I think the same can be said of any genre of artwork, truthfully. I tend to like illustration, for whatever reason. Of course, it should reflect whatever is being illustrated, but that doesn't necessarily confine it to shallowness.
"Like Darkwolf, I see a lack of originality.
I think that's fairly inevitable at some level, not everyone can invent the wheel. But I notice in figure drawing classes that everyone's work looks very different, even though it's all of the same model, so I also think that originality is pretty much inevitable.
But I also think the stress placed by modern art schools on originality (at the expense of technique) tends to stifle it rather than encourage it, since IMO a solid understanding of a craft can give an individual the freedom to truly attain originality.
"Since the camera was invented, I don't have a great love of realistic work that is so busy replicating the "real" world that there are few personal touches within it.
Here I am on the same page with you, although a lover of "realism," I really don't like the so called photorealism or super realism. Making a painting that looks like a photograph seems pointless. Since the invention of the camera relieved artists of the need for strict "recording" they are free to pursue art in whatever direction appeals to them or to their market. IMO the appeal of "realism" is exactly that everyone's personal realism is different, their own reality is reflected in their work.
Of one thing I'm convinced - no matter where artists move in the next 100 years, if the public doesn't understand it, if it remains confined to the art world, it's value will be questionable. I personally don't see why people won't accept purely abstract work, there is already a fair acceptance by the public of modern stuff. OTOH, I'm fairly certain that there will always be a demand of representational work at some level, people have too much love of images that evoke memories or illustrate things that are important to them. But I do wonder, what with the computer age, 3-D holograms, etc. how long folk will be painting with the 16th century tools and techniques that are still so popular today.
For instance, one doesn't see too many professional hand letterers anymore. This is not to say that the people doing computer graphics are not artists, they are. But I also think everyone can acknowledge that calligraphy done by the human hand has a quality that a computer cannot achieve.
Art that SEEMS to get away from the human--whatever the talent of those involved using the technology--loses so much, which is one reason that abstract art, also, isn't nearly as popular as representational art. I don't mean the human hand, I mean human perception, and abstract art is like someone else's dreams--people like to tell them, but most people don't like listening to them, because they're cut out of the loop.
Agree. But the problem is even earlier in the process than RP says. Illustration DOESN'T reach into content or meaning because that's where an interpretation of things one cannot know comes in. For example, an illustration of a mother and child will look a certain way because it's easy to assume what's going on there; an Artistic interpretation, though, will presume to know what's REALLY going on in there. Thus, slanted artwork that pushes an agenda, but there's your meaning.
Illustration is an admission that the artist is being most truthful showing what the eyes see. Beyond that, we get into politics with a small p, where meaning or value comes first, and a piece is executed to express that. I'm NOT saying that's wrong, I'm just saying that it is wrong that it has completely overtaken all other considerations in the art world right now.