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.
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 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.
Apr 8, 2022·edited Apr 8, 2022Liked by Julien Posture
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)
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.
Monthly Thread : What even IS illustration ?
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.
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 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)
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'm thinking about illustrated books without text. Maybe we can enlarge the "relation between an image and a text "or other images?