In the year 2011 I won the poster contest for the 160th Fira de la Candelera of Molins de Rei. That design became the official image of one of the most important celebrations in my town and, evidently, it was a recognition that made me very happy.
But fifteen years have passed. And fifteen years are a lot, especially in a profession where the way of understanding composition, typography and visual communication evolves constantly.
Reviewing that poster, I realized that there are decisions that I still consider accurate and others that I would not take in any way today. Because one thing is having a good idea and another is knowing how to execute it graphically. And this poster is, precisely, a good example of this difference.
The concept: an idea that continues to work
Before starting to criticize the graphic aspects, it is necessary to understand what the poster intended to communicate.
The Fira de la Candelera is an event with a long agricultural tradition, but which also integrates other commercial and industrial sectors. To represent this diversity, I opted for an image that combined two apparently opposing worlds: nature and mechanics.
The result was a plant formed by a test, a metallic stem, several tools and a gear that replaces the flower.
From a conceptual point of view, I consider this to be the most accurate decision of the project. The illustration does not limit itself to literally representing the different sectors of the Fair, but integrates them into a single figure through a visual metaphor.
There is an interesting relationship between the organic shape of a plant and the industrial materials that build it. In addition, the circular gear functions visually as a flower, maintaining a recognizable silhouette despite being formed by a completely different object.
However, not all elements work equally well. Some of the tools that form the branches are difficult to identify at first glance, and their individual meaning is subordinated to the general shape of the plant.
This does not necessarily represent a problem, since the set can be interpreted without recognizing each of the pieces. In fact, it is preferable that the metaphor works as a single image rather than turning it into an inventory of objects.
The idea was good. The problem arises when we start to dress it graphically.
Visual hierarchy: what do we want to communicate first?
In any piece of visual communication, it should be clear what is most important, what is secondary and in what order we want the viewer to process the information.
In the original poster, the first element that catches the attention is the number 160, represented with a typography of large dimensions, thick and with a quite pronounced three-dimensional treatment.
Just below appears the name of the Fair and, in a third level, the municipality and the dates of celebration. The illustration occupies the central and lower part of the composition.
This structure generates a relatively clear reading path, but presents a prioritization problem: The edition number has more prominence than the name of the event itself.
It is understandable to want to highlight that the Fair was celebrating its 160th edition, but we must remember that we are designing an informative poster, not an independent commemorative piece. The main objective is to identify the event and communicate when and where it is celebrated. This does not mean that the number has to be small or discreet, but its importance should be balanced with the rest of the information.
I would also review the relationship between the number and the letter that indicates the ordinal. The difference in scale is very pronounced and the "a" is visually hanging, like an element added later.
The dates, on the other hand, have a much lower presence. They are legible when observing the poster up close, but they lose prominence in front of the impact of the headline.
The hierarchy is not incorrect, but it prioritizes visual impact over the informative order that I consider more appropriate.
Typography: when effects eat the letters
This is probably one of the sections where the passage of time is most noticeable.
The original typography is forceful, with thick strokes and a very marked personality. So far, no problem. A poster needs to catch the attention and a typography with these characteristics can work perfectly. The problem is everything I added.
Projected shadows, reliefs, worn textures, color variations and effects that attempt to simulate depth. An accumulation of resources that, individually, could make sense, but when used simultaneously generate unnecessary visual complexity.
The shadows not only separate the text from the background: they also harden the contours and increase the visual mass of the words. The textures, on the other hand, introduce irregularities within the characters that make it difficult to appreciate their shapes clearly. In addition, the density of the strokes and the proximity between some letters cause the typographic block to be perceived as a compact mass. It is not a matter of tastes. It is a matter of readability and control of graphic resources.
A typography already has a weight, a structure and determined proportions. If we need to add five effects so that it stands out, perhaps we should ask ourselves if we are correctly solving the problem.
Today I would bet on a typography with a defined personality, but without this accumulation of effects. And this is precisely what I have tried to do in the revised version, replacing the original typography with a serif of great contrast, with a more editorial and traditional character.
