categories
archives
rss

Some Thoughts on the ‘Problem’ of Flat Vector Graphics

Whilst many practitioners celebrate the rise of hand-drawn illustration in the face of a computer-based approach to visual communication, I think it’s time to reassess the terms of the debate and assert, amongst other things, that digital techniques have brought about the re-emergence of the spatial plane as a basic structuring element of design. This is not to say that it ever went away, rather exponents of a hand-drawn (some say ‘self-expressive’) practice simply lost sight of its centrality to the constitution of their own formal concerns.

The improvised, calligraphic line has enjoyed much currency of late and has led to the marginalization of other significant developments in the area of graphic practice. For when the ‘flat vector graphic’ approach is cited as the antithesis of expressive form, this underplays the contribution of designers and illustrators coming to terms with digital communication; in particular, their exploration of alternative hierarchies within familiar organisational structures in Design. Within the flatness of computer-based work there is the arrangement of compositional space across a two-dimensional plane to consider; that is, the thoughtful composition of visual elements in relation to its founding surface. The ground upon which other elements of design are situated (the point and line designated in Modernist primers) is, itself, undergoing a process of fragmentation. The ‘flat vector graphic’ approach cuts into the framed space of the empty page or blank computer screen and reconfigures it as interlocking shapes and, in some cases, a multiplicity of receding surfaces.

This dissolution of the designer’s ‘ground’ into a series of inter-related fragments has been accompanied by another significant emergence in graphic practice: the rise of colour. In the work of Shynola and Joe Magee, for instance, the CMYK colour palette is deployed in a way that exceeds the limited range of a corporate identity swatch, for example. Their experiments with shape across the two-dimensional plane have allowed depth to be added to the graphic image through the device of tone and contrast. This depth of surfaces (or recession of discrete flat planes), it seems, stands in stark contradiction to the ‘flatness’ invoked by popular mythology. Perhaps the designer or illustrator might have sacrificed a fluid sense of line (a contentious assumption), sometimes opting for an even-weighted point drawn continuously across the ground, but this is not to suggest that the image is lacking in life or personality. One simply needs to search for the designer’s intervention elsewhere. The designer’s hand is at work in the deployment of interlocking and overlapping planes.

As Kandinsky has explained in Point and Line to Plane in relation to the impact of Photography (a ‘new’ technique) on painting:

“His eyes (the practitioner) have become sensitized to realize the rhythmic life in the span of the inbetween . . . its endless combinations of colours, forms and contrasts, in their relations to each other or to space” (Kandinsky 1947: p.11).

Julia Moszkowicz, Senior Lecturer Bath Spa University

 

6 comments

Although I can understand the reasoning of the above – it seems to be telling a half truth by providing a very deliberate ‘cut out’ of picture theory, which excludes much in its attempt to provide a quite formalist interpretation of illustration/digital media. One issue is Perspective; perspective originally enters the visual realm to facilitate a way for the artist to understand (in a scientific sense) and represent reality – much has been written on the cultural power of such an affiliation – perspective provided a reproducible rule book to allow artists to capture the ‘real’. This traditional form of representation has been a foil for the avant-garde in subverting reality – which has included ‘inter-related’ fragmentation but this position, ideological or artistic, I would argue is missing in the work referenced here. I think many of these forms of illustration provide a safe distance from any real subversion – the Shynola example reminds me of the South Park animations – any sophistication of ‘interlocking and overlapping planes’ is lost in the banality of the stereotype.

/Christian 27/09/2005

 

I’m not sure that Julia is trying to suggest here that Shynola are subverting…but it’s not clear either why the tone and contrast employed manages to seduce her so much. I have looked at the site and I can’t see it myself.

/Ray 27/09/2005

 

I think we might have a over-reading of the work here? Looking at some art historical movements there have been conscious examinations of the picture plane. Constructivism is a good example of this investigation – with the relationship between the new art and the everyday life of the time documented in writing and manifestos; newspapers like ‘objet’ etc. Now, I do not disagree with the mapping of art historical analysis onto graphic design artefact – but it can lead to a separation between the work and critique – do we know for instance, especially in the Shynola example, if this is anything more than the playing out of new technology rather than a conscious investigation of the picture plane?

/Jodie Pearce 30/09/2005

 

I take your point, but do we really need the artist/designer to have invested in a ‘conscious’ investigation of the picture plane for it to function in such a way? This reminds me of people say to any ‘reading’ of an image -isn’t it there just to be looked at? etc. The Constructivist works you mention were deliberately developing a new visual lexicon to address and intervene in a new political situation. Of course the relationships between word, image, plane and angle were ‘conscious’. But they didn’t invent these spaces, shapes, repetitions - they were exaggerating and pushing forward what the technologies of their day were already starting to play out/throw up.

/Ray 30/09/2005

 

Thanks for your comments. I take on board the idea that I appear to be a formalist in my approach to the work cited and the work itself does not, perhaps, appear to comprehensively lend itself to my reading. I just think that it’s not always a question of a designer’s intentions determining meaning and the student of design has not always been encouraged to look carefully at the ‘depths’ of a working surface. I think they can learn a lot from returning to a study of design as image and constructed spaces, and not one that has been mysteriously put together in a purely intuitive way. Intuition, we may usefully be reminded, is the accumulation of knowledge and experience that can be unpacked and made more transparent for the purposes of education. Constructivism has much to offer in this respect …

/Julia M 03/10/2005

 

this is an interesting line of thought - it is a shame it finished so early on in the discussion - i think it could be further unpacked but it has given me a new avenue of though in my work but i hope others will continue the debate here.

/jenny wright 07/10/2006

 

write a comment

we encourage people to recycle your comments in their own research as we may collage them into our own writing with the aim to publish the resulting articles (any post eventually used will be credited). We encourage comments to be 200 words or more.

line and paragraph breaks automatic. e-mail address will never be displayed. html allowed: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>