Compare
the evolution of branding in relation to the emergence of the Gestalt
Principles in the mid twentieth century; how did they have an Impact on Design?
Every day we are
exposed to many visual elements within the imagery that surrounds us, there are
several theories regarding visual perception but the Gestalt Theory is the key
thesis that I aim to investigate. It was developed much earlier in the 20th
Century but was only brought to light in visual and design terms by Kepes’s Language of Vision (1944) and
Arnheim’s Art and Visual Perception (1954).
These two books that I will look into further on, explained the principles and
the importance of the theory and as they are still used today across a range of
subjects from Psychology to Design, it is proof that this thesis has been
successful. It originated much earlier as a form of psychological research,
revolving around a theory that opposed structuralism, this was then developed
into a successful therapy by Fritz Perls in the 1940’s which is still used
today; concentrating on the self awareness and present state of a person. My research revolves around the how each of
the main visual perception principles have had an effect on the design and
branding industry; if it has stood the test of time; how great was the impact
on our ability and success as designers to develop the communication of our
message?
Max
Wertheimer, Rudolf Arnheim, Kurt Koffka and Wolfgang Kohler were the four psychologists
and founders of the Gestalt Theory, which they began to work and develop in
Germany, 1910. ‘There are wholes, the behavior of which is not determined by that of
their individual elements, but where the part-processes are themselves
determined by the intrinsic nature of the whole.’ (Wertheimer, 1924) ‘Gestalt’
is a German word for ‘shape’ or ‘form’, the theory revolves around this core
explanation that everything we see we perceive as a whole, only once we have
registered it within this form can we then deduce and recognise the separate
components as an after process. There is an extensive list of complex principles
that combine to create the terms of Gestalt Theory, however this has been
condensed into five main terms that encompass all aspects. Similarity,
continuation, closure, proximity, figure and order, and symmetry and order are
the six categories that are seen in the modern day as ‘more of a descriptive
framework than an explanatory and predictive theory.’ (Johnson, 2013, p13) It has become a guideline to the way we
design, how we approach a format and the in-depth consideration to the visual
perception of our audience allowing us to ‘learn to predict, and to an extent,
control what they view in the “scenes” you design if you create and arrange
their elements in line with inherent human behavior.’ (Lipton, 2011, p15) The
Gestalt Principles have allowed designers for decades now to be able to
understand the eye and mind relation, particularly with visual hierarchies and
how the audience is drawn to specifics such as brighter or bolder factors.
There
are many conditions that constitute to creating a successful brand, some that
are obvious and are known by the audience, but some that are received
subconsciously. ‘It is about creating an entity in the consumer’s mind so that
they can see it. They can see a representation but behind this representation
what they actually have is a whole series of images, beliefs and actions.’ (Davis,
2006, p31) This suggests how a brand needs to tell a reassuring story to its
target audience, it needs to draw them in with a sense that the product can be
relied on in a persuasive and appealing manner. A brand needs to have depth and
a background that the audience can relate to and understand, it needs to reach
out to them and encourage them to mentally invest in the company. Although the principles
of a company are important it is also important that ‘the face of your brand
evoke in the perceiver a combination of strong attraction and a sense of strong
positive emotion that will peak their dopamine levels.’ (Greyling, 2009, p18) This
is key to my investigation; it points out how the visuals of the brand are what
are what creates that first lasting impression on the public. Everything can be
advertised, but there are many different techniques to advertising to make the
audience feel a certain way. For example, perfume advertisements; the aim of
displaying half naked, very attractive ‘happy’ people is to sell the lifestyle
as a package with the perfume. The styles of the visuals directly influence how
the audience envisage that perfume to make them feel, even make them be,
altering their personality and ultimately giving them that fabulous lifestyle
promised by the model in the image. ‘To make
my meal in a box taste better,
I decided to tweak the logo, rather than
the ingredients.’ (Kintz, 2005,)
This perfectly backs up my theory and argument that it is what the customer
sees initially that affects their take on the product and instills thoughts in
their mind rather than a reality that they do not readily accept.
