The days of the one direction newsletters are over and I hereby introduce you to the (Im)Posture’s monthly thread ! Each month (maybe more), I’ll start a new thread asking YOU a question, this is an open space for everyone to share on a topic with other readers and myself (kinda like what internet was like 10 years ago when we were going on illustration forums).
My question this month is :
What even IS illustration ? After years of doing it, talking about it, loving it, hating it, I don’t think I’ve heard the same definition twice, so what is yours, in your own words ?
I’ll start ! 🙋♂️ My definition of illustration is : An artistic practice that consist in articulating a relation between a text and an image in order to convey something new, something that couldn’t be achieved by text or image alone.
I really like this definition. I think it is important that there is a relation between image and text to turn the image into an illustration – any image can be an illustration if it refers to a text (and conveys something new), and an illustration becomes »just« an image if the text is removed from it (but an image can be an illustration without any text related to it, if the image/illustration refers to the absence of the text on purpose, I think I've read that in some essay of Barthes and always liked that idea (-: ).
Yeah I think that's the whole crux of the issue, this relational thing with text. Because as you said, sometimes there's no "real", material text to refer to, the text is actually just "culture". One thing I'd love to do here in the future is hire writers to write a short text based on an illustration, how would we call this text then ? how would we call the image ? when the order has been reversed.
Hi everyone ! I'm so excited to see all the answers here, it's such a treat to put in common all our experiences and definitions of our practice. Don't hesitate to reply to other people's comments as well and pursue the conversation, there is already so much emerging from what you all said, it's been richer than many books I've read on the topic honestly.
I wonder too if there are any designers or art directors or even writers or editors in the room how you would define illustration ? After all, one of the key point that seems to emerge is a sort of relational/interactional aspect of illustration with other works, other people, etc.
I define illustration as a visual solution to an abstract problem when there is a client or a commissionner in the equation. An illustration has to be published, otherwise it is fine art. What is it called when it is produced as fine art? Tableau, painting, collage etc depending on the practice. We can define as "illustrative" any 2 dimensional art that has a "drawing" (ie recognizable / realistic enough) telling a story (or a message of some sort). So fine art can be "illustrative", but an "illustration" has to be published.
I like the publishing aspect because it does relate to the history of illustration, with the emergence of lithography and the fact that suddenly we could easily have texts and images together on a printed page. But what happens to an illustration that is exhibited ? or an artwork that being published (ex : The New Yorker Cover by David Hockney) ? It's also interesting how we often rely on the distinction with fine art to define illustration, as in "illustration is not...", I'm also thinking of Norman Rockwell whose paintings are now selling in auctions among fine art...
Right. But N. Rockwell created it in the intent of publishing, that was the context. And it is now historic, there are layers to that "success". True that we feel a need to compare illustration to fine art. Probably because the line between the two is very fine. I would like to know how museums that specialize in illustration, define it.
What about abstract art as illustration...? Julie Safirstein, for example. To me that really pushes the boundaries of illustration. I would say she " illustrates" a book, but I wouldn't call her art illustrations.
Yes! Indeed context is everything when defining something like art, because as you said it's impossible to look at the artwork itself and say, this is art or this is illustration. I think the example of Safirstein is great because it really points to this relational aspect of illustration, as something that makes sense because it's linked to something else. A "counter" example of artworks that could be illustrations but circulate in the contemporary art world is the works of Marcel Dzama or Raymond Pettibon.
I kind of feel like illustration is art that performs or references an idea outside of its own existence. By this logic, I realise that a lot of what we call fine art might be defined as illustration but that seems appropriate to me.
Something to do with images with a purpose. Which I suppose is why you come up against this issue of subservience. With this type of definition, it suggests that there’s always a greater thing that the illustration serves and it’s not allowed to be something in and of itself.
a prof that i otherwise really disliked at OCAD said, “solving someone else’s problem, visually and with intrigue.” an important boundary for him is the presence of a client or commissioning body other than oneself, otherwise you’re veering too close to fine art (not sure how much i agree with this today)
Yeah I tend to be critical of this distinction based on commission vs. self initiated too. Loads of artworks circulating in the fine art category were commissioned and tons of illustration are self-initiated. It doesn't feel very historically accurate. I feel you're touching to the idea also that definitions can be normative and narrow the scope of possibilities. The problem solving is an exciting direction though !
Ah! A question I'm keen to just answer EVERYTHING! When I was in school, sitting in a stuffy classroom watching PowerPoints, Illustration was defined as "art that decorates, documents, narrates, informs, and or educates." (pretty stale if you ask me) But the more time I spend working and watching this industry the more I am pleasantly surprised by the diversity of shapes illustration takes within those parameters. My definition of illustration is broader now because of it. (For me) Illustration is art that expresses an idea or thought. It could be as simple as "blue looks good next to orange" or as potent and complex as Derek Ballard's comics on poverty and fatherhood. If you have an idea that manifests visually; Boom you just made an illustration.
I love this idea of an idea manifesting visually, because it doesn't involve the usual sequence of first the idea, second the drawing (I talk about this in Friday's letter actually!). I also feel that the sky is the limit in terms of defining illustration, and already from all the answers here I witness the breadth of the field !
Yup very true ! I was thinking of text as a very large category, more like anything linguistic (like a story) and not necessarily present with the image (like a client brief).
What about situations like images for packaging or other more decorative varieties of illustration? Maybe we could define illustration as images created to explain or enhance.
