Task 1- 500 words

Analysis of how Editorial Illustration on the topic of deforestation relates to Barthes' interpretation of Authorship...

Editorial illustration is such an important asset in todays world, and from a cultural view point too. Everyday newspapers and magazines print illustrations alongside their articles to shine a light on some of the concepts for the reader. To highlight and emphasise important points, or simply to get people interested in what the text might be talking about.
Editorial illustration can fit into any of the categories, whether its a political illustration or an image for an article about technology. It works.

Barthes writes, 'it is language which speaks, not the author', which when relating to editorial work is usually completely accurate. You read an article for the content, not because you know the author that  wrote it. With an illustration in a newspaper, you look at it because its aesthetically pleasing, or with the hope that it will inform you about the piece you are about read. When analysing the text it was apparent that the destination of a piece of work is more important that the origin. Which reflects this point.

On the topic of deforestation within editorial work, the demand for such illustrations are on the rise. However, there are some very interesting points made in Steven Miles' 'Consumerism as a way of life'
about how ecological we as designers can actually be, and whether we need to make a significant chance to the way we work or not. He writes 'the designer must assume more responsibility for what he or she designs, this is not always possible when designers have to contend with directive clients'. Designers are approached to make work for articles about global warming or climate change, but then that illustration could then go on to be printed in hundreds and thousands of newspapers, which almost defeats the object of the article in the first place. However, as Bathes states, nothing can be explained with passion or feeling if the creator is not present. Do we need to have more of a say in these circumstances? We as illustrators don't necessarily have any power in any of this. We live in a world where we 'prioritise financial profits before ecological concerns.'

Does this make us as creators fall to the bottom of the chain? Should we be finding alternative means of creating work, or translating messages through visual imagery? Miles' writes, 'Designers operate in a world where the creation of wealth is a prime motivation.' We create work for others to exploit.
Which again makes Barthes point valid, 'Writing is the neutral, composite, oblique space where our subject slips away, the negative where all identity is lost, starting with the very identity of the body of writing."
Perhaps no one will ever interpret an illustration exactly the way the illustrator had intended, but thats not to say it won't communicate effectively and make a change.