When is Design Not Art?

Hello, 2019.

All art is design, as I’ve written before, but the obverse is not the case. All design is definitely not art, in fact very little of it is even artistic. Especially in this digital world we now live in.

Because we live in this digital world propagated by personal computers, all the information we get and see and digest and infuse into our daily lives has a mechanical aspect to it. It has to have that. Computers are designed to give mechanical results. That aspect shows up in the most visual ways in print magazines and television commercials and digital animated movies. And it shows up in the most minimal ways in email, emoji, attachments to email blasts, and in notifications you may get through things like Facebook and Twitter.

In the art world, geometric forms started taking hold in the late 1950s through the 1960s. Painters like Josef Albers (top left) were challenging the critics with movements into chart-like forms and color, and Frank Stella with his Protractor Series (top right) in his paintings and print making took things further. These are examples of design as fine art, but apart from other fine art, they convey no emotion from such techniques as broad brushwork or splashes of color. They are very controlled pieces with precise definition and form. Thought-provoking, yes. But being emotionless, they impart little in the way the artist communicates.

I’m certain that back in the ’50s and ’60s, the Albers and Stellas were not projecting—or had any real vision—toward the advent of computer-generated communication of the ’90s and beyond, but in looking at their artwork, millennials may wonder just how viable their work was—and is—as fine art today. Certainly their work was a precursor or harbinger of the phenomenon of digital art and design, but only in form. The fact that any or all of that work could easily be duplicated on home computers nowadays tends to minimize the fact that these artists were groundbreaking in their own time.

If this article appears to be another of my assaults on computer-generated art, I really don’t intend that here. What I do intend, though, is to show how far our culture has come in its detachment from artful thinking. What Albers and Stella did in their time was not to deter their audiences from seeing beautiful art, but rather to have them rethink what art can be.

And that is what I wish we as designers could accomplish in this era of digital art. It doesn’t matter where you do your artwork: be it in package design, magazine design, website design, what have you. Use artful thinking in your designs.

So much of website design deals with selling and communicating. Navigation through the site is paramount, we know this. But the sterile check list web page (bottom left) could at least be as minimally artful as a catalog page (bottom right). The addition of a pictorial element goes a long way in achieving visual interest. These pages are definitely not art, but they could be more like art.

When I was in college, I would get an occasional letter from one of my favorite relatives, my Uncle Paul. His penmanship was just the best, his handwriting so beautiful and flowing. These days, handwriting is no longer taught in grade schools because our communication no longer demands it. I myself use handwriting only to sign an occasional check or greeting card. But that’s just one example of long lost art: if one had nice handwriting, you noticed it. It was art in itself.

Then several years ago, my wife’s family came across a treasure: a short pile of postcards sent from her father to his parents during World War II while he was in France. What made the postcards so interesting was not the salutations handwritten on the cards, but the fact that the cards were handmade with original watercolors on them, artwork of roses on each. Unique and precious in their own way, all made by an old family friend back in the ’40s.

You could hardly duplicate them today, but it made me think that a touch of art goes a long way to make a big difference.

Imagination and Seeing

(This article originally ran in December of last year. Dan Blanchette is taking December off. New articles will appear in January 2019.)

I’ve written before about interior design. A few weeks ago, the subject involved decorating and staging rooms in renovated homes on a television show called “Nashville Flipped”.

With that show, the interior designer had apparently left the production after several successful episodes, and the subsequent homes’ interiors suffered because of her departure.

Today, I’m writing about interior design from a different perspective: what you and I and everyone has, and that’s a living space that we control. We control how it looks and functions, allowing us to use it as we see fit. We all have this canvas that we can paint to our liking, furnish to our visual satisfaction.

We can make changes to our spaces. Some people can visualize the changes more easily than others, but by and large, even design-minded people will get inspiration from looking at interior design magazines. That may spark ideas.

And where do ideas come from? They come from one place: your mind. It’s all about imagination and seeing. A designer uses his/her open mind to see what can be accomplished. The way I like to explain it is this: imagination is a door to an open mind, and seeing is a compass pointing the open mind in different directions to arrive at design possibilities. Seeing is a function of imagination.

But you have to have an open mind to get to those ideas, to see if they will apply to your visual sensitivities. If you see a photo of an interior space that impresses you, there’s no reason why you can’t apply the thinking behind that design to your own space.

