Up to this point, we have been exploring the history of printing and typography. Has this changed your appreciation for printing today? Has it influenced how you approach typography or design?
Answer: I have always been interested in the history of the things I like, which include mostly just objects: particularly clothing and stuff we use... like chairs and buildings. I took History of Design, History of Fashion, and history is mentioned in every single TAM class that I have taken in my time at CU, and I liked to think that I have learned a lot. However, in this class, I haven't really learned anything new that colors my perspective on design or has any particular influence on how I design now. I watched the Linotype documentary and haven't heard a new name, although I did learn small new tidbit like Gill San's creator's incest, but those haven't dramatically changed my perspective. Learning design history doesn't really change the way I work, but I make more decision more consciously. The more examples I see help me develop my aesthetic. I like Swiss/International Typographic style, and type-heavy everything. I hate unconsidered decoration and people trying to be too deep about stuff. Many artists try to make feelings, particularly negative feeling, so much bigger than they are and bigger than they deserve to be. It is self-indulgent and juvenile. I find this is design classes a lot, the fuzzy line between designer and artist. Sometimes design is art, and sometimes art is design, and other times they are both their own categories and don't need to be mixed. This perspective has come from learning about history and seeing what stands the test of time.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
archive
January 2018
topics
All
|