dark Ages. They make assumptions about what they are seeing unless you tell them otherwise. So how does that relate to Fantasy? The society a person was in determined what a person could do or could not do. The Dark Ages King HAD to believe in the gods, he was raised to do so. Modern ideas like freedom of religious expression did not work in that setting. Express doubt about the gods and you’d be blamed for the lettuce wilting or the fishing boats going missing. Women can be equal today because we have tried to remove the things in society that prevented them from being equal. A “woman’s place is in the home” used to be true, as that was the only place where they were safe from other men. Just dropping modern women into a medieval/dark ages setting does not make it feel true and “suspension of disbelief” is something all artists have to deal with. If something does not appear true, people will reject it. In Viking times, a sword was worth as much as a farm. (Chromed swords did not exist until recently, so bright metal swords are out too.) Someone walking around with a sword and armour was rich. So, this woman has a good sword (probably too heavy for her to use) but can’t afford clothes? It doesn’t ring true. Why is she in her underwear? People who live outdoors wear waterproofs and hats. Even in warm countries people want to keep the sun off their skin and wear clothes. Look at Arabs or Vietnamese people as good examples. (Brenda Berserker can’t wear her armour today as she’s got sunburn). Fantasy is often badly thought out. Even if you allow magic and elves, the consequences of their presence should be felt throughout your world. The consequences of living outdoors (sunburn) should still be there.
The artist doing a graphic novel or comic is a specialised commercial artist. Some, like Stan Lee, are recognised as artists in their own rights. Roy Lichenstein showed the fine art value of this kind of work (the cartoon picture of the jet fighter shooting something, I can’t recall the title). Most comic artists are skilled at producing work to a commercial deadline. It’s just another version of the book cover art. There’s nothing wrong with it, people buy the art. The artist makes a living from it. If the fine art world looks down its nose at it, who gives a damn? They only say it’s no good because they want you to spend £500 (in one go) on one of “their” artists instead of you paying £5 for each graphic novel/comic and buying 100 of them. Critics are selling their writing, the rich people who read their criticisms want to have their tastes confirmed.
Imagine, instead of art, we are selling cars. The car salesman wants you to buy a BMW rather than a Ford. The magazines read by people who can afford BMWs will not criticize Fords, they don’t even mention them. (The fine art critic does not even consider a graphic novel as art) What status does the fellow who builds his own car have (or publishes his own style of artwork)? Amongst people who appreciate the work he’s done, very high status. Even if you don’t like what he’s created. He’s done it for himself. How does the BMW driver see it?. He wouldn’t even consider it. No one will recognise his “good taste”, but they will recognise a BMW if he buys one. It’s exactly the same with pictures.
So, what should we look for in fantasy (or any other) art? Any picture has two elements. The subject and the execution. I’ve discussed the choice of subject above. How well it’s done is open to interpretation. There’s the ability to draw, to compose, to select colours that are pleasing. The mastery of your tools, (either brushes, pencils or programs). Commercial artists tend to go out of business if they do not have these abilities. The discipline imposed by deadlines improves artists. If you don’t have to finish it to a standard, why bother? After all, you are doing it for youself.
The artist has to make something that provokes a reaction in the viewer. Artists often tell a story within a picture, either suggesting what has happened in the scene or the colours and subject used might suggest a feeling. Amateur artists often do not have the technical skills to express what they are trying to say in their art. Good art moves the viewer; either to appreciate the skills used, the composition, the subject or the feeling. Poor art does not convice the viewer that the artist had anything to say. Often then don’t have anything to say. The essential work of an artist is to show a view of reality and to provoke a reaction in the viewer. To interpret a scene means to put your own feelings or message into it. That’s the difference between an artist and a camera.
“Validation” implies that you want others to accept that what you do is art and, as such, deserves their consideration. Some people like fine art (modern art or whatever) because of the status they get from it. Their friends and associates like it, no one will upset the boat. If they spend £500 on a picture, it MUST be good. I really don’t care what their reasons for buying whatever they buy are, as long as they are happy with their picture.
For me, validation means that someone will buy it. There’s no more sincere form of saying “you are a good artist” than putting your hand in your wallet. Finding the person to buy it might be a problem, but the WWW has allowed many artists to reach a wider public. Do you think that the proportion of people with talent has increased, or that we are seeing more art and that, in the past, the rubbish would have never been seen? Good artists do not seek validation, they know that their stuff is good, know that others, once it has been brought to their attention, will like it. If you made your pictures for your own internal reasons (Learning to paint is a good one too) then why are you bothered about what others think? Good art, whether it is written, drawn or created on a PC, takes talent. Recognising talent is harder than just going into a shop and buying anything labeled “fine art” or anything over 100 years old (it’s old so it must be good). Discerning buyers can recognise talent, irrespective of the subject.
Fantasy art contains elements of composition, story telling, technical ability and choice of subject. People who do not have these skills still create art, “inspired by such and such a book or movie…” and these people bring the fantasy art genre into disrepute, particularly when the publish their work on-line.
If you want to publish stuff on-line, that’s fine. You are paying for it to be there. If you are good, people will come to see it. It is pointless to argue about tastes in art, as they depend so much on other factors. If you like fantasy art, if it inspires you, then by all means put your pictures where others can see them. If they criticise your work, listen to them, decide if they are making a valid point or just saying that they don’t like dragons and Brenda Berserker in her underwear. If they don’t, you’ll have to consider your own reasons why you did yet another naked fantasy picture. Just remember, anyone can criticise, few can do. If you are publishing art on-line, you are already ahead of those that don’t bother.
