I am tired of walking lightly around the idea of vectors, of digital, of all things “non-traditional”when it comes to identifying my work. If one did a picture in pencil, one would cite it as graphite, or pencil in the naming convention of the image. If one worked as a screenprint artist, your work would be identified as serigraph or the process of serigraphy. Same with photography—only one might get jiggy with the type of print or process one used to identify the end product. However, when it comes to the world of illustration, we skirt the word digital or even (as I am planning now to do), or the program and process much like our friends the photographers do. Instead, we try to make digital seem better…”its kind of like gouache…” What is the deal? Is it that we traditional illustrators cannot embrace a new medium (lets align ourselves with photography)—where it a tool to help create or even create an image that our hands might not be equipped to do. Must everything stem back to the old masters, Howard Pyle, and the painters who trained us to think of illustration as a viable art expression, as a communications medium as a way to visually tell a story?
Rob has gone off to Buffalo for the Museumwise Conversations conference. Alex has a friend over. I am in my lair working on a speed pub for my big client. I am itching to do more pix of vegetables as I am using is as a way to learn more about brushes in illustrator. Tres fun.