Integrating Form and Content

Roger Fry, Some Questions in Esthetic Transformations, London, 19263 24

Roger Fry, commenting on the problem of integrating representational and formal elements, states: “This may, perhaps, give us a hint as to the nature of such combinations of two arts, namely, that cooperation is most possible where neither of them is pushed to the fullest possibilities of expression, where in both a certain freedom is left to the imagination, where we are moved rather by suggestion than statement.”2

Visual statements such as illustrations which do not involve aesthetic judgment and which are merely literal descriptions of reality can be neither intellectually stimulating nor visually distinctive. By the same token, the indiscriminate use of typefaces, geometric patterns, and abstract shapes (hand or computer generated) is self-defeating when they function merely as a vehicle for self-expression.The visual statement, on the other hand, that seeks to express the essence of an idea, and that is based on function, fantasy, and analytic judgment, is likely to be not only unique but meaningful and memorable as well.

In practice, when a design is submitted for approval, it is prettied up with mat and celophane and judged as an isolated fragment. Under such conditions, and in the absence of competition, the purely conventional type of illustration may seem quite effective. However, for an advertisement to hold its own in a competitive race, the designer must steer clear of visual clichés by some unexpected interpretation of the commonplace. He does this partly by simplifying, by abstracting, by symbolizing. If the resulting visual image is in any way ambiguous, it may be supplemented by one that is more clearly recognizable.

In the examples that follow, the abstract, geometric forms (attention-arresting de vices) tend to dominate, while the representational images play a supporting role. The complementary relationship between these two types of images is dramatized when human expression is introduced.

There are, however, instances when recognizable images are of sufficient plastic expressiveness to make the addition of geometric or abstract shapes superfluous.

What we commonly understand as “originality” depends on the successful integration of the symbol as a visual entity with all other elements, pointed to a particular problem, performing a specific function consistent with its form. Its use at the proper time and place is essential and its misuse will inevitably result in banality or mere affectation. The designer’s capacity to contribute to the effectiveness of the basic meaning of the symbol, by interpretation, addition, subtraction, juxtaposition, alteration, adjustment, association, intensification, and clarification, is parallel to those qualities that we call “original.”

The Coronet Brandy advertisements are based on a common object-the brandy snifter in animated form.The dot pattern of the soda bottle was designed to suggest effervescence; the dotted background is a visual extension of the bottle; the waiter is a variation of the snifter glass; the oval tray individualizes for Coronet the silver tray we used to see in liquor advertisements.

The dividing line between representational and nonrepresentational images is often very slim. In this advertisement for Ohrbach’s the window shade acts as a formal as well as a poignantly suggestive image (1946).

Occasionally purely nonrepresentational images function even more effectively without the support of explanatory illustrations which tend to confine an idea and limit the imagination. The spectator is thus able to see more than is actually portrayed.