BIL'AK + TRIGGS RESPONSES
what did you think of these readings? does their definition of "experimental" match what you previously thought of the term? is it really useful to experiment if it doesn't have real application?
what did you think of these readings? The Triggs reading was very long, yet I found a few moments of inspiration thrown into the mix (I listed them below).
does their definition of "experimental" match what you previously thought of the term? They both kind of speak to the point that experimentation should have an academic purpose behind the process. I don't know if I fully agree with that or not. Experimenting should not just be a cop-out for doing bad work, but if I just start messing around with no real purpose and something cool comes from that, it doesn't mean I had a purpose to start with. Just kind of means that I got lucky. That being said- having no motive or end result in mind, if I "mess around" and come up with nothing worth while, it doesn't mean that I didn't experiment or that the experiment failed. I still will probably walk away with something under my belt.
is it really useful to experiment if it doesn't have real application? See above lol. Everything is a learning experience but experimenting should not be a cop-out/excuse for bad work.
Cool points in the Triggs reading: I like the idea of challenging the fundamental notions of aesthetics. That to me sums up experimental quite nicely.
The Triggs reading breaks experimenting into two categories- type design "with the design or production of typefaces" and typography which "investigates the use of type in layouts" It is interesting to think of the two as being separate. I generally think of letters making up words making up sentences making up paragraphs but the reading is encouraging us to look at the form of each individual letter as a completely different entity than how that form looks on a page.
We must take our audience and design right down to individual letter forms for them and for use for projects/products for them.
I was very interested in the idea of using typography in order to visually illustrate how a play might be performed. They were not illustrated pages, "rather they demonstrated a symbiotic relationship between word and image. The narrative was seen as well as read." I avidly read and I'm constantly making up voices for characters in the stories I come across. To visually represent their speeches on a page could further my understanding of a character.
I enjoyed that the reading brought time constraints into the pool of experimental quality. However I don't know if a time limit would strictly hamper development. If given ten years to develop something great, I might slack off or be slow in my methods. Given ten days I would be forced into working hard and earnestly. Different results would occur, maybe for the better or maybe for the worse but it is interesting to think of how I work under which time sets.
Both Bil'ak and Triggs had some very intriguing thought and ideas that bring a new light, for me, to the idea of experimental typography. It is very thought provoking the numerous experimentation that can take shape and how they are molded.
To begin, Bil'ak defined experimentation as 'going against prevailing patterns', as a confrontation of the mainstream. He also brought up the idea of taking risks and not knowing the outcome, which is somewhat relate-able to use and student designers; we may have a vision when we begin a project but in the end it may have evolved into something totally different; however, it may have the basic infrastructure of the initial thought process.
As most of us know from years of academics, experimentation directly relates to science; the test of an idea which includes a set of actions performed to prove or disprove a hypothesis with controlled conditions. This is similar when considering design and typography as we sometimes do have an idea in mind; however, we do not always have a control on what is occurring, I see it more as an evolution.
I also found in interesting, the point made by designer David Carson, in which something novel is experimental. But I question this point because we often reference each other in consideration for our design and how can we know for sure that something has never been done before?
On the other hand, the Triggs' reading enveloped some of the radical ideas made possible through experimental type design and typography. It also brought to light the true limit-less nature of experimental design and defined it as discovering an 'unknown effect.'
Triggs and Bil'ak have similar definitions of experimentation; however, Triggs takes it a step further by addressing the design process. According to Triggs experimental is defined as a valid means of rational investigation, or taking risks and viewing those risks as crucial to the development of the overall design process. It is interested how Triggs and Bil'ak created similar meanings of the idea, considering how in the Bil'ak reading multiple designers had contrasting views of experimentation. Within the Triggs reading, Daniel Friedman defines process as a system of operations or a series of changes or actions in the production of a result. This idea definitely relates to our learning process and how we push designs toward a final outcome but during that time we are continuously learning and engaging with our 'experiment.'
The reading brought up other points of interest regarding typographic experimentation as not only varying weight, scale, placement, and repetition, but also in regards to type being symbolic and how it can bring 'time and space to the printed page.' It was very interesting that in some instances not only the type itself was taken in to consideration but also the medium it which it was being portrayed and how the two interact.
The two readings tapped new realms of creativity and helped me further visualize how to push myself even further into the experimental world of radical thinking and production. They both stress the thinking and research process and how those key elements effect your journey into the territory of the unknown. This was a great way to begin, not only this class, but the semester, as it has evoked a sense of creative exploration within myself as a designer.
When I began reading both Bil'ak and Triggs, I felt like it had some intellectual reasoning towards experimental type with having set rules where the variable could possibly change in the process. Both readings, they talked about how experimenting is in other words a 'research method.'
Does their definition of "experimental" match what you previously thought of the term?
I did like the way Triggs worded the definition of experimental, meaning 'taking risks and viewing those risks as a crucial to the development of the process.' I do feel like you can go into an experiment and think one idea is going to happen, but only realizing the whole idea could change. I also believe in process of experimenting can also help to realize or answer questions that come to mind, but of course it can open visuals and vocabulary to the idea, it gives 'newness' to the limitations.
Is it really useful to experiment if it doesn't have real application?
It was said that 'the amount of developmental time offered, the types of production processed used and the social in which the designer or typographer is operating - will affect the was a designer approaches the experimental and, consequently, the end product.' I personally feel like it doesn't have to be useful because designers can explore different ideas outside of the workplace. I sometimes wish I could have more time to finish experimenting with the different types of layouts I can use or the different formats that are out there. These ideas of what to use or where to position is just the little things I try to experiment with. I try to think of something new and different from what I have been doing, which I guess is sometimes another way of experimenting because I never really know what I can get done with until I get to the end result. I feel like experimenting an idea without a real application can somehow help influence later within an application, it can not be ruled out.
I thought that the readings brought back a more intellectual way of looking at experimental type rather than a "that looks cool" type of thing. They make you thing of how you create all projects, and how you use the media you do and how even though it is deemed experimental, it is actually scientific because you do have a goal that you are eventually trying to get to, whether it is a success or not.
The type experiments which are usually talked about are the extreme. More the designer designing for the designer (or typographer). I know that I can see things that my friends that have not been in design do not see. And I also judge based on what the material is for if it is effective (legibility).
The Trigg's text used the definition,"to produce meaning in the way they are organized visually" about letter and type. I like this definition because that is where the designer comes in. The words come together and work like they do because the designer puts them in 12 pt font with a sans-serif type face. We, as designers, experiment with type but really we are using different and new versions of a-z alphabet. We can only use those letters because that is how we understand that language and the reason why people experiment is to find out how far you can push it and have it still read as an "a."
