Experimental Typography. Whatever that means.
This reading was quite an insight in the term "experimentation". I've never really stopped to consider just how much design relies on that word, and to just what extent experimentation actually occurs in the design process. This article discussed experimentation's scientific roots as a term, and related that to the percieved definitions we designers attach to it. From the designers that were surveyed, it seems most consider experimentation to represent new or groundbreaking outcomes that haven't been seen or done before. Of course part of me wants to admit that just about everything has been done, but with new technologies making their debut each year, designers have an every increasing platform for our own "experiments". Experimental typography in particular seems a science in itself. Linguistics and the symbols that make a language possible are a system, and for the typography that works with that system to stray and take on new forms and meaning is an experimentation, scientific or not.
The act of process is the origin for experimentation. As a designer, I love process. It is just important to me as the ending product, and there are infinite possibilities in reaching a final design solution. Typography is no different. It can be created in many ways, read in many ways, not read at all in many ways. The article briefly covers a few opinions that don't accept projects that have been done in the past to be experimental. I disagree with them. While it's true that a completely new process is experimental, each person has their own design experience to flesh out. What one person has done thousands of times is something completely new to another, and that process can always be done in a different way.
The Typographic Experiment, From Futurism to Fuse
This reading was a bit hard to sift through, but has some great discussion on the experiments occuring in typography today and in the past. Typography is more than just letterforms. The space, materials, the language itself, and many other elements all influence the readers experience. When a designer steps into that relationship and alters the text, it creates something unique that stands out from the typical typographic rectangle on a white page. Language and communication is broad, and a letterform not only has form, but a sound and other meanings society pins onto them. A group of letterforms interact with eachother, holding encoded messages we have learned to understand. If our symposium is going to hold a wide range of type experiments, we would be wise as designers to look past the simple fact that letters are shapes, and dig deep into just what a letter is and how it works when altered.
What did you think of these readings?
I thought both of these readings related to our current point in the symposium process, and were a great introduction to the possibilities of working with letterforms and the written language. I'll certainly keep them as a reference for later typographic work.
Does their definition of "experimental" match what you previously thought of the term?
Yes and no. While I do agree that experimentation is primarily the process of design, I don't believe it has to be new. It boils down to the experience and learning something you haven't done yourself. Learning first hand is always better than simply reading about someone else's work on the subject, and there's always the possibilities of new variables when you experiment yourself.
Is it really useful to experiment if it doesn't have real application?
Definitely. Experimentation above all is a learning process. The experience of doing something new might be a bit intimidating, but we learn from doing more than seeing. While there is a lot to gain from analyzing the finished product, how we arrive at those finished products is the real story.
No comments:
Post a Comment