Where is the content? Where is the comment?
In an article for Creative
Review back in February of this year, Lawrence Zeegen: Writer, Illustrator and
Dean of Design at University of the Arts London, poses a rather
controversial 'question' as to whether
or not the modern Illustrator conveys any message or meaning within their work.
To illustrate his quite
frankly one-sided argument, Zeegen speaks of the juxtaposition of a billboard
by Shrigley (depicting a raised fist with the words "fight the
nothingness" in his own signature scrawl) and the annual contemporary art
fair "Pick Me Up" where, in Zeegen's opinion, up-and-coming
illustrators are doing just the opposite: creating meaningless illustrative
"eye candy" for the enjoyment of others within the illustration
community.
Though I do see some truth in
Zeegen's argument; does there need to be an explicit meaning within every piece
of illustration work you see? Can it not be enjoyed without it?
Personally I find that,
although subtext can indeed make an image more interesting (particularly in
advertising and communication design; coincidentally an area in which Zeegen
specialises), ambiguity or perhaps even a vague hint towards an unclear or
non-existent meaning are far more intriguing. Illustration (and art in general)
is, in my opinion, far more appealing when there isn't something to 'get' but
instead an opportunity for the viewer to make of it what they will through
their own personal interpretation.
All in all, it made for an
interesting insight into the mind of an advertising and communication designer.
However, given that the article consisted almost entirely of brash,
intentionally biased opinion, the only thing I really learned of was the
arrogance of the writer.
No comments:
Post a Comment