Well, here are my feelings on typographic experimentation.
First, I think that experimentation is very important in any field. If there was no research, no tinkering or playing, some of the most major discoveries wouldn't have been made. Things like penicillin, potato chips, or microwaves wouldn't exist. Even failure can result in great things.
When it comes to typography, it is no different. Experimentation is the key to discovery. Like the Bil'ak reading said, it is breaking out of expected traditions. However, those new discoveries and ideas soon become traditions, like Emigre, so there is always a need for new experimentation. There is no upper limit to how high we can set the bar. I do think that experimentation needs to be approached as any other activity in which you intent the outcome to bear fruit. This means that it must be practical in nature. If someone want to achieve the same results as you, they must know what steps to follow. I think this is a problem I had with the Futurists described in Trigg's article. They just were doing this and that, with no real purpose. And while it's good to break tradition, it can only do good to a certain extent. For example, just because you don't like how the government is doing something, doesn't mean you will burn down the entire institution.
Experimentation is not only needed, but in my opinion is unavoidable. While there is nothing threatening our lives, it is the nature of humans to crave knowledge. Through experimentation we get unexpected results and new ways of thinking.
The readings seemed long, but there were some really nice peices. alright, so I’ll be that guy and pull out the david carson quote ‘Experimental is something I haven’t tried before.’ I think that quote is very relivant especially in the context of schooling, because what the performance of a said action by one does not hold the same gravitas as for another.
“The alphabet is by its very nature dependent on and defined by conventions.” Yes this is true, but it is within the fact that there are conventions and restrictions that provide people a jumping off point to create something new. I had this teacher awhile back and he gave the assignment of crossing the roomfrom one corner to the other, with the restriction that you could not move in a way that has already been done. The first person walked, the second ran, third skipped ect, ect. It was the convention and restritions that brought about the change.
The Sintétik type was great. Designers are always tryinng to stay current. That’s so clean, pushing the bounds, web 2.0. What a funny idea to bring people back to the year 1400.
I appriacted the authors patience in trying to define the terminology. He threw out alot of different definitions and so yes, I do agree with aspects of each.
Expieirment for expeiriment’s sake. damn right. If something does not have an application, than it is by definition not useful. art for arts sake.Or perhaps there isn’t an immdeate question that the experiment answers, but having the answer in your morguefile, can defeientely help if the question arrises
oscar wilde, art for art’s sake http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/owilde/bl-owilde-pic-pre.htm
Experimentation is a search for a new portal through which we can escape our reality prison. During the beginning of alchemy, the goal was to find a way to change lead into gold. In current day graphic design the goal is to persuade people with type and image.
It seems like every time some new wave of technology comes out like the macintosh computer, it is followed by shocking new aesthetic that will be criticized by the designers of the previous wave.
Graphic Designers post EMIGRE seem to feel a new kind of anxiety and responsibility. It seems to be rooted deeply in the influential figures starting with Marinetti and other futurists.
Experiments with typography seem to get closer and closer with every generation to being a complex system of communication like music as math. Typography is something that we just can't quite compare anything to because it is language transformed by thousands of years.
As for content, I was glad to see writing about emigre, cranbrook people and weingart.
The bil'ak reading on type as an experiment I would have to say is a little controversial. The idea that you must be experimenting for a reason I am not sure I would agree with. I feel sometimes if you are just "messing" around and not really focusing on why you are doing something but more on how something looks, it sometimes turns out better. Even then you can usually come up with why you did this, or a process. Everything we do has a process whether it be completely random, or have some scientific experiment to go along with it. I feel we always do something for a reason, even if that reason is subconscious. So I feel this reading had some good points and some I could argue. On the Triggs reading, I really liked the idea of how what was considered in the past as an experiment may be old news to our contemporary thought on what is an experiment. We sometimes look at older expressive typography and think ya, that is a little experimental but I have seen crazier. When at the time some of the experiments done we VERY controversial and not accepted. The rules of typography were being broken and it was something new that people did not alway agree on. I also thought it was interesting how these pieces of typography such as the work done by people such as Emigre and McCoy have sort of lead the way into what we consider experimental typography today. Their experiments have sort of set some guidelines and ideas of just how much you can do with type. does their definition of "experimental" match what you previously thought of the term?
When I think of the term experimental I think of trying new things. It does not always work out the way you may have intended it to, but you can usually pull from your errors and learn what cannot be done, and how you have to fix it. I dont think experimental always has to have a scientific explanation or process. You as a designer can create your own process that works out for your own wants and needs.
is it really useful to experiment if it doesn't have real application? No, I feel I have expressed that above
the letter form is a direct link to the basic communication of human beings. it is a well known system and in time there is a natural need to change and evolve the form and function of these things, if not for the simple reason of knowing that there is the possibility of change and that we are not locked into this forever. The thought of being locked into something is the thought of being not a creature creative or smart enough to challenge itself. This is where experimentation comes in. The alphbet is our rock, our anchor and there must be ships to sail out, beyond the familiar and warm to find new ventures. Our knowledge of language helps us walk into the dark and come out with the new. Every time something experimental within typography happens then a new understanding of typography is found. It must go on. Experimentation teaches the public to learn new ways to understand. It teaches the experimenter new ways to enplane and connect ideas with forms. The letters and words are being reborn and renewed into new ways of visual code. The use of the letter form aclinates the viewer into something that would be a complete mystery otherwise. experimental typography is a means of communication with limits of communication.
Experimentation. The first thought that came to mind was - performing actions with the intentions of producing something "un-experienced" or "new." Milton Glaser said "creativity is something never before experienced." When someone says "hey, that's creative," it usually equates to something "un-experienced" or "new." The typical scientific idea also came to mind by performing a series of tests to make sure a new creation is practical in relation to its need of its' environment.
David Carson thinks along the same lines of Milton Glaser:
- Experimental is something I haven’t tried before … something that hasn’t been seen and heard’. (fig.1) Carson and several other designers suggest that the nature of experiment lies in the formal novelty of the result.
I do believe that experimentation is truly something that has never been tried before, but I have to disagree with Mr. Carson on the topic that the nature of experiment does not lie within the formal novelty of the result! This would only mean that the process leading up to the end product is irrelevant. I understand now that, yes we must utilize our preceding theories of tradition to reach a new result, however, the process of that product, is the only thing we can document to consider it a true experiment.
I think we have the expectations of being Avant Garde within the term 'experiment' when in reality after this new thing, whatever it may be, has been produced and experienced, it just becomes part of a body of work that is considered part of whole; which isn't an isolated entity of new anymore. When completed there are no more risks. I must say that Michael Worthington is closer to my Cup-O Tea. Taking risks and not knowing the outcome dictates that "if you know what you are making, then it cannot be: art, something new, or Avant Garde." It can only be a variation of something existing.
Triggs -
I found the 2 separate paths of Experiment in Type Design and Experiment in Typography quite enlightening. The difference between Type design being focused on typeface creation and Typography of relationships in layout on a page with the existing typefaces are both opposite and common. They need each other to function correctly: type faces need layout to know what environment these typefaces are going to be living in, and layout needs typefaces for content on what feels appropriate within that environment. I enjoyed the idea of timing playing a big part in understanding type design experimentation. Wolfgang Weingart's five year exploration of just the letter "m" is truly crazy and beautiful at the same time.
If both experiments serve a practical need to the viewer and are respectful of its environment also if you've utilized something from the process that can be learned and applied to future projects and have been tested or proven successful, then experiments are very useful whether they have a realistic application or not.
My definition or expectations of experiment has not changed from prior to the readings, it has only broadened my understanding and amount of additional knowledge that supports my previous, and yes a hyperbolic metaphorical version, of my experimental theory that - the process can only be labeled an experiment due to the risks it takes and most importantly the unknown outcomes.
In my mind the idea of 'experimentation' has a lot to do with the theories of science, which automatically makes me think of a controlled environment. I was constantly questioning, why not define the concept of experimentation as exploration instead to get rid of the rigidity of the other term? Exploration to me provides more freedom and less control.
However I might have had a change of heart when I started to read the Triggs Article. In the world of design we do consider variables within controlled environments. We always have to consider the client, the intended audience, and ourselves. These elements will never change. We can change the one variable that will affect these 'certain' elements, which is the nature of the design. The reading quotes that 'type is the symbolic representation of language' and 'the typographic experiment questions the relationship between the typographer and the intended audience'. Both of these statements reveal that in fact we as designers are dealing with elements that aren't going to change such as; language, audience, even our own self. Our job is to be able to create a more creative and interesting way of conveying these constant elements. How can we do it in a clear, convincing, and creative way.
I thought both readings were very intriguing in that of the explanation of "experiment" relating to typography. Bil'ak spoke thoroughly about the relativity the word experiment has to science and the process scientists usually go through. He stated that scientists begin with a hypothesis and go through trial and error until some amazing outcome surfaces. Triggs was different from Bil'ak and supplied many different examples of designers' views on the term experiment and what it meant in terms of design. One thing he touched on slightly that I noticed about the next step is the acceptance experimental typography has these days. With many active designers these days, it is encouraged to keep on experimenting and going through trial and error to see what works well and what doesn't. On the opposite side, he notices that the audiences are getting not necessarily smarter, but developing a more keen eye when it comes to advertisements and design in general. They have developed a different "way of seeing".
I would have to agree with David Carson's statement, "experimenting is something you haven't done before...or seen/heard by anyone" and Michael Worthington's "true experimentation means to take risks." My initial thought of the term was trying different things and using different sources and skills. (different avenues of communication, different mediums, different ways of communicating and persuasion) Possibly combining different skills to create a better, more successful outcome. My after thought now is that experiment is a lot of different answers. One must experiment to get those answers. Experiment can only be answered by the act of experimenting.
Through typography, there are endless possibilities as for what a headline/artifact can look like. That is where us as designers must experiment and go through the options available and in the end, find a solution that best benefits the artifact, client, and audience. Research is key, in some instances testing is good, and iterations...lots and lots of iterations.
They were interesting pieces of theory, and I am inspired to do something really out there for this project. I am glad that the BIL'AK reading touched on the scientific side of experimentation and how it applies to design, as well as ______________
-does their definition of "experimental" match what you previously thought of the term?
My definition is definitely the same, but I want to push my understanding and "experimentation" even farther.
More specifically, I agree with David Carson: " ‘Experimental is something I haven’t tried before … something that hasn’t been seen and heard’. (fig. 1) Carson and several other designers suggest that the nature of experiment lies in the formal novelty of the result. "
Furthermore, In the Triggs reading, I especially liked this quote: " Experimental typography is also about the expressive potential in the arrangement of type 'either by achieving a quiet uniformity or similar elements or by the visually exciting use of contrasting ones." ______________
-is it really useful to experiment if it doesn't have real application?
Yes! It is important to me, and should be to other designers, to strive to create something that hasn't been done before: sketch, ideate, push the envelope!
Even if it doesn't have a real application, the discoveries are not any less fruitful.
Both Triggs and Bil'ak look and experimentation in very unique ways. Bil'ak if mainly focused upon going against the grain and pushing the envelope. Going where no designers has ever gone before. However i think that it is important that there be some meaning, thought or plan behind what you are doing. It is one thing to just go all out and try something new but it needs to meet some type of goal or objected or you may never see any successful out come or a completed all the way through. Bil'ak talks about experimentation being the foundation upon which all other ideas or directions can be formed upon. Bil'ak also quoted Carson stating "experiment lies in the novelty of its results". This is important cause with out a finished product or result people cant marvel in its creation/ the experiment.
As for the Triggs reading really focuses on the the design process of the experiment. An experiment should be in some way a science experiment. With a control group and a changing group. Triggs talked about not only type design but layout design as well. I think that it is interesting that he breaks them up into two different categories simply because that way its almost like 2 different assignments. The designer my not only design all the words but the letters with in those words. If a designer can successfully do this then they have added another layer of interest and depth into their work. This allow the designer to be responsible for more elements their for giving them more to experiment with and more change is possible.
I feel that from these articles I really need to stop being afraid of type and thinking that there is a right and a wrong. I need to loosen up a little bit and create things that i find intriguing. I will look like a stiff lifeless designer if i am afraid of being wrong all the time. Confidence is everything.
