Illustration is a practice which is under constant scrutiny as to how far it can be taken as a critically assessable field of design. It has taken strong criticism from some of the most revered design writers and critics such as Rick Poynor and Steven Heller all of whom wonder what is the current state of illustration, and what will come of it.
To me, the current state of illustration is no different to the state of illustration 30 years ago or indeed 500 years ago. Illustration is not a design practice which one can look at retrospectively at get an understand of the social and cultural structure of a given time period in terms of what the images are saying. But one can understand gain an idea of culture from the way in which images are made.
Illustration and style are things which go hand in hand. In Steven Heller and Seymour Chwast’s book ‘Illustration – A Visual History’ they have categorised all the illustrations in the book into two main categories, Style and Form. They then go on to say, in the preface, that:
‘Of course, the Style section is chronological insofar as most cultural styles, being markers of particular times and places, signal particular periods.’
Style will always be applied to illustration and other design practices and style has a lifespan which eventually dies out in place of the next. This is not a bad thing and the design world may become quite bland if it wasn’t the case, but I think the problem for Illustration is that it too style led, and this in turn impedes it’s development critically.
Style and limited growth I think are exemplified in the recent insurgence of illustration collectives such as Peepshow Collective and Puck Collective and illustration specific publishers such as Nobrow. Early on these were hailed as a great thing; celebrating illustration like never before and providing a platform for illustrators to come together and seek strength in numbers and to produce work of their own without being ‘tainted by commercial impurities’ (Chwast, Illustration – A Visual History). On paper this sounds like a great thing; for a serious illustrator, creating personal work is a very important thing, which I will come back to. But a short browse in the Nobrow shop and you will see that this wonderful opportunity is going to waste.
Illustrators are using the opportunity to produce entirely style led pieces of work. Short comics in a child-like hand drawn style are in abundance and every single one seems to be the same. The books made up of pretty image after pretty image with a simple joke thrown in here and there – the simple style isn’t a gateway to let the strong narrative, or deeper meaning shine through. It is purely a single facet, a layer of prettiness printed nicely on lovely paper.
Paul Bowman, writing for Varoom in 2008 recognises a similar problem:
‘My contention is that good creative work sheds light on something not seen, something not known. It causes us to re-evaluate our lives, our society and ourselves. Good creative work challenges the viewer to question things. The subject matter is served by the style not the other way round, and the first question asked should be – is the subject matter any good?’
I noticed the same thing happening Pick Me Up this year (2012). Pick Me Up labels itself as a ‘contemporary graphic arts fair’ showcasing ‘the best new work from around the UK and the world’. The event was set up like a normal exhibition where there were works hung on the walls and viewers were invited to walk around of their own accord and contemplate the works. There was a strong emphasis on showcasing illustration and the aforementioned collectives were given a large amount of space to use each. This event again, is an opportunity for illustrators to produce and show to a vast audience personal, meaningful work. There was also an abundance of commercial work shown which, as a matter of context, is another debate.
The opportunity for these illustrators I felt was wasted, again. The works were shallow personal explorations in style and it all seemed very self-referential and a large ego-fest.
I must say though, I cannot help but wonder that if illustrators did have a drive to produce work assessing and commenting on the world as we know it, would it, even then, be enough to push illustration into something a lot more than it is now.
Steven Heller, when writing for Varoom magazine talk about the heydays of illustration:
‘Illustration commanded prime editorial real estate during the mid-1960s throughout the late 1980s and even into the 1990s. Moreover illustration added visual dimension beyond the scope of the text.’
There are a number of illustrators accosciated with this era whom are known for producing strong ‘conceptual illustration’ such as Brad Holland, Sue Coe, Gerald Scarfe, Ralph Steadman, Rob Mason and Marshall Arisman. These are all illustrators whom understood the importance of personal work and used it as an outlet for deeper expression.
