Archive | October 2011

OLOGY OLOGY OLOGY

Well today went badly. Our idea got slammed. It was seen as a piss take, but I suppose that’s understandable. We have moved onto “Measuring the Unmeasurable”. Initial ideas:

I was looking into this idea of “Equanimity” a concept in Buddhism, that’s really quite neat to say the least. It’s a very un-judgemental look on life: “to bear success with humility, the affection of my friends without pride”. How could you measure that? Or success? Since it’s so subjective, one mans view of success could be another’s failure.

UPDATE: Today was a real struggle. But we have reached a conclusion. That is to study “nothing”. Literally nothing. The study of nothing. Nilology. We declare nothing to be in fact a thing. It fills our box with something to describe.

DESCARTES:

“Nothing must be a fluid thing indeed. It fills our container with something to understand. It springs into existances when we need it to take shape, and vanishes ever more quickly when we dismiss it. It matches our needs our wishes. It is our servant becoming whatever we need it to be: something.”

The absence of anything really is a sort of something: if only a concept.

HILARIOUS WEBSITE ON NOTHING.

UPDATE: We pull it off. Very enthusiastically, if nothing else. (Aha.)

 

Sonika

Seemed better at 4 in the morning

jesus christ what have i done!

so look here. how many uses are there of peanut butter? we came to about 60. including, lipstick, shampoo, adhesive, lubricant, ointment, and foodspread. And then commenced eating it with everything.

Peanut butter milkshakes. Tastes better than sex.

With sausages.

Shampoo ?

And so many other uses!

OLOGY, OLOGY, OLOGY

Make a new -ology!

A.K.A. “the study of something”

WHERE TO BEGIN?

brain storm :

Every idea under the sun

peanut butter. peanut godamn butter. it had to be. what else could it be.

Typography continued…

Heres the idea: Like optical sizing, smaller objects have to make concessions and reductions just so they can be smaller, and perhaps more understandable. Large objects allow for more intricacy, like type, theres more room for further detail. So we take this idea out into the real world, and look at the telephone boxes. A souvenir type compared to the larger version.

The final version.

Then come critique time, we got slammed! Alas, this image goes into a book, we thought it could only be A4 therefore, and boom. Everyone else has masterpieces. Terrific sculptures created from A4 pages, enormous posters from A4 pages, and then us with the single A4 page. The group struggled to see our idea. Our teacher couldnt see it either. Bad times! Nevertheless, I learnt an important lesson. Never present an A4 picture to the class come crit time.

 

A new project today. I think im coming to terms with what this course expects of me, and what I expect of the course. Ideas have to be fresh & innovative I suppose. The best ones are simple. And they should be presented in a manner that makes the viewer instantly see. “Oh I get it”. Etc. But this project asks us to explain a typographical term and then present it in a creative way. We have “optical sizing”.

UPDATE: Optical sizing is very simple. After researching the term we came across this: Size-specific adjustments to type design by Tim Ahrens which delves into the subject in unbelievable detail.

UPDATE: Our final statement: “typefaces optimised for certain sizes, with subtle variations in weight and proportion for consistency and legibility at any point size, to retain font character. Tim Ahrens writes extensively on the subject within his dissertation, “Size-specific adjustments to type designs”, stating that generally in smaller sizes: the width of the letter shape, the x-height, the overall weight, and the apertures are all increased.” SIMPLE.

The Q is actually 16pt, scanned, and enlarged. Notice the inconsistences? Not so smooth up close.

Happy accident

I might make this into a separate page. Sometimes when your playful, and have no objective you make subjectively good stuff. Today I made this.

BOOM