A Literalist Approach to Visual Design

I’ve been thinking about this subject sense my post, “The Use of Symbolism in Visual/Drill Design”. I have lost count of the times I’ve been asked, “What is that supposed to be?” after someone has looked at some of my design. My usual answer is, “A group of connected arcs.” Or “A block with some curved lines.” Or “Blank Stare.”

Now there was a time in my career when this question rarely (if ever) came up. I would say this was true anytime before the fall of 2013. That was the year that a certain fellow Big Ten marching band broke the internet with halftime videos showcasing large field covering animations. From Michael Jackson to Harry Potter, they amazed everyone with their picture show/literal approach to visual design. I loved it, and I hated it. I loved it because people were talking about marching band. People who normally would pretty much be indifferent were sharing videos on social media. My inbox and Facebook feeds were full with messages about the latest animated show. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

In the 50s and 60s the picture show was a widely taken approach by college and high school marching band directors (mainly college). The band would be playing, “A Bicycle Built for Two” and they would form a bicycle with spinning wheels. Fast forward a few years when the drum and bugle corps activity not being as tied to the football halftime as the marching bands innovates the marching activity by giving the performance more focus to one sideline and expanding the musical styles/selections being performed. The approach to visual design of the drum and bugle corps was much more abstract and driven by the orchestration of the music. The majority of marching bands begin to be influenced by the drum and bugle corps activity and the picture show becomes a thing of the past (until the 2000s)

Unfortunately, a literal approach to visual design isn’t always practical. Much of the time, a more abstract approach works better with certain musical selections or the maneuvers required to form/animate a particular object requires a large number of the performers to face different directions creating musical challenges and/or balance problems. A visual designer’s number one job is to enhance/support the audio and many times the designer has to make a choice opting for a less literal design direction just out of practicality.

There is a need on the part of the audience member to understand the forms/motion being performed on the field. As observers, we want to understand what the group is communicating through the visual design.. This is much like a concert goer who tries to follow the pathway a piece of music is taking. We live in a very sonata-allegro and rounded binary form world and we (the royal we) will always try to fit what we are hearing into those forms as default. This happens while we are watching from the stands too. We are constantly trying to organize/analyze what we are seeing (Is it symmetrical? Does it have meaning? Etc.). So I completely understand when the questions come and I’ll continue working on my balance between the literal and abstract.

I always love hearing feedback. Let me know what you think in the comments below. —DB