A quote that was mentioned in the reviews of this reading was is "Design is Art People Use" and that is something in which i am going to not only base my whole semester on trying to achieve but strictly my typography as well. Critical thinking is also something that this reading stressed upon which can fall into the experimental process and i need to keep trying to address in my very own "individual" way.
what did you think of these readings?: The readings explained experimentation in more ways than i understood. They both convinced me that even if my experiment fails, i still will learn something. In grade school/high school science projects, if our experiment was not successful, we were unsuccessful, but as of typographic experimentation, i believe if it is not successful, then oh well, we learned something. An experiment is not about the end result... it's about the process.
does their definition of "experimental" match what you previously thought of the term?: I was taught that an experiment is a test of a hypothesis, an if then statement. After reading these 2 readings, i feel that i can learn so much just by messing around, as long as I'm learning and discovering while the experimentation is taking place. In order to experiment you need an idea and possible outcome, but the experimentation that i understand now is not to just test one hypothesis, but to continue testing more than one hypothesis to see how far you can push the boundaries/test the limits of legibility.
is it really useful to experiment if it doesn't have real application?: It is always useful to experiment. If you do not find a use for your end result, then you know not to do that any more. Experimenting is a learning experience. It is more useful to the typographer to have a possible application in mind, just to keep the experimentation from getting out of control.
It's funny, at least in Michael's class, we literally just do straight-up Weingart studies. (see: Wolfgang Weingart's experiments with the letter 'M' (1965-68).
Anyway, to respond to the second half of the Triggs reading, SPOT ON–our education, is highlighted in pages 12-17.
for instance: "Experimental typography has reached a point where it is accepted an an integral part of the design process. Many educational institutions now offer classes dedicated exclusively to experimental typography and encourage students to engage with design research as a process of 'thinking' and of 'making"
It goes on to say:
"Designers and typographers have become more aware of the link between craftsmanship and historical understanding, cultural and technological issues, the aesthetics and function of type and the importance of language and meaning. At the same time, the broader audience has become more sophisticated in its 'ways of reading' and more accepting of the way designers and typographers present alternative models of visual communication."
I think a couple of (corporate) examples of that are the modern re-branding of companies like Pepsi, Walmart, etc... Those companies who want to refresh their look to appeal to the younger, hipper crowd.
...As well as the smooth arrivals of new products like the well-designed 'Truvia' sugar substitute. (Which is nasty, by the way.) Or, even the Shatto milk bottles from the local farm.
Also, the question is asked in the essay about the validity of our experimental processes now:
"Yet, has the typographic experiment played itself out? It has become evident that the typographic experiment had ceased to be experimental by the start of the new millennium. Rather, much of what is currently produced reflects a continuation of earlier experimental strategies and processes. Almost in recognition of this." __________________________________________________
HOW CAN WE GO ABOVE AND BEYOND? I personally am going to approach my experimental type project with both a scientific, and visual communications outlook and objectives. Has everything REALLY been done? I don't think so...
well Initially I said "shit" because whenever the writer focuses on defining a word, it usually means someone wants to say they're opinion, These readings were interesting, and useful to some degree such as the evolution of meaning within typography. Getting stuck on how to define experimentation and the philosophical/circular approach to that, was kind of annoying.
experimental is not knowing the outcome, which means, that if your work has meaning behind the form, its most likely not experimental, but deliberate.
Triggs quickly jumps to how 'meaning' has fueled typographic explorations, with out first clearly defining the ambiguously definitions of, experimentation, which is the main discussion of Bil'ak.
Triggs, defines 'typographic experimentation' as a valid means of ration investigation, of taking risks and viewing those risks as crucial to the development of the overall design process.
Triggs moves toward discussing how Contemporary typographic experimentation owes its development to the historical 'isms' of the 20th century: Futurism, Constructivism, Dadaism, and Modernism. These movements greatly affected how the designer went about the process of creation. The evolution of Typography or typographic experimentation is in my opinion just enlightenment; to question and search for the meaning, thus adding meaning to the work.
Triggs discusses systematic approaches to designing, rather then designing for aesthetics.
Bil'ak discusses the definition of typographic experimentation. He suggests that a design experiment that is rooted in anti-conventionalism can only exist against the background of other — conventional — solutions.
Bil'ak really focuses on defining experimentation, almost to the point that I felt like he was saying its pointless to call it experimental or experimental cancels out meaning purpose, because its experimental.
I found the essay by Bil’ak, Experimental Typography, Whatever that Means, a little...well, narrow in view. Maybe a more honest evaluation would be, his point of view is an excellent argument for the overly analytical variety, yet not especially encouraging for the free spirit.
I did, however, appreciate his comparison of an experiment within the context of science, verses type design. I may say this with my jaw slightly clenched, but the capability to produce something more than once and measure the results could obviously benefit the designer. And I also agree that the phrase, It’s just an experiment, is occasionally a passive gesture to avoid responsibility for a possibly undesired outcome.
Carson describes an experiment as something he hasn’t tried before; I exhale with comfort at this definition. Yet, the author mocks Carson’s all-too-simple mind; some outcomes of possible experimentation have already been documented in history and therefore the experiment could not possibly be considered valid. Really? I guess historical ignorance could be embarrassing if an already discovered something had been claimed as suddenly discovered. But sometimes I enjoy experimenting solely for the personal experience. Who cares really if it has or hasn’t been done before if the benefit of the experience is the goal?
Bilak makes a good point about the word experiment. It's much more than just saying, "well, I landed here and ended up with this," while all the time you're not showing any kind of process and process is important, it shows you care about your work, it gives depth to what you're doing.
I like how he ties science to experimenting even with type, that in order to have a 'real' experiment you have to have a process and be able to pull off that same set of actions again in order to produce a similar result. I guess an experiment is not an experiment unless you can prove how you did what you did.
Experimentation is always about risk, so I like Michael Worthington and the fact that he ties in 'not knowing the outcome' to the idea of risk. I appreciate that it might seem that type designers aren't risking anything but how about the process they go through in order to find the solution? They might risk a lot to get there. In my mind, going into uncharted waters, no matter how deep, always involves some kind of risk and if it doesn't, then that's no kind of experiment and certainly isn't looking out for something entirely new and never done before.
In talking about Ortho-type Bilak says, "although this kind of experimental process has no commercial application, its results may feed other experiments..." I think this is great too. Experimentation always yields more than an unexpected outcome, which may be the gold mine.
From the Triggs reading the bit about Massin introducing time and space to the page by manipulating weight, scale, repetition and distortion, is an interesting notion picked out of a long list of changes that type design has been through in the last century. This is a very postmodern idea and in 64 was probably quite revolutionary; an experiment that led to a lot of actualization. I would have loved to have been in on the process!
It seems that throughout the last 100 years, because design and media have undergone such dramatically large changes, type design has become way more experimental, because of the nature of the movements we have gone through; Futurism, Modernism, Constructivism and Dadaism. The word movement denotes a transition from one thing to another and there had to be experiments that led to the next movement. Question is, where will we go next?
