"Drawing is not illustration and illustration is not drawing. Whilst differentiating between the two might verge on the pedantic and is certainly, in many ways, reductive it is also necessary in this context.
When draughtsmen recorded nebulous masses of stars through eighteenth century telescopes or the sinewy capillaries of a lung dissected in a victorian operating theatre they were not drawing. The choices they made in the information they recorded determined contemporary understanding. Their medium was explanatory rather than expressive. "
"The fine artist's goal is often an emotional one and thus they are afforded a freedom of expression that is not always afforded to the illustrator."
" As a caveat this is not to say that illustrators are not artists, nor that a fine artist lacks the capacity to clearly deliver a message. The most successful illustrators marry the two and can create beauty and clarity."
I think that these quotes from this blog post by Lizzie Stewart are very interesting in terms of defining illustration. She is attempting to define it through its utility, and I find the example of Victorian anatomical artists (or rather, illustrators) being "explanatory" very useful in considering how types of illustration vary.
These quotes emphasize the message-bearing quality of illustration, though I think perhaps there is more room for expression in illustration than she lets on. Personal illustrations responding to personal or sensitive issues have plenty of room for expression from the illustrator, as she says "The most successful illustrators marry the two and can create beauty and clarity."
I believe that the way I illustrated my Summer 10 extended poster showed a sort of unconscious approach to being more explanatory rather than expressive in my line work and presentation of the animals. In contrast, Studio Brief One has me taking a more expressive approach as, of course, I have to express my partner's personality through the poster.
No comments:
Post a Comment