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
in my opinion, they are both the same thing
In visual art, you see it and in illustration, you view it so there
an illustration is a picture illustrating a book
a drawing is a mark made by one of the various drawing supplies
I think traditionally illustrators worked from a text or prompt given by someone else, like a book publisher or art director for a magazine. But nowadays illustration seems to be a term for a style of drawing, something between cartooning and painting, maybe. I like watching interviews with Francis Bacon, a British painter, who says he avoids illustrating his subject, because he associated that with a literal depiction of something. He would say he makes his pictures by a process of "accident on top of accident" which sounds a bit chaotic! Perhaps Illustration today refers to pictures made with line & wash or cross-hatching techniques, or the collage-style of some children's books. I think some interesting results come from mixing various styles together - fine art, commercial art, painting, drawing, serious, non-serious - these can all work as tools for artists to make new things.
I love the walk-down nostalgia with traditional illustration definitions, and it's important to me to understand sourcing. I feel illustration can be thought of as its own style now. Not that it wasn't before, but with the acceptance of anime-style art as legit as others (cause it is), I think the old traditional definition is changing. In my work, I define painting versus illustration. If I need outlines, I will go in the illustration route. I am struggling with a desire to over-blend everything and run away from hard lines tho (I really got to get over it)
Fine art and illustration may seem the same thing, but there are some differences between them. Technology has blurred the lines between fine art and illustration.
Fine art and illustration are broad terms that can encompass many different things. Generally speaking, fine art is highly skilled art such as painting, sculpture, music, theater, or dance. Fine art is usually performed or produced for one purpose. On the other hand, illustration is usually art created for the primary purpose of being reproduced either in print or digitally.
There are some unique differences between both of these artistic fields.
Fine Art Defined
Fine art is a word used a lot in the artistic world. Someone may say to you that they are a fine artist. Museums may use the word fine art after their names. Someone may even tell you they graduated in fine arts. When we look at both of these definitions of fine art as defined by the Oxford dictionary, we can see that fine art encompasses a person’s visual content, imagination, and intellect. Fine art can encompass everything from painting, sculptures, poetry, writing, theater, music, and even animation.
We also learn from this definition that fine art requires skill and great accomplishment. You could be born with talent, but you become a fine art or artist through the development of that talent.
Illustration Defined
Illustration can have several meanings. One meaning could be a picture that illustrates something in a book or a newspaper; for example, you illustrate a graph to show a survey result. It could be a drawing or a work of art.
In art, we usually look at illustrations as a form of art. For example, art made for the front cover of a magazine would be considered an illustration or a movie poster would be regarded as an illustration. Most of the illustration is for print or digital matter.
Here are some of the differences between fine art and illustration:
Fine art is an original work of art that is made by artist, such as painting, sculpture, music and dance.
A fine art requires great skill and artistic accomplishments.
There are several types of illustration but artistic illustration is produced for the purpose of it being reproduced either by print or digitally. An example would be an illustration for a movie poster.
Drawing that appear in some magazines as children’s magazines or newspapers would be considered illustrations.
Fine Art and Illustration are not created for the same purpose. A fine artist may create just one piece to be sold by a gallery or to a collector. The Illustrator will produce a work of art whose main purpose is to be reproduced many times.
The term llustration can also be used to talk about other things as charts, graphs or even figures which are used to illustrate a particular point of reference that is written or spoken.
Fine Art is a broad term and under the umbrella of Fine Art are a variety of arts. Not all the arts are visual in nature and can include things as creative writing or poetry.
Even though fine art and illustration may seem very similar, they are quite different types of art. It usually will encompass different forms of education and knowledge.
Fine artists usually work in painting, sculpturing, or other traditional arts; today, this line has blurred as many fine artists work only digitally.
Illustrators may work with just a pen, paper, and paints to create an illustration. Today many illustrators work digitally.
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!
