Ambiguous Images
“ I've always believed that visual communication have a dual nature. It carries a certain power that can be wielded to promote or indoctrinate specific values. At the same time, they can also be employed by individuals from less privileged positions of power to resist and challenge certain narratives. In a way, they serve as a BATTLEGROUND.
Yes, but...I believe that visual communication can serve additional roles beyond merely being a platform for individuals to express strong opinions and employ visual language to impose their specific stance on certain issues on others, even though graphic designers are often tasked with this. I now began to question the common assumption that, when it comes to public issues, graphic designers should take a clear stance, or in other words, use visual communication to convey specific narratives that persuade and gain agreement, as seen in persuasive materials.
As I delve deeper into this subject, my perspective on visual communication has evolved. I now see it not only as a battleground for expressing ideas but also as a reflective MIRROR that captures the intricacies of our world. Initially, I once believed that my previous publication served as a MIRROR, as I thought it reflected the pressure and toxic working culture in certain societies. However, upon reflection, I realised that it still wasn't a true MIRROR because the images presented were one-sided and lacked the necessary neutrality.
As you mentioned, at that time, the images I created is the definition of what you said about the images, they were powerful when they not only depicted but also influenced social norms, shaping attitudes and behaviours. I aim to move away from this and avoid instructing or propagandising. Instead, I believe visual communication can be used to express neutrality and foster critical thinking, thereby revealing the complexities of the reality we inhabit. I've observed that many contemporary visual communication pieces unintentionally become a form of propaganda. Essentially, I'm currently exploring how to elevate my work beyond mere "propaganda", whether it serves an unjust or just cause.
“ How do you define propaganda?
I believe that all forms of manipulation can be considered a type of propaganda.
“ So, can you tell us why it's important for you to stay clear of being labeled as 'propaganda,' as you've described it?
I think this desire might be linked to my past experiences. While growing up, me and the people around me were constantly exposed to propaganda images from the government and other authoritative figures, who sought to impose their narrow values upon us. During my undergraduate years, I was even a part of the student union's graphic design team, and in that role, I was often responsible for creating propaganda materials to support school or government policies.
The manipulative potential of graphic design, or visual communication in a broader sense, and the idea of using images to influence people's perceptions, left me feeling quite uneasy. So I later embarked on a journey creating numerous design projects with the aim of addressing this issue. Specifically, I sought to challenge the official visual narratives. For instance, I developed a typeface and integrated it into an experimental publication. Later, I crafted a series of illustrated books that posed as children's educational materials. In this publication I used the power of visual metaphor to counter the false promises made by the government or society to young people...
“ And let me guess, you soon realised that the work you are creating to challenge propaganda is at risk of becoming another form of propaganda, in other words, it still hasn't broken free from the cycle of propaganda?
Yes, that's true. I soon came to realise that, despite my intentions, the publications and the typeface I designed were inadvertently taking on a form of propaganda. Similar to the government propaganda that I found disgusting, my design work consistently presented a viewpoint through visuals, often from a singular perspective, with the aim of eliciting specific reactions or intense emotions in the audience regarding certain issues. In simpler terms, the objective was to garner support on particular topics.
This can be a challenging task because, as visual communicators, we are frequently advised to be clear and concise, with a well-defined purpose in our visual communications. Often, this leads us to emphasise what we say and to focus on a single perspective. When we present too much information or multiple points of view, our work can become confusing for the audience. Furthermore, we are encouraged to trigger emotional responses or actions from the audience, so being overly objective or neutral in our graphic design may not always be seen as a good approach.
However, I firmly believe that as designers, we should exercise caution when intentionally trying to provoke intense emotions from the audience, even though we are frequently called upon to do so.
“ Is it really so concerning to evoke strong emotions in the audience?
Actually, I have always been quite passionate about evoking strong emotions from the audience. It's a source of fulfilment for us as visual communicators, isn't it? We're living in a world saturated with images, constantly bombarded by various forms of information. It often seems that contemporary visual communication simplifies reality. I believe that we, as people, are deeply influenced in our perception by the powerful force of images. The world we come to know might not be as clear and objective as we assume. Our understanding of the world, along with various issues, is to some extent distorted by the influence of images, rendering it incomplete.
The powerful emotional responses, whether they stir up anger, fear, opposition, or support, often contribute to some level of division within our society. I'm not suggesting that we should stop using visual communication to advance certain agendas or promote societal change. However, I do want to stress that the significant emotional impact that visuals carry, as they can trigger responses and actions, occasionally leading to unforeseen instances of mass violence. The act of evoking strong emotions through visual means can be inherently risky, requiring our utmost caution. In my view, as human beings, we should promote critical thinking, and images should bear a certain responsibility in fostering this approach.