The change is considerable: the shapes are distinguished with more ease and the title stops depending on the shadows to gain prominence. However, you also have to watch out for typographies with highly contrasted strokes, because the finer parts can lose definition under certain printing conditions or when viewed from a distance.
The new typography is not automatically better just because it is more elegant. It works better, above all, because its treatment is more controlled.
The background: filling the space does not always provide information
One of the most debatable elements of the original poster is the typographic background: The idea was to incorporate words related to the different sectors of the Fira, using large letters and worn textures, with a tone very similar to that of the background. Conceptually, it had a justification. Graphically, however, the result is quite debatable.
Even though these words present little chromatic contrast, they continue to generate forms, lines, and irregularities that occupy practically the entire surface. The problem is that they do not compete with the title only for their meaning, but also for their visual presence.
Our eye does not stop perceiving an element just because it has low opacity or a color similar to the background. The shapes continue to exist and intervene in the composition. This is especially evident in the upper part, where the numbering, the title and the enormous letters of the background coincide, all with different textures and contrasts. The result is a loaded composition in which it is difficult to find areas of visual rest.
And here is one of the questions I consider most useful when reviewing any design: if we remove an element, do we lose information or improve communication?
In this case, removing the background words does not harm the understanding of the poster. The essential information remains intact and the illustration already represents the sectors of the Fair. Therefore, the background ends up being more of a decorative resource than a communicative need.
The composition: a correct structure, but too loaded
The poster follows a vertical, centered and practically symmetrical composition. The textual information occupies the upper part, while the illustration develops toward the lower part, following the same central axis. This structure works. The circular shape of the gear introduces a geometric contrast with the typographic blocks, and the plant provides a figurative element that breaks the rigidity of the whole.
The main problem is not the distribution, but the number of elements involved in this distribution. Typography, shadows, background, and textures constantly compete for attention. Everything is very graphically worked, but precisely this excess of treatment makes it difficult to establish a cleaner hierarchy.
It is also important to consider a significant limitation of the original project: The dark band located at the bottom of the poster was a requirement of the competition rules, as it was intended to incorporate the logos of the sponsors, collaborators and other entities linked to the Fair.
Therefore, it was not a free compositional decision, but a condition that had to be respected. This reduced the available surface for distributing the main information and forced to adapt the composition to a given space. Precisely because of this limitation, today I consider that it would have been preferable to simplify the rest of the elements instead of trying to take advantage of the entire surface.
The empty space is not wasted space. It can help to separate, organize and highlight information without the need to incorporate new visual resources.
The color: coherence does not mean variety
The original color palette is mainly constructed from olive greens, browns, and dark tones. It is a choice consistent with the agricultural and industrial concept of the poster. The colors evoke the earth, vegetation, and aged materials, and help to give unity to the illustration and typography.
But I also find an obvious limitation: almost the entire composition moves within the same chromatic range. This generates a uniformity that, combined with the textures, ends up producing a visually dull image.
The contrast between the main text and the background is sufficient to distinguish the most important elements, but the lack of chromatic variety limits the possibilities of establishing different levels of attention.
Original color palette of the poster, dominated by olive greens, browns and earth tones..
A reduced palette is not necessarily a problem. There are monochromatic designs that work extraordinarily well. The problem arises when this limitation is not compensated for with good contrast, proportion and space management. In this case, it would have been interesting to introduce complementary tonalities or more differentiated chromatic accents, always maintaining a coherent relationship with the original concept.
It is not about adding colors just for the sake of it, but about using them to reinforce the hierarchy and facilitate reading.
Fifteen years later: how would I redesign it?
To check how much these decisions affected the result, I have prepared a revised version of the poster, keeping the same concept and the original illustration, but modifying the graphic treatment.
Proposal to redesign the poster for the 160th Candelera Fair, maintaining the original concept and simplifying the graphic resources.
The first change, and probably the most evident, is the elimination of the typographic background. Instead of filling the entire surface with words and textures, I opted for a white background that allows the information to be clearly separated and gives more prominence to the main elements.