The materials that made that room in the photo look impressive may be out of your reach, money-wise. But you can still come close to the feel of that room by taking away some visual cues.

In looking at the two images above, it’s easy to see the impact of one room over the other. I selected two photos of living rooms, both with fireplaces centered on the end wall and a bank of windows on the flanking wall.

What makes the room on the right work so well visually is the way the designer put it all together. We may not know for certain just what the interior designer was thinking, but by taking visual cues, we can probably determine that the light coming from the windows was the impetus to create the lines accentuating it: the beams on the ceiling and the shelves on the end wall on either side of the fireplace. The built-ins add visual interest on that end wall, and the dark shelves are an echo of the dark forms of the ceiling beams, which are an extension of the lines of the windows.

Can the owner of the space on the left take ideas from the room on the right? Of course. It just takes imagination to see them.

Not Real Photography

(This article originally ran in February of this past year. Dan Blanchette is taking December off. New articles will appear in January 2019.)

When iPhones first came out, I remember listening to a radio program where I lived near Chicago at the time about advances in technology, which was the focus of the show. The moderator was talking to a tech rep about the new item from Apple, and the discussion eventually came to the numerous apps the iPhone had. The moderator said at the time about how he wanted just a phone the way his flip phone was, being merely a calling and receiving instrument. And the tech rep went on to say why he wanted his phone to do everything.

That conversation has stayed on my mind all these years. I also tend not to forget the computers we had years ago and how far we’ve come since, what we have now in the ways technology has taken us. We can do a lot of things just with our mobile devices.

Of course, not everything we can do with them is first rate as far as some things go. One of the things I have an issue with is the camera. To be sure, the lens on these devices is good, especially for being such a tiny lens. Kodak would’ve loved to have such quality with their Brownie when it was introduced back in February of 1900, believe it or not: 118 years ago, Eastman Kodak came out with a consumer camera, making it the first mass-marketed picture-taking machine.

That camera, finished in what they then referred to as “leatherette”—a texture heat-pressed into the cardboard body and painted black—cost buyers $1. Of course it merely took pictures, called “snapshots”, also a new word. But it did pretty well as a camera.

Thing is, nobody thought of it as something to replace real photography. The same thing about Polaroid cameras when they were introduced in the late 1940s. Snapshots.

And now we have mobile phones that have cameras. Ditto.

I think what the public does is gravitate to equipment that can 1) do multiple tasks, and 2) have instant results. That’s just what these miracle mobile devices can do: supply us with almost anything we need to have and do it all in a matter of seconds. That kind of value is under appreciated, in my mind. Once we have it, there’s almost not enough time to appreciate and use everything the phones can do before the next version comes out. Every year. There’s almost no end to the competition from manufacturers like Apple, Samsung, Google, LG, etc., to bring out the newest and most versatile.

But make no mistake: they are not first-rate photographic machines. They are merely snapshot taking gadgets. Yes, they process the photo right now. Yes, you can send it to your family and friends, right now. You can print it and enlarge it (somewhat) and frame it if you want. But can you enlarge the image to what is referred to as poster-size? No.

They will not ever displace a full-fledged camera, such as a Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Sony, or Olympus. Not a Hasselblad or Leica, for certain. Those cameras, in conjunction with such fine tuning things like light meters and remote triggers, strobes, and items like scrims and light diffusion boxes, all make art. It is still an art to make photographs. Directly making the lighting just right, the angles, the shadows in studio photography.

Even outdoor nature and landscape photography, without all the peripherals I just mentioned, is still art. Waiting for the light to be just right for the kind of shot you want, the wind against the leaves in that tree, the birds overhead, the deer in the glen.

You might be able to do it once in a great while—to a small degree—with that iPhone. But you can’t control it. And you can’t repeat it.

Don’t get me wrong: Apple and the other tech companies have nifty phones that can indeed take decent pictures. But please don’t say that these mobile phones take outstanding ones. TV commercials to that effect are very misleading.

Selfies. Huh.

Getting Beyond Basic

(This article originally ran in February of this past year. Dan Blanchette is taking December off. New articles will appear in January 2019.)

