The term experiment when used in context with graphic design can be used to signify anything new, out of the ordinary, or harder to categorize. Personally more so now than ever after reading this article I find myself somewhat overwhelmed with the realization that possibly everything that I can conceive as a designer at this point in my career has been done before. Unless since I am at this point unaware and unlearned like the professional designer that I am capable of breaking the norm out of ignorance? If I attempt to 'experiment' and break the norm I fall back into the norm according to the article. Pete Bil'ak states that "The fate of such experimentation is a permanent confrontation with the mainstream; a circular, cyclical race, where it is not certain who is chasing whom".
To think that if there were only two designers left on earth they would both be copy cats. Even to go by what the article says about there having to be two designers so that one can go against the grain of the other or the conventional style of design... If this was the case one could always be pushed in one direction possibly on purpose by the other by claiming one style so that the anti-conventionalist style becomes the main stream thus destroying itself.
The alphabet is based on conventions, yet type design is not bound by such conventions. In fact it thrives on these rules. By giving the alphabet such strict rules the ability of the designer to "break the mold" per se becomes even more prevalent and quite honestly enjoyable. For example the project were working on right now. You can experiment because you have a standard canon of letter forms to defy.
Reading this article makes me really very excited for the possibilities of the individual designer to make their own mark in the evolution of design.
No comments:
Post a Comment