“ Do you think that invoking strong emotions in the audience is always a risky move, or could it, in fact, be a powerful tool for positive change? For example, when we see visual communication addressing topics like immigration or environmental concerns, it often brings global challenges to the forefront, inspiring people to take action and work towards a better world. What are your thoughts on this?
Indeed, visual communication possesses a potent capacity for positive impact. What I'm attempting to convey is that there are numerous complex issues in this world that people may not fully grasp. When individuals swiftly adopt a habit of passing judgment on something, it can result in erroneous conclusions on various matters. While I'm convinced that images serve many good purposes, based on my personal viewpoint and practical experience, I'm endeavouring to delve deeper and explore methods that go beyond evoking specific intense emotions in the audience. We need more objectivity and neutrality.
“ Is the primary purpose of image communication really about objectivity and neutrality, or does it serve a different role? After all, when it comes to presenting facts in an objective manner, we have text, which can achieve that very effectively. So, why do we rely on images to convey objectivity and neutrality?
Indeed, we have a long history of using extensive text to comprehensively cover a topic or social issue, given that text can convey a wealth of information. However, as you mentioned, visual political communication has gained increasing prominence in recent years. Visuals have become central to the politics of our era, for better or worse, as they possess the ability to evoke emotions and engage a frequently disengaged and apathetic electorate. This trend is unstoppable.
When it comes to text, the pursuit of objectivity often results in presenting a substantial amount of textual information, leading to lengthy content. Nowadays, most people lack the time and patience to read through such extensive material, given the shrinking attention spans. My aim is to challenge this by using a concise visual approach to convey the complexity and multidimensionality of the world, rather than promoting one-sided 'propaganda.' This is the path I am currently exploring.
“ So is that why you chose to use Ambiguous Image?
Exactly, this is why I choose to use Ambiguous Images. When ambiguous images can intertwine two or more perspectives on a subject within a single image, viewers see and interpret the author's message differently depending on the order or angle from which they approach it. This technique makes an image an open form of expression without causing complete confusion. I find it to be a highly concise and effective approach.
“ It seems that you are strategically building a series of deceptive visuals?
Indeed, I share your perspective that the notion of "images never lie" is outdated, especially in the era of AI where images can be easily manipulated. Images can be highly deceptive, and I agree that this deceptive quality can be harnessed to guide people toward more objective thinking. As long as the audience is made aware of this inherent deception, the process of viewing images can lead them to realise that there is another layer of meaning beyond what they initially see. I hope to trigger an "aha moment" for the viewers during their engagement with the images, even after being led astray. This emotional awakening is what I aspire to evoke in the audience.
“ From this perspective, your work still attempts to influence people's attitudes and behaviour through visuals, triggering specific actions and reactions. Don't you think what you're doing now is still a form of propaganda?
I believe you have a point. As some have stated, 'all design is political,' and I am gradually coming to view 'all visual communication design as a form of propaganda.' The inherent aspects of manipulation are indeed absolute, yet within them, there exists a relative sense of fairness and criticality. As practitioners of visual communication, when addressing socio-political issues, I believe it remains our responsibility to maintaining relative fairness, criticality, and presenting the complexity of the reality in a multi-dimensional manner.
“ And In today's context, visual communication is increasingly crucial, especially in addressing political or social issues where visual communication has become central. What do you aim to achieve?
I believe the power of imagery can indeed make many individuals who previously had little interest in social or political issues start to care. However, in reality, much of visual communication is designed to sway people towards specific viewpoints. In my approach, I see the act of caring as inherently meaningful. My emphasis might be on inspiring people to genuinely care about the subject at hand, instead of trying to guide the audience towards specific stances or promoting my own strong opinions on particular issues.
“ Are you suggesting that people should be skeptical of everything they see, given that many visuals can be manipulated to some extent? How should we navigate and make sense of a society where our perception of reality is shaped by these influences?
Yes, I do agree that the audience should approach visual communication with a degree of skepticism, even though as a graphic designer, I sometimes hope the audience will fully embrace everything I convey. However, I don't think being skeptical is necessarily a negative or frightening thing. I believe that questioning what we see and the messages we accept is always a positive practice, as it enables us to gain a clearer understanding of the truth itself. We don't have to become a slave to the media or any medium. Once you become adept at this, skepticism becomes second nature. In fact, that's what I aim to achieve through my pieces of ambiguous visual metaphors. I want to make people realise that they should continually question what they see and what they hold as beliefs.