so i promised you some big update before, & so far i have not delivered.
sorry about that. i've been a little busy getting things together for my thesis proposal presentation [during which i learned a few things, like how to phrase what i mean so people don't misunderstand*], & also finishing up a marketing proposal for a fictitious small press, & also starting to pack for our BIG MOVE [we are moving to brooklyn in about a week! well i am. sasha has been living in brooklyn but he is also moving. we are moving to a new place together. you get the idea] so blogging has fallen to the wayside a little.
what i had wanted to do was post here what i was going to present in class, & it might be a good idea to get it all down anyhow, so i'll do my best. i had this handout that was itself an example of the kinds of things i want to make this year, & i'd really rather post photos of that than have digital copies, so you'll just have to sit tight on that.
anyhow. here's about what i said, more or less, in my proposal presentation on tuesday.
+ hello! i'm skyler. nice to meet you. i'm in this program by way of an undergrad degree in classics & literature followed by a brief stint in publishing, & that's about where i'm coming from.
+ we've all been hearing a lot about how "print is dead". by the mere fact that you're reading my handout [well, not you, dear blog reader, but my audience at the time] in print we can see how "dead" it really is.
+ the problem is not that some arbitrary medium is "dead" or not. the problem is that graphic design, which has up until recently been solely print, now has at least two media (print & digital) to utilize. digital media has become incredibly prominent & accessible, & our dependence on print is necessarily shifting. as designers, we all now must make conscious decisions whether to utilize print or digital media in or for our work.
+ [at this point, i put up a slide with images of the hypnerotomachia poliphili, montagne + vallate + strade x joffre, & house of leaves.] what we're seeing here is that print has always been able to be innovative. the hypnerotomachia poliphili was printed around 1499. this work demonstrates that the value of print objects can lie in their typesetting, in the form of the ink on the paper, or the "tome"-ness of the thing: think about infinite jest & how reading that, how lugging that heavy mass around, is a badge of honor.
+ [here, i put up a slide with images of photonica's HOTO magazine {scroll down in link} & uncut & unopened books.] here's another innovative-&-not thing as it relates specifically to books. hoto, a magazine put out by the japanese stock photo company photonica [now bought out by getty], did a number of different, interactive print issues. issue 2 was the selection issue, in which every set of pages was perforated. in order to read the issue, you had to choose which perforations to open—& in so doing, you chose the path you wanted to take to read the book. certain paths were no longer possible if you made other selections, because you had to tear the book open to make those selections. but this isn't a new thing at all. when books were first printed, they often were sold "unopened", with the signatures still folded. you had to read the book with a knife. [this led to the books being "uncut", a look we now replicate with the deckle edge. see my post ages back on this.] although this used to be Just How Things Were, now, this can be incredibly effective at creating an interactive bond with the medium & the message.
+ [here, i put up a slide with images of a HAVE YOU SEEN THIS FLYER & a sketchbook/organizer that's based on the old mac gui.] the third example i have are these two very contemporary pieces, both illustrating a subversion of form. with the sketchbook specifically, it draws on the fact that it is NOT digital in order to succeed. these two examples embrace the nature of print as print, embrace their function [or lack of, or their supposed function], & communicate simply but incredibly effectively.
+ [here, i put up a quote from frank chimero's post i linked to in an earlier blog post. i said basically the same thing he is saying here & also that i said in my post.]
+ [here is the misleading slide—see below for clarification.]
+ so this is the big question & the crux of my thesis. i want to explore what makes print successful as print; what ways print media can be used to shine & sing & be the most effective communication it can be. to do this, i have to start with a ton of research. articles, books, yes, but also looking at what's being made—so, observational research. i'm also planning to hold a number of interviews with designers, design studios, and design educators about the thought & design of print works; to complement that, i will interview "end-users" of the product [so, readers or non-designers] & find out what works for them. i will look at everything & read everything & find as many examples of innovative print work as i can.
+ what i'd like to find out is whether there are specific ways in which print can be used effectively most of the time; if there are any "rules" to creating these things. what ways can print demonstrate its value as print? above, i have shown at least three ways [the heavy, dense design that seems to auto-value itself; the interactive design that becomes an experience in & of itself; the referential & subversive design that delights in pushing the boundaries of its supposed form], but i know there are more. my goal is to define a set of properties exhibited by most [it would be nice if it could be all, but i'd settle for 85%] of these works, & then create a series of innovative print pieces that utilize those properties.
