week 2 B


in class: share summaries of what you learned through both the writing process and the visual organization of collections. make sure your collections are in a form that can be shared with the class.

we will talk as a group about what area(s) might be ripe for exploration within your interest area. it’s time to start asking questions about where this area can go. we can do this individually, in small groups, or as a class. these questions should be carefully considered and balance open-endedness and focus. do not ask yes/no questions, but “what if...” and “how” and “why” questions.

to prime the pump, here are a couple of 100 questions that brue mau asked about typefaces. they are incorrectly worded (yes/no questions), but you get the idea.

“Can we make a font that has memory?”
“Could you imagine a font that has a limited lifespan?”

try to have a good list of questions -- maybe at least ten -- by the end of class.

homework: select a question that has some interesting potential; that could lead into unusual territory. start making stuff that explores that question. this is not about finding one solution and declaring the question answered, but about exploration, play, and discovering the implications of that question. it’s a process of discovery.

keep working on locating significant people engaged in your area of interest. ideally they are making multiple projects dealing with your issue, or closely related to your issue.

triggs chapter openers, pp 108-113, 144-149, 180-185 -- no need to write a response on this. make sure you’re flipping through this book to find designers working in areas similar to your own interests.

1 comment:

micahB said...

I found the very first type excerpt on Lego am and Lego pm, by Urs Lehni, Juerg Lehni, and Rafael Kock, to be quite enlightening. The interaction of users to build their own typographic forms from a library of existing blocks is very interesting in seeing how many variations can still make the readability of a single character a success.

This cut'n paste theory continues into Jonathan Barnbrook. His take on William Burroughs writings on cut'n paste took off into a viral era of experimentation. the theory of cut'n paste was to take typographic letters or forms out of their specifically designed environments, and to insert them into a new one. Taking typography out of its original context creates an entire new level to readability and legibility. I enjoyed Barnbrooks experimental answer to Burroughs quote "a typeface takes one set of words and creates, through random acts, a whole new secondary level of meaning. Barbrook said "a word is not the object it represents." This is very true; its the same experiment as taking the word "business" and putting it into Comic Sans, the whole take on the seriousness of business has changed due to the casual and flawed characteristics of this font.

The Futurism and Dada readings helped me to focus on specific ways to problem solve a vertain typographic situation. From the light and weight balances, to scale contrast, this second part of the reading gives, from a historical point, an overview of variety in experimental options and evolution through time and typographic form, readability and legibility.

The third part of the reading got deeply into motion graphics and meaningful applications in relation to narrative. I do remember seeing the movie "Seven" and its typographic narrative through motion. Of course we can't forget Saul Bass's kinetic type pioneering either. Moholy-Nagy said it best within his kinetic experiments "its a form of communication and not just the practical vehicle to put across an external message."

I've only read a bit into Lucinda Hitchcock's 'two dimensional page within a three dimensional environment' piece, but I think this reading will help guide me to different experimentations within my typographic route.