Brad Holland declaring that he would never merely illustrate but instead he would interpret his commissions; Susan Coe turning a critical eye towards animal abuse with shocking imagery in her book ‘Dead Meat’; Marshall Arisman self-publishing a book of disturbing drawing about gun culture in America. Each of these illustrators works are held in high regard amongst design critics as strong conceptual works, and works which hold a ethos which needs to my carried forward by new illustrators and spread throughout the industry. But will it then actually make a difference?
Heller goes on to say:
‘The superficial elements of conceptual illustration were, in truth, easily appropriated. Surrealist and expressionist tropes (…) gave the illusrattion of intellectual complexity even if the images were void of real content.’
What Heller says here is that good illustrators can produce strong, complex and challenging illustrations, but in order for this to be appropriated into a real world, industrial setting, it only needs that veneer of complexity which comes on the style of the illustration. A commercial illustration in itself only needs to communicate what the art director wants it to, not the illustrators take on the content. It is here that I think the role illustration as a practice actually plays in the world of design and in society is not that of challenge and conception, it is more-so of decoration and accessibility.
If we take the work of more contemporary illustrators, post-digital age where style can literally be confined to a photoshop filter, but illustrators still considered to be conceptually strong and who’s work still invites contemplation in a small space – Cristoph Niemann would be one such example.
Niemann is known for his ability to quickly and effectively receive an article or whatever may need illustrating, and return a finished, clever and witty illustration which concisely sums it up and translates it visually. His work is almost 100% editorial and has become one of New Yorks most prolific and sought after illustrators. In January 2006 he showcased 800 of his spot illustrations in an exhibition called ‘1000 Spot Drawings’ (I have no idea as to why the total and the title do not equate, but 800 is still a very large amount of published illustrations for one artist). However, Niemann may be an archetype for the contemporary editorial illustrator; one who does not rely on style, is versatile, efficient and clever – but I can this does not mean that he will change the face of illustration. Niemann alone, and his counterparts worldwide, such as the United Kingdoms’ Paul Blow, are all producing clever illustrations day-in, day-out but this does nothing to change illustration and its social importance.
A successful illustration to a commercial art director, is one which is straight to the point but in a refreshing and clever way; a successful illustration to those sceptical to the development of illustration as a practice is one which is outward looking and challenging. To me, I don’t think these two successes are compatible – I just cannot see how an illustrator, or rather, the majority of illustrators practising today can produce challenging work with the development of their practise in mind, but also work this into the bread-and-butter of illustration which is commercial and editorial illustration.
This comes down to the difference between illustration and other design practices, and that is that illustration is a broad amalgamation of different practices. Some champion this fact, John O’Reilly while working as editor for Varoom magazine wrote in 2006 for Varoom:
‘[Illustration is] somewhere between news and commentary, art and kitsch, sociology and fiction. And, if we are honest, somewhere between the genius and the idiotic, in the magical place where it overlaps.’
Not only this, but illustration also lies somewhere between fine art, photography, graphic design, typography and near enough every other visual practice there is out there. Illustration works because of it’s lack of confinement, which allows it to work in a multi-faceted way. I see this a detrimental to the practice however; the very fact that it crosses so many boundaries (and there are many debates as to the blurring of the fine-art and illustration divide) is the reason why any efforts in the *right* direction are lost.
It is far too easy to apply all the successful works of Coe, Steadman, Arisman, Holland and so on to other fields that illustration does not necessarily gain from the efforts. And that makes sense – what it is now coming down to is that illustration is becoming a stepping stone between practices and it is beginning to look like it will always remain as this bridge – a bridge is not somewhere you go to, it is something you pass through en route to somewhere else.
Like all good analyses, one can further understand a model by comparing it to that of a similar and successful one. Typography is a very big constituent part of graphic design; debatably neither could function without the other. Some consider illustration to be a strong constituent part of graphic design, so it should follow that comparisons can be made.
