• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Art or wildlife art? (1 Viewer)

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
 
Last edited:
Good thread idea, Woody - one for a variety of comments, I'm sure. There is an excellent quote by 'The Great Man' - more of which when I return from taking youngest daughter to school (late, because she hacked huge chunks out of here hair last night and we've been "re-styling" it!!!!!!!).
 
Interesting thread woody and I guess it broaches the endless question "What is art?" How can anyone view a wildlife artist as not a real artist? Painting wildlife is just as skillful craft as any other area of painting.
What would be a real artist then? landscape, portrait, abstract? I for one am a portrait artist but wouldnt view myself any less an artist then anyone else whatever they paint.
I dont think there can be aline except maybe in snobbism. Everyone is different and we all like different things.
 
Its a Human trait to put you into a category.

I enjoy putting down thoughts and ideas using different mediums on to various materials.Hoping that it may please others who view it once it has satisfide me.I dont class myself as an artist, wildlife artist or a painter. I enjoy depicting birds and placing them in thier correct setting to create a picture.

Let others categorize.
 
Tim, you may be referring to this article by Robert Bateman;
http://www.batemanideas.com/art.html
He makes some very accurate observations and salient points.

Annette, I don't think there should be a line between 'Art' and 'wildlife art' but I think the line exists never-the-less. My question is at what point do people think the line is? Greg Poole is a pretty good example http://www.gregpoole.co.uk/ His work always appears at SWLA so he's a 'wildlife artist', but I think his work crosses the line and isn't what people in general accept as such.

Arthur, your enjoyment is obvious in your work, as it is in all the artists here on BF. We probably all start with the love of the subject and the urge to share and convey that affection eventually manifests itself as painting, drawing, sculpture, photography etc. Perhaps that is what makes a wildlife artist? Perhaps it is possible for an artist to depict wildlife without ever actually becoming a wildlife artist?

Woody
 
very good idea for a thread. I've always held the belief that ANYTHING that is created that evokes a reaction (whether positive or negative) could be considered as art. Then there is the question of whether the viewer likes it or not. It is possible for me to consider something to be a great piece of art because it evokes a strong reaction, but to not like the piece. Two examples are: a portrait of Myra Hindley that was made by compiling children's handprints, and an exhibition that involved live goldfish swimming in food processors in which the viewer was invited to turn them on. Both appalling subject matter but to me strong ideas.

As for wildlife art, anything that evokes the joy (or desperation) of nature is art. For me to personally like it, there has to be an element of observation that is present.

I remember once at the bird fair many years ago, I was raving over a painting of a jack snipe, my mom said it was crap, a big mess and she couldn't even see the bird. "Precisely", I said "that's what makes it so real!"

Art, at the end of the day is very personal, I think we're going to see some very interesting thoughts on this thread which will probably confuse us more as to why we do what we do - cool!
 
This touches on something that has bothered me for a long time, somehow it has come to pass that artists who paint birds or animals suffer a certain lack of artistic credibility. I'm not sure how this has come to pass.
To capture the essence of a wild bird in a still picture is very difficult, requires a deep understanding of the subject that is quite specialized and takes a lifetime to achieve. On top of this is the requirement of being able do deal with compostion and colour. It seems to me at times that the viewers fall into two categories, those who understand birds deeply(ie. birders, hunters, falconers etc.) and then the layperson, those who whilst lacking an in depth knowledge of the subject still can have a deep astetic artistic understanding of art. The first category is hard to please because the subject, if not perfectly drawn will draw critic with regard to any failure to understand specific feather details, structure, salient features with regard to species. For example, a painting of a Melodious Warbler will first be scrutinized for all the relevant ID keys by birders before the painting itself is considered with regard to composition and worth as an artistic work in itself. Often the layperson, lacking the understanding of a birder leans towards stereotypical paintings in Audobonesque poses, a certain portraiture seems to fit the bill, with certain species, Puffins, Owls, Birds of Prey, Robins etc. outselling all others.
I think for me an intimate painting of birds has it has to have a sense of connection between the subject and the viewer, a sense of looking in on something that is special and somehow only seen through the eyes of those who care to take the time to look and then feel compelled to share their experience through artistic depiction. I know thats why I go birding in the first place, to see that which is all around but yet often unnoticed, the life that goes on all around us regardless and will continue to do so long after we are gone. There is a certain timelessness about it all...it will always be relevant, at least for me...
Some people like to go see a cow sawn down the middle. Good for them and I might even have a gawk myself, however, give me Bruno Lillefors Black Throated Divers and I am happy to look at it over and over and marvel at the mans insight into something that so many would never even have dreamed of noticing.
Not going to bang on forever, though I probably could! Some seem to begrudge wildlife art, others appreciate it. I think Brendan Behan was right when he said "**** the begrudgers!"
 
