Off-Topic /
Arts and crafts [116]
I personally consider illustrators to be artists too :)
So do I. I wasn't trying to be a smart arse or start a silly argument. It was just one of those musings that invites some kind of discussion on a topic.
There is a distinction though, in my opinion. An artist can act as an illustrator for a book for example but somebody who earns their bread and butter from illustrating books, may sadly never have an exhibition of their work and until quite recently the copyright of an illustrator's work belonged to the person who commissioned it so they actually lose the ownership of their own work.
But in artistic terms, I think there is also a distinction in that an illustrator generally has to have a solid technique while a successful artist can be quite weak technically. Illustrators also need versatility. They may be known for a distinctive style but they can usually work equally well in more than one medium and in more than one style and tackle a wide range of subjects. Finally, they need to be able to give form to somebody else's ideas. A good book illustrator will read the text and create the illustrations in such a way that the author feels 'yes, that's the way it looks in my mind, that's how it would look if I could draw this myself,' - that's quite a special skill.
For example, there was a trio of English sisters who were all illustrators in the early part of the twentieth century, mostly for children's books. One of the sisters, Joyce Brisley, did these, quite different in style, the classic pen and ink drawing and a beautifully rendered watercolour portrait:
746b546662fe21e93980.jpg
26940db154c86ba0def8.jpg