From Voice ~ Topics: ethics, illustration
Line drawing
In the January 30 issue of The Wall Street Journal, a paper I frequently work for, the editor of its op-ed page with the evocative name of Tunku Varadarajan wrote an article called “Just Where Does an Illustrator Draw the Line?” [sic] for the Friday “Taste” section.
In it he describes his difficulty in getting a certain illustrator (who he refers to in the opening paragraph as a “pompous little artichoke”) to accept an assignment without first reading it to see if he agreed with its political proposition. The illustrator, who is left-leaning, was evidently not comfortable with blindly accepting the assignment from an editorial page that generally leans towards the right. Mr. Varadarajan found this response professionally unacceptable and after characterizing his new found nemesis as having a voice that “oozed a certain kind of metropolitan smugness” (what is this code for?) compares the illustrator’s request, somewhat hyperbolically, to the editor being mugged at deadline time. He also informs us that the illustrator will never work for the paper again. Shades of the Bush White House.
Later in the piece, Mr. Varadarajan expresses some concern for his own behavior and calls a number of illustrators who already work for the Journal to canvass their opinions.
Not surprisingly, they unanimously agree that Mr. Varadarajan is completely right and conclude that the real problem is getting the work done on time. Finally the column decides that the illustrator must be “(1) very young, (2) very rich or (3) very silly.” Which in translation means: (1) too young and innocent to understand what the world is really like; (2) only money permits you to behave according to your beliefs; (3) a dismissive subset of #1 omitting the young part.
I found the spirit and content of this article chilling for several reasons. First was the bullying tone of derision and contempt that the author expresses for an artist who wishes to be true to his personal beliefs, and not simply “follow orders.” Ever since the Nuremberg Trials, “following orders” is not an acceptable position to explain personal or professional behavior. I still remember those brutal clods on the witness stand trying to justify their activities during the war.
The issue has a larger compass that affects all of us in the communication practice. To what degree are we willing to participate in transmitting ideas to a public that we personally believe might be harmful? Mr. Varadarajan makes it clear what the economic consequences of such uncooperative behavior might be: “I was convinced now that the man has no future on our page.”
Money is a powerful tool to insure compliance.
The totalitarian impulses behind the Journal article should not be ignored. It is certainly not as egregious as outing a government agent because her husband was critical of the government’s policies but it reflects an atmospheric change about the nature of our democracy. In a healthy democracy, Steve Brodner, the illustrator in question, would be celebrated, not ridiculed, for his desire to act according to his conscience.
-
When practiced well illustration is a boon to any editorial page. When practiced poorly (i.e. mimicks the article or is a strained concept developed by editorial committee) it only takes up space. It sounds like the Wall Street Journal op-ed page wants space filler rather than ideas.
For an editor to presume that an artist (especially on the level of Steven Brodner) will not only comply to an imposed idea, but also not even read the manuscript, reveals just how little illustration is respected today.
You'd think that this editor would appreciate smart commentary (isn't that what an op-ed page is all about). His disrespect and ignorance is discouraging. I only hope he is the exception. -
If all editors are as ignorant as Tunku Varadarajan the illustration field is in for problems. Sam, I think he's one of a few exceptions. But the fact that he used his power and influence to cast aspersions on a free-thinking illustrator puts him high on the list of people not to work for - ever.
I don't know what "codes" he was suggesting, but I do know that his disrespect deserves that illustrators should avoid that part of the Journal. Sadly, there will be young illustrators who will do anything to get published and bowing to Tunku Varadarajan's version of professional practice may be their big mistake. -
Editors rarely understand illustrators. I don't want to encourage tired stereotypes, but seriously folks, how many editors look at illustration as anything but a mirror of the words. It takes a strong art director to convince the editor that what they're seeing is good. And frankly, I'm not sure how many strong art directors are out there who understand illustration. This is the age of Photoshop and photography. Illustration is too abstract and, for some, uncontrollable. I don't blame the WSJ editor for being a Philistine - he follows a long tradition of illustration-illiterate editors - I do, however, wish there were more art directors that would champion illustration (for the right reasons - like it adds dimension to a story and intelligence to a page).
-
Before arguing the right or wrong of the WSJ oped editor in venting his frustration, first examine the role of illustration and illustrators.
