Context of Practice: How do we define illustration?

For the following discussion I shall make reference to the following articles by Lawrence Zeegen:
Where is the content? Where is the comment?
Computer Arts (Issue 174) - The Illustration Revival

Tyler Stout - 'Total Recall' poster commissioned by the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema

I define good illustration as a communicative visual device which conveys a concept or meaning to specific recipients. Tyler Stouts illustrations for the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema are intensely well crafted posters promote film events, despite Zeegens allusions that "it's all quantity over quality" it is clear that despite the large catalogue of Stouts posters the intensive quality is not subservient. I would also suggest that these posters evidently "transcend the discipline of graphic art and explore the potential for working with a wider audience." The imagery was initially intended for the advertisement of limited film showings at a cinema chain, they have since become well sought after prints. They have transcended the limited circuit of influence and have become piece of design which manage to compress the narrative information of hours of screen time into a relatively small two dimensional image.

Illustration is primarily used to support or refer to an external medium (such as text) Successful illustration can cause the viewer to experience an emotion, to be informed or provoked. The application of the manipulative illustration will depend on the ethical awareness of an illustrator, this impacts how the piece is valued by peers and recipients, for example a stunning piece of propaganda may have visual merit but simultaneously demonise a class of race. Stout's Total Recall poster includes explicit reference to scenes which occur within the film, in this holistic explosion of narrative it can both intrigue those unfamiliar and inspire nostalgia in existing fans. Zeegen quotes Alex Spiro of Nobrow, "we always try to achieve finished products that are not only filled with great work, but are also art objects, to be coveted, collected and cherished." I would suggest that Stouts work certainly applies to Spiros' criteria, despite being initial reactive and commercial illustration for a specific purpose the works have become commodities which are sought after well beyond their intentional context. This is not a negative thing. Despite Zeegers vague assertions that an illustration such as Stouts might be nothing "much more than contemporary eye candy," I would argue illustration does not have to be weighted with social commentary in order to avoid "the nothingness." Stouts illustrations are not the consummation of the experience, they are connotative reference without being exclusive, an unfamiliar viewer can grasp the general themes an intricacies of the film and may be convinced to go watch it, in which case the poster has succeeded.

A critic might argue that Stouts' posters are simply regurgitating existing information, and lack in personality. I would refute this assertion, Stout has invested a great deal of skill and effort into producing the imagery and despite Zegeers decision that the "allure of the digital" has ceased; Stouts work merges the still evolving digital with screen printing which would  class a part of the "analogue-world." I would like to mention that the analogue world is generally the point of interaction with the majority of illustration, though the time people spend in front of screens is hideously large it is the analogue world that we routinely traipse through .