Woody
Well-known member
What is it to you that defines 'Wildlife art'?
Prompted by Jomo's comments and Nick's SWLA thread I thought I'd try to get some peoples' opinions on a question that has intrigued me for a long time.
I am quite happy to refer to myself as a 'wildlife artist'. I'm not sure though whether that makes me a 'mere painter of wildlife' in some peoples' eyes and not a real 'Artist'.
I've long been of the opinion that 'wildlife art', as accepted by the majority, has a particular look and feel and that anything which doesn't conform to that, steps over a line somewhere and becomes 'Art' which happens to have wildlife as a subject. But where or what that invisible line is, is much harder to work out.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that 'wildlife art' can't be 'Art' or even vice versa, I'm simply interested to know where the line between the two is generally percieved to be, or if there even is such a line.
What do people think?
Woody
Prompted by Jomo's comments and Nick's SWLA thread I thought I'd try to get some peoples' opinions on a question that has intrigued me for a long time.
I am quite happy to refer to myself as a 'wildlife artist'. I'm not sure though whether that makes me a 'mere painter of wildlife' in some peoples' eyes and not a real 'Artist'.
I've long been of the opinion that 'wildlife art', as accepted by the majority, has a particular look and feel and that anything which doesn't conform to that, steps over a line somewhere and becomes 'Art' which happens to have wildlife as a subject. But where or what that invisible line is, is much harder to work out.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that 'wildlife art' can't be 'Art' or even vice versa, I'm simply interested to know where the line between the two is generally percieved to be, or if there even is such a line.
What do people think?
Woody
Last edited: