@sam-marrero

Pretty nice. The position of the wagon makes me feel that the animal (horse?) is not applying enough force. I think his gesture must be more expressive.

@mattramsey said:

I've noticed that as well.

That's the point. Everybody have noticed that, so it's unnecesary to mention it.

I figured it would be clear that you/I were not talking about "clarifying words with examples." I apologize if you were confused!

The context is pretty clear (a forum related to Visual Storytelling) so your comment with the list of meanings and my answer to it are, again, unnecesary. With or without examples.

If you read carefully the opening of this thread you'll notice that there are no mention to the difference between a painting and an illustration per se. All the paragraphs and the Guernica example are crearly pointing to the audience issue.

So what I did mention?

• Illustrations are message carriers
• Illustrations, as any bearer of a message, have receivers.
• Receivers have different levels of cognitive development and/or knowledge so,
• an illustration can fail as message carrier (inadequate for the target audience)

All this means illustrators must care a lot about how to design effective illustrations for speciffic audiences

So, if an illustration is a painting, or how many meamings of "illustrate" you can mention was never the point.

Of course, the readers of this thread have the right to desrespect the opening comment and expose their own objects of interest. Anyway, I must say, it is an impolite behavior.

Question 1: Is it important to illustrate taking in account the target audience?
Question 2: If it's important, why nobody mention this issue in the critiques?
Question 3: Why comments here avoid the mentioned issue and preffer to beat around the bush?

@Bobby-Aquitania

Well, the "duck" example says to me you didn't read carefully the thread opening. It's about the efficiency of the image as a message carrier for an specific target audience, not the level of "duckness" (a pretty poor simplification). What you are calling "duckness" is another matter and I did never mentioned it. Respecting the theme proposed in the opening, your concept could be pointed as one aspect (among several other) related to it but, unfortunately, it doesn't work as a synecdoche so it's a fail.

I might be surprised with the fact that most comments are not taking in account the main issue mentioned in the opening of this thread . But not, I'm not surprised. Attentive readings are as rare as common sense.

At this point I don´t expect that people realize what's the core issue I did mention and how the other paragraphs are related to it.

So, what I did learn is that this forum is not the correct place to open this kind of threads expecting respectful and attentive readings.

I apologize for making so clumsy mistake.

@Lee-White

It's not about definitions but attitude. As I did remark:

• I see a lot of images where the complexity of the image is not adecuate for the target audience, so those illustrations are failing in it's function.

When in my job we ask illlustrators or designers what age or audience is addressed a particular illustration, rarely we receive a professional answer. In general, it's not too grave but in the context of visual storytelling for children I see that a lot of illustrators don't understand their target audience capanilities and fail image after image as message deliverers. Of course, a lot of potencial clients did not understand that issue so those illustrator will have their place in the market.

My question: illustrators, in the context you mentioned, must be worried about composition, focal point, etc. but not too much about the target audience age and capabilities? I don't think so.

You can be sure that me, as a client, I'll prefer someone that has a full understanding of the audience capabilities and how to solve any image to address to them succefully.

As remarked before: a clever and sharp guy did say "common sense is the least common of senses". We, average mortal people, need to study in order to have a good command of whatever we want to reach as professionals or good amateurs.

Unfortunately, a lot of failed illustrations demonstrates that intuition is not enough.

@Camila-Queiroz

I did laugh loudly with the title "Nadistas & Tudistas". "Your own wolf" illustration is gorgeous as well the images you included in this presentation.

It will be a pleasure to share this space with you.

So, seja bem-vinda, Camila!

@bharris

It makes sense to me: kids are toxic (I'm kidding)

It´s a strange concept, I think, but it could be very appealing. It's very important the visual connection between the superhero and the trash can. Due to the action, I think most of the kids must be looking, surprised, at the hero.

I'll be paying attention...

@Charlie-Eve-Ryan

I can't say why, by your style is very moving to me. My best wishes.

@Jordan-Peterson

I support you. Why not?

@Charlie-Eve-Ryan said:

For me illustrations tell a narrative, a story of some sort with or without words.

Generally speaking, I agree. Anyway, if you check some illustrated books for preliterate kids, you'll find there are not narrative but an specific theme as thread. So, the illustrations are accompanying a concept, being the main intention to estimulate by using flashy colors and high contrasts.

Why to use the word "Illustration" for an image that doesn't tell a narrative? Because it is reaching a function (to stimulate) beyond the decorative function. Anyway, we are talking about preliterate kids with a very basic cognitive development. A specific category.

Age is pretty important. You can't address secuenced stories to kids under 2 years old because, normally, they will not decode them. So the concept "narrative" starts to make sense when your target audience is 2+ years old.

For me, to know deeply your target audience is as important as to understand color, anatomy and other matters related to visual storytelling, and I'm pretty sure that a lot of images are unsuccessful due to that "forget".

If you want to be a serious illustrator, you must know your potencial audience as deeply as possible.

A question: an image of a duck besides the word DUCK, is it an illustration?

@Lynn-Larson said:
.. A lot are both, and i see nothing wrong with it

Of course. I'm not talking about the merits of painting or drawing versus illustrations based in its quality as message carriers, so it's not the point.

The main point is: there are images presented as illustrations for children that don´t reach an effective message delivery. So, those images are not fulfilling its function as illustrations. In spite of the lack as illustration, an image could be a great painting or drawing. So, again, it is about the merits of an image defined by the author as an illustration, nothing else.

I´ll ask you a question: why many "illutrations" doesn´t reach a good level as message carriers, even being beautiful painting or drawings?