12 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 (@VeryNaughtyBoy42)
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 (@VeryNaughtyBoy42)
@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 (@jadewest)
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
kanaiyah ward (@jadewest)
in my opinion, they are both the same thing In visual art, you see it and in illustration, you view it so there an illustration is a picture illustrating a book a drawing is a mark made by one of the various drawing supplies
Taro Baugnon (@tarobaugnon)
I think traditionally illustrators worked from a text or prompt given by someone else, like a book publisher or art director for a magazine. But nowadays illustration seems to be a term for a style of drawing, something between cartooning and painting, maybe. I like watching interviews with Francis Bacon, a British painter, who says he avoids illustrating his subject, because he associated that with a literal depiction of something. He would say he makes his pictures by a process of "accident on top of accident" which sounds a bit chaotic! Perhaps Illustration today refers to pictures made with line & wash or cross-hatching techniques, or the collage-style of some children's books. I think some interesting results come from mixing various styles together - fine art, commercial art, painting, drawing, serious, non-serious - these can all work as tools for artists to make new things.
Kurtis D Edwards (@artbykurtedwards)
I love the walk-down nostalgia with traditional illustration definitions, and it's important to me to understand sourcing. I feel illustration can be thought of as its own style now. Not that it wasn't before, but with the acceptance of anime-style art as legit as others (cause it is), I think the old traditional definition is changing. In my work, I define painting versus illustration. If I need outlines, I will go in the illustration route. I am struggling with a desire to over-blend everything and run away from hard lines tho (I really got to get over it)
Sneezy (@sneezywheezy)
Fine art and illustration may seem the same thing, but there are some differences between them. Technology has blurred the lines between fine art and illustration. Fine art and illustration are broad terms that can encompass many different things. Generally speaking, fine art is highly skilled art such as painting, sculpture, music, theater, or dance. Fine art is usually performed or produced for one purpose. On the other hand, illustration is usually art created for the primary purpose of being reproduced either in print or digitally. There are some unique differences between both of these artistic fields. Fine Art Defined Fine art is a word used a lot in the artistic world. Someone may say to you that they are a fine artist. Museums may use the word fine art after their names. Someone may even tell you they graduated in fine arts. When we look at both of these definitions of fine art as defined by the Oxford dictionary, we can see that fine art encompasses a person’s visual content, imagination, and intellect. Fine art can encompass everything from painting, sculptures, poetry, writing, theater, music, and even animation. We also learn from this definition that fine art requires skill and great accomplishment. You could be born with talent, but you become a fine art or artist through the development of that talent. Illustration Defined Illustration can have several meanings. One meaning could be a picture that illustrates something in a book or a newspaper; for example, you illustrate a graph to show a survey result. It could be a drawing or a work of art. In art, we usually look at illustrations as a form of art. For example, art made for the front cover of a magazine would be considered an illustration or a movie poster would be regarded as an illustration. Most of the illustration is for print or digital matter. Here are some of the differences between fine art and illustration: Fine art is an original work of art that is made by artist, such as painting, sculpture, music and dance. A fine art requires great skill and artistic accomplishments. There are several types of illustration but artistic illustration is produced for the purpose of it being reproduced either by print or digitally. An example would be an illustration for a movie poster. Drawing that appear in some magazines as children’s magazines or newspapers would be considered illustrations. Fine Art and Illustration are not created for the same purpose. A fine artist may create just one piece to be sold by a gallery or to a collector. The Illustrator will produce a work of art whose main purpose is to be reproduced many times. The term llustration can also be used to talk about other things as charts, graphs or even figures which are used to illustrate a particular point of reference that is written or spoken. Fine Art is a broad term and under the umbrella of Fine Art are a variety of arts. Not all the arts are visual in nature and can include things as creative writing or poetry. Even though fine art and illustration may seem very similar, they are quite different types of art. It usually will encompass different forms of education and knowledge. Fine artists usually work in painting, sculpturing, or other traditional arts; today, this line has blurred as many fine artists work only digitally. Illustrators may work with just a pen, paper, and paints to create an illustration. Today many illustrators work digitally.