20 comments:
what did you think of these readings? The Triggs reading was very long, yet I found a few moments of inspiration thrown into the mix (I listed them below).
does their definition of "experimental" match what you previously thought of the term? They both kind of speak to the point that experimentation should have an academic purpose behind the process. I don't know if I fully agree with that or not. Experimenting should not just be a cop-out for doing bad work, but if I just start messing around with no real purpose and something cool comes from that, it doesn't mean I had a purpose to start with. Just kind of means that I got lucky. That being said- having no motive or end result in mind, if I "mess around" and come up with nothing worth while, it doesn't mean that I didn't experiment or that the experiment failed. I still will probably walk away with something under my belt.
is it really useful to experiment if it doesn't have real application? See above lol. Everything is a learning experience but experimenting should not be a cop-out/excuse for bad work.
Cool points in the Triggs reading:
I like the idea of challenging the fundamental notions of aesthetics. That to me sums up experimental quite nicely.
The Triggs reading breaks experimenting into two categories- type design "with the design or production of typefaces" and typography which "investigates the use of type in layouts" It is interesting to think of the two as being separate. I generally think of letters making up words making up sentences making up paragraphs but the reading is encouraging us to look at the form of each individual letter as a completely different entity than how that form looks on a page.
We must take our audience and design right down to individual letter forms for them and for use for projects/products for them.
I was very interested in the idea of using typography in order to visually illustrate how a play might be performed. They were not illustrated pages, "rather they demonstrated a symbiotic relationship between word and image. The narrative was seen as well as read." I avidly read and I'm constantly making up voices for characters in the stories I come across. To visually represent their speeches on a page could further my understanding of a character.
I enjoyed that the reading brought time constraints into the pool of experimental quality. However I don't know if a time limit would strictly hamper development. If given ten years to develop something great, I might slack off or be slow in my methods. Given ten days I would be forced into working hard and earnestly. Different results would occur, maybe for the better or maybe for the worse but it is interesting to think of how I work under which time sets.
Both Bil'ak and Triggs had some very intriguing thought and ideas that bring a new light, for me, to the idea of experimental typography. It is very thought provoking the numerous experimentation that can take shape and how they are molded.
To begin, Bil'ak defined experimentation as 'going against prevailing patterns', as a confrontation of the mainstream. He also brought up the idea of taking risks and not knowing the outcome, which is somewhat relate-able to use and student designers; we may have a vision when we begin a project but in the end it may have evolved into something totally different; however, it may have the basic infrastructure of the initial thought process.
As most of us know from years of academics, experimentation directly relates to science; the test of an idea which includes a set of actions performed to prove or disprove a hypothesis with controlled conditions. This is similar when considering design and typography as we sometimes do have an idea in mind; however, we do not always have a control on what is occurring, I see it more as an evolution.
I also found in interesting, the point made by designer David Carson, in which something novel is experimental. But I question this point because we often reference each other in consideration for our design and how can we know for sure that something has never been done before?
On the other hand, the Triggs' reading enveloped some of the radical ideas made possible through experimental type design and typography. It also brought to light the true limit-less nature of experimental design and defined it as discovering an 'unknown effect.'
Triggs and Bil'ak have similar definitions of experimentation; however, Triggs takes it a step further by addressing the design process. According to Triggs experimental is defined as a valid means of rational investigation, or taking risks and viewing those risks as crucial to the development of the overall design process. It is interested how Triggs and Bil'ak created similar meanings of the idea, considering how in the Bil'ak reading multiple designers had contrasting views of experimentation. Within the Triggs reading, Daniel Friedman defines process as a system of operations or a series of changes or actions in the production of a result. This idea definitely relates to our learning process and how we push designs toward a final outcome but during that time we are continuously learning and engaging with our 'experiment.'
The reading brought up other points of interest regarding typographic experimentation as not only varying weight, scale, placement, and repetition, but also in regards to type being symbolic and how it can bring 'time and space to the printed page.' It was very interesting that in some instances not only the type itself was taken in to consideration but also the medium it which it was being portrayed and how the two interact.
The two readings tapped new realms of creativity and helped me further visualize how to push myself even further into the experimental world of radical thinking and production. They both stress the thinking and research process and how those key elements effect your journey into the territory of the unknown. This was a great way to begin, not only this class, but the semester, as it has evoked a sense of creative exploration within myself as a designer.
What did you think of these readings?
When I began reading both Bil'ak and Triggs, I felt like it had some intellectual reasoning towards experimental type with having set rules where the variable could possibly change in the process. Both readings, they talked about how experimenting is in other words a 'research method.'
Does their definition of "experimental" match what you previously thought of the term?
I did like the way Triggs worded the definition of experimental, meaning 'taking risks and viewing those risks as a crucial to the development of the process.' I do feel like you can go into an experiment and think one idea is going to happen, but only realizing the whole idea could change. I also believe in process of experimenting can also help to realize or answer questions that come to mind, but of course it can open visuals and vocabulary to the idea, it gives 'newness' to the limitations.
Is it really useful to experiment if it doesn't have real application?
It was said that 'the amount of developmental time offered, the types of production processed used and the social in which the designer or typographer is operating - will affect the was a designer approaches the experimental and, consequently, the end product.' I personally feel like it doesn't have to be useful because designers can explore different ideas outside of the workplace. I sometimes wish I could have more time to finish experimenting with the different types of layouts I can use or the different formats that are out there. These ideas of what to use or where to position is just the little things I try to experiment with. I try to think of something new and different from what I have been doing, which I guess is sometimes another way of experimenting because I never really know what I can get done with until I get to the end result. I feel like experimenting an idea without a real application can somehow help influence later within an application, it can not be ruled out.
I thought that the readings brought back a more intellectual way of looking at experimental type rather than a "that looks cool" type of thing. They make you thing of how you create all projects, and how you use the media you do and how even though it is deemed experimental, it is actually scientific because you do have a goal that you are eventually trying to get to, whether it is a success or not.
The type experiments which are usually talked about are the extreme. More the designer designing for the designer (or typographer). I know that I can see things that my friends that have not been in design do not see. And I also judge based on what the material is for if it is effective (legibility).
The Trigg's text used the definition,"to produce meaning in the way they are organized visually" about letter and type. I like this definition because that is where the designer comes in. The words come together and work like they do because the designer puts them in 12 pt font with a sans-serif type face. We, as designers, experiment with type but really we are using different and new versions of a-z alphabet. We can only use those letters because that is how we understand that language and the reason why people experiment is to find out how far you can push it and have it still read as an "a."