I wonder though how to keep this relational aspect of illustration but without creating a hierarchy or "in service of" ? I feel the definition as explain, enhance, too often allows for some to say that illustration is only coming after, or doesn't have value in itself. Otherwise I do agree it is a part of what we do !
I’ll start ! 🙋♂️ My definition of illustration is : An artistic practice that consist in articulating a relation between a text and an image in order to convey something new, something that couldn’t be achieved by text or image alone.
I really like this definition. I think it is important that there is a relation between image and text to turn the image into an illustration – any image can be an illustration if it refers to a text (and conveys something new), and an illustration becomes »just« an image if the text is removed from it (but an image can be an illustration without any text related to it, if the image/illustration refers to the absence of the text on purpose, I think I've read that in some essay of Barthes and always liked that idea (-: ).
Yeah I think that's the whole crux of the issue, this relational thing with text. Because as you said, sometimes there's no "real", material text to refer to, the text is actually just "culture". One thing I'd love to do here in the future is hire writers to write a short text based on an illustration, how would we call this text then ? how would we call the image ? when the order has been reversed.
Hi everyone ! I'm so excited to see all the answers here, it's such a treat to put in common all our experiences and definitions of our practice. Don't hesitate to reply to other people's comments as well and pursue the conversation, there is already so much emerging from what you all said, it's been richer than many books I've read on the topic honestly.
I wonder too if there are any designers or art directors or even writers or editors in the room how you would define illustration ? After all, one of the key point that seems to emerge is a sort of relational/interactional aspect of illustration with other works, other people, etc.
I define illustration as a visual solution to an abstract problem when there is a client or a commissionner in the equation. An illustration has to be published, otherwise it is fine art. What is it called when it is produced as fine art? Tableau, painting, collage etc depending on the practice. We can define as "illustrative" any 2 dimensional art that has a "drawing" (ie recognizable / realistic enough) telling a story (or a message of some sort). So fine art can be "illustrative", but an "illustration" has to be published.
I like the publishing aspect because it does relate to the history of illustration, with the emergence of lithography and the fact that suddenly we could easily have texts and images together on a printed page. But what happens to an illustration that is exhibited ? or an artwork that being published (ex : The New Yorker Cover by David Hockney) ? It's also interesting how we often rely on the distinction with fine art to define illustration, as in "illustration is not...", I'm also thinking of Norman Rockwell whose paintings are now selling in auctions among fine art...
Right. But N. Rockwell created it in the intent of publishing, that was the context. And it is now historic, there are layers to that "success". True that we feel a need to compare illustration to fine art. Probably because the line between the two is very fine. I would like to know how museums that specialize in illustration, define it.
What about abstract art as illustration...? Julie Safirstein, for example. To me that really pushes the boundaries of illustration. I would say she " illustrates" a book, but I wouldn't call her art illustrations.
Yes! Indeed context is everything when defining something like art, because as you said it's impossible to look at the artwork itself and say, this is art or this is illustration. I think the example of Safirstein is great because it really points to this relational aspect of illustration, as something that makes sense because it's linked to something else. A "counter" example of artworks that could be illustrations but circulate in the contemporary art world is the works of Marcel Dzama or Raymond Pettibon.
I kind of feel like illustration is art that performs or references an idea outside of its own existence. By this logic, I realise that a lot of what we call fine art might be defined as illustration but that seems appropriate to me.
Something to do with images with a purpose. Which I suppose is why you come up against this issue of subservience. With this type of definition, it suggests that there’s always a greater thing that the illustration serves and it’s not allowed to be something in and of itself.
a prof that i otherwise really disliked at OCAD said, “solving someone else’s problem, visually and with intrigue.” an important boundary for him is the presence of a client or commissioning body other than oneself, otherwise you’re veering too close to fine art (not sure how much i agree with this today)
Yeah I tend to be critical of this distinction based on commission vs. self initiated too. Loads of artworks circulating in the fine art category were commissioned and tons of illustration are self-initiated. It doesn't feel very historically accurate. I feel you're touching to the idea also that definitions can be normative and narrow the scope of possibilities. The problem solving is an exciting direction though !
Ah! A question I'm keen to just answer EVERYTHING! When I was in school, sitting in a stuffy classroom watching PowerPoints, Illustration was defined as "art that decorates, documents, narrates, informs, and or educates." (pretty stale if you ask me) But the more time I spend working and watching this industry the more I am pleasantly surprised by the diversity of shapes illustration takes within those parameters. My definition of illustration is broader now because of it. (For me) Illustration is art that expresses an idea or thought. It could be as simple as "blue looks good next to orange" or as potent and complex as Derek Ballard's comics on poverty and fatherhood. If you have an idea that manifests visually; Boom you just made an illustration.
I love this idea of an idea manifesting visually, because it doesn't involve the usual sequence of first the idea, second the drawing (I talk about this in Friday's letter actually!). I also feel that the sky is the limit in terms of defining illustration, and already from all the answers here I witness the breadth of the field !
Yes I'm enjoying that idea very much lately. I think to be a creative individual is to be a sort of alchemist in this world.
I'm thinking about illustrated books without text. Maybe we can enlarge the "relation between an image and a text "or other images?
Yup very true ! I was thinking of text as a very large category, more like anything linguistic (like a story) and not necessarily present with the image (like a client brief).
What about situations like images for packaging or other more decorative varieties of illustration? Maybe we could define illustration as images created to explain or enhance.
I wonder though how to keep this relational aspect of illustration but without creating a hierarchy or "in service of" ? I feel the definition as explain, enhance, too often allows for some to say that illustration is only coming after, or doesn't have value in itself. Otherwise I do agree it is a part of what we do !