Back in the day when computers went beyond having dot matrix printing, “desktop publishing” came into being. Apple, with its Laserwriter printer, and Aldus, with its PageMaker software for page layout, set the stage for the advent of an entirely new way to print on a small business scale. This was in the mid-to-late 80s, and almost without notice typesetting houses across the country were on the ropes.

Now, all of a sudden, we were the typesetters. Typesetting had its own set of rules: flush-left, flush-right and justified—of course. But things like hanging punctuation and drop caps? How do you set those? We had to learn. But step one…

PageMaker, and applications such as Microsoft Word, came equipped with a standard set of typefaces (known in computerese as “fonts”) to give documents a professional look. Usually the limited set numbered close to 12 or 15 fonts, and included roman sans-serif typefaces like Helvetica, maybe one italic, a few monospaced styles like Monaco or Geneva, maybe a calligraphic face such as Apple Chancery, and a few serif faces like Palatino or Times. Designers already knew things like kerning and proper letterspacing, but non-designers stepping into this new realm took things as they came out of the box.

And one of the obvious things everyone had to deal with was the limitations imposed by those packaged fonts because initially they were the only ones available. Soon fonts of all styles and weights became available, at a price.

Adobe came out with scalable PostScript fonts, which had to be downloaded and installed into the printers’ ROM (read-only memory). But that made everything work, and we were able to have the luxury of things like WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) menus of those fonts. All this is now ancient history, the way computers “talk” to printers to print exactly what you see on the monitor’s screen. But back then, it was a revelation.

The reason I bring all this up today is that there’s a ton of those desktop publishers still out there who haven’t yet moved beyond using the basic set of fonts that came with their computer’s software. Of course, designers know better. But this column is for everyone who may want to enrich his/her knowledge and scope of seeing design and how things work in a graphic manner. One of the tools of design is typography. And knowing when to use a specific font for a specific design feel is the beginning of good graphic design thinking.

I came across one such circumstance just a few weeks ago: I agreed to help out a relative with a choral publication, which had been done for years by a non-designer who no longer wanted to tackle it. Last year’s booklet was done entirely with that basic set of fonts from around 1994.

I once worked for a company in 2005 whose entire type collection amounted to maybe thirty fonts. It was all I could do to try to expand that.

Type as a tool in design makes for messages in copy to become expressive through the good and varied choices we have in fonts. We have all kinds of fonts—thousands of them—to choose from in making those messages come to life on the printed page and in websites. Just go on the web and search for them. There are many free just for the download.

If you do that, be careful, because some of those free fonts are not complete fonts, meaning that they do not contain all of the symbols and characters with diacritical marks that a standard font should have. But you may find, for your personal use, a few really good fonts that can make your documents come alive, be it for announcements for friends and family, anniversaries, wedding and birth announcements, Christmas cards, what have you.

The thing I’m trying to say, non-designers, is take the extra step and become aware of what’s out there in fonts.

 

Contemporary Design Landscape

(This article originally ran in March of this past year. Dan Blanchette is taking December off. New articles will appear in January 2019.)

I’d been applying for freelance work recently, and one of the sites posted had a reference to an application I hadn’t been familiar with: Sketch.

In my digital career, among the tools I’d become proficient with were Adobe Photoshop, InDesign, and Illustrator; Strata 3D; and a bunch of photo RAW things like and including Capture One. I’d also dabbled with a few photo editors and filters that add effects to bitmapped images. So when I saw Sketch listed in the posting for freelance work as a desired attribute by the agency, I was curious as to what it is.

In searching for it, I found it is just another tool in the current landscape of communicating with other places and “teams” when collaborating on given projects.

There are other well-known applications to use for this kind of communicating. Slack is one. Sketch combines that kind of communication with added things like digital asset management, interface development, website building, and icon tools. But it’s anything other that what its name implies: sketch.

What about creating the art in the first place? It’s fine to come up with all this digital asset management and sharing across teams. Using all that stock imagery. What about the actual artwork creators? Where are those artists these days?

A close friend of mine recently was messaging me through Facebook about where we, as artists and designers—and also educators—coming from a generation before digital was even thought of as the way to do artwork, stand in today’s realm of art and design. She was taken aback by noting that art and design students currently do not know how to draw, and are not required to learn so.

And she’s right. One of the classes we attended as formative students in the discipline was anatomy. It was necessary to know anatomy for proficiency in figure drawing. And although it was not necessary to have that talent to totally succeed at the college, the ability to draw—to sketch—was.

