Illustration is not a discipline- it is an action an artwork can do.

Disciplines seek to define themselves through constant and ever evolving self criticism, finding their edges. Authors like C. Greenberg in his essay 'Modernist Painting'(1) have argued that each discipline needs to describe the characteristics unique to it in order to uphold its own independence.

An illustration is something which communicates; elucidates, describes, directs or represents another thing. Nearly anything can be illustrative: painting, drawing, graphic design, sculpture, music- all can be used to illustrate, despite not being explicitly illustrative disciplines. Often the most compelling illustrations are the ones that come in forms you don't expect because they're able to tell you a story you might have heard a million times over in a way you've never heard before. The only uniting feature for all of these works- the thing that would make them illustrations- is that a decision was made for them to be illustrations.

If setting out to make an illustration is the defining feature of it, then it is by definition an action you have chosen to do. If you as an editor have chosen an artwork to illustrate an article, then you have transformed that artwork into an illustration. It is now functioning as an illustration. Illustration is something that can be done, not something that inherently is.

(1.) Greenberg,C. 1982. Modernist Painting. In: Frascina, F.ed. Modern Art and Modernism: A Critical Anthology. New York: Routledge.

This touches on a comparison I have always seemed to have a hard time considering for myself – fine art vs. illustrations/sketches/etc. The avenue I'll take here is that visual art is connected with and perceived by a viewer in two identifiable ways; through an illustrative and/or personal connection.

I believe your argument is highlighting the illustrative connection an average viewer can have to art, but only that. How they feel looking at it, knowing exactly where it comes from, and their judgement of it based on their taste is a part of the personal connection needed to distinguish illustration as an art form.

Illustrations expect a personal connection and have an inherent illustrative connection. They are made for a reason with a specific intent behind them. The illustrative connection (universal) is greater than the personal connection to the average viewer here (note: average). The source below states, "Illustration is supportive in purpose and is more commercial in sense."

Fine art will always have an illustrative connection through what the viewer perceives, but it resides in hope to form a personal connection. The personal connection is either eventually or never at all greater than the illustrative connection to the average viewer.

Again, the source below states, "Fine art is not created with a motive of getting it printed." This important point implies that illustrations are printed and distributed multiple times. It has become easier to do this digitally with fine art, but let us stay on track. The uniting feature of illustrations is their accessibility by the average art viewer and more.

This is not to say that illustrations cannot be fine art and vice versa. Fine art seeks to please the viewer through its physicality, placement, and exclusivity and it is often considered successful if it does so. To me, this must be why galleries and museums with art that is adored by many exist and that's without considering a piece's historical significance.

Illustrations also seek to please the viewer, but more than only the average viewer. An illustration can be anything from designs on a website to pictures in a book – the viewer is either perusing the website or reading the book. Even personal pet portraits are illustrations – connecting illustratively first ("THIS IS MY PET") and definitely personally ("THIS IS MY PET DRAWN BY SO AND SO IN THIS WAY"). Regardless of my slightly far fetched argument and theory, they are a part of a passing or daily experience which makes their viewer more than an average viewer of art.

Big 'ole clarifying statement: Illustration solidifies itself as an art form through its conceivably personal connection because its viewers are more than those simply viewing art for the art's sake.

https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-fine-art-and-vs-illustration/

TL;DR – Today, illustration is one of the most versatile artforms spanning across various disciplines and multiple industries. Examples of this can be seen in advertising, packaging, branding and logo, book illustrations, etc. However, it seems as though it’s very strength – versatility, is also it’s greatest weakness. Calling into question whether or not illustration is truly an “authentic” artform.

According to the website illustrationhistory.org, although illustration only became recognized as a profession in the early 1800s, we have been using illustration since the early cave paintings – telling stories by depicting narrative images. Evidence of this can be seen in the earliest recorded illustrations that appeared in the cave paintings, which originated in Lascaux, France, ca.15,000 B.C.

Furthermore, both English and French artists independently earned a living as full-time illustrators with sales of etched or engraved prints through small gallery-like print shops and city street book stalls. This lead to illustration becoming more accessible and affordable. For example, books by Charles Dickens and other popular writers were illustrated.

Another example where we can see illustration's versatility in action, is in the entertainment industry, specifically filming. Walt Disney made it's first popular sound cartoon Steamboat Willie in 1928. Following this, they went on to create full-length animated feature films such as Snow White - which began production in 1934, and Pinocchio - which began production in 1936.

So from here, we can already see how this artform has evolved and adapted over time. Even the website aestheticamagazine.com agrees that illustration is an artform. It in fact views illustration as part of the contemporary visual culture. More specifically, it defines illustration as, “one of the most versatile art forms in today’s visual culture.” As a result of this the “label” illustration can be considered as ambiguous.

So because this definition of illustration is so “amorphous” and “indefinite,” it defies convention with regards to how typical art is usually perceived. Herein then, lies the confusion as to whether illustration is truly an artform or not.

However, this is put into perspective for us when the website aestheticamagazine.com informs us, “Today’s illustrators go beyond caricature and visual representation to observational statements about current trends and popular culture. Contemporary illustration is a new movement with illustrators drawing influences from graffiti, fashion, computer games and animation. There are fewer boundaries and more friction.”

So while illustration might not be seen as an artform in the standard sense, it is nevertheless still an artform – it’s just an artform in its own right.

Sources:

1. History - Illustration History
   https://www.illustrationhistory.org/history [accessed February 17, 2021].

2. Defining the Art of illustration
   https://aestheticamagazine.com/defining-the-art-of-illustration/ [accessed February 17, 2021].