You've started a debate here Woody which is always an interesting and emotive subject. While at University I did both Fine Art and Illustration for the first two years, enjoying both. But the fine art lecturers continually tried to get me away from painting traditionally or figuratively and had a sneering attitude towards illustration. I eventually chose to graduate in Illustration so I could paint my birds the way I wanted, producing a book on my bird watching experiences as a final piece.
It seems wildlife art is categorized as illustration by the fine artists and they have a closed mind about it, hypocritical as they always tell us to have an open mind to appreciate (conceptual) art we did not necessarily see the point of.
I don’t know where I’m going with this ‘cos I’m starting to rant, but to say wildlife art is seen as too traditional, too popular, even too commercial to be looked on favourably by the so called establishment (or art snobs) who only seem to be interested in ‘art’ or ‘non-art’ which pushes the boundaries and invokes reaction.
Establishment aside, it is all down to opinion, the eye of the beholder, one man's meat is another man's poison etc etc
It seems to be man’s design on life to categorize everything, personally I like wide-ranging art from different pigeon holes, it is all art to me, and I think I speak for the majority there, it seems the establishment are the ones with the closed minds. And I think Bateman got in right in that article you linked to when he does some brilliant analysis then concludes that in the scheme of things it doesn’t really matter (but all said and done a great topic for debate)
 
Is Damian Hirst's [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living
[/FONT][/FONT](the shark) wildlife art? Art, that in a very real sense features wildlife? Both, Or just possibly niether? Would a sparrow corpse floating in formaldahyde be acceptable by the SWLA guys as 'wildlife art'? (Not that I'm planning to try it!) Where's that line people?

Woody
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT][/FONT]
 
"Luckily, other people sell my stuff. I couldn't sell apples as a boy scout!(Quote,Bateman)

Interesting that!

...suspect many of us can relate to that;)
 
Actually, no - Woody. I wasn't refering to 'that' great man - I was refering to Lars Jonsson. In 'Birds and Light' - he retells anecdotally the beginning ofa speech he made. It goes (something) like this:
"I'm good at birds, but I don't see that as a hinderance!"
He's talking about his position as an artist, and he recognises the barriers the art establishment (whatever and whoever that may be) erect - particularly towards the genre of 'wildlife'.
If Mr Jonsson recognises the problem, it must be real and tangible. For me I think it's a question of "Accessibility" - Everyone knows what birds and animals look like (and what they SHOULD look like). Wildlife art is therefore accessible to all. The 'establishment' have traditionally hated the concept of "accessibility" (How can one be a great art critic, if everyone else has as valid an opinion as you?!) - Indeed accessibility is a comment of derision - one is 'low-art' to be accessible.
This, in my opinion, is why the SWLA take the stand (as discussed in another place) that they want to see barriers pushed, risks taken - they see themselves as part of the art establishment (they weren't, but now with the figures some exponents of the genre can command, they have become 'elite'.
You won't find prizewinning entries of a robin in a snowy holly bush, that's fo rsure - it's far too accessible (unless, of course, it's painted by one already in the establishment - then it can be kitch, or parody and another step towards high art).
There's also, as Arthur mentions, the pigeon hole effect. If one just paints birds, where's the challenge? (of course in real terms they are amongst the most challenging subjects imaginable). There's the "what else can you do" syndrome.
There's also the issue of time and relativity (not Einstein - things relative to other things). There is no doubt CF Tunnicliffe is one of the most highly regarded artists of the modern era. But he was an illustrator, first and foremost. Gerald Scarfe could also be viewed in a similar way. They get "accepted" into the establishment and it's ok to view them as artists.
I do feel that if more wildlife artists broke out of the comfort zone and approached a more varied subject matter, the genre may receive more credit by the establishment - BUT is that all we have to aim for.
Indeed why not see the dedicated wildlife artist as a Cavalier punk, disregarding the establishment's pre-conceived ideas about what ART should and shouldn't depict - "Up theirs" - I say to the establishment, and all those who wish to become a part of it!
 
This was an interesting debate (using the term loosely as it degenerated into a slagging match) on a Vic Reeves exhibition of bird art from last year but fully illustrates the broad spectrum of opinions on the subject (not to mention a little ignorance)

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=52268

As it was local I went to see the exhibition on the back of this thread and thought it was excellent, full of humour and actually found myself laughing out loud at some of the exhibits (mind you I stopped laughing when I saw the prices)
It was a contemporary gallery, with a section dedicated to birds, but was it wildlife art in the broadest sense or contemporary art on a wildlife subject? All I know is I liked it, it appealed to my sense of humour and sowed the first seeds of inspiration for my recent set of cartoon pictures.

I prepare to be shot down in flames......

PS well said Tim on your previous posting, two fingers to the establishment (and fine art lecturers for that matter)
 
Last edited:
This is very true Tim. I'd never considered that the establishment doesn't want to be accessible, though now I see it clearly.
Or I say I see it clearly, but now my head is just full of rambling thoughts (so maybe I should go and finish my yellow wagtail)

Lars has certainly pushed some barriers, he is a first-rate artist, illustrator and ornithologist (it's obviously helped his art that he possesses these qualities) and yet, just look at some of the things he sells as prints - they'd make perfect Xmas cards, brilliantly executed, but nothing new, old and used ideas.

