"I have wanted to be a fine artist painter, and I reached the point in art schools were I'd like to understand more about images and how images communicate information to people. And I was not getting very far in that from my professors"
About this Quote
A young painter reaches the limits of art school when the question shifts from how to make an image to how an image works on a viewer. John Hench wanted more than technique or style; he wanted a grammar of images, a way to understand how color, form, line, and composition transmit meaning, direct attention, and shape emotion. The professors around him, steeped in formalism and personal expression, were not offering that framework. Their focus could teach craft and taste, but not a systematic account of communication.
That hunger defined his career. Hench became one of Walt Disney’s key artists and Imagineers, and the studio provided what the classroom did not: a laboratory for visual communication. Animation demanded clarity. Storyboards, staging, silhouette, and color scripts were tested against audience comprehension. Readability mattered more than virtuosity. The themed environments of the parks extended the lesson. Architecture, lighting, sound, and motion became cues in a coherent language that guided people seamlessly through space and story. Gestalt principles, wayfinding, and the psychology of attention were not abstractions; they were daily tools.
There is a broader tension under the surface. Much twentieth-century art education prized originality and formal exploration, while Hench was asking for a user-centered theory of images. He wanted to know how pictures carry information across differences in age, culture, and context. That is the domain where art, design, semiotics, and psychology overlap. Disney’s culture of iteration and guest feedback gave him a feedback loop professors could not.
The statement is both critique and credo. It insists that visual literacy is not only the ability to make compelling pictures, but to make pictures that communicate. Hench’s path argues for an art education that marries craft with empathy, and aesthetic ambition with the discipline of making meaning clear to others.
That hunger defined his career. Hench became one of Walt Disney’s key artists and Imagineers, and the studio provided what the classroom did not: a laboratory for visual communication. Animation demanded clarity. Storyboards, staging, silhouette, and color scripts were tested against audience comprehension. Readability mattered more than virtuosity. The themed environments of the parks extended the lesson. Architecture, lighting, sound, and motion became cues in a coherent language that guided people seamlessly through space and story. Gestalt principles, wayfinding, and the psychology of attention were not abstractions; they were daily tools.
There is a broader tension under the surface. Much twentieth-century art education prized originality and formal exploration, while Hench was asking for a user-centered theory of images. He wanted to know how pictures carry information across differences in age, culture, and context. That is the domain where art, design, semiotics, and psychology overlap. Disney’s culture of iteration and guest feedback gave him a feedback loop professors could not.
The statement is both critique and credo. It insists that visual literacy is not only the ability to make compelling pictures, but to make pictures that communicate. Hench’s path argues for an art education that marries craft with empathy, and aesthetic ambition with the discipline of making meaning clear to others.
Quote Details
| Topic | Art |
|---|
More Quotes by John
Add to List