Art has held a pivotal role in peridocial publishing just as imagery has been key throughout human history. While this may sound a bit overblown, just think about how important images have been in all walks of life. Many of the world's great images are indeed illustrations of ideas, concepts, beliefs. Some of these images - perhaps many - were created at the behest of someone in authority. The king or pope were the editors of the past. However, though they may have commissioned a work of art to explain or exalt something they held dear, they hired the artist for his genius as a craftsman and conceiver (at least most of the time). I realize I am condensing history and generalizing too, but what I want to say is that the role of the artist - and often that of the illustrator - is a decidedly humanistic one that demands the utmost integrity. Sure, not all editorial illustration (and especially stock illustration, but that's another story) is on such a high plane, but the standard remains.
In a just world illustration and illustrators would be allowed their integrity that results in exceptional, humanistic output - art that illuminates, stimulates, and excites. What the WSJ editor seems to want is a frame for his words. Illustrators make art, not frames. -
Before there were words there were pictograms (petroglyphs). Pictograms became letterforms then words....In essence, the early illustrators who drew those images on stone walls technically gave birth to the careers for editors and writers!
-
See "Art Won't Choke" (fig. 2) by Steve Brodner.
-
I wonder if Norman Rockwell faced these problems? Never mind, it is just an idle question. But when Norman Rockwell was going strong illustration was a highly respected business. Still, my understanding is that illustrators were more under the thumbs of their editors and art directors than they are today. Even Rockwell had to submit sketches for ideas that were often implanted (or impaled on him) by an editor.
All this by way of saying, it may have been stupid to write an article in a newspaper about a fight with an illustrator, but it was probably not so crazy for the editor to feel he had the right to impose an idea on the illustrator.
I know this is heresy, and I'd be drummed out of school for saying it, but illustrators are not free-thinking artists. They are paid to provide a service, and with talent and luck they do a great job of it. But only a few of us are really hired for our independent ideas.
Okay, its troubling that an editor rather than an art director is in charge of illustration. Its much better to have an advocate of "art" in our corner. But even this so-called "advocate" is often bound more by the demands of the client than the creative desires of the artist. I mean even for an art director we illustrators provide a service that must meet his/her approval.
Its unrealistic to think that we can do whatever we want. But we can offer our best in response to what "they" want. Such is how I see illustation today, which is not too much different from when Rockwell practiced it (I think). -
Unlike the other sections in a newspaper, a paper's Editorial page carries with it a legacy of polemical stances and political positions the newspaper has taken.
Editorial writers must adhere to stances they previously have made, and generally lean one way or another in the universe of political favorites and opposition.
Unlike in the news or features sections, there's nothing objective to be found in an Editorial section. It's overtly biased, whether it's the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times or The Montclair Times (of which I'm the editor).
Milton Glaser articulately and forcefully decries the dismissal by Tunku Varadarajan of a freelance illustrator's concern over the polemical stance of an op-ed piece.
While the other sections of a newspaper should never be colored by subjectivity and slanted news or illustrations, an Editorial section is exactly the opposite. It is the place to discern a daily or weekly newspaper's precepts and polemics.
As editor of a newspaper that boasts a (freelance) award-winning editorial cartoonist, I work with the illustrator. He suggests editorials that might coincide with his ideas for illustrations, and I suggest editorial cartoons.
The cartoonist's political stance really has to jibe with the newspaper's editorial position. It's inappropriate if I write an editorial endorsing John Kerry for president and the accompanying editorial cartoon ridicules Kerry and flatters George W. Bush.
As much as Milton persuasively writes of his concerns over illustrators' lack-of-license, and the belittling essay written by the WSJ op-ed editor, Milton and some of the responders should realize that Editorial sections are specifically about stances and opinions, both of the publication's credos and its invited columnists. Illustrators add the visuals to the polemical points for which they are hired to portray or enhance.
With cost-cutting everywhere and other concerns, fewer and fewer newspapers employ editorial cartoonists. One editorial cartoonist recently quit a big daily after realizing he polemically could not support the polemical positions taken by the newspaper's editorial writers.
