Wow...this can be a whole thread on it's own. I do not agree with this guy at all. I understand what he's talking about as far as modern illustration (what it's come to mean now as a "status"--as some have come to use it) and commissions that the old masters have done, but he's mixing a lot of things up in order to stay true to his little quote:
The distinction lies in the fact that art is the idea (brought to life) while an illustration is a depiction (or explanation) of an idea.
Fine Art is simply art for art's sake. Even if you are doing a commission for a client, it would still be fine art. But illustration is illustrating a story or idea.
In modern illustration the intent is most often the selling of a product. When something noble is put to ignoble ends, there is a deterioration of value.
Some of that pertains to one era, and some of it pertains to another, plus he's saying there's a difference between
art and illustration, when it's
all art. One is fine art and one is illustration, and it's "
illustration" that had different meanings at different times (and still do). It's not so black and white.
Nowadays, illustration has come to be more synonymous with commercial art (which fine art can be too), but what both are trying to differentiate from "fine art" is "work for hire." It can also mean you are making art for a story (a children's book, or story book, etc.), but it's usually because you're being hired by someone else to do that job. It's usually not
your story you're illustrating. It's work for hire in most cases.
Michelangelo was commissioned to do his work, but that's not the same thing, is it? Different time. But you could say, they were collaborative efforts that were funded by the Church or whatever. He was free to make his own interpretations and he couldn't have done it without that money. Of course it's now the most extreme case of fine art we know today. Maybe they were more like investments. Rothko was more funded to do the chapel job than commissioned and he was "commissioned" to do that because of who he was, just like Michelangelo was funded to make his work because of the fine artist he was.
I've also been told that once you put an ink pen down on top of a watercolor painting, it's become an "illustration" and is no longer a "painting." So what's
that all about? Ha ha ha!