Speculation and Discussion on the Arisman's short thesis Is There a Fine Art to Illustration?

Marshall Arisman states in his short thesis Is There a Fine Art to Illustration?  that there is an 'outdated formula created by the art faculty' (the art faculty referring to the broader classification of art education across a range of universities) and that in relation to this outmoded contextualisation that 'All painters know that the word "illustration" is the kiss of death."

In his extravagantly written extolment, that sits proud at the front of a series of essays dealing with the identity of Illustration, he punctuates his distaste of the institutionalisation of art and the perception of illustrator. He says, "The fine arts world does not want illustrators in their club".

But he writes about a process of integration between Fine Art and Illustration and briefly explains a process that he himself introduces to the classroom. He explains that "working in a series allows students to introduce the concept of time into their work and pushes them out of the habit of creating single symbolic images, which is the trend in illustration."

For me the interesting words here are 'series' and 'time' which I discuss here:

1.

Series

If the role of Illustrator is to translate a language or statement of meaning into image, as an example of a how some may perceive the word illustration, then what place does series have? How can an image take on a series of meanings. The context in which Arisman uses the word series seems to imply an exploration of the theme? Yet does this not imply that the illustrator is expanding beyond the meaning?

If a series is produced based upon a statement of any length then potentially many images are taken as a narrative or a proceed collection of elements of the story. If a single statement is made with limited input, for example five words or line from a poem, then the expansion of the content is purely in the hands of the illustrator? At what stage does this become more about the illustrator's mind and experiences and less about the content of the meaning of the script, a script being a fragment from another individual's creation, within which the originator has their own set of conceptions and understandings.

How can a series of images work beyond the pure definition of the text without the illustrator becoming a fine artist? Where does the artist appear beyond the first drawing in a series? At what boundary does the Illustrator disappear?

2.

Time

'Introducing the concept of time into their work'? To think of time draws us into an illustrative process. Whether this be a memory or a tool to pictorially display the passing of time it is a process we try to crystallise and understand but ultimately it is very difficult to understand what Arisman means when he says time.

Could time mean cycle and then be a reference to series? Is the use of time a nod to evolution, a process that allows us to see change. But ultimately the result of time is the diminishing of everything, the death of everything.

Is the subconscious meaning behind this use of Time a direct reference to the death of what we know as Illustration and that in the end we must consider the illustrator an artist and not bracket them into a single place in time with archaic labels because in the end  Arisman finishes with a roll call of sorts, "I believe that it is possible to expand the boundaries where fine art and illustration meet into an image-making process that redefines our tired old definitions." 

ARISMAN, M. (2000) Is there a fine art to illustration? In: Heller, S & Arisman, M. (eds). The Education of an Illustrator. New York, USA: Allworth Press

 

Does Illustration even Exist?

Edward Lucie-Smith in “Homage to Leonard Baskin” makes this powerful statement about the artist Leonard Baskin:

“I must point to the fact that Baskin’s preoccupation with words, his love of literature, make him not

Leonard Baskin: Hanged Man (1962) Woodcut

only a marvellous printmaker but perhaps the best illustrator of our time – something slightly different, since it implies not only the power to create images but the power to penetrate a text”

It is as if Lucie-Smith is saying that the meaning of the words connects directly with the meaning of the illustration but so appropriately that they become one. The words ‘power to penetrate’ embodies the text with some deeper form of expression into which the visual penetrates. It implies a form of pictorial resonance of the words, a true representation of the expression behind the meaning of the composition.

The implication in this exert also highlights that illustration is 'something slightly different' and is ultimately bound to a relationship with text. The narrative element of the text whether liner or abstract is lending elements to the image and therefore making it an illustration. But does Baskin's style of illustration not simply demonstrate the mirror of his own personal emotions and experiences?

This for me says a lot about the role of the illustrator. Baskin’s style is an integral part of his expression. Does an illustrator have to hide the inner expression to create a truly representative illustration or does his style need to match the emotional ties of the text, a match that either author or illustrator may identify.

When an artwork, that for many is not an illustration, is created does it not have a narrative? In fact does illustration even exist or is it a word used to identify an artwork with a narrative?

Lucie-Smith, E. Homage to Leonard Baskin. (1982) Reading Museum and Art Gallery: Reading

Examining the opening Prepace of Alan Male’s “Illustration: A theoretical and Contextual Perspective”

The preface to Alan Male’s “Illustration: A theoretical and Contextual Perspective” leads with “Illustration: a definition. Applied Imagery; a ‘working art’ that visually communicates context to

audience.”

It seems like a straight forward approach to start with the dictionary definition but in the delicate understanding of what something actually is it can throw up more questions than answers. What is a working art? What is applied imagery? And what is the context being communicated to the audience? This could be a context of understanding, but realistically this would be many contexts, every situation a bridge between numerous perceived cultural contexts or situations. Also is the assumption that it is a context which is communicated visually?

This definition does not actually say how the illustration physically manifests. What actually is an illustration? How can we identify an illustration from another image that, through a range of satisfied agendas, is seen as something different?

Potential the word ‘narrative’ could exist within the canon the words that classify illustration. To illustrate is to tell? Is the definition of Illustration illusive or does it even exist? Alan Male says in his preface, “Illustration can also be applied to anything and is not driven purely by fad or trend.” This implies that Illustration can indeed take on the disguise of ‘anything’ it likes, as if it floats freely absorbing a range of cultural and technological tools for its own use.

But it seems that Alan Male is concerned that this appropriation can be seen as devaluing the basis of Illustration when he says, “The notion of illustrator as ‘colouring-in technician’ must be discarded!” This for me says that the identity of Illustration is open for debate in many discussions and potentially revealed an underlying worry in Male’s mind about the credibility of Illustration as its own unique and valued art practice. How can we discerned illustration?

---------------------------------------------

Illustration: A Theoretical and Contextual Perspective - Alan Male - AVA Publishing SA 2007