Introduction
Picture
language is man’s oldest form of graphic communication.
Historically, important percepts of a culture were reflected in
public images created by artists, and it was not until after the
invention of movable type in the mid-fifteenth century that the
cultural role of the image was gradually taken over by printed
words. In fact, words became so powerful that the communicative
potential of pictures was all but forgotten and the “man of
letters” came to be thought of as a man who had access to the
entire realm of conceptual knowledge.
Just
as Gutenberg’s invention gave new power to the written word, the
development of photography in the mid-1800s and of the halftone
process a half-century later returned to images some of their former
importance. Today’s world is filled with images and there can be
little question that the public’s exposure to the images of mass
communications is greater than ever before. The strength images have
regained in numbers, however, is not accompanied by a comparable
recovery of their former communicative importance.
The
present study resulted from the author’s interest in visual
communication in print, particularly as it applies to the editorial
use of pictures and graphic design in magazine publication. Primary
goals were to develop a clear understanding of the rationale behind
the use of pictures in print and to establish sound criteria for
judging a picture’s communicative potential. It was hypothesized
that while mass communicators working in camera-based media such as
television seldom underestimate the communicative power of the
image, many print journalists prefer words as conveyers of
information. They use pictures, but as photojournalists Gerald
Hurley and Angus McDougall explain, print journalists often mistake
the function of pictures, seeing them only as “elements of design,
as shapes on a page.”1 The role of pictures in graphic
design is certainly an important one, but as photojournalist Wilson
Hicks notes, “A picture is not merely to be seen, but
understood.”2
Research
quickly confirmed that pictures are capable of conveying
information, but discovering how and why pictures work as they do
was more difficult. The author’s somewhat loosely-structured
method of inquiry involved extensive reading from a wide range of
materials, most often discovered through exploration of
bibliographies, periodical indexes, card catalogs and basic texts.
The search for answers led to many disciplines and prompted study of
many different aspects of visual communication, with relevant
information found to encompass everything from basic rules of
picture composition to the nature of man as a communicating being.
For that reason, an ever-present problem with the research involved
narrowing the focus to include only the facts most directly relevant
and useful to the working journalist while at the same time
developing a firm theoretical basis for any conclusions presented.
The
author’s concept of “working journalist” remained broad
throughout the research primarily because as understanding of the
role of pictures and design in print increased, so did the
recognition of the need for that understanding among all print
journalists. The relationship of words and pictures in print is a
complementary one. Regardless of the journalist’s particular
responsibilities in the production of a magazine, his or her work is
ultimately destined to be a part of the finished product.
Consequently, the more each person involved in the process knows
about the contributions of others to the total communications
effort, the better able that person is to tailor his or her
contribution—whether in the form of words, pictures or graphic
design—to the needs of the publication as a whole.
Notes
from Introduction
1Gerald
D. Hurley and Angus McDougall, Visual Impact in Print
(Chicago: Visual Impact, Inc., 1971), p. 25.
2Wilson
Hicks, Words and Pictures (New York: Harper and Brothers
Publishers, 1952), p. 59.
© 1980 by Gretchen Kerry
Nesbit
