Study Task 2 - Triangulation

Triangulation - The ability to compare and contrast at least 3 different pieces of information, analysing they contents and meaning, as well as their context, the validity of the sources in comparison to each other based on their socio-cultural contexts, their authors, and their relevance to the overarching theme.

Although these may not be the specific texts I use in my essay, it was good to make a start on deciphering and reading deeper into pieces of writing relevant to my quote. I found it slightly hard to keep it related to my quote and especially the overarching theme, as not many articles I have currently found seem to discuss politics in relation to illustration directly. 

Also the original quote is becoming quite difficult to define and make full sense of. I am debating whether he is not actually opposing the definition of illustration per se, but is instead calling out illustration focussed on aesthetics and style for not having the substance and purpose that it could or should have, in his opinion. He may not being stating that it isn't illustration, he may just be looking down on it for not having a back bone like he believes it should. 

I perhaps need to carry on digging deeper into the quote and Zeegen's opinions and motives, as well as trying to find more directly relevant texts, which discuss the use of politics within illustration and also the politics within illustration, and the conflict of definitions. I believe I have made a good start so far though. 

Study Task 1 - Research Sources

 Although I didn't look into each piece of research in too much detail during this task, I feel like I have some good sources to refer back to at a later date when needed. Some of the research processes and tools were a lot easier than others, taking a fraction of the time and ending up with better results. The library for example is one of the best resources, providing plenty of good quality material in one place. The illustration and design sections in particular had a wealth of books all covering or touching on the purposes of illustration and how it can be defined. The internet was another good starting point, if used correctly and carefully. It is easy to get lost down a rabbit hole of links and articles that in the end aren't all that useful or relevant, however the volume of material provided online cannot be matched anywhere else. Although the reliability of the sources online can be questionable, it is a good place to go for a variety of different opinions and thoughts surrounding illustration, and not just those that are decidedly important by a publisher. Google Books had some okay sources on, although a lot of them you only get to see a preview of a select few pages of each publication. It's good in that it has a variety of bookstore library may not have, the amount on it is broad, however it is not the easiest to search on and is basically a worst version of having a physical book in front of you. By far the worse in my opinion from what I experienced in this task were JStor and Google Scholar. I don't know if I was just searching wrong or not including enough key words, but the search engine on both of them was quite poor meaning every search brought up useless and irrelevant results. I think they just take the words you search and find any article with that word featured, causing a lot of scientific and economic articles following an 'illustration' search. So much so that I couldn't find 3 quality sources from either in an appropriate amount of time. I can imagine it would be good for finding maybe older or more obscure sources, as the results seemed to be those which may not show up on a standard google search, but for general research sources it wasn't that impressive.

Lecture 2 - 20,000 Year Non-linear History of the Image

This lecture ran through a sporadic history of the power of the image and it's uses and employment in different years. It was interesting to be made aware of the connections between image making by different people, from different places and at different points in history, and to listen to Richard's thoughts on the authority and substance behind certain works of art.

Going all the way back to cave paintings, the creation of image appears to be a pure human act, a natural and almost spontaneous expression of visual creation. I feel like they are equally documentations of daily life and the world around the creators, as they are mystical communications of magic or the work of a higher plane of consciousness. There is something inherently deeper about image making that goes beyond mere passive documentation, something uniquely human and conscious as to why somebody feels the need to create a mark on a wall. And I don't believe that the same compulsion is anywhere near lost today. As a species we still make images, even more so than 20,000 years ago, and even if the motives and reasons have developed and altered since, that pure necessity for creation still exists. However, an interesting question was posed in the lecture, debating whether this connection was genuine and true, or whether a higher authority had dictated this, making a false link between the earliest uses of images to the present day. Institutions such as art galleries and universities perhaps romanticise this notion for their own benefit, or because they believe it true even if it is not.

