Michelangelo was an illustrator. He was commissioned to create specific works for patrons, often with clear guidelines and expectations. He did not invent his own projects to sell. I am getting an impression there is bad blood between illustration and fine art. I keep hearing from the gallery side to be careful tiptoeing around the divide. Actually, fine art is looking pretty walled off and strict about who gets to be in their circle. There's some sort of taboos about illustration. There's taboos about AI use. There are taboos about painting from photographs. Trying to paint on a computer? Forget it. The way art looks today is shaped by gallery-backed traditions promoting certain styles, techniques and subjects. Galleries get buyers who ask for certain things because the galleries promoted and exalted those preferences. The echo chamber amplifies and marginalizes, shaping paths artists decide to follow.
I've found out that I've been naively breaking taboos for years and am making adjustments to my new work. I'm all about density of composition, variety of subject and depth of meaning. That's not going to change.
In defense of my pre enlightenment work: I've transgressed and painted from internet images. Around a dozen images are usually combined to form one painting. Collages accepted by some galleries combine found images. There are gallery painters who get away with repainting pieces out of famous paintings. If I decided to use this technique, I would combine elements from twelve museum paintings into mine. Anybody doing that?