Yorufuji : For a long time, I wondered what the difference between illustration and design was. After thinking about it, I decided my illustrations are what illustrations should be. Or maybe I should say they epitomize what illustrations should be. Illustrations are said to have started as pictures accompanying a written script to help convey the meaning. For those who could read, the illustrations provided detail beyond what was written. You could say illustrations are pictures that satisfy one's curiosity.

Aoki : To get one's imagination going?

Yes, exactly. If the first illustrators had been exceptionally talented, perhaps they would have been called something else, like "visual writers" or something. For me, what is called an illustration today really isn't. It's become more a matter of achieving the right touch, and capturing the "in" or "it" look. You often see it in magazines. These are not illustrations. They're more like designs. It is a visual image intended to leave the viewer with a vivid impression, not a device to enhance the meaning of something. These works are the product of emotion, not thought. So, they can't really be categorized as illustrations.

The advertisement industry, which is flush with cash, probably fostered this tendency. Just like catch copies, visual images need to be more and more snappy, meaning that visual impact becomes more important than content. The concern is how to present something in a new way. Also most products have similar features, so manufacturers tend to prefer visual images that make their products standout.

I agree. I think this tendency really took off during the bubble economy in the late 1980s. The boundary between illustrating and art became vague and obscure. The works that looked trendy and snazzy were thought to be the key to making money. That trend died out years ago. And now only a handful of illustrators, who are truly capable of creating distinguished work with high impact, has survived. But it strikes me that most people haven't realized that.

Over the last 10 years, as digital took over analog creations, it has been popular to use classic forms of creation on computer, much like a revival. It was considered to be a new style of creative expression, wasn't it? You did a series of "daubed illustrations" based on photographs. I think that series is close to what revival computer creations is all about. Now you have three distinguished modes of expression: hand-drawn illustrations, pictographic illustrations, and daubed illustrations. They are like three gradations, from elaborate creations to visually punchy ones. Among those, I'd guess that you don't really like the daubed ones.

I approach the visually fun works as a designer. It's totally different from working on illustrations. With the Kirin Lager Beer advertisement, I came up with daubed illustrations to serve as a symbol. It was not illustrating. It was about using beautiful shapes and colors, which is critical with that creative style. I don't feel the need to add imaginary elements, like I do when I illustrate.

When I first approached you about working together on the presentation for the Kirin Lager Beer campaign, I wanted you to come up with explicit, straightforward visuals, because I was tired of superficial nonsense. In the beginning, you draw them by hand, not using photographs, right? "Otona Tabako Yousei Kouza (Training Courses for Adults on How to Smoke)," the series of JT advertisements you have been working on, is a good example of clear-cut visuals. The drawings function perfectly as illustrations. Moreover, the illustrations do not just illustrate content, but give birth to distinguished characters that appear in each episode. That is not easy to do.

I think the series can be characterized in a more specific way. It's not about each character appearing in episodes, but rather enabling people to recognize the total characteristics of the series. When characterizing something, it is meaningless to come up with one character. There should be a bunch of other elements that serve as a unified core. They display stickers, posters, and other PR materials at stores. They come up with a commercial song, and air a commercial on television. Such an advertisement blitz can produce a character with mass appeal. If viewers like it, the character takes off. The same thing can be said about my daubed illustrations. We have done only prints. But if they are made into moving images, with a distinguished style, and are used in a series, they can become a symbolic character. People look at them and say, "Oh, I know. It's a Kirin ad." Then we can say the images have penetrated the public psyche.

Unfortunately, the series ended at the level of just making symbols, like other projects. They didn't go beyond more than eye-catching visuals.

Well, I think it's because the materials don't evolve easily. It's difficult to animate them. They came about as symbols. If you want to have an almighty expression that can be used in commercial films, graphics, etc., then characters are effective. They're easy to understand.

My company, butterfly stroke inc, is going to start a character licensing business. What do you think is important in making a character? Giving each character a clear personality, including the story behind it and the world it lives in? Or producing a number of character goods?

I think it's not a matter of how many goods are created, but how many people see and recognize the character. For example, think back to the time of civil wars in Japan. There were special items used by the warriors Date Masamune and Toyotomi Hideyoshi. For instance, Date Masamune's helmet was so distinguished and widely-known that if you put it on your head, you instantly became him. If the subject is super famous, it can be any character. Taking a distinguished element from something that is very famous, peculiar, and original-I think that is the easiest way to come up with characters. And making unknown things famous by focusing on their originality and personality is what character business is all about, in my opinion.