Richard Long's 'Red Earth Circle' creates this link between aborigine and modern contemporary art, whether that link fictitious or otherwise. The motives behind this are ambiguous; on one hand, which is probably the most likely, Long is paying tribute to the art practices that have come before him, referencing the traditional sand paintings on the floor with his mud circle on the wall. This creates a dialogue between the two cultures and times in history, uniting the two acts of creation and displaying that concept of human expression still being relevant today as it was thousands of years ago. Another interpretation however is one a little less considerate, that is that this exhibition is commoditising aborigine art and even suggesting that the third world is behind the first world. By displaying the two together, it almost teases the aborigines with a place that they could reach if they developed more, a place accessible and free to the western world. It could show superiority, especially with the placement of the mud circle rising above and looking down on the sand painting of the third world. Although which meaning is true is, in a way, down to the viewer to decide, no matter what the artists and institution claims. 

Authority and hierarchy in the art world is quite a predominant and interesting discussion. Linking back to whether the connections between art from history and art from today are legitimate or institutionally made up, there is a similar argument as to what art is deemed important. It is commonly supposed that the galleries and higher powers have the final say in what work is praised and considered  a higher status that others, and thus changing peoples perceptions and responses to certain work. As questioned in the lecture, take the Mona Lisa for example, arguably the world's most famous painting; is the painting famous for it's technical superiority? or just because someone high up said so, provoking people to make pilgrimages to worship the portrait? A sheep like mentality ensues, to the point where tourists are queuing, elbowing each other aside to get digital proof that they have seen the real thing. Artists since have highlighted this absurdity, such as Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q version, where he has drawn facial hair on a cheap postcard of the Da Vinci portrait.

A similar thing happened with the likes of street artist Banksy, that is the art world deciding something is important and the general public bowing down to this dictated status. He is one of the only artists ever to be praised so highly for illegal graffiti, when other artists often more talented and prolific are put behind bars for the exact same act. So much so that people rip down walls he has painted to sell at auction, where people pay thousands to own, and councils put up plastic panes over his work to preserve it in the streets. This is something that has constantly baffled me and rattled my cage for a long time, the unapologetic hypocrisy of the authorities, in the art world but mostly in the government and those in power of the law. Yes, his work is thought provoking and controversial but he is not the only one making work in that vain, but then maybe it is an argument of accessibility; the general public can more or less understand and read his work. Not that it is watered down per say, but it makes sense to people and even if not the same sheep mentality takes strong hold; the institutions have the power to change people's behaviour.

As the title of Banksy's film suggests, 'Exit Through the Gift Shop', art is made into a commodity by those in power. Through entry fees and merchandise, they use the creations of others to make money, selling postcards, plates, t shirts and everything in between, shepherding you past these commodities before you can exit the gallery or museum. However this could also give the consumer of these items power, degrading the imposed status of the work and making it accessible and usable, even if just as a decorative item. Even if they are not bought, by making this worshipped image into a novelty, almost throw away object, it inherently does this degradation, reducing the value and superior facade of the work. Art as a commodity loses it's power and meaning. 

COP - Investigating Quotes Study Session

'Where is the content? Where is the comment? It's all about the materials, rather than the message. It's all about the quantity rather than the quality. It's all about design doing rather than design thinking. It's all style over content, function following form. Illustration has withdrawn from the big debates of our society to focus on the chit-chat and tittle-tattle of inner-sanctum nothingness' - Lawrence Zeegan.