Since the 15th century, a rich history of typography can be analysed. From the early blackletter manuscripts, to the development of Atiqua (roman) typeface in the early 16th century and then the German renaissance typeface Fraktur: developed to give the clumsy gothic letterforms some of the elegance of the new form-world. The forward into the 18th century and the development of Atiqua into Französische Antiqua which spread thanks to the influence of the French Rococo and so-called culture-countries. The complicated individual strokes of the Medival-Antiqua were replaced by the more regular line of the Didot-Antiqua which brought about a typographic revival gradually leading up to the first sans-serif type specimens in the first half of the 19th century. As printing methods developed so too did typography in order to adapt to the new mediums for which type was being repreduced, such as newspapers, magazines, leaflets et cetera. Many attempts were made over the coming cetury to look back to past typefaces, all of which failed and it was soon realised that once designers let go of the old and used, they were free to design for the new. This ultimately led to The New Typography and the sans-serif, minimalist way of designing which revolutionised typography (Tschichold, The New Typography).
It is clear that typography has a rich history and development which mirrors social and cultural change, something which, as I have said, illustration’s history does not do. The history of typography also shows, that an ongoing response and willingness of a practice to adapt to social change will lead to a richer future and stronger inter-weaving within culture – I am just unsure that illustration will ever have the ability to comment on society and still call itself illustration, whether the illustrator does or not. I cannot help but feel like that any wonderful work in the field of illustration which can be seen as a step in the right direction, harking back to the ideals of Coe, Steadman, Scarfe et al., will not make a difference because there is no need for it. How can you influence something which does not even have definite boundaries.
Even comparisons made to recent changes in the world of Graphic Design and Typography: the drastic shift from print to screen. This has brought about huge changes such as screen only typefaces and layouts which only work on a particular screen format. Illustration has not had to adapt in such ways because it is not, to put it frankly, that important. Illustration is a practice which will survive as there is a demand for it, but it just not motivated by culture in the same way that other art and design practices are. I think that the industry is starting to come to terms with this too, as the sucessful illustrator Robert Mason asks some provocative questions in ‘Illustration & The Personal’ (AOI’s Journal, 2002):
How do we truly encourage personal work at a time of increasing globalisation, in Illustration as in all else? More importantly, does the industry really want to? Exciting though fashion may (sometimes) be, is Illustration too thoroughly in it’s thrall?
I do no think Illustration is in it’s thrall, I just think that is what Illustration is.
Josh
—
References
Bowman, P. (2008) Heated Debate: Educate, Agitate, Organise. Varoom, Iss. 8 p.64 – 65.
Heller, S. (2005) Christoph Niemann: Force of Nature. Varoom, Iss. 1 p.40 – 42.
Heller, S. (2007) Heated Debate: Is Illustration a Big Enough Profession?. Varoom, Iss. 4 p.64 – 65.
Heller, S. and Chwast, S. (2008) Illustration: A Visual History. New York: Abrams.
Hollis, R. (1994) Graphic Design: A Concise History. 2nd ed. London: Thames and Hudson.
Hyland, A. and Bell, R. (2003) Hand to Eye: Contemporary Illustration. London: Laurence King, p.7 -9.
Mason, R. (2002) Illustration & The Personal. AOI’s Journal, 1 (13).
Mason, R. (2007) The Borrowers. Varoom, Iss. 5.
Mugnai, F. (2009) A Brief History of Illustration. Francesco Mugnai Blog, [blog] 16 Nov 2009, Available at: http://blogof.francescomugnai.com/2009/11/a-brief-history-of-illustration-part-i/ [Accessed: 14 May 2012].
O’Reilly, J. (2006) Illustrology: The Visual Theory of the Future. Varoom, Iss. 1 p.6 – 9.
Printmag.com (1980) The Missing Critical History of Illustration. [online] Available at: http://www.printmag.com/Article/The-Forgotten-History-of-Illustration [Accessed: 17 May 2012].
Tschichold, J. (1998) The New Typography. 2nd ed. California: University of California Press, Ltd., p.15 – 52.
Vanderlans, R. (1996) Graphic Design and the Next Big Thing. Emigre, Iss. 39.
Josh Murr 