Evaluation
Overall, I think that the strongest aspects of my Bloomberg project stem from my application of rules throughout; I developed all of my final outcomes to follow the exact same structure of repeated words alongside a 50/50 split concept within my posters. Consequently, this really transformed my designs to have greater consistency, as well as all communicating my theme of reflection. I think this was crucial when designing for an event, as every aspect needed to align with one another in order to provide an impact. Regarding the limitations of my design, I think that my typeface design could be stronger, as I think technically it looks quite clumsy and I could have followed more rules in order to perfect it. However, I think that when it is duplicated in the context of my specimen, this isn't noticeable, yet I think my design would be much more stronger if my typeface had more precision and was slightly neater, as it followed the modular forms of the prism quite roughly.
I think from this project I have learnt of the importance of using rules and grids in building a good typeface; before I introduced the 8 line rule, my type lacked structure and consistency, so I will definitely focus on this perspective in the future when designing type. Due to this, I think that rules and consistency is a very important factor not only in typography, but design in general, as it has helped me explore design decisions beyond visual factors. Resultantly, I think within this project I have stepped out of my comfort zone in the fact that I haven't just designed on the basis of looks and visuals, I think I have taken more risks in sticking to a structure; linking to this, another approach that I have changed is my decision to stick to simplified designs - at the start of the project, my initial poster designs were more busy and chaotic which caused them to lack any rules/clear structure, which I then improved by a simplified structure. However, I know that I could have taken more risks within the project, such as my manipulation of images, as I suppose having them simply in black and white is a bit 'safe'.
The easiest part of the design was definitely my production of the specimen design, as by that point in the project all I had to do was follow the rules I had established and then curate them all together to produce a final outcome. Due to this, I found that it was a quick process for me to create a final outcome, as the structure became almost second nature. Contrastingly, the hardest part of the design process was the bridge between creating an alphabet, then applying it in the context of a logotype; I think I struggled a lot with how I could communicate my theme within my logotype, so this process was very time consuming. However, once I had the feedback/suggestion to duplicate words to form a logotype, I had a set rule that I could follow which allowed me to create Cogitatio bold for my logotype design. In retrospect, I think that I have pushed myself massively in this project, as I have approached it with very different techniques that I am comfortable with - for starters, I had never actually designed a full typeface before, so learning the terminology and artist perspectives (such as Massimo Vignelli's) was very interesting. Although this may be the case, I think generally I could have produced something to a higher standard, but I was held back by overcomplicating my design initially, which prevented me from applying a good rule earlier on in the project. I think for the next module I will take this limitation with me and approach projects with a more open mind, and less of a fixation on aesthetics, as I have discovered that once you establish a strong rule/idea, everything will flow naturally from that.
Regarding the resources provided to me, I think that I have taken a lot from them - especially the studio tasks and the various approaches to type that I learnt, as it gave me lots of paths to go down when designing for the module. Additionally, the environment of being surrounded with peers helped me massively, as I constantly received prompts and suggestions which transformed my design; for example my break-through moment when I was suggested to duplicate my type for the logotype, as all of my designs after that followed the same approach. This also goes hand in hand with the regular crits, as they were useful in allowing peoples' ideas to bounce off each other, as I was inspired by a lot of peoples' approaches to the brief. One thing I would highlight is that I think I would get a lot more out of the crits if they were arranged in groups, as I got my idea of using prism forms from my group crit; they provide a more personal, face to face experience.
The workload for this project was somewhat overwhelming initially, due to my jump from an A level workload and the fact that I have never studied type before. However, I found that the structure of the project allowed me to actually produce a lot of work in one day, enabling me to develop my ideas at quite a fast rate. The only issue with this was that sometimes the workload/ speed of the module left me in a stuck position, as I had to balance a lot of aspects of the design at once, e.g. it took me some time to create my final logotype as I was balancing that alongside my poster designs. Despite this, I think that now I've had this experience, I hope I will be a lot stronger in my next module, as I feel confident in the fact that I have been able to produce all of this work in a considerably short space of time, at a relatively high quality. Also, in future modules I think I will combat the workload by continuing a habit of sketchbooking/blogging regularly to keep track of where my project is heading.
No comments:
Post a Comment