Illustrators in other sections of a newspaper are not subject to the subjective stances of senior editors who create the editorials. But the Editorial section must remain consistent. The Wall Street Journal's Editorial section is extremely conservative, and its senior editors expect that their hired illustrators will create images that reflect the WSJ's ideological passions or despisals. The same stance applies to all other newspapers.
As impolitely grandiose as Tunku might have been regarding his displeasure with a freelance illustrator, he and his Editorial section colleagues appropriately expect the illustrations they pay for to reflect the ideologies to which they adhere. -
This is really inspirational, a different thought of how you represent an idea, love it!
-
Unforfunate but true - editorial illustrators are like advertising copywriters. They have to communicate what is asked of them. They can only exert to do the best of the opportunity.
-
I must have worked for the gems in the editorial world. If I disagree with a politcal position I decline the work and so far no one has chimed in on my lack of professionalism.
The editor in question lacks professionalism and sound judgement. An editor (art director or what have you) can ask, not dictate. And if you desire a political visual expression of your political opinion, hire someone who is either new, fresh off the bus so to speak, or hire someone with the same political slant in their portfolio. If the editor in question needs help, he can find directories on-line and in book form, which can help him find such illustrators (sorry about the sarcasm).
As for the reflection this casts on working with an illustrator, or the respect illustrators have these days. Hogwash. It reflects on how people treat people these days. If you have a dissagreement, send the other person a letter or discuss it over the phone or over lunch. Broadcasting it in the paper is the act of a very small mind indeed. One thing though, we as illustrators should own up to this situation. It is up to us to educate others in using illustration properly. We might have avoided such an article coming out if we would have only educated the editor.....
Hey, okay I have an idea. Now I have these little ideas every now and again, but this time it's a good one.
Okay, now how about we corner editors upon the first or second day they are hired and introduce them to the proper techniques of selecting an illustrator. And (don't you hate people who start a sentence with 'and') how to use illustration to their best editorial advantage. Come on, we can do this, and the editors would really appreciate the extra help.
Someone grab a nice chair, someone else brings tea and popcorn, the sweet cold raspberry kind of tea, not something horrible like Earl Grey which is bad for you anyway. And while they gently hold him/her down, a third illustrator runs an educational illustration dvd on a lap top. We need a title, I volunteer the title of 'Illustration is Your Editorial Friend!'
Or it could be 'Find a Commrade in Illustration',..okay. That's my solution, hope it helps. -
Apparently, when it comes to illustrations on the WSJ’s op-ed pages, the editor is boss, but on its news pages, the editor is bossed:
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/n_10024 /
In Martha’s defense, her puffy, pre-pearls portrait wasn’t a very good likeness. -
As an editorial art director who's used a lot of illustration, and who has always been clear with illustrators and photographers about the political bent or "problematic" qualities of articles I have assigned, it seems to me the WSJ editor is getting angry at the world for his own laziness. As a staffer, I have occasionally had to hire an artist for a piece I don't agree with. But I never would have called Steve Brodner for something right-leaning (and I have worked with him a couple of times, I greatly admire his work). However, the best work results when a talented person is invested in the project. A smart art director calls someone who's heart will be in it, and knows enough about the people he or she works with to know who that would be.
Having to pick up the phone and make a second call is a small price to pay to avoid a bad assign. -
I've been meaning to comment on the graphic commentary by Blechman and Neimann. I wonder, do editors really want the obvious at the expense of intelligence. What this commentary implies is that given the option, editors want bland. Or do illustrators beieve they want bland and give it to them to avoid conflict. It seems to me that implied in this commentary is that editors may not want bland, but they don't want obscene or obstruse. Not every idea an illustrator has for a story is a good idea. I know, I've had my share of strained ones. Sometimes illustrators pass off bad ideas as risky ideas. This commentary has some good but also bad risky ideas. A good illustrator knows the difference.
-
The bottom line here is not whether Mr. Brodner agreed with Mr. Varadarajan's political opinions. It is that the illustrator has to read what he's illustrating in order to understand what he's supposed to do.
I've hired a lot of illustration and photography, and often have had the artist involved with the layout and text from day one, with the idea that they should be involved in the process as much as the in-house guys. How else are we to do killer stuff?
For that matter, can you imagine George Lois keeping Carl Fischer in the dark about those great Esquire covers they created? Mr. Brodner was absolutely right in wanting to read the article. If in fact he disagreed with its political leanings, he could honestly say to the editor that he (Mr. Brodner) didn't feel he could handle the assignment.
