As my research develops, I find myself moving from a more artistic and perceptual understanding of illusion toward a question that feels increasingly relevant within contemporary design practice: what happens when these same mechanisms enter the fields of branding, marketing, and visual identity? If illusion can hold attention, invite interpretation, and create emotional engagement, then its role may not end in the gallery or installation space. It may also operate powerfully in commercial and communicative design.
This shift in my thinking does not mean abandoning the earlier questions. On the contrary, it grows directly out of them. If people are naturally drawn to images that contain more than one layer, then it seems important to ask how this functions in visual systems that are meant to communicate quickly and memorably. In a world overwhelmed by messages, perhaps what stays with us is not always what is most direct, but what gives us something to discover.
Branding is full of such moments, even if we do not always name them as illusions. Hidden meanings in logos, unexpected uses of negative space, double-image packaging, and visual metaphors in advertising all rely on a similar principle – they reward attention. They ask the viewer to complete something mentally, and that small act of participation can make communication feel more intelligent, more satisfying, and often more memorable. In this sense, illusion may not simply decorate a message, it may strengthen the relationship between the message and its audience.
What interests me here is the possibility that ambiguity can function strategically. We often assume that effective branding must be immediate and fully transparent. Yet some of the most recognizable visual identities are built on subtlety, suggestion, and layered communication. A logo that reveals something more upon closer inspection creates not only recognition, but also a sense of discovery. A campaign that uses visual surprise can interrupt routine perception in a way that feels fresh rather than forced. These are not only aesthetic choices, they are communicative decisions.
This has made me curious about the border between perception and persuasion. How much do visual ambiguity and illusion influence decision-making? Can a brand become more memorable because it asks more from the viewer? Does surprise generate trust, curiosity, or emotional attachment? And where is the line between meaningful visual intelligence and empty cleverness? These questions feel especially relevant today, when attention has become one of the most contested spaces in design.
Some designers and artists offer useful points of reference here. Shigeo Fukuda’s work, for example, demonstrates how with reduction, and visual misdirection can produce images that are both playful and conceptually sharp. Even artists such as Erik Johansson, whose manipulated scenes belong more to constructed image-making than branding, reveal how impossible visuals can remain persuasive when they are emotionally coherent. In different ways, these examples suggest that visual complexity can communicate with force when it is purposeful.
For now, I remain in the research phase, following the thread wherever it becomes most alive.