The illustration remains the same, but it is now perceived with more clarity. The gear, the tools, and the test do not have to compete with the shapes of the background, and their details can be appreciated better.
The typography also changes completely. I have replaced the bold and loaded characters with effects for a serif typography, with a much cleaner treatment and without shadows or artificial reliefs. This decision brings a more traditional character, which I consider suitable for a Fair with so much history, but without resorting to an outdated aesthetic.
I have also modified the hierarchy. The edition number continues to occupy a prominent position, but now it is the name of the Fair that concentrates more visual weight. This allows the event to be identified more quickly and establishes a more balanced relationship between the main and secondary information.
As for color, I have abandoned the predominance of olive greens and recovered the warmer tones of the illustration materials: browns, oxides, and colors close to copper. The new combination offers more contrast with the background and allows the different elements to be better appreciated, although it remains a relatively limited palette. If I were to develop this proposal to a final version, I would still explore the possibility of introducing some additional chromatic accent.
The result is a much cleaner composition, with a clearer hierarchy and better separation between the different blocks. This does not mean, however, that the revised version is perfect.
The illustration continues to have a very realistic and textured treatment, while the typography and the background opt for a much more refined aesthetic. This contrast can work as an expressive resource, but it also generates a certain difference in graphic language that could be studied in more depth.
Another issue is the relationship between the upper typographic block and the illustration. The composition continues to concentrate a lot of visual weight in the upper part and maintains a very centered structure. It is not a mistake, but it limits the possibilities of generating a less conventional visual path.
Finally, it should be remembered that this proposal is a graphic revision exercise, not a reproduction of the final art that was printed in 2011.
Despite these issues, I consider that the revision demonstrates something important: the original concept did not need so many graphic resources to work. In fact, by eliminating most of them, the idea is perceived more clearly.
A matter of criteria, not of trends
It would be easy to justify the differences between the two posters by saying that graphic design trends have changed. And it is true that certain visual resources go out of fashion, but I do not think that this is the main issue.
The hierarchy, contrast, readability, compositional balance and the relationship between form and message are not trends. They are fundamental principles of graphic design that continue to be valid regardless of the aesthetic that predominates at each moment.
A crowded poster can work perfectly if this complexity is justified and well organized. Similarly, a minimalist design can fail if it removes necessary information or does not manage to convey the message.
For this reason, the problem with the original poster is not that it has an aesthetic typical of another era, but that some of the resources I used did not add enough communicative value.
The textures, shadows and background did not necessarily reinforce the concept. In some cases, they even hindered the reading. And this is a difference that I consider fundamental.
Conclusion: knowing what to eliminate is also designing
Fifteen years later, I still think that the poster had a good starting idea. The metaphor of the industrial plant is still coherent with the meaning of the Fair and has enough personality to work without the need for major modifications. But the graphic execution is improvable.
The hierarchy could have been resolved with greater precision, the typography accumulated too many effects, the background introduced visual noise and the chromatic palette was excessively uniform.
The redesign does not purport to demonstrate that I would now make a more beautiful poster. The issue is not this. What it wants to show is that we can communicate the same concept with fewer elements, a clearer organization and a more controlled use of graphic resources.
The fact that that poster won the 2011 contest is something I will always value, but it does not make it a design beyond criticism. Reviewing it has allowed me to identify decisions I would still keep and others I would resolve differently today, not because of fashion, but because of visual communication criteria.
Because designing does not consist in demonstrating how many effects, textures or resources we are capable of using. It consists in selecting those that the project really needs. And sometimes, the best graphic decision is precisely to eliminate what is superfluous.
Related reading: One of the learnings from this revision is knowing what to eliminate. In the article about white space I delve into the role of spaces within a composition. The relationship between the size of the edition number and the rest of the data is also a problem of hierarchy; I explain how it can be solved in the article dedicated to visual hierarchy.
Don't miss any article
Subscribe to the blog and receive the new articles about graphic design, visual identity and communication by email.
Subscription is free and you can unsubscribe whenever you want. See the legal notice and privacy policy.