During the course of my DPS year I have been researching the effects of generativedesign specifically on typography. I have used my time in quarantine as an opportunity to delve deeper into the historical context, the theoretical groundwork and practical applications of Gerstners teachings. Using a self initiated project as a framework to explore the differences between working parametrically and a more traditional type design style, i’ve been able to refine my practise in a very independent way. Over the course of this post i’ll attempt to highlight some of what I’ve learnt recently in the context of generative design. Kalte Kunst or Cold Art is the title of Karl Gerstner’s first book in which Gerstner advocates for a specific form of rational, geometric and mathematical art with examples from Josef Albers and Max Bill. Gerster later expands on these themes in seminal book ‘Designing Programmes’. The book was released in 1964, but the kind of algorithmic design processes described have never been more relevant or accessible to designers today. The key idea that Gerstner is communicating is about adapting algorithmic systems to the creative process. For instance using Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwickys ‘morphological method’ , this consists of itemizing the essential elements of a problem in logical order. These are then “systematically linked with minimal time and effort and brought together to produce optimal solutions” By using the strict parameters set out by Gerstner you are essentially designing the tool or ‘programme’ instead of a singular outcome. What’s fascinating to me is that both the content and range of your programme’s output has the potential to be far greater than the limits of your imagination. “Give a man a fish he can eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime”. One of the reasons this method of working has been so motivating is its emphasis on process, I’ve found myself driven by the enjoyment of the work rather than a final outcome. This style of working comes not only with immeasurable potential but also a switch in mindset that is best summed up by former tutor Paul Mcneil. “Process driven work accommodates chance, error, and failure, there can be no actual risk of failure” By working on systems rather than bespoke pieces it allows me to remove personal bias and extraneous influences. For me It is liberating knowing that my designs are the result of carefully considered parameters and arguments rather than a reflection of me as a person. This point of view is shared by Wim Crouwel in now infamous debate with Jan Van Toorn in which “Crouwel called for the designer as a neutral conduit through which communication should pass” As a result of this objectivity I feel less anxiety over the quality of my work, I am more productive, and my type design has been much more original. Working in this way has allowed for a reflective experience, I am able to recognise changes in my process and its effect on my mindset. I believe this cognisance is a result of the research and implementation of working systematically. In an attempt to better understand how the process of type design could be achieved computationally i’ve looked into the history of parametric type design. There are a number of examples and case studies i’ve looked into and intend to use as part of a potential dissertation. One of the first fonts to focus on a variable set of related shapes was the Univers typeface by Adrian Frutiger. Made in 1954, Frutiger’s approach to the design of Univers was drastically different than that of others fonts: Instead of focusing on the relation between the letters of the same weight, he focused on creating a system of interrelated weights that would function well against each other. This is the first example of a new way of thinking about typography that has become quite prevalent with the advent of variable fonts. A variable font is an OpenType font format that stores information on a font’s entire family including weight, width, slant, and, in some cases, specific styles, such as Condensed, Bold, etc. A variable font is a design system, in the same way my type has been crafted by the adherence to predetermined parameters a user can create new angles and weights of a variable font by manipulating the given variables. Variable fonts are useful for a number of reasons; their accessibility, responsiveness and relatively small files size, but the reason they are quite innovative is they allow users to to pick font styles from a series of interpolated masters. This means people can choose their own style of font with a % more condensed or a % more bold for their specific job. This responsivity is a core feature of generative design. In the case of variable fonts the designer is the conduit, they set up the parameters (the font masters), the variable font is the programme, and the user becomes the editor/ designer. So design systems allow for broader creative potential, efficient production, and can be made quite accessible to non designers. This concept of the user becoming the designer is a contentious subject. in an its nice that article Dalton Maag welcome the control that users have over their fonts.“Variable fonts do hand over more of the decisions to the users of the fonts. Previously, typefaces have been stretched and squeezed if they didn’t fit, or even outlined if the weight wasn’t quite right. With variable fonts, we allow for these things, but on our terms, with a lot more finesse than you’d get if you mechanically alter fonts in creative software” The current rate of technological progression means more people have access design. Automatic logo makers and website templates may suggest homogeneity, but i recon having more creative people designing the systems people use only promotes a more vibrant democratic industry. As the user becomes the designer, the designer must become the programmer. Conclusion/ Reflection. I’ve written this piece as a way of expressing some of my ideas and relaying some research on the aforementioned topic ahead of my dissertation. Whilst writing it’s become abundantly clear i have too much to say on the topic, clearly displayed by the sporadic interjection of seemingly unrelated points and the confusingly abrupt structure of the piece. Oh well, at least i can start to narrow down a diss title. Need to figure out what elements i’m looking at in my title ‘how does a generative approach effect the design of type’ (this needs revising. When i say the design of type do i mean the visual outcome? The application? I need to specifically define generative approach.) Philosophic difference; objectivity(crouwel)/ subjectivity(van toorn) Designer difference; (eg personalities), the process difference; (computationally eg METAFONT / traditionally) The marketability; Do they sell, who uses them the Application; (is the font been made generatively eg. muir mcneil or has it been applied via a system eg. semiotik) the success of the type; do they communicate, The changing role of the designer; (accessibility to non designers)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
March 2022
Categories |