Netting jellyfish: A point of view on illustration research from the United States and Canada

Abstract

As researchers in illustration continue to develop what some call 'illustration theory', the need for a meta-perspective grows. What is illustration research? Who is doing it? Why are we doing it, and how? What opportunities, needs and pitfalls exist? Focussing on activity in The United States and Canada, this article offers a conceptual model of 'illustration research' in which three domains of current activity are surveyed: that of practitioners, that of connoisseurs and that of scholars. Strengths and weaknesses of each area are discussed, and suggestions regarding purpose and needs are made. A reference list representing work from the three domains follows. 'Illustration research' as a discipline is completely new in the United States and Canada, although the compiling of knowledge about illustration in its modern form has been going on since Victorian times. Keywords illustration research theory United States Canada conceptualization field history scholarship Jaleen Grove 288As an illustration historian, I see illustration research's promise is to focus and galvanize disparate activities by illustrators, collectors, historians, scholars and other stakeholders in a manner that will define and give purpose to the profession of illustration in a way not seen since the Golden Age, when William Morris redefined design and Howard Pyle unified and dignified illustration. But times have changed: Pyle and Morris never had to contend with marketers and scientists waving fMRI data, for instance. 'Unity' and 'dignity' will not manifest as they did back then, any more than we shall see heroic figures like Pyle or Morris able to change the entire field singlehandedly. Plurality will prevail, and illustration research, as an emerging discipline, can allow multiple points of view to mingle, to sort out just what is happening in the manufacture and consumption of images past and present.Mind you, input from those who know nothing of the creative practice of illustration but who write on it anyways will disrupt our artistic self-conceptions and egos, as they did in the past. It will be one of our chief challenges as creative practitioners to welcome conversations between disciplines, rather than to wall ourselves into our studios, sullenly commiserating with each other about how ridiculous the art world has become. That is approximately what happened around 1950, when TV and better reproductive techniques for photography came along, coupled with a swing in fashion towards abstract art and critical media theory. When illustrators left the conversations with gallery-art people about what constituted 'art', and when they failed to defend themselves against academics' attacks that equated commercial art solely with mass manipulation and corporate exploitation, illustrators effectively silenced themselves and laid the profession open to ravage. Morris and Pyle would have been so disappointed in their heirs, but it is not all illustrators' fault: academics and fine artists had retracted the ivory tower drawbridge and were not liste...