The chicken and the egg: Art or copy first?

​Which order will yield better results?
 
Art and copy live together. But not always harmoniously—if you’ve ever worked at a newspaper or ad agency, think of “Art Department” and “Sales.” The end user—that is, the reader—should not see any conflict. But competing agendas perennially assure one.
 
Ditto for art and copy. And when we say “art” we mean “pretty much any creative that doesn’t include the words.” So that can mean storyboard panels, layouts, stock photos, website mockups, jingle tunes, and so on. All of these vehicles require writing to make them work. But which should be undertaken first? Should the artwork be created, and then the copy added? Or should the words be crafted first, and used to inspire the visuals?
 
Let’s take a look at both sides of this argument and then compare the results.
 
Art first.
 
This is the more common approach to most assignments. Most creative directors cut their teeth on the art side (or, these days, the Illustrator/InDesign/Photoshop side), and since they develop the germ of any concept, it’s expressed in the medium in which they’re most comfortable and fluent. Whereas a writer may start with notes, an art person may start with a pencil sketch or a thumbnail. This is then developed to the point at which it requires copy, which is often indicated as “Greeked-in text” or a lorem ipsum file.
 

• Advantages: Rough art can be understood instantly. You don’t have to take time to read it to “get” it. Well-done rough art can convey movement, color, texture, and tone. These can help guide (and inspire) the writer, when it’s time to write, so that the copy will fit the intended style.

 

• Disadvantages: The biggest pitfall of this approach is that it’s highly execution-dependent. We mentioned “well-done rough art” above, and for a good reason. If it’s not consummately created, it will undermine all the advantages we listed. It can convey the wrong tone or feel. It can misdirect the writer. Similarly, modern technology can, in the art-first world, be more a hindrance than a helper. In the old days before computers, layouts would be hand-drawn in marker. It was thus impossible to mistake a layout for a finished product. But something assembled from stock photos, in a layout program, with flawless fonts, looks finished, even if it isn’t. That can prove dangerously misleading, even to seasoned pros who are used to working with rough images.

 
Copy first.
 

• Advantages: Well-crafted copy-based concepts work as a “written layout.” They can suggest images, visual treatments, suggested stock photography, even music and sound effects for audiovisual media. Narrative concepts also offer a huge bang for the buck; a good creative writer can knock out several versions faster than many artists can rough up a single one. And if the treatment is well-crafted, it can inform and inspire the downstream art teams just as effectively as writers can be guided via the art-first approach.

 

• Disadvantages. A narrative concept description, whether it’s a few sentences or a few paragraphs, takes some time to read. So it’s not as instantly visceral as a well-crafted visual. It requires some internal visualization and imagination on the part of the reader. And it’s execution-dependent, too: It could fall short when it comes to conveying the tone and voice, or lack enough detail to inspire those on the visual side. It can also be too wordy; some writers love their words too much for a given assignment, but things like banner ads, radio spots, and outdoor advertising require brevity. Like this. No exceptions. See?

 
So now that we’ve weighed the pros and cons of each, we can make a judgment call, right?
 
Not yet.
 
There’s a third approach to consider, one that borrows from each of the above. Let’s call it:
 
Hybrid.
 
This is the artwork with a headline written in. The website mockup with a few of the key links indicated or named. Or the catalog page with the first item described in detail.
 
At first blush, this would seem to be the perfect solution to any creative challenge, but it’s not that simple. It, too, has advantages and disadvantages.
 

• Advantages. The hybrid approach packs a real one-two punch. You get to see the intended visual treatment, and subvocalize (read to yourself in your mind’s voice) the key wording. Properly executed, it can be more effective than either the art- or words-first approaches.

 

• Disadvantages. This approach “assumes” a lot. It assumes that both its visual and copy “teases” are on target. Which isn’t necessarily the case. One could be better than the other; indeed, one could truly suck. There are many art people who think they’re better writers than they are, and there are plenty of word people who think they can draw. Yet if they sell (or believe) themselves as equally good at both tasks, they can throw up obstacles to constructive critique, undermining the power of the finished piece, not to mention the teamwork required to create it.

 
The verdict.
 
This is a clear-cut case of “it depends.” That’s not a cop-out. It depends on the assignment itself and the media it will employ. It depends on the talent of the creative leads, and the strengths (art or words) they have. It depends on the composition of the team and its contributors and their roles.
 
Regardless of the route you choose, it requires a real park-your-ego-in-the-lot mentality. Reminds us of a Ronald Reagan quote we always liked: “There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit.” Whichever side comes first, it presents the other with a golden opportunity to do amazing things.
 
Questions? Comments? Let us know what you think. 

---