This quote by Zeegan was written in the Creative Review and is a call to arms to the 'graphics arts' industry. He directs calls out the illustration and graphic design of today, criticising it's motives and substance, holding it accountable for not only it's suggested lack of purpose but also it's supposedly limited reach. He states that the creatives behind the work are more focussed on aesthetics rather than communicating a message, saying that the industry is more concerned with making pretty pictures for itself, than reaching a wider audience and making bold statements about the 'big debates of our society'. It is clear that to him, illustration and graphic design have a duty to have substance and meaning and purpose, to portray a message in a thoughtful and conscious way, but he feels that in this day they do not live up to this. And to some extent, I agree. I believe that the word illustration is commonly used very loosely and is thrown around more than it perhaps should be. There is a lot of work out there that holds the title illustration, yet fails to uphold the content of what that means. But this may be more due to the challenges of defining illustration, than the industry straying from it's core purpose. To me and many others, illustration is comprised of art work created primarily through the process and exercise of drawing, that exists with a purpose to convey a message, make clear an opinion or statement, or draw attention to something whether that physical, ideological or otherwise. It is a thoughtful practice that needs a function behind it, and the portrayal of this function through the work is of importance, even if it is communicated in a very subtle way. I feel that Zeegan would agree for the most part on my views. With that said, even if there is a lot of diluted, meaningless work being sold as illustration, it is unfair, ignorant and just not true to say that it is a representation of the industry as a whole. There are still many illustrators producing quality work which ticks all the boxes of what illustration should be, which conveys a message and has substance and a purpose beyond the idea itself, in order to change peoples opinions in some cases, or make the audience think. Because that is perhaps another core value that illustration must contain, that is the ability to question it's audience, to challenge them in some way or merely just make them consider something that would not have previously considered.

Illustrate 

verb

1. to clarify or explain by use of examples, analogy, etc

To illustrate something is to make clear, to communicate and inform, to translate and interpret in order to enlighten, in this case in a visual way through the creation of images.

Pat Perry is one such artist who's work encapsulates what illustration should be. His work is often very figurative, with a narrative element to the majority. He commonly works out of sketchbooks, documenting his highly nomadic lifestyle, the places he goes, people he meets and the experiences he has. Although this may not usually be described as traditional illustration, I would argue that documentation of daily life and experiences can still be classed as such; it's purpose is to be a record, and within this it can ask questions and highlight and portray a message as well as any piece of certified illustration can, all of which Pat Perry's work does.

Take this poster for example. Simply in it's idea and subtle in it's communication, it illustrates to an audience an opposition to a pipeline. It exists to make people aware of an environmental problem and to fight against a possible ecological disaster, in a way that Zeegan perhaps failed to recognise in his article. I believe that the aesthetics of illustration, although they mean nothing without a purpose or substance, are still of importance in the work and to make the given message more effectively read. As shown true of Pat's poster, the quality of the artwork is a crucial tool in grabbing people's attentions, luring them in through an incredible skilled and beautiful drawing, before spinning their heads as to the meaning and function behind it. The ambiguous three word title of 'no straits pipeline' sparks instant curiosity in a viewer, demanding them to research and learn what exactly it is all about. By remaining subtle and limited in information about the topic he is drawing attention to, he has no doubt spread the message wider than if the poster highlighted every detail about the campaign, immediately allowing no curiosity or further reading from an audience and thus getting tossed aside with every other campaign poster. Instead the theme is hinted at, through the imagery used and basic title, but not spoon fed. It is interesting then to think what Zeegan would make of this piece of work. I feel like to the ignorant, it would be easy to cast it aside as another empty drawing claiming to be illustration, an image with no back-bone but a mere aesthetic purpose, to look nice and say nothing. But this couldn't be further from Pat's work, which often asks questions and is made through a strong process of thinking, consciousness, meaning and purpose.

As much as I agree and disagree with Zeegan's article in equal measures, it has spurred me on and forced me to think about my practice as an 'illustrator' and whether my work does justice to the soul of what illustration is. Reading it has given me motivation to think more about the substance of my work, to work more consciously in order to communicate meaning, ask more questions and comment on issue and debates that are important to me or to an audience. I feel it a duty to try and work with this in mind and push my work in a direction that fulfils this ideal more effectively, to make illustration an industry with purpose and reason.