She mentioned that her son in his capacity at a firm which employs several designers was one of a bare handful who could actually draw, even now considered an asset at that place. But it’s largely true that most art schools these days do not teach students to actually draw. And I find that unbelievable.

It’s like that grade schools do not teach students how to do handwriting. Cursive handwriting hasn’t been taught in elementary education for years. Those kids do not know how to do their own signatures.

Are we totally that different from baby-boomers to millennials? Apparently. We can easily see the way small children have learned how to manipulate gaming devices and smart phones. It’s part of their early learning now. And that kind of instant interactivity has become the norm.

It does not matter to them what they are missing in the process of getting from point A (or zero) to point B (winning the game); or the process of getting from point C (having a blank canvas) to point D (having a piece of art). They never learned the value of actually making the art, seeing the picture developing from their own hands.

Years ago when I was an illustrator, I was visiting a photographer friend of mine and admiring his work. After listening that I was interested in developing a skill for it, he looked at me and said, “I don’t know why you as an illustrator find this so fascinating. I admire your ability because you make something from nothing.”

That insight stayed with me for a long time. It made me value the talent I had more.

Maybe drawing and sketching is not valued any longer. I certainly have not seen it used in any form in the last twenty years on the job, in the last four positions I had in the design industry.

I remember learning the digital way back in the early 90s, learning how to “draw” in Adobe Illustrator. Even then I felt the name of that application was a misnomer.

To this day, I feel more akin to Leonardo DaVinci than I do to any digital artist. I still draw and sketch my ideas on paper. I will visit this subject again.

 

The New Illustration

(This article originally ran in May of this past year. Dan Blanchette is taking December off. New articles will appear in January 2019.)

I subscribe to The Atlantic, one of the oldest publications in the history of this country. It has thought-provoking articles written by really good journalists. And it has what might be labelled fair art accompanying those articles.

Other publications have good artwork as well, like The New York Times Magazine.

Tim Tomkinson created the image on the left for The Atlantic. It’s a more traditional style of illustration, requiring some actual draftsmanship. The artwork on the right, created by Ryan Snook for The New York Times Magazine, has a much different style.

What’s the difference? And why are they so different? And how do they affect the viewer?

Sure, Tomkinson’s piece accompanies an article about an actual person, Abigail Allwood, a scientist with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, while Snook’s accompanies an article called “Crying at Movies”. But the art director at The Atlantic must’ve felt strongly about using an illustrator whose style was toward realism, whereas the person calling the shots at The New York Times Magazine probably said something like “anything goes”.

Weeks ago, I wrote about the decline of teaching actual drawing and illustration in art schools, which, when you think about it, doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. I mean, things like anatomy and perspective were taught alongside figure drawing when I was in art school. Those things weren’t absolutely necessary for painting disciplines, but they were for commercial illustration.

So I’m open to discussion about why drawing is no longer considered a necessary attribute when it comes to creating qualitative commercial illustration, although I have my own theory why that is.

You see it all the time these days, the newer styles: much more like expressionism than realism. Expressionism plays to emotional reaction. As history will tell us, expressionism in painting came about after the impressionist period in the last portion of the nineteenth century. Impressionists taught the world (or those who visited art galleries and went to art openings) a new way of seeing. And that way of seeing was with your inner eye—meaning your brain—and not so much with your logical, or outer, eye.

Expressionistic art was also done in a time of upheaval in the world: the breakdown of the gilded age of kings and queens, the revolutions in Europe, the world wars. If you’re at all a student of art history, you know of art imitating life. Broad brush strokes (often with a lot of contrast in color), faces with garish angularity, and almost primitive proportions were characteristic of the form.

Snook’s illustration is very cartoony. But you don’t have to look far to see some work done that is not quite so funny in depicting emotion, and much more emoting tension—even anger.

My theory of why this is all prominent now in publicized artwork is that we live in a very changing world. A global economy (with several nations having proprietary resources), tensions around the world (knowing that now many nations have nuclear capability), strong climate changes, immediate news on TV and the Internet. Twitter and Facebook promote reactive activity. Maybe I’m wrong. But something has spurred things along to where commercial illustration is now, to where it reflects all that noise.

