3.22.2011

Reading Response

The readings assigned this week were enlightening. Each reading brought something slightly different to the table, but both focused on the idea of experimental typography. "Experimental Typography..." by Peter Bil'ak, seemed to focus on the process of creating the typography, while the introduction of "Radical Type Design" by Teal Triggs revolved around the interaction of the type and the reader. The word experimental is key in both readings. When I compared my definition of the word with theirs, they were identical. Relating more to Peter Bil'ak's definition that, " ... an experiment is a test of an idea; a set of actions performed to prove or disprove a hypothesis." This really made it seem like experimental typography was in someways a dead end. When experimenting with type it never dawned on me that I wasn't trying to prove or disprove anything, I was just doing. My Definition of experimental typography was weak and non existent before these readings. Now I have started to look at in the context of our symposium. The purpose of our explorations is to show that typography does not have to be conventional ink on paper. The interaction between the viewer and the typography takes on a different relationship, and offers a different experience other than reading a book.

For me, experimental typography is experimental because it proves that typography doesn't have to be conventional and can start to take on an experimental forms that has the potential to offer more than it did before.

No comments: