Although Goya is situated between the classicalist and modernist eras of art, there is something about his work that strikes me as being medieval in a certain way. Perhaps it is because the grotesque figures in his etchings remind me of medieval depictions of demons and some of the more imaginative pieces of marginalia I’ve seen, or perhaps it is because, like miniaturists of the medieval period, Goya works references to famous figures or events into his artwork, albeit in a much less flattering light. In transitioning from the medieval to the modern, I find myself looking for ways to understand the illuminations in reference to Goya and Goya in reference to the illuminations. This of course raises the question of how illuminations and illustrations are connected, but also how they differ.
While we comfortably use ‘illustration’ when referring to miniatures, the converse is not true; we do not typically refer to illustrations as ‘illuminations.’ Though the two words seem to share common referential ground, there is still a distinction of some kind. Etymologically speaking, ‘illumination’ comes from the Latin stem word illuminare (to throw into light, make bright), which comes from the assimilated form of in- and lumen (light). “Illustration” comes from the Latin illustrationem, meaning both “vivid representation,” “to illuminate” and “to explain or make clear” (Online Etymology Dictionary). It is clear that the two forms of art have the basis of light- throwing light, making bright, enlightening. However, it seems that there is a difference in how each art form would be used. The root of ‘illumination’ reduces to “in + light” whereas illustration is explained in terms of illumination with the added definition of “to explain or make clear.” The difference as I see it is that the illumination could be a depiction of a scene within a manuscript, but moreso it was there to beautify the manuscript, make it radiant and ‘enlightened.’ This is not to say that illumination is purely decorative and not depictive, but rather that illumination sheds a different kind of light than illustration. Illustration sheds light for the benefit and ‘enlightenment’ of the reader who needs something clarified. Interestingly, a definition of ‘illustration’ from the 1580s calls it an “act of making clear in the mind,” which definitively roots the word in the mental senses (Online Etymology Dictionary). So the type of enlightenment and whether it is on behalf of the text or the reader is perhaps the most pertinent difference between illumination and illustration. It also explains, in my own opinion, the seemingly medieval influences in Goya.
As a commentator, Goya was seeking to enlighten his readers and reveal to them certain critical aspects of their society. Yet calling him an illustrator seems slightly misleading because his works aren’t associated with a text that needs clarification. They stand on their own, much as some of the illuminations we have seen are artworks that are related to but not dependent on texts. However, whereas only the wealthy could own illuminated manuscripts, Goya’s work is social commentary, frequently depicting the underprivileged, and was meant for the public’s edification. Someone mentioned Goya’s art being ‘vulgar,’ which draws to mind the linguistic connotations: the vulgate refers to the language of the masses as opposed to the Latin used by elites. For this reason, ‘vulgar’ can mean “belonging to the masses.” Goya’s prints have the same artistic independence from text as illuminations and also act to enlighten, explain or make clear the way illustrations do; they are situated between these medieval and modern modes of depiction and could perhaps best be called ‘vulgar illuminations.’