As for the deadline issue - what did Mr. Varadarajan have in mind, trying to get an illustrator to create something at the last minute for a piece the artist hadn't read? I would question Mr. Varadarajan's intelligence or his level of naïveté.
And as for Mr. Varadarajan's article about the incident - this seems like the epitome of shooting one's self in the foot. Being something of a lout is one thing. But ranting about it in public print beggers understanding. What in the world was he thinking of?
Ah, well . . . without the Tunku Varadarajans, there would be nothing left for amusement but television, heaven help us. -
nice read.
not suprised by the Journal's lack of respect for illustrators. I did their "Weekend Edition" icons, which they attempted to steal from me several years ago. I have way too many horro stories to recant. Its war out there. WAR, I tell ya.
What I find ironic about the piece is that they hired one of the most notoriously left leaning (and admired) illustrators. Brodner, like Glaser, is a legend. Articulate. Smart. If we were in Ancient Rome as painters Tunku wouldve just been seen waving his finger in the face of Michelangelo!
What an idiot! Stone him!
The right wing media outlets are starved for creativity. Too bad all the best the talent (as this case provides) also comes equipt with mind, heart and soul.
Republicans, you know, really only read the comics. The really ham-handed "silly" ones. -
We must remember every newspaper and publication is owned by someone or an organization with their own agenda.
I totally disagree that creative types are all left-leaning. In fact I find that most of the left-leaning visual professionals are too obscure and desperately striving to be different that they are not effective or relevant.
Most Left wingers rally behind causes without any real conviction besides self-interest or worse, nothing better to do. Enough of politics!
Illustrators must be able to draw well and accurately to be effective. I don't blame design firms for using photography when there are so many poor quality illustrators out there. Many can't even draw a human figure without a model standing there to copy from. Worse yet, some draw the model and still can't get it right.
Illustration needs a renaissance back to the Golden age illustrators vs this abstract, distorted, junk posing as illustration. -
I'm a little late to this post, but chip in two cents-I must.
Tunku's article was in fact one of the most outlandish responses to disappointment I've witnessed outside observations of my child at age two. Designers, art directors and illustrators remember this fellow's name, and the hill he chose to die on-trying to humiliate one of the best contemporary illustrators of our day. Artichoke indeed!
Recently the WSJ has adopted something of a graphic austerity program going so far as to circulate letters to illustrators outlining the cutbacks-how thoughtful. I cannot help but think the petty stance put forth in that poorly conceived of editorial is somehow connected to this official WSJ policy. If this is the case, shame on them. Sounds a little like a case of taking the ball home. Humm-seems like I'm back to infantilism again.
As to the preceding non sequitur/post regarding illustrative talent. The skill you refer to is something that is cultivated and grows in response to the market place. Those inquisitive minds that once threw themselves into the pursuit of realistic visual narrative in the traditional graphic medias no longer see reward in it, as the illustration marketplace continues a long and seemingly permanent drift from prosperity. They have moved on to pursue things digital. Could many of your studio-oriented illustrators of yore push pixels about like the artists of today? Apples and oranges you say, fair enough, but different times require different skills. Drawing a proper figure is a great thing to learn, but where is an up and coming kid going to sell work in that mode? Think about it. The, “If you paint it, they will come.” approach just doesn’t cut it anymore. I'm sure they would like to raise a family and approach something like a middle class lifestyle. We are ensconced in a dynamic time where ivory towers held dear only a short time ago have toppled around us. The very fabric of the visual culture has changed. Talent is just as abundant today as it once was; it's just trying to figure out a way to make sense of what is needed. Illustrative art is no less astounding today than it have been in the past. The future is just as promising. -
As usual Milton had it right.
In the age of Bush small minds may rule, hopefully only 4 more years. -
Mr. Kerr,
I disagree that the artists of yesterday couldn't cut digital illustration and design with ease given the same training. Practically Anyone with minimal training and intelligence can master the Adobe or Corel Suite.
Software doesn't hide lack of proper training in drawing and tonal value studies. The age-old laws of aesthetics never change with time.
