Why art painters like Norman Rockwell or Frank Frazetta considered only "illustrators"?

America's contribution to folk art is... commercial art. Rockwell's art was contrived as offset printed pieces giving the best view. Travel anywhere in the world and you will realize the intense competition of America's many-duplicated products contributed to produced beautiful store shelves. Rembrandt has the appearance of being an illustrator only because he didn't work for rich bishops, much to Mr. Buonarroti's discredit. Only one of Michelangelo's works is in a private collection, and it's garbage.

Painting is for the soul. Sculpture is for the mind. Rockwell comes in for the gut.

That will eventually change in time. The reason they are considered illustrators is because most of the work they did was commissioned for used as book cover art or as advertisement art. Norman Rockwell for example became famous as an illustrator for the Post magazine, something he will always be associated with, but is definitely a painter and a great artist. Frank Frazetta's art is considered fantasy art and he may have a harder time shaking off the ''illustrator'' thing from his resume, but i've never heard him complain about it.

Artists Like Norman Rockwell

'blessed_thang' isn't right because Rockwell did reach people on a spiritual level just as did the masters of fine art. The other answer is closer to the truth ; illustration is more like cartoon drawing. Tells a story or sells a product but hasn't got the depth of fine art. Hope that helps.

an illustrator is still considered as an artist... well... i think u would like to know whats the difference between a painter and an illustrator because rembrant and michelangelo are painters....

ok painters-- they paint on canvas<well on my own understanding>

illustrators-- they make drawings/ illustrations that then could be painted manually or digitally....

Rembrant and DaVinci might have been exellent illustrators if it wasn't for the ability of the printed media to reach the masses.