There are other factors possible: younger generations have different ideas of seeing the world in art; and for everyone, using computer apps and plug-ins can easily take a photo and transform it into an illustration or even a painting, with textures and warping the perspective. Why would you need to actually draw it first? Is that why we no longer need to teach it?

Because when you think about it, how would you teach a student to think in expressionistic terms? Maybe to them, realism is just too superficial.

 

Designs by One Person

I’ve made no bones about my issues with “teams” doing designs. I don’t like them, they stifle the creative process, and they’re a huge waste of time.

I’ve worked in places that subscribe totally to this team effort, sometimes using up to five different designers to submit ideas on creative (and then combine parts from each submission), or they’ll submit all to a “committee” (of non-designers!) to decide what will fly to the marketing department.

The creative process starts with one idea, culled from design cues in nature and environmental surroundings, and then polished to a finish according to one’s years of visual experience. The best designs are memorable this way: they are unique in that they are always one person’s vision, one’s take on what should be. It’s really that simple.

When Cecil Beaton was called upon to do designs for the fashions in My Fair Lady, his reputation had preceded him. Sir Cecil started out as a photographer in the 1920s and eventually gained respect for his fashion photographs and was hired by (British) Vanity Fair and Vogue while also doing portraits of celebrities in Hollywood. After World War II, he became a Broadway stage and set designer and started doing costume designs and lighting designs. Lerner and Loewe hired him to do the costumes for My Fair Lady in 1956. This success earned him the design spots for Gigi in 1958, and then for the movie version of My Fair Lady in 1964. His iconic Ascot outfit worn by Audrey Hepburn is unquestionably the most famous in all of movie history, and won Beaton the Academy Award for Best Costume Design.

Raymond Loewy was born in Paris and was a World War I veteran, attaining the rank of captain in the French army. After emigrating to New York in 1919, he found work designing windows and store displays for Macy’s and Saks Fifth Avenue. In 1929, he got a commission to streamline the look of a duplicating machine for a now obscure company, but that led to other commissions for designs for Westinghouse and refrigerator designs for Sears. He designed locomotives for the Pennsylvania Railroad in the late 1930s and soon developed a working relationship with the Studebaker Corporation. He designed most of the Studebakers throughout the 1950s, and in 1961 was called upon to design a new car called the Avanti, which debuted in 1963. This car is still considered one of the finest designs in automotive history. Loewy was a renowned designer in many areas, including furniture.

If you’re ever in Bear Run, Pennsylvania near Pittsburgh, you certainly will have to take in Fallingwater, designed by the premier architect in all of America and all the world, Frank Lloyd Wright. I won’t give you a detailed history of Wright, other than to say he had a single credo that guided his every effort—designing structures that were to be in harmony with their environment. His work is very distinctive and encompasses everything from residential homes to museums and even hotels and college campuses. There isn’t nearly space enough in this blog to cover the breadth and scope of his wonderful work, but if you’ve ever been in one of his “spaces”, you’d certainly remember it. Fallingwater, a house built in 1935 over a waterfall, is his most famous design.

Each of these solitary individuals set a tone for designs during their lives that were influential and classic. They were both pioneers and trend setters. And that is something you don’t often come across.

What I don’t understand is why companies choose to ignore the tenet that design is an individual effort. In the formative years at any art and design school, that principle is taught and is borne out in the wonderful sketches and showcases that display the best work at schools such as Art Center in Los Angeles and the Rhode Island School of Design.

But something gets lost in the commercial aftermath. Corporations are run by a CEO, yet the creative decisions are made by departments further down the chart, with the marketing department weighing in more than the rest. It’s become unfortunate that it’s all about money anymore. Even an outside design agency’s creative gets kicked back several times by the client’s committees before going into final art, but not before it gets screened to smithereens by focus groups. The entire process is bigger, yet the results miniscule.

It’s amazing anything gets done, and when it does, it meets nobody’s satisfaction nearly enough. I say take a step back and look why great designs are not produced these days. What would a Raymond Loewy package design look like, or a Frank Lloyd Wright pop-up book?

Style is Gone

I’m from an era well before the advent of the computer. When I entered the “field” (as we used to call it), my portfolio had everything in it, at least everything that I wanted to do going forward. But twenty-or-so years later, the art and design business had transformed itself.