The law of closure is
a natural instinct of visual perception according to Gestalt, it is a term that
depicts how it is ‘the tendency to perceive a complete or incomplete part or
whole so as to attain maximum stability, balance or symmetry in the entire
configuration. (Brett King, Wertheimer, 2005, p155) Considering this statement when
looking at the evolution of the infamous IBM logo (figure 1) we can see how there
is a direct correlation in the transformation of the logo after the Gestalt
Principles became a key guideline to design. Commencing the end of World War II
was a major political milestone, one that had great effect on the expansion and
growth of the design industry.
Out of
these particular economic and political conditions arose a broader constituency
for the vision and products of modern design. This constituency included large
multinational corporations such as IBM and CBS and the conscious development of
their prominent visual identity and image programs, as well as efforts to link
modern industrial design with economic, social and cultural progress through
exhibitions, merchandising and magazine publication. (Raizman, 2003, p240)
The surge
of design that commenced after the war was a gateway for modernism, designers
were forced to rethink their practice and it became heavily focused on
structured grid systems with emphasis on negative space.
One of the
key Modernist designers at this time was Paul Rand who was part of the Bauhaus
and who was also the designer of the latter two IBM logos. The initial
four logos for the large corporate company seemed highly contrasting to what
the firm stood for; intelligence, strong mindfulness and innovation. They were
merely decorative images with flourishes that conveyed a whimsical visual and
were too complex for the audience to remember accurately. The forties and
fifties was the key time period when the principles were being brought to
light, amidst all this IBM had a sudden logo revamp after 22 years of their
previous one. 1947 and 1956 showed two greatly improved redesigns of the logo
and branding of the company, they were minimalistic, strong and were a great
improvement of what was used previously. However, it wasn’t until 1972 when
Rand made a breakthrough with a logo that is discussed still today as
revolutionary for the company’s visual presentation. ‘So the IBM logo, with its
Egyptian font and its striped surface, glorifies the values of efficiency and
commitment; it speaks of the dynamism and strength of corporate America.’
(Floch, 2005, p58) It comes to the question of why was there such commotion and
positive reaction to this new logo by Rand? It seems that the use of just
horizontal lines had a new and fascinating effect on the public, the use of so
much negative space allowed the logo to breathe but also gave it an edge and
unique quality. Although the typeface isn’t complete here and it is literally
just lines, we as the audience read it as an I, B and M, our mind closes in the
gaps and it is harder for us to see it as disjointed lines than as a whole. This
encompasses the law of closure first and foremost, but there are also elements
of similarity and proximity, the lines are all of equal thickness and are
spaced at the same distance from each other horizontally. Closure within a logo
that is abstract in form is important, if the audience can’t define a shape
from a broken path they struggle to comprehend what is before them. We can
easily distinguish the figure and ground aspect immediately, this is defined in
Arnheim’s 1954 book as ‘Two-dimensionality as a system of frontal planes is
represented in its most elementary form by the figure-ground relation. No more
than two planes are considered. One of them has to occupy more space than the
other and in fact has to be boundless; the directly visible part of the other
has to be smaller and confined by a rim. One lies in front of the other. One is
the figure, the other the ground.’ (Arnheim, 1954, p228). In the case of the
1972 blue on white logo the blue lines immediately stand out in the forefront,
these are the figure and it dominates the white ground behind. Contrasting this
in the logo of IBM today we see how the white lines are still the figure
despite having a dominant background, this is because our eyes are immediately
drawn to grouping the lines together due to the law of similarity. In a logo it
is crucial when designing that the law of similarity is enforced where
necessary; any objects that relate to each other should be visually similar so
the audience can piece together the picture. It also strengthens the visual and
becomes far more memorable and distinctive.