The skill level isn't there today, the art schools have failed us. They have failed to give students the adequate drawing skills to enable them to be competitive in the modern marketplace. It started when they rejected and rebelled against what 2500 years of civilization and training in the arts had taught us. We need to learn from our past, not reject it.
http://www.artrenewal.org/index.html -
Mr. Gillgam,
Insightful cultural commentary aside. I do stand by my earlier observation. If you assert that traditional studio art skills are on the decline-I agree. Refer to my previous post as to-why-this is happening.
The blunt dismissal of the digital arts betrays your bias for the environs of the traditional illustrators studio, a career structure that no longer exists for 99.99 percent of those entering the graphic arts.
The notion that "anyone" can master computer software is just wrong. The nuance and range of contemporary graphics software is as complex and responsive as any media ever conceived-including traditional ones. As in other endeavors-cream rises to the top in the digital world too. If "anyone" could use design software to make top-flight imagery, then I would expect to see a flood of amateurs using "Corel" to set the digital branch of the graphics arts world on its ear. To date, this has not happened-I guess those "anyones" have not read your post yet.
As to arts education, I suppose it is easier to dismiss all of contemporary arts education than examine the genuine range found in the innumerable schools at work today. It is funny that amongst the faculty in many of these institutions a substantial number are counted as some of the world’s very best figurative painters. I wonder how they’ll take the news about the diminution of their hard won skills and pedagogy. There’s always prozac and therapy I guess. For an individual interested in realism, you paint with a very broad brush, at least when it comes to opinion. You may want to break out a filbert and a #6 round every now and then.
Drawing is a touchstone skill and the state of the figurative arts is are both interesting subjects, yet the discussion of it in this forum has little to do with the thread that spurred my reply. Namely, the odious behavior of that Wall Street Journal Editor and his bully editorial aimed at Mr. Brodner. As it turns out Mr. Brodner is an illustrator who is extremely well versed in the art and craft of drawing. Yet, even if he was not, that editor’s actions were wrong, and opine I must. -
KUDOS to tha artist (Steven Brodner) who rejected that smug pompous editor of the journal. (Tonku Varadarjan) I once rejected a job for Camel cigarettes. For ethical reasons. Money comes and goes, ethics define who you are. Hey Tonku, Go the hell back where you came from. We don't need your kind here.
We have enough small, narrow minded home grown jerks of our own. We don't need to inport any more from wherever. USUK man. -
An illustrator should not be condemned for having his/her own views on a certain subject. They are people, with thoughts and feelings, and you cannot brush them aside as if they were merely machines made to churn out pretty (and comfortably non-controversial) pictures at a whim. I'm not saying one should go completely this way or the other, but there should always be room for compromise. Compromise is the basis for any healthy relationship, including that of editor and illustrator.
-
I find myself in agreement with Mr. Gillgam. Visit his site and you'll learn he knows of where he speaks. Each week I feature a restored, whimsical illustration from the 1920s era on my web site. Have a look -- it's completely FREE.
Happy Dae.
http://www.ShoeStringGenealogy.com -
Mr. Gillgam's rather hard to navigate site, does not indicate he knows whereof he speaks. It just goes to prove that he basically protects his own narrow self interest.
I stand by my earlier commentary. Anyone who lionizes Bouguereau as the high water mark of painting aught to have his head examined. What next, the merits of Thomas Kincaid? Perhaps Bouguereau's maids can frolic in Kincaid's diabetic inducing worlds making for Gillgam the perfect picture. Nonsense.
There is room for all types of artistic expression. Some opt for realism and traditional methods, others take up a digital pallet and eschew naturalism. It's ALL valid. To say one is better than another is silly, they're just different. To argue otherwise earmarks an extraordinarily narrowed understanding of art. I'll take a Picasso over a Bouguereau any day of the week.
Unlike Mr. Gillgam, the world has moved on. Such a myopic viewpoint speaks an almost greater misunderstanding of the masterworks he so strenuously defends. The very best works, at their core, revel in composition, depend on the abstract, and transcend other works for these reasons. -
Visual training is the purpose and accuracy the goal. No erasing is allowed. Collect ordinary objects and practice with one at a time, as in Gesture drawing.
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
© 2008 AIGA | 164 Fifth Avenue New York NY 10010 | 212 807 1990
Comments