I first came into the business as a designer/illustrator. One of my mentors, a guy by the name of Fred Coe, had told me early on that my portfolio had too much in it, or not enough, depending on what art directors wanted to see. Half of the bag was illustration and half was design work, of which he told me to choose only one to promote. “They won’t know where to put you,” he said.

At first, I was lucky. I’d found a place in Cincinnati that hired me to do both disciplines. But a few years later when I moved to a bigger market—Chicago—I found I had to specialize. My design half was ignored while my illustration half was drawing the attention, and so I became a full-fledged illustrator.

Doing that work came easy for me, my style being photo-realistic. And because Chicago was—and still is—a big market in the ad business, my future looked bright as long as advertising illustration was paying my way. This was in the 1970s and 1980s, and newspapers and magazines became the showcase for my work as well as many friends and acquaintances who did similar work. With ad agencies galore and several independent art “studios” as sources, a freelance illustrator could make a lot of money.

What made it fun and interesting for all concerned was that each of us—the illustrators—had a different working style. We drew the line work differently from each other, we applied the paint or watercolor (with a brush and/or airbrush) differently from each other. Overall, we thought the art process through in our own unique way, and that thought process was what made the end results appear so different. Our work was as independently unique as much as each individual appeared standing before you. That’s what made the work so personal.

Then “progress” came along in the late stages of that latter decade. Computers were making inroads into the business, and catalogs for stock illustration began to appear. Because it all seemed to happen within a few years, ad agencies were letting art directors go. Illustrators weren’t getting the assignments as before and soon photographers were suffering the same plight. Type houses started disappearing. Stock photography was showing up. The business was changing, and it was changing rapidly. I bought up cameras and lights and a bunch of stands and booms, making my own backdrops. I needed to diversify, reinvent myself.

With commercial illustration vanishing, I found getting back into design work difficult. My contacts knew me as an illustrator, not as one who could actually do design work. But that’s another story.

When Macs made the biggest splash with system 7.1 around 1994, I bought into it. I learned Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop, QuarkXpress, and a few other applications quickly to bring myself up to snuff. I found the medium to be a great tool for processing artwork. What I did not like, however—and still don’t—was creating artwork with it. It isn’t natural.

I find it confining. The art one can do on a computer screen looks and feels mechanical, like drawing with a compass and plastic drawing aids like Alvin templates, drafting tools from an earlier age. Painter, a Corel application, tries hard to make painting as natural and fluid as it can on the screen, but falls way short. The only real advantage one can say about creating illustrations on computer is the undo feature.

What the computer did was homogenize the entire advertising industry. Since individualized illustration and much of photography were sitting in virtual purgatory, the rest of the designed imagery was being done by young “graphic designers” (then a new term) who were schooled in a new mindset of using the computer, not as a tool, but as a machine that everything was created with, like a food processor that already had all the ingredients and recipes in it. This new method of designing directly on the monitor, from scratch, was foreign to anyone like myself. These new graphic designers did not use pencil and paper—ever—to even visualize potential layouts (thumbnails) of magazine pages or of ads for products. The very thought process was short circuited.

And why would these young souls bother to actually design something? They already had templates to follow for that. And worse, this homogenization was extending across the industry. Specializing in one area—like the rest of my breed—was now a bad thing. You were expected to become adept at everything, including website design and HTML. This automaton mentality feeds the “team” process that exists everywhere, and now all members of that are interchangeable—and replaceable.

The end result of all this is the total abandonment of style. And one large elephantine reason to perpetuate this new process of non-thinking is speed. Do it quickly. Get it done now. If you take too long to actually design something new, you’re on the outs. They have templates for everything. And they have budgets for everything, too. I once lost a freelance assignment doing logos for a generic soft drink. They wanted twenty designs in two days. After three hours, the art director saw my process of initial designs on paper and handed the assignment to another, younger person, telling me I was too slow and that “there are templates you could’ve used.”

How is that different? Where is the style, the individuality? It’s gone. Everything is standardized. You take a photo of something (top left) and there are filters to change it into artwork (top right). With so many plugins and filters and morphs, a sameness in everything prevails. Even in the movies, the animated 3D cartoon you take your children (or grandchildren) to see looks the same as the next, because the software the studios use is the same.

I’ll stay with what I do as far as illustration goes. It’s watercolor. It’s natural. And it’s only me doing it.