A
much more recent rebrand that was categorically unsuccessful was the rebrand of
the fashion company Gap. In 2010 their brand underwent a complete
transformation, it was done silently and the public were not notified of this
before it was changed on their website with little known about it. As shown
(figure 2) we can see the traditional logo that everyone is familiar with on
the left. The deep navy blue square box and the tall, sophisticated serif font
represent the company in a way that the consumer is accustomed to. The bond had
been made with the consumer and the face of the company, in terms of the visual
branding, had established the trust of this distinct brand. The change made was
not subtle and the harsh and unsuspecting conversion played a large part in the
backlash that was received. When deconstructing the new logo in terms of the
Gestalt principles it follows very little, if not any of them. The use of
Helvetica as the typeface makes the logo seem completely opposing to the tall
elegance it used to portray, it is now stout and wide with an over relaxed
nature. It is too complex in terms of layout, there is no symmetry and the
continuation is broken by a small blue box that looks unconsidered. ‘There is
no time now for the perception of too many details. The duration of the visual
impacts is too short. To attract the eye and convey the full meaning in this
visual turmoil of events, the image must possess, like the traffic sign,
simplicity of elements and lucid forcefulness.’ (Kepes, 1995, p130) A logo
needs to be snappy and the small and irrelevant blue box is anything but; the
gradual fade makes it seem weak and indecisive, confusing to define the
figure-ground, for the consumer to be confident the brand has to portray this.
Proximity is a very important Gestalt principle, it relates to how near or far
objects are displayed, whether they are grouped as a whole or as separate
categories. ‘Because we more readily pick up information close to the fovea, less
time and effort will be spent in neural processing and eye movements if related
information is spatially grouped.’ (Ware, 2013, p181) Again the blue square
falls short of this principle, the three letterforms in black are grouped
together quickly but the blue overlapping square delays recognition and comes
across as intruding on the space of the text in a colour that is unfamiliar to
their grouping. Overall this logo could have been successful had they
considered the proximity and similarity of the design, if the layout of the
blue box had been altered slightly, maybe central and below, this symmetry
would have offered two grouping techniques and would be much easier on the eye
and mind.
To
create a typeface that represents the capital of the United Kingdom is a
difficult task for anyone, to encompass all the different cultures and the
nature of the city in one typeface based around sport is a challenge. The
typeface ‘2012 headline’ by Gareth Hague without the present logo ‘is an odd
combination of characters vaguely looking like a melding of Greek stone carving
and graffiti lettering’ (Rhatigan, D Haley, A. 2012) The typeface is
uncomfortable and difficult to look at, it seems unbalanced and although it is
legible in short words the readability is compromised by the unsteady rhythm. ‘Like
the logo, the uncool font is based on jaggedness and crudeness, not usually
considered attributes where sport is concerned.’ (Garfield, 2011, p312) In
terms of following the key principles of Gestalt, it does have enough
personality for it to follow the rule of similarity. The harsh angles within
the typeface and the general visual of the letters are easily grouped together
within our mind. However, there was much controversy over the letter ‘o’, it
looked completely out of place and took a very round and soft format, this
immediately isolates it from the similarity group and poses such a contrast
that attention is drawn straight to it, diverting from the context. Choosing a
typeface for a design is difficult but designing one from scratch presents even
more of a problem and ‘what matters is that the text is readable and attractive
to its intended audience.’ (Baines, P, p125) The 2012 Olympics had such a large
audience from young children to adults from all backgrounds and cultures that
to me, the more simple the branding the more diverse and appropriate it would
have been. From the design of the logo and typeface it looks that the intended
audience was predominantly young teens, particularly those interested in
graffiti, this is very male orientated and biased. A very narrow and limiting
range, it heavily represented graffiti and tried to be ‘in fashion’ with the
younger generation.
Theories
of visual perception have been a large part of the development of psychology for
many decades now, some which back up the ideas that Gestalt proposed and some
that contrast it. Bottom up processing and top down processing were two key
theories highlighted in 1966 by James Gibson and 1970 by Richard Gregory. Top
down theory was first promoted in the 1970’s by IBM researchers Harlan Mills
and Niklaus Wirth who described it as such; ‘Top down starts with the overall
design. It requires finding modules and interfaces between them, and then going
on to design class hierarchies and interfaces inside individual classes.’ (El-Haik,
Shaout, 2011, p33) This links directly to Gestalt and backs up the concept of
how we see the big picture first before we begin to break it down and take in
the smaller elements of the structure. It also focuses on how we as the
audience use background knowledge to influence our perception, we have a
preconceived idea of what to expect; ‘the individual’s past knowledge,
expectations and stereotypes seek out sensory data to complete the picture’.
