Reply to Conger, Strayer, Grabner

Conger finds connections between some of the fundamental terms of my theory of illustration and his own abstract art. He claims that viewers engage with paintings, despite their being two-dimensional objects, as if they were actually in three dimensions. However, paintings are themselves three dimensional in that the paint is applied is varying thicknesses, even if the canvas can be treated as a two-dimensional object. I discuss the sense in which it makes sense to treat paintings as being two-dimensional objects.

I examine how the kinds of illustration that Strayer cites as important to art and its history might be furthered considered philosophically. Danto argued that Warhol's Brillo Box raised a philosophical question that had not been recognized by philosophers, viz. why one of two perceptually identical objects is a work of art while the other is a “mere” thing. Strayer calls this a problem-based illustration. I address the question of whether Brillo Box should be considered the type of illustration Strayer claims it to be and whether only a work of art could have raised this question.

Grabner’s linking of the practice of contemporary women artists including herself to my account is illuminating for both my account of illustration and the work of these important artists. I discuss the relationship between the artists she discusses and the conceptual artists I discuss. My goal is to demonstrate the unique contribution these artists make to the tradition of illustration.