Wow. A lot to take in.
Well, here are my feelings on typographic experimentation.
First, I think that experimentation is very important in any field. If there was no research, no tinkering or playing, some of the most major discoveries wouldn't have been made. Things like penicillin, potato chips, or microwaves wouldn't exist. Even failure can result in great things.
When it comes to typography, it is no different. Experimentation is the key to discovery. Like the Bil'ak reading said, it is breaking out of expected traditions. However, those new discoveries and ideas soon become traditions, like Emigre, so there is always a need for new experimentation. There is no upper limit to how high we can set the bar. I do think that experimentation needs to be approached as any other activity in which you intent the outcome to bear fruit. This means that it must be practical in nature. If someone want to achieve the same results as you, they must know what steps to follow. I think this is a problem I had with the Futurists described in Trigg's article. They just were doing this and that, with no real purpose. And while it's good to break tradition, it can only do good to a certain extent. For example, just because you don't like how the government is doing something, doesn't mean you will burn down the entire institution.
Experimentation is not only needed, but in my opinion is unavoidable. While there is nothing threatening our lives, it is the nature of humans to crave knowledge. Through experimentation we get unexpected results and new ways of thinking.
The readings seemed long, but there were some really nice peices. alright, so I’ll be that guy and pull out the david carson quote ‘Experimental is something I haven’t tried before.’ I think that quote is very relivant especially in the context of schooling, because what the performance of a said action by one does not hold the same gravitas as for another.
“The alphabet is by its very nature dependent on and defined by conventions.”
Yes this is true, but it is within the fact that there are conventions and restrictions that provide people a jumping off point to create something new. I had this teacher awhile back and he gave the assignment of crossing the roomfrom one corner to the other, with the restriction that you could not move in a way that has already been done. The first person walked, the second ran, third skipped ect, ect. It was the convention and restritions that brought about the change.
The Sintétik type was great. Designers are always tryinng to stay current. That’s so clean, pushing the bounds, web 2.0. What a funny idea to bring people back to the year 1400.
I appriacted the authors patience in trying to define the terminology. He threw out alot of different definitions and so yes, I do agree with aspects of each.
Expieirment for expeiriment’s sake. damn right. If something does not have an application, than it is by definition not useful. art for arts sake.Or perhaps there isn’t an immdeate question that the experiment answers, but having the answer in your morguefile, can defeientely help if the question arrises
oscar wilde, art for art’s sake
http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/owilde/bl-owilde-pic-pre.htm
Experimentation is a search for a new portal through which we can escape our reality prison. During the beginning of alchemy, the goal was to find a way to change lead into gold. In current day graphic design the goal is to persuade people with type and image.
It seems like every time some new wave of technology comes out like the macintosh computer, it is followed by shocking new aesthetic that will be criticized by the designers of the previous wave.
Graphic Designers post EMIGRE seem to feel a new kind of anxiety and responsibility. It seems to be rooted deeply in the influential figures starting with Marinetti and other futurists.
Experiments with typography seem to get closer and closer with every generation to being a complex system of communication like music as math. Typography is something that we just can't quite compare anything to because it is language transformed by thousands of years.
As for content, I was glad to see writing about emigre, cranbrook people and weingart.
what did you think of these readings?
The bil'ak reading on type as an experiment I would have to say is a little controversial. The idea that you must be experimenting for a reason I am not sure I would agree with. I feel sometimes if you are just "messing" around and not really focusing on why you are doing something but more on how something looks, it sometimes turns out better. Even then you can usually come up with why you did this, or a process. Everything we do has a process whether it be completely random, or have some scientific experiment to go along with it. I feel we always do something for a reason, even if that reason is subconscious. So I feel this reading had some good points and some I could argue.
On the Triggs reading, I really liked the idea of how what was considered in the past as an experiment may be old news to our contemporary thought on what is an experiment. We sometimes look at older expressive typography and think ya, that is a little experimental but I have seen crazier. When at the time some of the experiments done we VERY controversial and not accepted. The rules of typography were being broken and it was something new that people did not alway agree on. I also thought it was interesting how these pieces of typography such as the work done by people such as Emigre and McCoy have sort of lead the way into what we consider experimental typography today. Their experiments have sort of set some guidelines and ideas of just how much you can do with type.
does their definition of "experimental" match what you previously thought of the term?
When I think of the term experimental I think of trying new things. It does not always work out the way you may have intended it to, but you can usually pull from your errors and learn what cannot be done, and how you have to fix it. I dont think experimental always has to have a scientific explanation or process. You as a designer can create your own process that works out for your own wants and needs.
is it really useful to experiment if it doesn't have real application? No, I feel I have expressed that above
the letter form is a direct link to the basic communication of human beings. it is a well known system and in time there is a natural need to change and evolve the form and function of these things, if not for the simple reason of knowing that there is the possibility of change and that we are not locked into this forever. The thought of being locked into something is the thought of being not a creature creative or smart enough to challenge itself. This is where experimentation comes in. The alphbet is our rock, our anchor and there must be ships to sail out, beyond the familiar and warm to find new ventures. Our knowledge of language helps us walk into the dark and come out with the new. Every time something experimental within typography happens then a new understanding of typography is found. It must go on. Experimentation teaches the public to learn new ways to understand. It teaches the experimenter new ways to enplane and connect ideas with forms. The letters and words are being reborn and renewed into new ways of visual code. The use of the letter form aclinates the viewer into something that would be a complete mystery otherwise. experimental typography is a means of communication with limits of communication.
Bl'ak -
Experimentation. The first thought that came to mind was - performing actions with the intentions of producing something "un-experienced" or "new." Milton Glaser said "creativity is something never before experienced." When someone says "hey, that's creative," it usually equates to something "un-experienced" or "new." The typical scientific idea also came to mind by performing a series of tests to make sure a new creation is practical in relation to its need of its' environment.
David Carson thinks along the same lines of Milton Glaser:
- Experimental is something I haven’t tried before … something that hasn’t been seen and heard’. (fig.1) Carson and several other designers suggest that the nature of experiment lies in the formal novelty of the result.
I do believe that experimentation is truly something that has never been tried before, but I have to disagree with Mr. Carson on the topic that the nature of experiment does not lie within the formal novelty of the result! This would only mean that the process leading up to the end product is irrelevant. I understand now that, yes we must utilize our preceding theories of tradition to reach a new result, however, the process of that product, is the only thing we can document to consider it a true experiment.
