What is the difference between a visual artist and an illustrator? What makes a drawing an illustration? Is there still a line between art and illustration?
No, there is not a line between art and illustration in my opinion. Visual art is visual art--includes all kinds. Political comic, oil on canvas, comic book, childrens's book illustration--it's all visual expression. We're in the information age and to me that means that many people get to share or appreciate someone else's creativity.
There is a difference in propaganda art and advertising art (imo) because the purpose is singular--to convince a person to believe or do something. Still art, but my engagement with it is entirely different than coming on Doodles to see what others have been creating.
Illustration is meant to show what something (or someone) looks like, or what was happening at a particular moment in time. As in, botanical illustration showing what a leaf looks like, or an illustration from a story book showing an event in the story. It's intended to show something that can't necessarily be conveyed by words alone.
Visual art, on the other hand, has no such boundaries. It can be literally anything. It can be utterly devoid of meaning (abstract art), or loaded with meanings (direct or allegorical). It can show exactly what something looks like (realism), or an interpretation of it (eg, impressionism), or re-imagine it in new ways so that it does not necessarily resemble the thing at all (eg, cubism).
I think it's fair to say that all illustration is visual art, but not all visual art is illustrative.
I have always understood being an illustrator as different from being an artist. Not that someone can't be both, or that illustration can't be art - but that illustration has a different goal than art. The goal of illustrating something, a book, an ad, a music CD, or botanical illustration- is necessarily secondary to what one is illustrating. Kind of in service of.
I asked the question because it seems like the definition has changed. Now it seems to be used when someone's art looks a certain way - whether or not they are actually illustrating anything. This confuses me.
@zom18 I understand what you mean. A while ago I realised that, at heart, I wanted my art to look like illustration rather than "fine art". With a lot of illustration, you know it's illustration the moment you look at it - but try defining exactly what it is about it that makes it look that way! I spent months researching and googling and asking other artists online, but nobody was able to satisfactorily list the stylistic properties that make something "look" like illustration. I've also seen artists criticised by having their art labelled as "illustrative", implying that it's somehow a lower form of artistry! I think all of these labels are extremely blurred - for example, is comic book art illustration? It's art that tells, or underpins, a story. Yet there's a great deal of demand for it as individual pieces of art. So my feeling is, don't worry too much about trying to fit within a definition, because they overlap too much. If you want to make art that stands alone, you're an artist. If you want to make art that supplements text, you're an illustrator. If you want to do both, then you're an artist and an illustrator. All that really matters at the end of the day is that you like what you create. Leave the categorisation for art historians :)
Thanks Lindsay for the thoughtful reply. @LPBaker I actually already am an artist. I have worked in oils and then acrylics. As soon as I began doing my recent drawings in pen I have been referred to as an illustrator. Considering I have never illustrated anything, I was curious what brought about this apparent change of perception. Hence the question.
In my honest opinion, I have no idea.
I find that whatever the rules are for meeting the criteria for self-identifying as a visual artist and/or illustrator have become increasingly blurred for all kinds of reasons, and it shows in all manner of publications be they mainstream or indie or whatever. It's not always a bad thing if you ask me though.
both a visual artist and an illustrator draw so there .a illustrator may draw in books only and call himself that but it's just the same as visual art because we see it
The "Question of the Week" is submitted by our Plus members with the intention to educate or spark a creative conversation. Real people, not robots, hand-pick the best questions to feature alongside a profile spotlight to help that artist gain exposure within the community.
If you're not a Plus member, you'll still have the ability engage in the discussions and learn from the community. However, the support of Plus members is what keeps Doodle Addicts afloat and enables us to continuosly provide awesome new features to the community. Click here to learn more about the perks of going Plus!
8 Comments
Mary Heath B. (@natoutdoor)
No, there is not a line between art and illustration in my opinion. Visual art is visual art--includes all kinds. Political comic, oil on canvas, comic book, childrens's book illustration--it's all visual expression. We're in the information age and to me that means that many people get to share or appreciate someone else's creativity. There is a difference in propaganda art and advertising art (imo) because the purpose is singular--to convince a person to believe or do something. Still art, but my engagement with it is entirely different than coming on Doodles to see what others have been creating.
JosDerckx (@JosDerckx)
Illustration is based on text. Visual art doesn't have to be.
Lindsay Baker (@LPBaker)
Illustration is meant to show what something (or someone) looks like, or what was happening at a particular moment in time. As in, botanical illustration showing what a leaf looks like, or an illustration from a story book showing an event in the story. It's intended to show something that can't necessarily be conveyed by words alone. Visual art, on the other hand, has no such boundaries. It can be literally anything. It can be utterly devoid of meaning (abstract art), or loaded with meanings (direct or allegorical). It can show exactly what something looks like (realism), or an interpretation of it (eg, impressionism), or re-imagine it in new ways so that it does not necessarily resemble the thing at all (eg, cubism). I think it's fair to say that all illustration is visual art, but not all visual art is illustrative.
Zom Osborne (@zom18)
I have always understood being an illustrator as different from being an artist. Not that someone can't be both, or that illustration can't be art - but that illustration has a different goal than art. The goal of illustrating something, a book, an ad, a music CD, or botanical illustration- is necessarily secondary to what one is illustrating. Kind of in service of. I asked the question because it seems like the definition has changed. Now it seems to be used when someone's art looks a certain way - whether or not they are actually illustrating anything. This confuses me.
Lindsay Baker (@LPBaker)
@zom18 I understand what you mean. A while ago I realised that, at heart, I wanted my art to look like illustration rather than "fine art". With a lot of illustration, you know it's illustration the moment you look at it - but try defining exactly what it is about it that makes it look that way! I spent months researching and googling and asking other artists online, but nobody was able to satisfactorily list the stylistic properties that make something "look" like illustration. I've also seen artists criticised by having their art labelled as "illustrative", implying that it's somehow a lower form of artistry! I think all of these labels are extremely blurred - for example, is comic book art illustration? It's art that tells, or underpins, a story. Yet there's a great deal of demand for it as individual pieces of art. So my feeling is, don't worry too much about trying to fit within a definition, because they overlap too much. If you want to make art that stands alone, you're an artist. If you want to make art that supplements text, you're an illustrator. If you want to do both, then you're an artist and an illustrator. All that really matters at the end of the day is that you like what you create. Leave the categorisation for art historians :)
Zom Osborne (@zom18)
Thanks Lindsay for the thoughtful reply. @LPBaker I actually already am an artist. I have worked in oils and then acrylics. As soon as I began doing my recent drawings in pen I have been referred to as an illustrator. Considering I have never illustrated anything, I was curious what brought about this apparent change of perception. Hence the question.
Bleu Hope (@bleuhope)
In my honest opinion, I have no idea. I find that whatever the rules are for meeting the criteria for self-identifying as a visual artist and/or illustrator have become increasingly blurred for all kinds of reasons, and it shows in all manner of publications be they mainstream or indie or whatever. It's not always a bad thing if you ask me though.
kanaiyah ward (@tigger)
both a visual artist and an illustrator draw so there .a illustrator may draw in books only and call himself that but it's just the same as visual art because we see it