I like Tomi Ungerer’s drawing about the nature of men and women:
The lines may appear light and slapdash, but the ideas have genuine weight. It’s an excellent example of conceptual or “idea” art, which transformed the field of illustration in the latter part of the 20th century. This type of art abandoned the traditional, literal approach to picture making in favor of visualizing ideas using metaphors, symbols, visual puns and word play.
Perhaps the greatest conceptual illustrator of all, Saul Steinberg, said: “drawing is a way of reasoning on paper.”
 |
|
Steinberg explains, “The vulnerable part of the man in danger is the cry for help, which is the part
by which the crocodile holds him and which has the function of an appetizer.
What do I want to say? That he who cries in terror becomes the victim of his statement.”
|
Here, Melinda Beck creates a devastating image with the simple line of a twisted coat hanger:
Conceptual illustration began to gain momentum in the 1960s, led by artists such as Steinberg and the gang from Push Pin Studios.
 |
| illustration of “Impotence” by Push Pin’s Seymour Chwast |
Some argue that conceptual art was a life raft for artists in a diminished market for illustration beleaguered by photography, digital art and video. There was no longer a demand for beautifully crafted oil paintings by master painters. Another explanation is that today’s dumbed down audience simply lacks the taste or patience to appreciate the kind of art that made the golden age of illustration great.
But even if conceptual art was pushed by those negative forces, it was also pulled by the brilliance of artists such as Steinberg and Milton Glaser. Fans such as Steven Heller argue that “idea illustrations made the art more relevant and thought-provoking.”
I like a great deal of conceptual illustration but I have two problems with conceptual illustration as it reigns today.
The first is that the great conceptual artists tended to simplify images in order to highlight an idea– complex, substantial, playful, clever– without undue distractions of style, skill and technique. This was an intentional prioritization of elements. But today mediocre concepts are used on a mass scale as a justification for low skill in drawing and painting. For example, the talentless flimflam man and self-professed conceptual artist Richard Prince “redefines the concepts of authorship, ownership and aura.” Not everyone can be an intellectual like Steinberg, but hollow and pedestrian ideas fall short of the original justification of idea art.
My second (and greater) gripe with much of today’s conceptual illustration is that as the idea became increasingly important, the visual form began to wither unnecessarily. We’ve lost a lot by devaluing traditional elements such as design, color or a sensitive line. My bias is that artists who elect to work in a visual medium should respect the challenges of form-creating work. Otherwise, why not work with ideas as a writer?
Rather than show a selection of illustrations that embody my two gripes, I thought it would be nicer to end on an upbeat note with a sampling of conceptual artists today who still know how to deal with both form and content.
 |
| John Cuneo– one of the smartest and funniest illustrators today– established himself as a talented draftsman before evolving into in a looser and more expressive style. |
 |
| A nicely designed Istvan Banyai |
 |
| You have to look twice to get Antje Herzog’s drawing |