Is illustration art?

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.