The state of illustration.

In this radio show Andrew shaughnessy discusses the current prospects for illustration with two leading designers. They talk about illustrators being commissioned to represent other peoples ideas, therefore having no chance for them to think 'conceptually' and the image usually being accompanied by a piece of text. This seems to be how illustration has been defined for quite some time now and the main focus is the craft and techniques behind a piece of work.

Is illustration all about the visual?

As an illustrator, it is important that I have my own visual language and to have a particular 'look' that people will recognise. If I was to be commissioned, the person(s) would know what to expect from me. The idea behind the illustration would still be driven by the content whether it be a piece of text, or personal thoughts on the matter.

Through this visual language I can communicate an idea emotionally, and I therefore gain some authorship.

But yet there are illustrators out there now who are being payed for the way they think rather than the way their work looks.

For example Ian wright:

'Playfulness is important to me; I’m motivated by trying to push my work somewhere new. Somewhere else. Really, I’m interested in what could be. I sometimes reach that point by making mistakes and generally misusing technology and I often arrive at solutions by accident. I prefer to let the materials I use influence the outcome. I especially enjoy making portraits and I’m excited by the process of collaboration. I love conversation. I’m obsessed by music. I’m looking forward to what happens next.'

I do believe that illustration is a much broader subject and that an image can stand alone without having to be defined by any "relationship with language". If an illustrator was to work solely with text, are they more restricted? At college my tutors often give me briefs that are left quite open and I always have room to work with different media and play around with my own imagination. I feel that this is very important for me to do so that I can expand on my visual language and adapt it to the way that my own mind works. But once an illustrator begins to incorporate their own ideas and hidden meanings, is it necessarily swaying in to fine art? I think what really defines the difference between the two is that both indeed can offer room for expression, but an illustration MUST visually communicate it's meaning, without overcomplicating things. A fine art piece is more likely to not resemble its content so 'obviously', and often be completely ambiguous.

An interesting point is made when one of the designers suggests that what is important to an illustrator is the audience, and I would have to agree.