Because graphic design, in the end, deals with the spectator, and because it is the goal of the designer to be persuasive or at least informative, it follows that the designer’s problems are twofold: to anticipate the spectator’s reactions and to meet his own aesthetic needs. He must therefore discover a means of communication between himself and the spectator (a condition with which the easel painter need not concern himself). The problem is not simple; its very complexity virtually dictates the solution-that is, the discover of an image universally comprehensible, one that translates abstract ideas into concrete forms.

It is in symbolic, visual terms that the designer ultimately realizes his perceptions and experiences; and it is in a world of symbols that man lives. The symbol is thus the common language between artist and spectator. Webster defines the symbol as “that which stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental but not intentional resemblance; especially, a visible sign of something invisible, as an idea, a quality or totality such as a state or a church; an emblem; as the lion is the symbol of courage; the cross is the symbol of Christianity. ‘A symbol is a representation which does not aim at being a reproduction.’ (Goblet d’Alvielle).”

The words simplified, stylized, geometric, abstract, two-dimensional, flat, non-representational, non-mimetic are commonly associated, sometimes incorrectly, with the term symbol. It is true that the depiction of the most distinctive symbols does fit the image these words help to characterize visually; but it is not true that the symbol has to be simplified (etc.) in order to qualify as a symbol. The fact that some of the best symbols are simplified images merely points to the effectiveness of simplicity but not to the meaning of the word per se. In essence, it is not what it looks like but what it does that defines a symbol.

A symbol may be depicted as an abstract shape, a geometric figure, a photograph, an illustration, a letter of the alphabet, or a numeral. Thus a five-pointed star, a picture of a little dog listening to his master’s voice, a steel engraving of George Washington, and the Eiffel Tower itself are all symbols.

Rand, P. A Designer’s Art, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1985, (pg 7)

‘What occurred at that time in the plastic arts will be understood only if one bears in mind that a new epoch was being born, in which man (all mankind in fact) was undergoing a transformation more radical than any other known within historical times’ (D. H. Kahweiler)

‘Around 1910, several artists began to experiment with abstraction. They drew their inspiration from various sources, but they had in common the desire to question representation as the be all and end all of art. Some artists challenged traditional treatment of form; others decided to pursue the options offered by colour and light. To some, speed and energy became a preoccupation, while for others, the example of music provided a new direction. I some cases, their work cut across several of these categories. Whatever their chosen ways of observing the world, artists, like novelists, philosophers, scientists and poets, were seeing it with fresh eyes.’

‘A major stimulus for future developments in abstract art was the Cubist painting of Picasso (1881-1973) and Braque (1882-1963)…Cezanne had earlier investigated the structural properties of nature in his work, and had confronted the problem of reconciling these with the two-dimensional surface of the picture plane. He had realised that it was in fact impossible for the artist to maintain a fixed position, as required by the Western perspectival system. The very slightest shift to the left or right was capable of altering the entire view, and thus the composition. Artists had obviously been aware of this anomaly in the past, but had overcome the difficulty by adhering to the convention of monocular vision. By trusting his eyes and attempting to express natural, binocular vision, Cezanne allowed for the “truth” of the shifted viewpoint and incorporated it into his late paintings.’

‘Braque later comment, that “The whole Renaissance tradition is antipathetic to me. The hard-and-fast rules of perspective which it succeeded in imposing on art were a ghastly mistake which it has taken four centuries to redress’, holds equally true for the work he was completing between 1909 and 1911.’

Mozynska, A. Abstract Art, London: Thames and Hudson, 1990 (pp 11-12)

‘Picasso never pretended that the methods of Cubism could replace all other ways of representing the visible world On the contrary. He was every ready to change his methods and to return once in a while from the boldest experiments in image-making to various traditional forms of art…No method and no technique satisfied him for long.’

‘Maybe it was precisely his amazing facility in draughtmanship, his technical virtuosity, which made Picasso long for the simple and uncomplicated. It must have given him a peculiar satisfaction to throw all his cunning and cleverness overboard and to make something with his own hands which recalls th work of peasants or children’

‘Picasso himself denied that he was making experiments. He said he did not search,, he found. He mocked at those who wanted to understand his art. “Everyone wants to understand art. Why not try to understand the song of a bird?” Of course, he was right. No painting can be fully “explained” in words. But words are sometimes useful pointers, they help to clear away misunderstandings and can give us at least an inkling of the situation in which the artist finds himself.’

Gombrich, E.H. The Story of Art, Pocket Edition, New York: Phaidon Press, 2006 (pp 446-47)