Bridging Semiotics & Design: The creative potential of analytic thinking
In my experience working in insights, cultural analysis, and design strategy (as well as in design school) I’ve frequently noticed a tension between what is categorized as “analytic” and “creative” thinking and output. This isn’t surprising, given that we’re often told that they are housed in different sides of the brain, that different people are either creative or analytical, and that in academics there are seemingly hard boundaries between science and art. Consciously or not, this attitude seems to have permeated creative industries and practices, so that analysis can feel antithetical, or even threatening, to the creative process. I’ve experienced creatives (e.g. those in the role of Designer) who subtly or overtly reject recommendations drawn from insight and strategy teams, presumably because it feels like a hindrance on the creative process – a process that many feel should emerge out of nowhere from a creative mind (which is an idea, it’s worth noting, that comes from a Romantic era idea of ‘creative genius’). Meanwhile those in analytical roles often forget to consider the creativity of the work they do, how to iterate on the outcome, and how it can be part of a collaborative and creative thinking process.
This division is unfortunate, and I think limits how we think as individuals and collaborate in groups. In fact, ‘analysis’ can be a creative process, and what is ‘creative’ can also be an analytical process. Coming from my current position as a semiotician and analyst, I’m going to focus on the former, although I think creativity-as-analysis also bears some exploration. By definition, analysis means a detailed examination of the elements or structure of an idea or thing. Because of this, and the process required to achieve it, analysis is often seen as picking something apart: to analyse is to look at the constituent parts of something, separate them out, and explain them, as though one is looking at a cell through a microscope and disregarding the larger body it is a part of.
Often in semiotic analysis this is to some extent what we are doing: we are taking something that seems fundamentally whole and complete, be it an image, or a logo, or even a physical space, and zooming in on each detail in isolation, to understand everything that might be going on. We might for example look solely at a typographical choice, or even simply the kerning of a font. We might look at the colour of a label, or the texture of a surface, and consider what that means on its own. This allows us to understand all the potential meanings ‘hidden in plain sight,’ things viewers and users might pick up on that were not intended outcomes by the designer. We often dismantle a design to point out a single element that someone might focus on or be distracted by, depending on context. In some ways this description of analysis is in a sense destructive, like taking apart a machine to understand how it works – something is no longer whole when it’s been pulled apart in this way. By the end of an analysis stage, we have all the constituent parts figuratively lying on the floor, but to get somewhere again they need to be reassembled.
From a creative perspective this fine-grain analysis might seem like a kind of ‘over thinking’ that goes backwards rather than forwards. After all, the final whole is generally greater than the sum of its parts. However, understanding the meaning of all the separate parts, or all the individual pieces that need to relate to one another, gives us a better sense of why the final product is received the way it is, and which elements could be tweaked to influence the final outcome for the better. Not only that, but it helps navigate (or hopefully avoid) the feedback that “it needs to pop more,” or “it’s just missing something.” If we consider each element analysed a point in a web or system, understanding each of those points and how they interact helps us to manage the overall system, and its outward appearance.
But semiotics and cultural analysis also go beyond analyzing one particular brand, product, or design outcome. We can cast a wider analytical net, to organize ideas from across culture and feed these into the design process. This is in many instances this is something designers do naturally and intuitively, looking around them for inspiration and gathering ideas into moodboards or post-its, for example, narrowing down huge amounts of potential inspiration into a single theme or concept. Semiotics and cultural analysis, I would argue though, adds a methodology and intentionality to this process, complementing the creative process with insights and structure from which to build new concepts. This is where the creative opportunity lies, and where there is rich opportunity for analysts and creatives to collaborate, or even share roles in the development of new ideas and designs. While creativity can create without conscious analysis, it may not always be able to hit the nail on the head in terms of how the creation is received.
The recommendations we develop out of our analysis are a set of conceptual frameworks – typically expressed in design principles, mood boards, and recommendations on specific details – that anchor the creative process with intentional meaning-making. By bringing together analytical and creative phases and disciplines, it’s possible for the creative process to develop and iterate while keeping in mind a clear strategic path, and clearly articulated ways to achieve an end goal. Like patchwork quilting, semiotics provides an opportunity to intentionally take something apart, look at the constituent parts, and intentionally piece them back together again – with a huge range of potential final designs.
Even better, both analytical and creative thinking are crucial to addressing changes over time – whether that’s consumer behaviour, aesthetic trends, social values, or new technologies. Culture is constantly in flux, and design frequently responds to these changes, whether to make sure that something continues to feel relevant and interesting, or to address entirely new challenges that arise. But responding effectively, and with the right solution, requires a deep understanding of the challenge at hand, and the new context in which a design will exist. A blended methodology that brings semiotics and cultural analysis into the design cycle ensures just that, and helps designers use their creativity to the most effective ends. This means that ultimately there is the potential for an ongoing dialogue between the analytical and creative disciplines, each responding to the other, and feeding into one another over time.
