I’ve been watching the BBC series Show me
the Monet. Where artist, amateur and professional show their work to a panel of
three judges and if they are successful they get the opportunity to show their
work at a top London gallery and perhaps sell their work too.
I really enjoy watching it. It is
interesting to see how people view and value their own work in contrast to how
the judges may see it. I have also enjoyed seeing how talented people are and
how people with no formal training have the most amazing ability.
There is a question growing in my
mind. There seems to be no Illustrators
work getting through at all. There is one judge in particular who doesn’t
acknowledge illustration as art and she says it doesn’t belong in an art gallery
but in a Sunday supplement. I feel really uncomfortable with this statement and
it doesn’t ring true to me but I don’t know why. My feelings tell me that she
doesn’t understand the true nature and purpose of illustration, and that she
just sees what she knows as art. I’m sure she knows a lot about art as she has
written books on it, but I don’t think she has given much attention to
illustration. I say this because if she did she would see that art and
illustration are connected just like art and sculpture and art and music…. In
fact, to me art is everything. They are connected by process and intent. They
are connected by the fundamental need for human kind to communicate. I think
where fine art and illustration take their own paths is in purpose. Saying
that, purpose is no small difference.
I don’t know enough about fine art to start
explaining its purpose other than to me; art is about communication and
interpretation. To me, art is about the way image or music or movement engages
me and creates an experience of translation.
Again, I don’t know enough about
illustration to explain its far reaching influences, and to what extent those
influences are used, but to me illustration is about communication and
interpretation and how the images are used to help us understand in a visual
way.
I think that illustration has an applied
function where as fine art is there for us to look at. I’m not undermining fine
art by saying its purpose is purely aesthetic; I really do feel enriched by my
interactions with it. But I am saying
that illustrations purpose is to communicate in a literal sense, its there to
re-enforce or ratify something else, like the written word.
Don’t get me wrong; there are a lot of naff
illustrations that are used as page fillers, just like there are a lot of naff
paintings and photos that are wall fillers.
Illustration is here to help us understand
and remember what we have read or heard. To me, illustration is here to reveal,
represent and to ratify.
I see illustration in sculpture; Miro is a
good example of that. I see illustration in my head when I hear music; I see illustration
in fine art. I was looking at a book I have on Rembrandt and I was looking at
his paintings and I saw illustration. He was illustrating passages from the
bible. If his paintings were in the Bible next to the story, they would be
super high quality illustrations. I suppose it’s just a matter of placement.
Wherever there is communication,
expression, interpretation, there is art. Whether it’s in a magazine or on a
gallery wall, its born from the same need and that is the need to understand.
