My initial approach to interpreting the reference has been to adopt a forensic mindset in exploring objects, their forms and what they represent. I have started by cataloguing all the elements I interact with on a regular basis, that is up to May 2023.
The more I research, the more I feel my line of enquiry takes unexpected turns, as well as shaping my position regarding current design practice. I think, most of my references have been very grounded in the early and mid 20th century, and there are so many valuable princes to extrapolate from these, but there’s a growing interest in my on exploring the meaning of those concepts in the world today, trying to ask questions which would become more relevant for my future practice.
In the following text I discuss the potential of non-textual visual grammars to transform and visually rewrite key elements of information, while also raising questions about the limits of visual representation, the integrity of information, and the emergence of a visual grammar. I propose using a receptive iterative system, called the morphologic box, to customise and adapt visual responses to a given input. This concept is linked to the idea of spatialising arguments, which can reveal novel ways of understanding and researching layers of information.
Design systems can be applied to visually narrate data and not necessarily be focused on abstract concepts. In my previous set of iterations I began exploring the ideas of belonging and language through typographic and symbolic iterations. This new focus pulls me to not constrain myself to typography as an expression of identity, but to truly explore graphic devices which can help people understand and communicate through the use of methodological processes.
I would be lying if I said this was an easy week. For this entry, I will be discussing a few thoughts on my experiences around this project so far, and how I feel it's shaping my position regarding graphic communication design. I started by looking at all my projects and mapping out the core message that I pursue as a potential general line of inquiry at this early stage.
How does design shape, constrain, or encourage people’s interactions with their surroundings and with each other? What is the moral responsibility behind designing for people? To what extent do designers influence perception of daily life?
Building on our positions touch-points and using our visual experiments to produce a reader aimed to inform and raise awareness about hostile architecture, as well as to serve as a container that synthesises and contains a unified language around our research.
As a group, we decided to focus on using the first week to do an open ended visual exploration of the subject and to collect many visual outputs, building on the tools we have learned from the previous briefs. Below are my personal experiments that evolved from our initial positions.
This project explores the idea of using Blender, 3D modelling software, as a type design tool. Looking to generate letterforms that change over time, using constrained parameters and modifiers within the system. Please find below a PDF compiling Draft 1, Draft 2 and the final written response.
This last week of the project has been pivotal in the understanding and development of the concept I've been working on for last few weeks. As I thought about my project's critical question, I realised that I was not only trying to explore Blender as a type design software, but I was in fact channelling my interest for the creation of visual systems into this project. Some of these concepts echo in my current exploration and give a backdrop to my interesting in setting variables and constrains as fundamental parts of this project.
Using Blender as a tool for generating “anti-intuitive” typographic iterations based on a series of controlled opposing values. In another words, I'm exploring blender as a type design tool. The input and subject of the first part of this experiment was sans serif letterforms as a way to explore the possible morphological iterations.
I would like take a moment to reflect on the current references feeding into my practice and their connection to Methods of Iterating brief. Over the winter break I started reading more about flexible design systems and the work of Martin Lorenz, lecturer at Elisava Barcelona, came up as a current reference in the field. His works not only makes an important contribution to the field, but it's also grounded in Karl Gerstner's methodologies and design approach.
