Illustration by Josh Hagler

There is a distinction between "commercial art" and "fine art."

The distinction is that "fine art" is the great stuff. It is the paintings and sculptures that tell us about our culture, done by people who think on levels we could never even consider approaching.

And "commercial art," then, is, of course, the package your Hotpocket came in. It is the graphic design done by people who aren't really artists at all, but instead just wish they could draw and paint.

Too bad for them. They'll be stuck on the computer pushing type around and hiring photographers to take pictures of food for the rest of their lives.

I think, in some rare instances, the distinction might be true. I think I might know a couple of these people. But, in most cases, the stereotype is an exaggerated one.

Illustration by Josh Hagler

The question is, then, if commercial art is a cardboard box designed to make one eat what is inside of it, and fine art is a $25,000 painting in a big gold frame that makes a person fall to his knees and weep, what in the name of Picasso is illustration? And further, what is the need for this separate, third distinction?

For me, illustration can be the bridge in the gap between "journalism and poetry," as Milton Glaser said. Glaser helped revive illustration in the '60s, when photography and design were seen as a lot more important art forms, as they are now.

Good illustration is "commercially fine art." It is art that functions on several layers, whether it is some combination of storytelling, education, subversion, humor, persuasion, raw emotion or others that I neglected to mention.

A good illustrator is a painter/sculptor and a designer, a philosopher and a business person. A good illustrator will not allow the public to be comfortable with simply "looking at nice pictures." A good illustrator will always search for a sneaky way to do more than that which he or she has been hired to do.

What is art if it is only another way to make money without acting on some other social, cultural or spiritual level? Art is as much the viewer's conscious or subconscious reaction as it is the artist's original intention.

Glaser said of these distinctions: "When you start, you don't know about the distinction. All you know is that you like to make things. I had already realized that a painter's life was not my life. I couldn't imagine painting pictures, selling them in a gallery, and having people put them on a wall in their house. It didn't make sense · I like the idea of art being public and useful and solving problems."

To me, the fact that a young artist is not aware of the distinction when he or she is first starting out, proves that there is no distinction, aside from what the contemporary social climate assigns.

The best illustration is done at the same level of intelligence and emotion as fine art, and is simply brought into the commercial realm.

It is said that a picture takes the place of a thousand words. If that were true, why would we write? A picture doesn't take the place of words, but rather forms a vision of the ideas that can't be said with words.

In the case of editorial illustration, it's not enough that the illustration simply visits with the written word and agrees with it. The illustration has to tell the tale that lives between the lines. It cannot simply exist for the sake of the publication it decorates.

When illustration functions with only this end goal, not only does the public become too comfortable and unchallenged, but the publication itself becomes boring and remains immature.

These are the questions to ask when looking at illustration. What is it doing other than what appears to be obvious? Why is this important? Is it important? How is this affecting me?

Hopefully, in looking at enough illustration, one might find interesting and complex answers to these questions. Hopefully these answers could allow that product, advertisement or publication to be a completely different creature than it would have been without a visual counterpart.