Texture and Pattern are very similar terms that are hard to decipher from one another. A pattern is typically defined as "the repetition of a visual element or module in a regular and anticipated sequence" (Lauer). Texture, also repeats, however usually with less regularity. Defining what is or is not "regular" can be incredibly ambiguous. Therefore, a better explanation must be made. I went in search of this explanation.
Inspired by Harry Clarke's Illustration to Edgar Allan Poe's "Tales of Mystery and Imagination," I employed the concept of pattern to Jan Van Eyck's Arnolfini Wedding. With tracing paper, I traced the main shapes constituting the famous painting. I then attempted to fill in the shapes with motifs that would give the impression of the original painting (i.e. more bold motifs where the painting had placed emphasis and more subtle motifs were the painting had placed little emphasis). I was hoping to evoke a similar depth perception as the actual painting. Instead, the outcome is a very "flat" and "smooth." The outcome immediately triggers something in my brain that says "this is a pattern."
In the second photograph you will see another piece of my work. This one is a graphite rubbing. The trees were created by rubbing a tree, the pine needles by rubbing pine needles, and the dirt from rubbing dirt. The outcome was very different from my first experiment--it looks a lot more like texture than a pattern.
Both pieces are made up of shapes filled with some form of motif. Then what is the difference?
In my version of the Arnolfini Wedding the repeating motifs I chose are very regular and high in contrast. It appears as though they were just stamped onto the page. They are an example of a pattern. In the second piece the motifs are much less regular (although still repetitive) and have less contrast (gray on white instead of black on white). They appear to have a 3D quality about them. This impression of substance on a flat smooth surface is an example of texture-- visual texture to be specific.
It appears that the key difference between pattern and texture has to do with whether or not our sense of touch (that 3D quality) is aroused. Patterns appeal to our eye whereas texture appeals to another one of our senses--touch. Patterns are viewed as a 2D element. Decorative? Yes Appealing? Yes Something one wants to reach out and touch? No. However, any suggestion of a 3D quality (i.e. shadows) will lend to texture. Texture can even employ a concept called trompe l'oeil (French for "to fool the eye"), in which it so perfectly employs the use of texture that the viewer actually is fooled into thinking that whatever is depicted, in fact, exists in front of them. Visually interesting? Yes Appealing? Yes Something one wants to reach out and touch? Yes.
Credits: Design Basics by Lauer and Pentak
Artwork and photographs by Kaitlyn Pratt :)
