Bryony and Hannah's Discussion

Our last class discussion was lead by Bryony and Hannah, who talked to us about designing for free.
The issue is where do you draw the line when people ask for favours? 
Friends and family regularly request drawings and things that I make, and at the moment I'm happy to create things for people for free in my spare time, but at some point I will hope to be able to make money from the work that I do, and this time may be better spent creating things that people will want to pay for. For example, at the moment I am continuing with (what I suppose is an on-going 'personal project') my handmade animals, which I make for friends. I love taking the time to do this and it doesn't seem like a chore to be prolific in this way, but I would also love to be able to sell these types of creations, if there is a market for it! I have been curious to look into how some fellow college students are getting their work out on the internet more so than me, like Millie Connors in 3rd year illustration has her some of her hand-made products on sale on her etsy (made by millie). I would definitely need to look into being able to create things more quickly, which is something else that needs to be considered for free design work; it seems best to be able to design for lots of different projects at a fast pace, rather than labouring away on one piece for weeks on end. This also links to finding your own 'illustration language' and having the confidence to make it a speedier process, which I feel I'm getting close to with each brief we get.

People don’t always

appreciate the skill that goes

into design work. Often

companies think just giving

credit is enough as it will get

work seen.

Is this good enough?

Is it worth turning down an

offer that could get you

recognized even if the

company is taking advantage

of you?

 Of course, when starting out as a designer we can't expect to be in high demand. If anything, most of us will be fighting our hardest to even find jobs. Therefore, entering competitions and gaining as much exposure as possible through designing for free can be the only way forward. The risk that nothing will be gained in return is sadly a necessary one- at least it continues to build up a body of work and allows you to keep improving through different projects.
As for the view that companies take advantage of designers through their competitions, I feel that it is unfair, especially when many of them should easily be able to afford to pay a winning designer for their work. Unless the particular design becomes famous enough for the designer's name to be made prominent, the recognition may only be brief and perhaps not lead to any paid work opportunities. Bryony and Hannah pointed this out with president Obama's election poster competition as an example of the designer being made anonymous.

This extremely famous image is by designer Shepard Fairey. This is the most widely distributed version, featuring the word 'hope'. Other variations used the words 'change' and 'progress'. The original was aquired by Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery in Washington DC.

The overwhelming popularity of the design has lead to many imitations and parodies of the image, using the faces of different people and words, but in-keeping with Fairey's distinctive graphic style. If I were him I might find it incredibly frustrating not having any rights over the image, yet at the same time, grateful for the huge popularity the design has internationally. The only other danger is becoming a one trick pony-how can a designer progress from a design so popular when it has become the thing that defines them?

Street Art

Our last class discussion was on Street Art (presented by Rachael Felstead).

Here are some of the questions that came up, and my own responses:

Is Graffiti considered a form of art to you? Or do you consider it to be a crime?

It depends very much on the particular style and purpose of the piece of graffiti. When it is an ugly scribble of spray paint on a piece of property that is effectively ruined by the graffiti then I would consider it a crime (vandalism), but I think that well-done graffiti can look amazing, whether it is done legally or not. But cities that embrace graffiti as an art form and display lots of it on walls and buildings do look impressive. For example, Barcelona is a beautiful city with traditional and modern architecture alongside lots of graffiti.

Do you think that punishments such as jailing should be used on people who illustrate on private buildings? When you think about people who may not have been prisoned for more serious crimes.

It depends again on the seriousness of the individual piece of graffiti how seriously someone should be punished in my opinion, but I don't think jail is necessary usually. Just a fine.

Do you think that street art can bring communities together such as Edgar Mullers piece (the lava on the road which is falling apart)? And/or do you think it can tear communities apart in terms of separating the younger generations (I assume that the majority of street artists are fairly young, sorry if I am wrong!) from the older generations because they could be viewed as 'vandals'?

When a piece of work has clearly been created as something for people to appreciate and interact with (as the people are demonstrating in Muller's piece, above) it can be very effective for bringing communities together. This kind of art work is positive rather than negative. Graffiti that vandalises buildings obviously won't capture the imagination of its viewers, and probably does encourage friction between generations, if they consider 'young people' to be behind the work they disapprove of.

What do you think of Banksy since he has gone against his word and purpose of creating graffiti? Have your opinions changed? (If you don't remember what I said about him earlier, i basically said that he used to make street art for the meaning not for the money. Though thats not very detailed 

you'd probably be better looking that information up else where!)

Banksy probably had no idea how famous his work would become when he first started out, but its popularity has put him in a position of very high demand. I think sticking fiercely to the 'musn't sell out' attitude would be foolish if he can make money from what he loves doing, providing the art work he is commissioned to do doesn't go against his personal beliefs.

The State Of Illustration

In this radio debate three professionals discuss modern illustration and its role in society with presenter Adrian Shaughnessy.
To begin with, Shaughnessy introduces illustration as an important practice that saturates the modern market- in 'books, magazines, billboards, TV channels, the internet...' etc. This should, perhaps, be an obvious point. Yet I can understand the need to outline its quite dominant presence in modern culture as people still seem to have a narrow range of uses for it in mind when you mention the word to them. Often, when I tell people I do illustration, they will immediately think of images in books or tattoos, where it is expected that stereotypically skillful drawings/paintings are revered.
He also mentions its vulnerable position in the industry- 'assailed on all sides' by technology, suggesting it is struggling to find its place in the digital revolution. I think this is debatable depending on the style the illustrator chooses to adopt. Flicking through illustrations on websites/in art books and it is easy to assume that many people choose to embrace a bland, strongly graphics influenced approach, relying heavily on digital methods (photoshop/illustrator etc) to create the imagery. Ironically, this style seems to have become so common and undistinguishable that clients are increasingly searching for illustrators who choose to reject the strong influence of digital practises, reverting back to more traditional 'hand-made' methods of creating their work.
Is illustration too 'arty'?
After being asked to define modern illustration, the interviewees came up with a range of responses, largely failing to be concise (it is so hard to be definitive about!)- it is a hybrid of many forms (different mediums), contains core meanings/substance, it's a visual language, it's storytelling, it's going through a transition period, it's confusing for people to know what to do with it, it's a discipline/way of thinking rather than just the manner of working.
Illustration='Illuminate' a text visually. But does it have to originate from a text? Beyond that, illustration is a conceptual practise.
Illustrators would like to own the origin of the thought, but cannot work commercially without accepting the outside ideas that the work is a response to. So much contradiction.
Commercially, clients 'capitalise on the superficial qualities of the work.' Although, the strongest work is often the work that has a deeper connection between the content and its appearance. Is illustration's 'Achilles heel' that it is based on visual style? Can it not impart meaning? Is it always about the visual? 
The answer?
No, because in good illustration, the image is driven by the content- 'The content describes the form that it takes.' Illustrators 'augment abstract ideas', solving problems for their clients.

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight