![Phone icon illustrator](https://cdn1.cdnme.se/5447227/9-3/screenshot_5_64e62947ddf2b306ca76f796.jpg)
![illustrator symbols illustrator symbols](https://speckyboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/symbols2.png)
A brush can store a limited amount of artwork compared to a pattern fill, no gradients are allowed, for example. Is to use the other kind of art-storage method: the brush. The problem is that unlike in this case, the map circles can be all over the place and not matched to a grid to which a pattern fill could also be matched.
![illustrator symbols illustrator symbols](https://vectorportal.com/storage/VP_Symbols16_1182.jpg)
So you get a pattern all wrong & chopped up on the document. Unfortunately they do not make it easy because any shape in the document offset in its position from where the pattern fill gets its origin from, tiled, will have its pattern fill transformed not offset from the object's bounding box. Of course it would be easy and useful for anyone to make a pattern consisting of the one bunch of art (the size of the intended shape to be filled) and then use this pattern fill to fill all desired circles. One of these can be used to map art to shapes, but which one & why not both? Pattern fill fail In Illustrator they let you capture arbitrary line-art and raster art in a couple different formats other than symbols: a pattern and brush. There's a round-about alternative which takes advantage of some Illustrator features to provide nearly the same functionality using Graphic Styles. With symbols there's a high degree of editability available. You know, scripts and symbols are a good way to get a robust editable set of art mapped onto individual shapes in Illustrator.
![Phone icon illustrator](https://cdn1.cdnme.se/5447227/9-3/screenshot_5_64e62947ddf2b306ca76f796.jpg)