Nothing can be said to be art categorically. That means that illustration may or may not be taken as art. But we still need to distinguish the common idea of illustration. Generally, what we have in mind with the term is descriptive function. An illustration shows something in another form but aims to clarify its facts. An illustration of a fence would portray the facts of that fence. Conversely, a commonly held idea of art is the opposite of illustration. An artwork purports to show something in another form (since all images evoke something absent) but symbolizes facts, thus magnifying their ambiguity (levels and types of meaning or interpretation).
Some images are illustrations and also function as high art. Many manuscript illuminations of the medieval era would be examples. But they were intended to be both literal, factual, and ambigiously symbolic. Lots of advertising images are illustrations because they are meant to convey specific, factual features and benefits of particular objects. Some advertising art is aimed at symbolic function, too, as if to suggest that product features enhance broader social and aspirational, moral and ethical values when in fact no object can do that except through symbolism (allusion and metaphor). In popular usage, illustration has different aims than art because illustration is centered on an object, or factual imitation, and art is centered on feelings and ideas. Rockwell was an illustrator but his work frequently engaged in symbolic issues (social codes and moral assumptions) and thus we are sometimes urged to think of it in commonly held art terms. He was at the edge, if there is one, separating the aims of illustration from the aims of art. However, again, there are no separations anymore distinguishing art from anything else so it really is a non-issue to worry about "mere" illustration vs art. Nowadays, there's only great art and mere art. Or, only great notions of art in collective opinion and mere notions of art in collective opinion (which are also the same as individual opinion). Ontic-phontic, it makes no difference whether a notion is classified as in the mind or in the world. They are the same since we can't avoid thinking as if all notions were ontic. WC --- On Thu, 9/11/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: "What IS xxx?" "IS xxx a yyy?" > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008, 12:42 PM > In a message dated 9/11/08 12:24:06 PM, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > Unless you can share some more quotes from the > interview, Cheerskep, we > > must > > conclude that you are only assuming that " Sendak > deludedly believes there > > "exist" two distinct "real", ontic > categories of visual creators -- artists > > and illustrators -- and he himself classifies > illustrators as "mere"." > > > > Which is the kind of assumption you often make as you > interrupt a > > conversation > > to begin flogging the dead horse you've dragged in > for that very purpose. > > > When you say. . . > > "Unless you can share some more quotes from the > interview, Cheerskep, we must > conclude that you are only assuming that " Sendak > deludedly believes there > "exist" two distinct "real", ontic > categories of visual creators -- artists and > illustrators -- and he himself classifies illustrators as > "mere"." > > . . .which aspect, Chris, are you merely pretending to > doubt I had evidence > for and thus am "assuming"? > > That he refers to himself as a "mere > illustrator"? He was quoted in the Times > as saying that, with quotation marks around the utterance, > and I put quotes > around them in my posting. > > That he believes there are two separate classes of visual > creators -- > "artists" and "illustrators"? When the > Times reporter put the question to him, "Which > are you?" he didn't reject the dichotomy, he chose > one, implying he indeed > believes there are two distinct, existent classes. > > That it's a deluded belief? But that's what this > thread has been all about, > Chris. I think I've been making my argument at my usual > tedious length. I don't > whether to be dismayed or comforted that you haven't > noticed at all. > > > > > > > > > > ************** > Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion > blog, > plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at > StyleList.com. > > (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