I think we have the expectations of being Avant Garde within the term 'experiment' when in reality after this new thing, whatever it may be, has been produced and experienced, it just becomes part of a body of work that is considered part of whole; which isn't an isolated entity of new anymore. When completed there are no more risks. I must say that Michael Worthington is closer to my Cup-O Tea. Taking risks and not knowing the outcome dictates that "if you know what you are making, then it cannot be: art, something new, or Avant Garde." It can only be a variation of something existing.
Triggs -
I found the 2 separate paths of Experiment in Type Design and Experiment in Typography quite enlightening. The difference between Type design being focused on typeface creation and Typography of relationships in layout on a page with the existing typefaces are both opposite and common. They need each other to function correctly: type faces need layout to know what environment these typefaces are going to be living in, and layout needs typefaces for content on what feels appropriate within that environment. I enjoyed the idea of timing playing a big part in understanding type design experimentation. Wolfgang Weingart's five year exploration of just the letter "m" is truly crazy and beautiful at the same time.
If both experiments serve a practical need to the viewer and are respectful of its environment also if you've utilized something from the process that can be learned and applied to future projects and have been tested or proven successful, then experiments are very useful whether they have a realistic application or not.
My definition or expectations of experiment has not changed from prior to the readings, it has only broadened my understanding and amount of additional knowledge that supports my previous, and yes a hyperbolic metaphorical version, of my experimental theory that - the process can only be labeled an experiment due to the risks it takes and most importantly the unknown outcomes.
In my mind the idea of 'experimentation' has a lot to do with the theories of science, which automatically makes me think of a controlled environment. I was constantly questioning, why not define the concept of experimentation as exploration instead to get rid of the rigidity of the other term? Exploration to me provides more freedom and less control.
However I might have had a change of heart when I started to read the Triggs Article. In the world of design we do consider variables within controlled environments. We always have to consider the client, the intended audience, and ourselves. These elements will never change. We can change the one variable that will affect these 'certain' elements, which is the nature of the design. The reading quotes that 'type is the symbolic representation of language' and 'the typographic experiment questions the relationship between the typographer and the intended audience'. Both of these statements reveal that in fact we as designers are dealing with elements that aren't going to change such as; language, audience, even our own self. Our job is to be able to create a more creative and interesting way of conveying these constant elements. How can we do it in a clear, convincing, and creative way.
I thought both readings were very intriguing in that of the explanation of "experiment" relating to typography. Bil'ak spoke thoroughly about the relativity the word experiment has to science and the process scientists usually go through. He stated that scientists begin with a hypothesis and go through trial and error until some amazing outcome surfaces. Triggs was different from Bil'ak and supplied many different examples of designers' views on the term experiment and what it meant in terms of design. One thing he touched on slightly that I noticed about the next step is the acceptance experimental typography has these days. With many active designers these days, it is encouraged to keep on experimenting and going through trial and error to see what works well and what doesn't. On the opposite side, he notices that the audiences are getting not necessarily smarter, but developing a more keen eye when it comes to advertisements and design in general. They have developed a different "way of seeing".
I would have to agree with David Carson's statement, "experimenting is something you haven't done before...or seen/heard by anyone" and Michael Worthington's "true experimentation means to take risks." My initial thought of the term was trying different things and using different sources and skills. (different avenues of communication, different mediums, different ways of communicating and persuasion) Possibly combining different skills to create a better, more successful outcome. My after thought now is that experiment is a lot of different answers. One must experiment to get those answers. Experiment can only be answered by the act of experimenting.
Through typography, there are endless possibilities as for what a headline/artifact can look like. That is where us as designers must experiment and go through the options available and in the end, find a solution that best benefits the artifact, client, and audience. Research is key, in some instances testing is good, and iterations...lots and lots of iterations.
-what did you think of these readings?
They were interesting pieces of theory, and I am inspired to do something really out there for this project. I am glad that the BIL'AK reading touched on the scientific side of experimentation and how it applies to design, as well as
______________
-does their definition of "experimental" match what you previously thought of the term?
My definition is definitely the same, but I want to push my understanding and "experimentation" even farther.
More specifically, I agree with David Carson: " ‘Experimental is something I haven’t tried before … something that hasn’t been seen and heard’. (fig. 1) Carson and several other designers suggest that the nature of experiment lies in the formal novelty of the result. "
Furthermore, In the Triggs reading, I especially liked this quote:
" Experimental typography is also about the expressive potential in the arrangement of type 'either by achieving a quiet uniformity or similar elements or by the visually exciting use of contrasting ones."
______________
-is it really useful to experiment if it doesn't have real application?
Yes! It is important to me, and should be to other designers, to strive to create something that hasn't been done before: sketch, ideate, push the envelope!
Even if it doesn't have a real application, the discoveries are not any less fruitful.
Both Triggs and Bil'ak look and experimentation in very unique ways. Bil'ak if mainly focused upon going against the grain and pushing the envelope. Going where no designers has ever gone before. However i think that it is important that there be some meaning, thought or plan behind what you are doing. It is one thing to just go all out and try something new but it needs to meet some type of goal or objected or you may never see any successful out come or a completed all the way through. Bil'ak talks about experimentation being the foundation upon which all other ideas or directions can be formed upon. Bil'ak also quoted Carson stating "experiment lies in the novelty of its results". This is important cause with out a finished product or result people cant marvel in its creation/ the experiment.
As for the Triggs reading really focuses on the the design process of the experiment. An experiment should be in some way a science experiment. With a control group and a changing group. Triggs talked about not only type design but layout design as well. I think that it is interesting that he breaks them up into two different categories simply because that way its almost like 2 different assignments. The designer my not only design all the words but the letters with in those words. If a designer can successfully do this then they have added another layer of interest and depth into their work. This allow the designer to be responsible for more elements their for giving them more to experiment with and more change is possible.
I feel that from these articles I really need to stop being afraid of type and thinking that there is a right and a wrong. I need to loosen up a little bit and create things that i find intriguing. I will look like a stiff lifeless designer if i am afraid of being wrong all the time. Confidence is everything.
A quote that was mentioned in the reviews of this reading was is "Design is Art People Use" and that is something in which i am going to not only base my whole semester on trying to achieve but strictly my typography as well. Critical thinking is also something that this reading stressed upon which can fall into the experimental process and i need to keep trying to address in my very own "individual" way.
what did you think of these readings?:
The readings explained experimentation in more ways than i understood. They both convinced me that even if my experiment fails, i still will learn something. In grade school/high school science projects, if our experiment was not successful, we were unsuccessful, but as of typographic experimentation, i believe if it is not successful, then oh well, we learned something. An experiment is not about the end result... it's about the process.
does their definition of "experimental" match what you previously thought of the term?:
I was taught that an experiment is a test of a hypothesis, an if then statement. After reading these 2 readings, i feel that i can learn so much just by messing around, as long as I'm learning and discovering while the experimentation is taking place.
