What's the difference between pattern and texture?

I posted an outfit that I thought was mixing a lot of patterns in one outfit:
http://youlookfab.com/welookfa.....one-outfit
Nicole posted that it worked because the grey croc tote was a texture, not a pattern. What is the difference? I thought texture was something you can feel, like nubbly tweed or corduroy. Just wondering what makes something a texture vs. a pattern. Is it the size of the print? Are croc, snakeskin, leopard prints etc. textures or patterns? Is fur a texture? Also sometimes I notice people calling an outfit pattern mixed even when it looks pretty subtle to me, like herringbone or gingham check pants with small enough prints that they look solid. What about polka dot or herringbone or fishnet tights? Just curious what you consider pattern mixing and what the difference between textures and patterns is.

This post has 1 photo. Photos uploaded by this member are only visible to other logged in members.

If you aren't a member, but would like to participate, please consider signing up. It only takes a minute and we'd love to have you.

12 years ago

nicoleb

(website)

Veteran

Did you see my response to your previous post? I didn't mean to say croc print isn't a pattern. My eye just read it as something that gave your outfit textural interest because it's a grey (leather?) croc embossed handbag rather than a handbag with a multi colored flower pattern or something. Does that make sense?

Jewell

My (limited) understanding is that texture is felt and pattern is seen. In the case of the things you listed above some are definitely patterns (for example herringbone and polka dots) and others are definitely textures (for example fur and tweed) BUT I think some items do double-duty. A croco embossed bag in my opinion has a distinguishable pattern AND texture, as does snake skin. I have a "fuzzy" leopard belt that falls into the same category because leopard is a definite pattern, but the "hairiness" adds texture. I think pattern mixing can run the gamut from tame (unnoticeably so) to completely chaotic.

Sveta

I always thought that texture is monochrome - tone on tone - and pattern is a combination of more than one color. Sometimes you can get from one to another: for example a very small pattern like mini houndtooth which is technically a pattern can be read as a texture. Alternatively black textured tights may read as a pattern if it is big.
Of course there are also "touch" textures like tweed, velvet, brocade. Silk and leather have their own textures too.
I find that texture mixing is easier that the pattern mixing because the result is more subtle.

taylor

I could see where a crock print is both a texture and a pattern...much like white is both a neutral and a bright:)
It adds both textural and visual interest

Aziraphale

I consider pattern to be flat, whereas texture is three-dimensional. If you close your eyes, you can't tell if a fabric is patterned, but you could tell if it was textured. If an overall outfit is textured, I take that to mean that the different components (top/bottoms/jacket/bag etc) have different textures -- like a silky blouse under a nubby cardigan, that sort of thing.

To me, pattern mixing means literally mixing different patterns, like herringbone and plaid, or floral and stripes.

Anonymous

Good question. I always thought of texture as part of the weave and pattern was printed but now that I think of it silk patterns are often woven in and don't really give a texture vibe. So now I'm thinking texture is something that isn't flat and that even a printed item could look textured and a textured item could be both.

Amy

A texture is something with 3-d properties, that you can feel. For example, a cable-knit sweater or corduroy fabric.

A pattern is something that is only 2-d. It can be monochromatic OR composed of many colors.

As Taylor suggested, the crock print is probably a combination of both. You can SEE the interesting pattern, but it's a pattern that's embossed and therefore soemthing you can FEEL.

HTH

Diana

I've always thought of it the same way Sveta does - texture is something monochrome but still not solid, whereas pattern is more than one color. But reading all the other responses, I'm realizing 3-D vs. 2-D must play a role too!

ManidipaM

Like Elisabeth and Amy, I'd say basically pattern is 2-D and texture is 3-D, visual vs tactile.

Where it gets interesting --- or 'grey'! --- is with 'visual texture', where a 2-D pattern that can't be felt in the third dimension SUGGESTS that it is in fact 3-D due to an optical illusion. Fabrics that shimmer or shine do this a lot. A silk plaid, for instance, will do this even if the weave is even and flat, because the shimmer of the silk thread plus the plaid cause illusions that suggest depth that isn't there. Sometimes a pattern deliberately mimics a texture --- like a lace print or patchwork print, or a synthetic knit that resembles the rugged feel of denim through a printed pattern. A pixellated graphic-print T says pattern as well as texture because you can see the dots of the picture and maybe expect to feel them! Animal-print anything often suggests the texture of fur pretty deliberately. 'Distressed-look' boots also suggest a rougher surface that reminds you of the real thing...

Meredith1953

I always thought that a texture has a 3-d or raised effect and a pattern is flat. That is not to say something can't have both texture AND pattern. Really don't all items have some texture whether smooth, nubby, slick....etc. Pattern seems to be something that exist atop of texture and usually has a repeatable type of design.
Here is a link with an interesting way of defining it.

http://daphne.palomar.edu/design/texture.html

Category