Lecture 1 - Visual Literacy

Visual literacy is something everyone uses, especially creative people, but often without even realising it or being conscious of what it is and how it works. As shown in the lecture, examples of visual literacy are abundant in our everyday lives, from road signs to business logos, advertisements to medicine instructional leaflets. The overarching concept behind visual literacy is that pictures can be read, often universally. We as a society are able to interpret meaning and take in information from images as if they were written word. With being surrounded by images constantly, not only through physical means but also virtually online through social media and even icons on our computers and phones, we are the most visually literate generation yet. We are able to use images, type and symbols as a means of communication and as designers it is our job to create work containing images that effectively communicate a message to an audience in this way. To do this, we have to be aware that the way these images are read is affected by several things, such as audience, context, media and distribution. As a result, we have to understand these factors and construct our work accordingly in order to have the most effective impact. For example, based on the idea that language is an agreement among a group of people that something such an image will represent another thing, if a desired audience is not aware of this relationship between the one image and what it stands for, that is to say that they do not know the language, then they are not going to interpret the work effectively. In this case, the designer would have to alter the visual syntax of their work, the elements used to create the image that affects it's reading, into a more universally understood structure and organisation.
Visual semiotics is essentially the study of signs and is also an important concept to understand and use to a design advantage when trying to present a message through the use of image. It includes a number of visual elements; sign, symbol, signifier, metaphor, metonym and synecdoche. Sign, symbol and signifier are fairly basic to grasp; in the example of a logo, symbol is what the image symbolises literally, so the actual logo image. Sign is what the image is a sign for, that is the company identity and products or service. And so finally signifier is what the image signifies, so the actually brand image of the company and it's values.
Synecdoche, metonym and metaphor are slightly more complicated, but equally, if not more, useful as tools to construct effective communication through images. Synecdoche describes when a part represents the whole, or vice versa. The two are inherently connected and are simply substituted with each other, however this only works when what is represented is universally recognised. The example from the lecture shows how the Statue of Liberty is used to represent New York. The statue is part of New York and is universally recognised and is familiar to most, enabling an image of it to embody the city as a whole. In contrast, a visual metonym applies when a symbolic image makes reference to something more literal, the two not necessarily being intrinsically linked but bearing a close relationship. The connection is made by the viewer by association, requiring the two parts to be somewhat familiar to the audience. The example again being New York, the yellow cabs acting as a reference to the city; even though there are yellow taxis all over the world, by association the audience relates that recognisable image to that of New York City. Finally, visual metaphors are unique again, the two images requiring no close relationship. Instead the meaning of one image is transferred to another, conveying an impression of a relatively unfamiliar subject and associating it with a familiar subject. Again the New York example being the use of the title The Big Apple. New York City has no real relationship to apples, however its meaning has been transferred onto the fruit, which has now become a universally recognised metaphor for the city.

This lecture was a bit of a light-bulb moment for me, bringing my attention to how visually literate we actually are, something I was never really aware or considerate of before. I am now trying to find ways to incorporate these tools and techniques into my work in order to develop deeper meanings and ideas to be read by an audience, finding new ways in which to convey ideas and concepts in a more thoughtful way.

Context of Practice - Module Briefing

I found the exercise we did at the end of the context of practice briefing equally inspiring and difficult. It is a technique that I might adopt in my work in the future when I am stuck for ideas or starting points for what to create. The process of pairing two words together, often of totally varying contexts, makes for some unique and interesting responses, demanding you to think in a different way to depict something you would not have previously thought up.

My two lists were on the cop categories of history and society. I feel like the words on both were quite challenging to respond to, especially when paired together with the same number word on the other list. In the end I chose number 9 to make Group Depression. I feel this evoked the strongest visual ideas as well as allowing a lot of room to play with a concept, rather than just a description of something to draw. 

In the time I only came up with these two outcomes, taking the idea of group depression quite literally, my favourite being the one on the left hand side. Visually I think it is more appealing, although I really could have played around more with the facial expressions and perhaps use of body language too, had I included their bodies. I just like how the heads are vignettes against the dark background cloud, however the composition would have been more effective had they been closer to each other, or even overlapping to create a dense form of heads. I think texture or more detail in the cloud could have worked but I do like the stark contrast of the white head against the dark black. To follow on from this I will try and redo this idea to make the outcome more effective, adding more detail in the faces and background as well as properly considering their composition and layout.