recent conversation with Luke best

thanks Luke

I have a 'pitch' pdf that we sent to Pick me up and geoff, Rod and I have a closed blog with material on it that may help describe some of the ideas that we are talking about - Your point is really interesting because there is, as we know, an underlying cultural assumption about Illustration. I suppose what is really interesting for me is that we try hard, as educators, to define the value systems, processes, conceptual/ethical drivers for the subject. You have to do this to design a course but the reality of Illustration as a product is that it is essentially ephemeral - the understanding of the subject/discipline in the minds of those producing it is often super intuitive - so the capacity to talk about it is undermined - none of this is meant as a criticism, just observation. Your point about who retains rights and the nature of who employs whom is also interesting - One of the things that we would like to avoid is the descent in to bemoaning this relationship - it can easily skew any more abstracted discussion about the subject.
I suppose that living in a culture that ostensibly values words over images, trying to raise the status/awareness of/level of understanding of the nuances/complexities/skills and conceptual discipline required to produce good visual communicative [aesthetically appealing - in the sense that imagery appeals to and augments the senses] work is difficult.
In simple terms we wanted the opportunity to define the subject. The remit is to have an open ended, non conclusive event that supports the discussion about the subject.
Originally I had wanted to help establish a critical framework - thinking like an academic and wanting to give Illustration its due status alongside Graphic design and the Fine Arts - but AH rightly suggested that Illustration is kind of about everything but other Illustration - maybe this is the point?

darryl

From: luke best
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:32 AM
To: Darryl Clifton
Subject: illustration debate

hi darryl
hope your well
I'm not really sure what form/direction the illustration debate you, Rod and Geoff are working on is taking
but it was interesting to hear what you and Geoff had to say the other night.
i was talking to C last night about her work and people like Jiggery Pokery and whether they consider themselves illustrators
also whether clients see them and appreciate them as illustrators.
i know there is discussion around the new digital platforms and how that will effect illustration which is interesting
( although at the moment it just seems to be applied in a manner that doesn't really work with the interface)
but there are still really new territories for illustration, that although are seen a lot, are still trying to get established.
for example with C's work - 3D work in generally, if its photographed- the photographer owns the rights- gets re-usage etc because they make it an 'image', she has started to change this old system but it does feel that illustration is always playing second fiddle to a photographer, designer, art director.
I guess my long winding point is that there is a lot of illustrators working in new territories and its interesting that most of them still value their illustration education, think of themselves as illustrators but the industry/ public aren't aware of this. i think this is where there is a gap and why people still have to use Quentin Blake(great as he is) as a reference when explaining what illustration is.
sorry if this is a bit random, a slightly non directed thought
have a good weekend
luke

sifting for Gold

Now is the time to identify the themes that we are going to run with gentlemen.
Having read through the previous posts again we have certain directions that we could pursue I believe:
GG specified 2 elements for the days construction;
a clear and inclusive definition of the practice/discipline/art of Illustration and a foray in to the potential futures of the subject.
RM talks about over saturation and greater authorial control/possibility as a result of the development of new technologies.
DC talked about the relationship between one description of a capitalist economic model and the necessity for novelty and newness within that model AND the role of illustration therein.
It is apparent that our thoughts are wide ranging and there is substantial subject knowledge that can be drawn upon - however I think that to make the event happen effectively we need to pursue one direction [not the boy band] or question from the outset. I think that the idea of trying to define the practice has legs and can be approached through the various filters that we have proposed here [technology/philosophy/commerce etc].

brief thought on novelty

Thinking a little on the relationship between commerce [perhaps better thought of as economics?] and Illustrative practice perhaps its good to look at its relationship over the past 'epoch' that has seen the rise of capitalism and consumer society. I recently watched an interesting TED talk that presented ideas around current economic models and the environment. It described a very simple relationship between manufacturer and consumer. One element in the cyclical pattern of activity was the human desire for novelty - new stuff. Marketing things that we buy is part of the remit of illustration, Illustrators are 'novelty' mongers. The need to develop new ways of communicating complex ideas [around brand identity/aspiration/desire/ego] falls to Illustrators clients and eventually to Illustrators. The part played in that role ought to be explored further.

Response

So, thinking about the excellent points made by both Geoff and Roderick - it would be good to identify a number of key questions that form the basis for an event of some sort. Clearly we are all coming from a similar direction; having concerns about 'what Illustration is', its role and the drivers for its production.

Geoff talks about the disadvantages that diversity of approach brings - it can make Illustrative practice seem unwieldy and vague. However it may be worth looking at this in relation to a critical framework for the subject [if, indeed, it is necessary] in a totally different way. In other words to remove it from the academic and locate it in the 'real' world. If we were to suggest that the Illustration is the artwork in its mediated form [print/screen etc] we could back peddle and look at why it exists in that form. Who commissions it? I can hear the collective groans - not another discussion that descends in to endless bellyaching about clients misunderstanding and mistreatment of Illustrators. No, that is not what I am saying - but I would suggest that if we are to suggest a critical framework for the subject we should consider commerce.

