What is Illustration?

We all seem to know what an illustration is - that is, until we try to define what an illustration is!

Some people use the terms ‘drawing’ and ‘illustration’ as synonyms. Some think that illustrations can only be hand-made. Some argue that historical paintings and early portraits are illustrations. So, what is an Illustration?

Let’s try to figure it out with the help of some examples.

Is this an illustration?

And what about this?

Dante Gabriel Rosetti, "Elizabeth Siddal in a Chair".

You’d probably say that the drawing is an illustration, while the doodle isn’t. But for those who say that ‘illustration’ and ‘drawing’ are the same, a doodle would be as much an illustration as the drawing.

But, would a doodle be good enough to be on the cover of a book, or in the pages of a magazine? It may be, but only if it helps to reflect the mood or subject of the accompanying text (for instance, an article about a daycare or a pre-school art exhibition).

The first condition of an illustration is that it should be accompanied by text and associated directly with it, to help clarify its contents or provide further details about it.

Thus, neither the doodle nor the drawing are illustrations.

Medieval text illuminations were some of the earliest examples of illustrations. In fact, the term 'Illumination' (which later gave way to 'Illustration') literally means 'to clarify'. They accompanied texts and were meant to enrich it and provide a visual recess to the reader.

Good examples of illustrations as images that clarify text are scientific and anatomical illustrations.

Also, technical illustrations, which help guide the customer through steps of a process.

And, of course, greeting cards!

However, there are two exceptions to this condition, where the illustration supersedes the text in favour of maximum visual detail: Architectural Illustration and Fashion Illustration.

Illustration of a prospective Chalet, Unknown architect, 1920's

Fashion Illustration, Andre Studios, 1940's

In the first one, the main point is to present a viewer’s vision of the finished structure in order to make it accessible to the general public (therefore the need to suppress technical parlance).

In the second case, the illustration needs to reflect the mood of the finished creation and portray details such as size, color and texture in order to capture the attention of potential customers without (a lot of) words.

And what about this?

Is this an illustration?

If you see this book cover you could argue that, certainly, it is an illustration since it’s accompanied by text and the image helps to clarify the subject and provides additional information about it.

True.

However, the picture itself was not meant to be used in this way. The original painting was created hundreds of years ago, when the artist had no idea about paperbacks and had no intention to have his work reproduced in this way.

Edmund Blair Leighton, "The Accolade", 1901

This takes us to the second condition of an illustration: the image should be created specifically for the intended purpose of the publication where it will appear.

Texts may inspire artwork, but that doesn’t mean that the artwork is an illustration, unless it is specifically created with this intention. 

A good example of this are Howard Pyle’s and Norman Rockwell’s works: even though they are massive canvases, and are fine art paintings in their own right, they still are illustrations, because, regardless of the techniques used in their creation, they were created specifically for the books and magazines where they were published.

And what about these?

Those are definitely illustrations, right? But wait - they don't accompany any text and do not provide any information about the content. So, can they still be considered true illustrations?

Yes, because in this particular case, as it happens with Fashion Illustration, the image is used to encapsulate and convey a mood, brand concept or brand promise. 

With this single image, the consumer associates the product with health, satisfaction, happiness, etc. Their old-fashioned style also provide a traditionalistic character to the products, embedding them with the idea of something wholesome, tried and tested, that withstands the test of time.

Commercial illustrations were often used as adornments in ads and didn’t always provide information about the product but reflected its main promise (youth, beauty, happiness, enjoyment, etc.). 

In addition to this function, the ‘Quaker’ and ‘Little Debbie’ illustrations were also created to act as the brand’s main image logo.

However, not all logos are illustrations. 

Examples such as "Little Debbie", "Quaker", "SunMaid" and "Green Giant" are so rich in pictorial detail and messages that also decorate packages of the product and can be used all by themselves in ads, posters, leaflets, catalogues and other branding and promotional material. Not many logos can say that!

And what about these ones?

Small drawings (called ‘thumbnails’ or ‘spot illustrations’) were used in publications to fill an empty space after a long text, separate different articles or adorn small ads. 

Although used along text and made for specific publications, they did not provide any additional information but were used as minor adornments to make the publication more eye pleasing. Thus, these were not exactly ‘illustrations’, but ‘vignettes’ or ‘ornaments’.

And what about this?

Can this be considered an illustration?

It’s not exactly a drawing. It’s not a painting. It’s a graphic construction, and it doesn’t even provide information about the subject. And yet, it is an illustration.

How can this be?

It is a visual image created specifically to accompany the text contained on this book, and while in itself it may not provide much information about the subject of the book itself, as part of the collection, it does provide visual articulation to the concept behind it ("Modernism").

Fontana Modern Masters Collection

And what about this?

'Pickles' by Brian Crane

This is certainly an illustration, isn’t it? The image is accompanied by text and providing a lot of additional information about it. So much so, in fact, that it wouldn’t work all by itself. So, it should be an illustration, right?

In theory, it should be, but let’s dig a little deeper.

Cartoons and comics combine text and image in a 50-50 measure. One is intrinsically dependent on the other: the text without the image would lack meaning, and the image without the text would lose its pun. But because the text is part of the image - used inside the image and being an integral part of the final picture- this is not merely an illustration, but an entirely different kind of art : Sequential Art.

'Kingdom Come' by Alex Ross and Mark Waid

Which is another reason why not all drawings are illustrations.

And now, what about this one?

                                                                            Photo: Ismo Pekkarinen

Is this an illustration?

Those who pair ‘illustration’ with ‘drawing’ or with ‘hand-made image’ will say it’s not. But in this case, I guess you know by now that the answer is ‘yes’!

Although it’s not an image created with pen, brushes or a mouse, this is an image created specifically to accompany a text, providing detailed information about the subject and produced for the publication where it’s meant to appear.

So, yes - photography can also be considered an illustration, although not all photography is an illustration.

Still confused?

According to the Webster Dictionary, an illustration is: "a pictorial representation accompanying a printed description." With some exceptions, we may add.

As you can see, things aren’t so straight up and down when it comes to define what an illustration is or is not. 

Not all drawings are illustrations and not all illustrations are hand-made, paintings can be used as illustrations without being illustrations themselves, illustrations can be paintings, and while not all photos are illustrations, they can also be considered as such.