(Hill, 2001) On the other hand, Gibson came up with the Bottom Down Processing theory
that contrast both Gregory’s thesis and the Gestalt theory. ‘There is
enough information in our environment to make sense of the world in a direct
way. For Gibson: sensation is perception: what you see if what you
get. There is no need for processing (interpretation) as the information
we receive about size, shape and distance etc. is sufficiently detailed for us
to interact directly with the environment.’ (McLeod, 2007) This statement regarding
Bottom Up Processing states that we do not rely on prior knowledge to influence
the visual we see in front of us. As a theory it suggests that we initially see
small areas of a visual, those that are bolder or brighter for example, from
this we then piece together everything surrounding this information to build up
to the whole. This contrasts the main key point of Gestalt Theory, it works
completely in reverse and there is too much proof and relatable areas of
Gestalt for the Bottom Up theory to be consistent.
Using
the Gestalt Principles as a guideline toward design, whether it be branding and
typography or web design and on screen purposes, has been proved to be a
successful structure. Through the comparisons I have analysed and the
conclusions I have come to, the Gestalt Principles need to be thoroughly
considered when designing; if one is applied unsuccessfully this affects the
design as a whole. A logo tells the story of a company, it is the face and
first visual a client or consumer will see, from research collected it is
necessary to consider the Gestalt Principles, in particular proximity,
similarity and closure to design a memorable and successful branding. The
expanding knowledge of visual perception pre 1960’s has had break through
consequences that allow us now as to designers to understand how the eye and
brain function closely when evaluating what we see in front of us. To conclude;
design as a practice has been greatly developed and expanded following the
emergence of the Gestalt Principles, it has become more focused on the visual
observations of a message in a way that is beneficial to the audience in terms
of ease of communication and understanding.
(Figure 1)
(Figure 2)
(Figure 3)
Bibliography
Wertheimer, M (1924) Gestalt
theory: Social Research, 11 (translation of lecture at the Kant Society,
Berlin)
Johnson, J (2013). Designing with the Mind in Mind: Simple Guide to
Understanding User Interface Design Guidelines. 2nd ed. Massachusetts: Morgan Kauffman. p13.
Lipton, R (2007). The Practical Guide to Information Design.
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p15.
Davis, M (2006). More Than a Name: An Introduction to Branding. Switzerland: AVA Publishing. p31.
Greyling, A (2009). Face your brand! The visual language of
branding explained. Johannesburg : Alexander Greyling. p18.
Kintz, J (2012) This is the best book I've ever written, and it still
sucks. Amazon Digital Services, Inc [Online]. Available at: www.amazon.co.uk
(Accessed: 28th January 2015).
Brett King, D Wertheimer, M (2005). Max Wertheimer and Gestalt
Theory. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. p155.
Raizman, D (2003). History of Modern Design: Graphics and
Products Since the Industrial Revolution. London: Lawrence King
Publishing. p240.
Floch, J (2005). Visual Identities. 2nd ed. London:
Bloomsbury Publishing. p58.
Arnheim, R (1974). Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the
Creative Eye. 2nd ed. California: University of California Press. p228.
|
Kepes, G (1995). Language of Vision. 2nd ed. Massachusetts:
Courier Corporation. p130.
Ware, C (2013). Information Visualization: Perception for Design.
3rd ed. Massachusetts: Elsevier. p181.
Rhatigan, D Haley, A. (2012). Olympic typography through the years.
Available: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-08/03/olympic-typography.
Last accessed 29th Jan 2015.
Garfield, S (2011). Just My Type: A Book About Fonts. 2nd ed.
London: Profile Books. p312.
Baines, P Haslam, A (2005). Type and Typography. London:
Laurence King Publishing. p125.
El-Haik, B Shaout, A (2011). Software Design for Six Sigma: A
Roadmap for Excellence. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p33.
Hill, G (2001). A Level Psychology Through Diagrams. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. p125.
McLeod, S. (2007). Visual Perception Theory. Available:
http://www.simplypsychology.org/perception-theories.html. Last accessed 29th
Jan 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment