the "shape of things"...

A good many find it difficult to distinguish between "illustrator" and "artist." I find myself referring to Norman Rockwell for example as an illustrator. I think it’s partly semantics here getting in the way---maybe. An illustrator might be referred to as a subset of "artist" couldn’t it? Just not "Fine-" Artist. The "fine-" being another subset. Our attitude or bias too muddles things up.

Is a religious icon art? ...or artifact? And what can we possibly know about the attitude of the maker of such a religious object? Perhaps, like Rockwell, they remained satisfied with the specific task as being the fullness of their intention---representing their religious belief as Rockwell represented an "American icon, " the periodical, the "Saturday Evening Post." Seems to me Rockwell preferred this title, illustrator---

So, if I am certain, then, that any given protest poster or company add or logo is not fine art, and that the visuals may fall under the category of graphic arts; but that I am extremely reluctant to acknowledge they fall under the general title of art, what then? I am forced to concede there is no "art" at all to be found in the graphic arts. The name is just as misleading as what its proponents aspire to create---the name is the mask of the hegemony, you might say, of the marketing community; while, a logo is an obfuscation of the real intent, special influence and/or profit.

So, I would agree: the "graphic artist" would be more correctly labeled as a propagandist!

Another point to be resolved though is that of the many acknowledged "fine artists" many were defined in their time or by a presumed authoritative "ordinary" majority as either "decadent" or "socialist" and therefore not really "art." They have of course been affirmed but this suggests there are occasions, a provision, that artists are not without special intent themselves, whether for fame, money, religious beliefs, or societal/political concerns.

Peter Max. Was he an artist? Or an illustrator. He appears to have linked himself with a cultural phenomenon, the Sixties, not any specific product (except maybe the Beattles "Yellow Submarine, " etc. His work, however, is hard to separate from the form... the Poster, which has potential inferences of propagandist or commercial intent. The poster, after all, is how copyright owners of even "artwork" manage to continue to PROFIT from "art."

Where am I going with this?

Quite some time ago, years that is, I decided to divorce myself entirely as an artist from the economic flaw in our relationship with the arts. It is my own personal curse on myself I suppose. This might explain my presence to some extent on myspace---in-spite of the banners, etc. Gladly, though, Ihave foundsomething Ihadn’texpected---dialogue! And here is where I confess my liking artists that perform live in public (yes, incl. Reverend Bill) or even engage an audience in an auditorium performance---like Joseph Beuys.