Barthes is trying to
explain that if the author is not present, the passion, ideas and feeling goes
out of the work. The author will
always have a link between themselves and their writing, like a "father to
a son". He believes that the
reader is as important as the writer themselves, as the reader you can
interpret that writing in any way you want. He
states that the reader can never truly know what the author is trying to say;
you can only speculate and the work should be free to interpretation. Writing is created for an audience, to give understanding and
for them to develop their own opinions and ideas . He also believes modern
writing is an accumulation of that culturally already exists; "a tissue of
quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture". We
can only create new writing and ideas based on what we have learned before, as
you can only ever bounce off what is already known. It is impossible to write
something completely original and that why the "death of the author"
has arisen.
This relates to us, as illustrators, because if our work has
nothing to say then it simply isn't illustration. Our authorship over our work
is the most important thing we have. If Barthes believes that if writing
without passion, ideas and feeling doesn't deserve to have been created by an
'author', then imagery without passion, ideas and feeling doesn't deserve to be
created by an 'illustrator'. We need to be able to communicate with our work
and if we can't, then we have fallen at the first hurdle and can never truly be
illustrators. Illustrators pull together pre existing ideas and inspiration as
research to create something new, as Barthes believes modern writers do; we
comment on articles, create visual worlds for stories and give a new way of
looking at things we see every day.
In contrast to Barthes
beliefs, Editorial illustration could be viewed as a good example of how
something can have little authorship but still have a large and lasting impact on
the viewer; not to say that Editorial work has not been created by a 'proper'
illustrator, but that it is more centred around the content rather than who it
was created by. Examples of Editorial illustration can be found in
newspapers, magazines and online journals, all being regularly updated, packed
with news and entertainment for the ready consumer. Interestingly, Steven Miles
in his work "Design for life or
life for design?" reflects upon that "whether a consumer culture
encourages individual freedom or expression or whether it serves painstakingly
to construct the parameters within with people consume". This in a way
supports Barthes point; that lack of authorship leaves only little for inspiration or new discoveries, but also
extends it to creativity and supports his view that it saps personality. With their theories applied, Editorial work can be seen as created not for the author or illustrator, but just
to be made for the consumer without any heart going into it. It shines a
controversial light onto the discipline, but does it really matter? Illustrations
in a newspaper have more of a universal language than the text of the actual
article, so surely this is of more importance than who actually made it? Or does this voice come from the hand of the well practiced illustrator themselves, who has complete authorship over what they have created?