Rod, you have eloquently approached the relationship between technological development in media and the evolution of the subject. Some of the opportunities that technology, the web and new media offer, bypass the traditional role of client and Illustrator. This is interesting when considering the subject because, increasingly, Illustrators are trading off their ability to generate content. Illustrators becoming auteurs? Illustrator becomes client?
It is interesting to consider how this affects the 'discipline' of Illustration.
Much has been made of the lack of editorial control over content online. Previously that control came through conventional roles within media organisations but the ease with which work can be published has removed the need to negotiate an appropriate solution to a visual problem. The editor has been bypassed. It is possible in this scenario that the 'discipline' can be eroded. We are also witnessing a shift in the nature and role of commerce.

So, the realm of commerce forms part of the critical framework that Illustration inhabits. I suppose then the difficulty is shaping this monumental territory in to something navigable - not easy!
One way may be to dis-aggregate the territory, think about types of work and types of client. [Alan Male in Illustration; a critical and theoretical perspective talks about 5 key types of Illustration - this may be an interesting start point?]

More Thoughts and a revision

In the brief, original, post I stated that Illustration had no critical framework to speak of. The implication was that this was bad as, arguably, Illustration as a subject has had to assume a role in the visual arts that lacks theoretical substance and therefore value. The latter part of this statement is not true but it does describe an attitude towards the word in its adjectival sense if nothing else. So perhaps our sensitivity to the use of Illustrative as a derogatory term is a semantic issue? However I digress - I wanted to look at the notion of a critical framework for Illustration and turn the contention on its head. Is it important to have a critical and theoretical framework for a subject like Illustration? If we talk about it as a 'subject' then possibly yes. Subject implies that it is a thing that is removed from us, something that we study and observe - it is an academic term. In order to understand subjects like Illustration we often need to ascribe ideas to help us locate the work contextually. In short, to better understand the whys and wherefores of the work's production. So we can look at it from a perspective - historical for instance or through the lens of Marxism or De-constructivism. Subjects in the Visual Arts have numerous lens through which to locate their work - it is arguable that these approaches are inward looking and often self referential. In some ways they are enabling but in others they can be limiting, exclusive rather than inclusive.
We could also talk about a 'discipline' of Illustration. Discipline could infer a kind of acquired behaviour [or even training?], a way of thinking or an approach to subject. Running practical courses it may be fair to say that we concentrate more on the discipline of Illustration than the subject - our goal may well be to help students evolve and develop their behaviour in order to become better visual communicators. If this is the case should we be bothered about a critical framework? I do not believe this to be entirely the case - but more in a while.
The revised question was; "Is it important to have a critical framework for Illustration?"

derogative context of Illustration

Here is a recent use of Illustration in a derogative context.

What is perhaps more worrying is that it came from within the design community:

'But when I showed this cover to my friend Henrik Kubel, he was, to my dismay, not overwhelmed. He thought the spine was a joke, or an obvious stroke of supreme laziness (which it was). He finally said the design looked "Illustrator-y". Whether true or not, there's not a worse adjective he could have used - it went straight to the heart of my insecurity and I instantly knew I had to start again.'

Marian Bantjes & Jessica Helfand

'The Bantjes Covers'

designobserver.com

Illustration discussion

The advent of the iPad poses many questions about the future of illustration.

Yet as with the introduction of the Mac into the industry I might suggest that illustration will adapt & meet the challenges that it faces.

Undoubtedly publishing will change, but we already see signs of where possibly magazines will develop, through a greater emphasis on print quality - the emergence of boutique publications such as 'Nobrow' & 'NVA'. these titles emphasize high quality productions & imagery, with relatively low print runs.

In an age of blogs the audience will require something else, something special from magazines.

Weekly news, newspapers will migrate to online editions, leaving special bespoke magazines - they will always retain that special experience, object.

The iPad begins to mimic certain qualities of reading magazines & books. Touch screens allow us to flick pages, more akin to how we read - providing a more visceral experience. As graphic novels begin to appear on such media the way that you read, navigate stories will change, be adapted.

In a time of over-saturation of illustration, a greater need for the author of this imagery to have an agenda, viewpoint, a narrative to their work will be increasingly necessary in order to stand out against the plethora of style merchants chewed up in a constant flow of fashion. Also how software is effecting the style of much work.

Within technology also the possibilities to self-publish work/ideas through the internet are great opportunities for illustrators to make work. Now more than ever the technology to make moving image/animation has enlarged the canvas for illustrators to tell stories - As Marshall Arisman pointed out, it is vital for illustrators to use technology & tell their stories through print & through the internet.

As more work migrates into screen-based technologies illustrators have the opportunities to enlarge their visual worlds to encompass both sequencing. movement, & sound of their work.

Not only can drawings be animated, but there also exists a narrative in how the copy appears on the screen - whether in real time as the blog is written & the image develops, or as you scroll down, click to reveal further content. Interactive work will push how illustrations can tell a variety of narratives within a single piece.

An understanding, awareness of the possibilities that screen-based work offers to the illustrators will be ever important, to command the possibilities of the effects of drawings as you navigate sites.

As is becomes ever easier to source visual artist's work on the internet, styles & influences are merging at an accelerated rate. people are rapidly using a combination of means to communicate & accessing a greater amount of reference materials.

The unique singular voice of the illustrator will be necessary to stand out - using the greater availability of equipment/technology to express ideas, or stories without losing it's individuality.

All of this provides many exciting outlets for illustrators to tell their unique stories.

How illustrators are found now via the web has changed ideas of self promotion. the New York Times receives less direct mailers these days, resorting instead to searching online for visual image makers across the globe.