Books, Drawing, AI, & Finding Meaning in Creativity
A few months ago, I picked up a book called The Education of an Illustrator, edited by Steven Heller and Marshall Arisman. It is a collection of essays and interviews published in 2000 that offers insights into the field of illustration. The first entry features a conversation between Heller and Arisman, where they discuss the changes they’ve seen in illustration, especially with the rise of digital technology (mainly the internet and Photoshop). They eventually pose the question: Can digital tools like computers genuinely produce meaningful illustrations?
Arisman explains that drawing is more than a mere activity—it’s a process that unlocks creative potential. He points out that as children, “We are not trying to make art. We were trying to make sense out of the world we were experiencing. We told stories in pictures. We drew ‘dogness’ instead of drawing a portrait of a dog. We drew ‘motherness’ instead of drawing a likeness of our mother. Each new drawing we do contains the memory of our past drawings until we die. This is what separates drawing from photography and creating an image in Photoshop on the computer. The tool has no personal memory that is not programmed in. The mind remembers every smell, taste, and emotional experience that goes with it…In our digital age, can someone using the tool of the computer instead of the pencil have the same experience?” He then expresses concern that modern tools like Photoshop could lead to shortcuts and a loss of the practice that deepens the creative expression.
On the other hand, Heller questions whether the computer might fundamentally change how we perceive and practice illustration. His anticipation of this shift was proven accurate, and we now face similar questions with the advent of generative AI platforms like DALL-E and ChatGPT.
Soon after finding The Education of an Illustrator, I found an MFA thesis by designer Tim Murray titled “Intent: Preserving Creative Purpose Through Intentional Making,” published earlier this year. Murray addresses how generative AI can impact creativity and echoes many concerns that Heller and Arisman raised. He writes, “A designer’s task is to make sure our intentions direct our tools and not the other way around. Tools are intended to amplify and extend our capabilities, but as they become more complex and capable, it becomes easier to surrender our agency to them. The fundamental pressure on our intentions doesn’t come from artificial intelligence or from technology—it comes from our tendency to use our tools passively, letting them shape the direction of our work. We have to explore ways to use the powerful tools that facilitate our lives without letting them do the living for us.”
He also discusses the “creative vertigo” that some experience with AI, noting that the ease and pace of AI-generated work can make it feel as though one is no longer in control of one’s creative process. “As compelling as the end product may be, there is still a sense of loss—a feeling that some important part of the self is being bypassed.”
Murray’s reflections mirrored the concerns of Heller and Arisman, which are, at their core, about meaning and purpose. “Is this meaningful? Does this ‘count’ as art?” The quest for meaning in creative work remains the central theme, whether through traditional tools or new technologies.
(Image above from Tim Murray's MFA Thesis - Created by Tim Murray with Generative AI)
As an illustrator, I find meaning in the act of creating (or drawing, as Arisman put it). Whether that’s drawing on the computer, the iPad, a paper, canvas, or skateboard. The final product isn’t always the point, except as proof of the act of creating. And that is what we must ensure we don’t lose as we hurtle forward in our ever-advancing technological society. The journey of a thing, the humanity of the thing because of the journey it’s been on.
Most creatives likely have some trepidation about generative AI and its broader implications for how it can (and already has) upended the design and illustration fields. Personally, I think people understand that on some intrinsic level, they need the things they interact with to be meaningful, which is why generative AI will likely always only be a tool and not a final answer. People can’t connect with it like they can with something created by someone with a history and a story.
Even though Heller and Arisman discussed the advent of the digital age and its impact on illustration, Arisman’s final point still rings true today concerning generative AI and the future of design and illustration: “The internet is opening the door to personal content. Who is speaking and what they are saying in words and images is going to be more important than ever… If the illustrator has nothing to say, then so be it. Illustration is not dead—in fact, it may just be giving birth to itself.”
As we continue to confront ever-advancing technologies, it seems that the essence of creativity will always be about finding and imparting meaning. So, how do we find meaning in our creative endeavors? And how do we inject humanity into those processes? I’d love to hear your thoughts on the subject.
-BW