Peter Scott, remembered for what sells, yet he was so much greater than that, he didn't just do geese flying in the mist.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this at all! I think I'm trying to make a point about things being appreciated for their monetary value rather than their aesthetic value and merit. Though I'd love to be able to make a living out of what I do, I'd be scared of compromising my 'artistic principles'. I've seen one artist who seems to paint nothing but woodcock, because hunters will buy them, he paints more woodcock than he's seen it would seem. He's quite talented but I see him more as an illustrator in the market business than an artist. Once somebody saw a painting of a snipe I did at a xmas market (I needed money for presents so I just painted 'nice' things) they said if I could do a woodcock in the same pose they'd buy it. I've never seen a woodcock in that pose, so I couldn't do it.

stop! I'm getting incoherent, I'll go and paint I think before I start sounding like the dreaded establishment!
 
As I said at the time, I can't say I particularly liked Mr. Reeves' artwork but each to his, or her, own.

It does, however, neatly illustrate the point. Many contributors to this forum are potential purchasers of 'wildlife art' and would perhaps have made the effort to see an exhibition of bird paintings. Vic Reeves stepped over the line into the territory of 'Art' and voices were raised because, generally, when potential purchasers go to see bird paintings, aka 'wildlife art', they are expecting something which conforms to a certain set of unspoken 'rules'. It could be argued, (not by me, I hasten to add), that your cartoons are not wildlife art, they are overtly humerous though and, therefore, liked almost universally.

Woody
 
I think I could get used to the moniker of Cavalier punk!

By painting accessable, perhaps even a little clichéd pictures, I'm being rebellious... I love it!

Perhaps the line between what is generally accepted as 'wildlife art' and what is not, is crossed when the subject matter ceases to look like the real thing in some indefinable way?

Woody
 
Still with rambling thoughts, I just wanted to point out that everyone who contributes to this section, regardless of opinion on art (there are so many) perfectly expresses the joy of birds, that is something we should all be pleased about. Regardless of whether our work 'pushes boundaries' or is 'authentic' according to those in high places, the sheer pleasure of sharing the beauty of nature with others is apparent in every post in the gallery.

right back to this yellow wagtail, it needs beating into submission!
 
Nick, your point about making a living from yor art and compromising your artistic principles is a good one. It's something I struggle with, hence my kingfisher on a stick paintings. I know that kingfishers on sticks will almost invariably sell because they fall squarely into the category of wildlife art, accessable, decorative and even a little clichéd. When I try to break away from that and paint what I see as an 'artistic' interpretation of the world as I see it, (Elmley sky for example) it begins to push into uncomfortable territory for some and they don't quite know how to deal with it. Having said that, I also happen to like painting kingfishers and barn owls on sticks! When I'm painting them I'm always trying to capture thier intrinsic beauty for its own sake. I haven't managed it yet though!

Woody
 
the thing is, a kingfisher on a stick isn't necessarily a cliché, your last kingfisher was an exceptional beauty, and a real bird. (Hate pictures like that when the bird looks like a bright feather duster and not a living creature), if everybody liked pictures with movement and action, then Ennion's spotted redshanks would become a cliché and despised by the establishment. I'm lucky in a way, nobody buys my work so I do what I want, though I have been known to paint for markets when I get that 'ker-ching' feel. I suppose I should post the pics of these 'nice' pictures.
 
I've always felt that 'wildlife art' as a genre encompasses more than just the art itself. Given its roots in illustration, biological and behavioural accuracy has always been a strong component (it's expected that you'll get your field marks right, and the habitat makes sense, and at the very least that you've identified the species you're depicting). There's also very close ties with the conservationist movement, and a responsibility for fostering greater appreciation for the natural world depicted. I think that this, too, is part of what differentiates the genre from the rest of the art world. I find it rather neat, really -- these aspects sort of transcend mere appreciation to something closer in touch with the reality we're responding to.

Perhaps that's part of the issue (beyond the cliches that normally plague it) in encouraging wildlife art to be accepted as Art. There's a (somewhat extremist) idea about art being pure expression, and any attempt to express human emotion and psychology (a very abstract and incomprehensible thing) must therefore produce something unrecognizable as a non-abstract, worldly thing. The human brain is a pretty fascinating object, but it still has a biology and a cause -- the 'immaculate conception' of our thoughts as we perceive them very likely isn't so. I'm reminded of work of photorealists like Carl Brenders (who's work I find impressive technically, but bores the hell out of me to be honest). I couldn't imagine why anyone would work at such painstaking detail and be satisfied artistically, until I read an article on Brenders defending his work. He felt that he had a responsibility to depict his subjects as genuinely as possible, and in doing so reflect the most accurate depiction of reality that he was capable of. It struck some chords with my own personal philosophies (I think people need to be far more aware than they are of just how their biological selves is driving what they think and do), and I don't think that reflecting an accurate illustration of the physical world is dry and devoid of humanity.

I'm not sure if anyone's still following me at this point!
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top