Noma Bar’s use of negative space and visual puns has been of interest since I first saw his work inside bookstores, on British editions of Haruki Murakami’s novels. Noma Bar’s covers for Vintage’s line are usually punny nods to the title rather than statements on the contents of the books. Someone can just glance at a cover and understand the design of most of them (yeah, …others need a little knowledge of the contents to appreciate).
Here, the illustation for “The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle” is easy to read and enjoy as long as the viewer’s aware of the title; it becomes obvious that the bird doubles as wind-up key. Without knowledge of the title, the illustration might only be seen as a heavily stylised bird, and the holes in the bird’s wings might be misread as spots of colour. The visual pun here relies on the title to work. There are a number of Murakami’s books I’d like to discuss, but I think I’ll save looking at Bar’s book cover illustrations in detail for another day.
You may have seen Bar’s work in issues of The Observer, The Economist, and Wallpaper* , to name a few. He’s made artworks in response to issues ranging from modern warfare, to social issues to current events. These artworks are readable and understandable as shape and colour alone. The visual puns instead rely on our prior knowledge of the subject matter, and our own willingness to get involved in the artwork as a viewer.
Here, I think it’s important to note that the more thought the viewer puts into an artwork, the more they can potentially get out of it. If we remain passive to Bar’s illustrations, we can’t enjoy them to their fullest; again, we may even take them for striped-down or thoroughly stylised pictures, instead of clever, considered statements. Bar’s works don’t even ask for very much input. There’s only a small gap of knowledge the viewer is asked to fill in to reach a realisation and full enjoyment of the work.
Now, if the gap of knowledge the viewer needs to understand a work to it’s fullest is too big, then the viewer can become frustrated with the image, and may only take the picture for face value. The audience of a work may not even want any involvement with it!
Conversely, if all of the information is presented in a clear-cut fashion, it leaves no need for viewer involvement. If the design choices of an illustration in a magazine, a campaign poster, a company logo, etc. are totally passive they won’t stand a chance to cement themselves in our minds. This viewer involvement can be applied to other forms of media such as television commercials.
Taking all of this into concederation, in order to move forward in visual communication, I need to remember the involvement of my audience. I need to understand my audience. I think this will be both a challenging and fun aspect of graphic design! I can only look forward to much experimentation and personal growth as a creator. I hope at times, when appropriate, I can make others laugh, simply by using colour and shape too.
Do you have any memorable imagery that you really felt a part of, and why so? Are there any artworks you remember because you feel that they asked too much of you? If so, why do you think that?
DESIGN WORKS 