In order to experiment you need an idea and possible outcome, but the experimentation that i understand now is not to just test one hypothesis, but to continue testing more than one hypothesis to see how far you can push the boundaries/test the limits of legibility.
is it really useful to experiment if it doesn't have real application?:
It is always useful to experiment. If you do not find a use for your end result, then you know not to do that any more. Experimenting is a learning experience.
It is more useful to the typographer to have a possible application in mind, just to keep the experimentation from getting out of control.
It's funny, at least in Michael's class, we literally just do straight-up Weingart studies. (see: Wolfgang Weingart's experiments with the letter 'M' (1965-68).
Anyway, to respond to the second half of the Triggs reading, SPOT ON–our education, is highlighted in pages 12-17.
for instance:
"Experimental typography has reached a point where it is accepted an an integral part of the design process. Many educational institutions now offer classes dedicated exclusively to experimental typography and encourage students to engage with design research as a process of 'thinking' and of 'making"
It goes on to say:
"Designers and typographers have become more aware of the link between craftsmanship and historical understanding, cultural and technological issues, the aesthetics and function of type and the importance of language and meaning. At the same time, the broader audience has become more sophisticated in its 'ways of reading' and more accepting of the way designers and typographers present alternative models of visual communication."
I think a couple of (corporate) examples of that are the modern re-branding of companies like Pepsi, Walmart, etc... Those companies who want to refresh their look to appeal to the younger, hipper crowd.
...As well as the smooth arrivals of new products like the well-designed 'Truvia' sugar substitute. (Which is nasty, by the way.) Or, even the Shatto milk bottles from the local farm.
Also, the question is asked in the essay about the validity of our experimental processes now:
"Yet, has the typographic experiment played itself out? It has become evident that the typographic experiment had ceased to be experimental by the start of the new millennium. Rather, much of what is currently produced reflects a continuation of earlier experimental strategies and processes. Almost in recognition of this."
__________________________________________________
HOW CAN WE GO ABOVE AND BEYOND? I personally am going to approach my experimental type project with both a scientific, and visual communications outlook and objectives. Has everything REALLY been done? I don't think so...
well Initially I said "shit" because whenever the writer focuses on defining a word, it usually means someone wants to say they're opinion, These readings were interesting, and useful to some degree such as the evolution of meaning within typography. Getting stuck on how to define experimentation and the philosophical/circular approach to that, was kind of annoying.
experimental is not knowing the outcome, which means, that if your work has meaning behind the form, its most likely not experimental, but deliberate.
Triggs quickly jumps to how 'meaning' has fueled typographic explorations, with out first clearly defining the ambiguously definitions of, experimentation, which is the main discussion of Bil'ak.
Triggs, defines 'typographic experimentation' as a valid means of ration investigation, of taking risks and viewing those risks as crucial to the development of the overall design process.
Triggs moves toward discussing how Contemporary typographic experimentation owes its development to the historical 'isms' of the 20th century: Futurism, Constructivism, Dadaism, and Modernism. These movements greatly affected how the designer went about the process of creation. The evolution of Typography or typographic experimentation is in my opinion just enlightenment; to question and search for the meaning, thus adding meaning to the work.
Triggs discusses systematic approaches to designing, rather then designing for aesthetics.
Bil'ak discusses the definition of typographic experimentation. He suggests that a design experiment that is rooted in anti-conventionalism can only exist against the background of other — conventional — solutions.
Bil'ak really focuses on defining experimentation, almost to the point that I felt like he was saying its pointless to call it experimental or experimental cancels out meaning purpose, because its experimental.
I found the essay by Bil’ak, Experimental Typography, Whatever that Means, a little...well, narrow in view. Maybe a more honest evaluation would be, his point of view is an excellent argument for the overly analytical variety, yet not especially encouraging for the free spirit.
I did, however, appreciate his comparison of an experiment within the context of science, verses type design. I may say this with my jaw slightly clenched, but the capability to produce something more than once and measure the results could obviously benefit the designer. And I also agree that the phrase, It’s just an experiment, is occasionally a passive gesture to avoid responsibility for a possibly undesired outcome.
Carson describes an experiment as something he hasn’t tried before; I exhale with comfort at this definition. Yet, the author mocks Carson’s all-too-simple mind; some outcomes of possible experimentation have already been documented in history and therefore the experiment could not possibly be considered valid. Really? I guess historical ignorance could be embarrassing if an already discovered something had been claimed as suddenly discovered. But sometimes I enjoy experimenting solely for the personal experience. Who cares really if it has or hasn’t been done before if the benefit of the experience is the goal?
Bilak makes a good point about the word experiment. It's much more than just saying, "well, I landed here and ended up with this," while all the time you're not showing any kind of process and process is important, it shows you care about your work, it gives depth to what you're doing.
I like how he ties science to experimenting even with type, that in order to have a 'real' experiment you have to have a process and be able to pull off that same set of actions again in order to produce a similar result. I guess an experiment is not an experiment unless you can prove how you did what you did.
Experimentation is always about risk, so I like Michael Worthington and the fact that he ties in 'not knowing the outcome' to the idea of risk. I appreciate that it might seem that type designers aren't risking anything but how about the process they go through in order to find the solution? They might risk a lot to get there. In my mind, going into uncharted waters, no matter how deep, always involves some kind of risk and if it doesn't, then that's no kind of experiment and certainly isn't looking out for something entirely new and never done before.
In talking about Ortho-type Bilak says, "although this kind of experimental process has no commercial application, its results may feed other experiments..." I think this is great too. Experimentation always yields more than an unexpected outcome, which may be the gold mine.
From the Triggs reading the bit about Massin introducing time and space to the page by manipulating weight, scale, repetition and distortion, is an interesting notion picked out of a long list of changes that type design has been through in the last century. This is a very postmodern idea and in 64 was probably quite revolutionary; an experiment that led to a lot of actualization. I would have loved to have been in on the process!
It seems that throughout the last 100 years, because design and media have undergone such dramatically large changes, type design has become way more experimental, because of the nature of the movements we have gone through; Futurism, Modernism, Constructivism and Dadaism. The word movement denotes a transition from one thing to another and there had to be experiments that led to the next movement. Question is, where will we go next?
Post a Comment