after presenting, i received a lot of good feedback. the first thing people seemed to say was that this was too subjective. & they are right: it is very subjective. but what i hope to do is get as much data through interviews & surveys that those subjective things become rules. if enough people agree that tearing open pages works as an effective property of interactive print design, that then becomes one of my properties to work with. HOWEVER, i do understand that context is everything. the act of tearing open pages could be incredibly effective in one instance & confusing or off-putting & completely ineffective in another. attempting to define the ways these pieces are effective will be part of my definition of their properties.
daniel said something about how the interactivity was really key to this whole thing, & i think he was totally right. i wanted to get away from that & broaden my field of research, but what really interests me is interactivity in print. as a reader & a consumer of design, i get really excited when i can have a meaningful, interactive experience with a print object. i want to see who else is doing this & how they are doing it & then do more with it on my own. the 'value' question is really pushing me along & i know there are other ways to demonstrate value than interactivity, but maybe i should start with just that.
also i should probably find another name for it than "interactive print design" because "interactive" seems to be a term that is inherently digital. there are so many reasons i think that itself is bogus but it'd probably be more effective to come up with a different name than to try to fight the current on this one.
so i think that's it! now i have ALL SUMMER to work & plan & maybe start some of this research / doing interviews / etc etc.
also moving. that's a big one.
* there was a slide i showed that had the question "how can print objects earn the right to be printed?" & that was probably the worst phrasing i could have possibly used. it was meant for me to use as a lead-in to talking about what i wanted to do with my thesis project, but it ended up provoking more like moral questions. "printed" is not the right word either. what i had meant was: how can we design print objects that take full advantage of the medium, that provide a full print experience? this is not the same thing as the sentence i put on the slide. at all. my bad.
sorry about that. i've been a little busy getting things together for my thesis proposal presentation [during which i learned a few things, like how to phrase what i mean so people don't misunderstand*], & also finishing up a marketing proposal for a fictitious small press, & also starting to pack for our BIG MOVE [we are moving to brooklyn in about a week! well i am. sasha has been living in brooklyn but he is also moving. we are moving to a new place together. you get the idea] so blogging has fallen to the wayside a little.
what i had wanted to do was post here what i was going to present in class, & it might be a good idea to get it all down anyhow, so i'll do my best. i had this handout that was itself an example of the kinds of things i want to make this year, & i'd really rather post photos of that than have digital copies, so you'll just have to sit tight on that.
anyhow. here's about what i said, more or less, in my proposal presentation on tuesday.
+ hello! i'm skyler. nice to meet you. i'm in this program by way of an undergrad degree in classics & literature followed by a brief stint in publishing, & that's about where i'm coming from.
+ we've all been hearing a lot about how "print is dead". by the mere fact that you're reading my handout [well, not you, dear blog reader, but my audience at the time] in print we can see how "dead" it really is.
+ the problem is not that some arbitrary medium is "dead" or not. the problem is that graphic design, which has up until recently been solely print, now has at least two media (print & digital) to utilize. digital media has become incredibly prominent & accessible, & our dependence on print is necessarily shifting. as designers, we all now must make conscious decisions whether to utilize print or digital media in or for our work.
+ [at this point, i put up a slide with images of the hypnerotomachia poliphili, montagne + vallate + strade x joffre, & house of leaves.] what we're seeing here is that print has always been able to be innovative. the hypnerotomachia poliphili was printed around 1499. this work demonstrates that the value of print objects can lie in their typesetting, in the form of the ink on the paper, or the "tome"-ness of the thing: think about infinite jest & how reading that, how lugging that heavy mass around, is a badge of honor.
+ [here, i put up a slide with images of photonica's HOTO magazine {scroll down in link} & uncut & unopened books.] here's another innovative-&-not thing as it relates specifically to books. hoto, a magazine put out by the japanese stock photo company photonica [now bought out by getty], did a number of different, interactive print issues. issue 2 was the selection issue, in which every set of pages was perforated. in order to read the issue, you had to choose which perforations to open—& in so doing, you chose the path you wanted to take to read the book. certain paths were no longer possible if you made other selections, because you had to tear the book open to make those selections. but this isn't a new thing at all. when books were first printed, they often were sold "unopened", with the signatures still folded. you had to read the book with a knife. [this led to the books being "uncut", a look we now replicate with the deckle edge. see my post ages back on this.] although this used to be Just How Things Were, now, this can be incredibly effective at creating an interactive bond with the medium & the message.
+ [here, i put up a slide with images of a HAVE YOU SEEN THIS FLYER & a sketchbook/organizer that's based on the old mac gui.] the third example i have are these two very contemporary pieces, both illustrating a subversion of form. with the sketchbook specifically, it draws on the fact that it is NOT digital in order to succeed. these two examples embrace the nature of print as print, embrace their function [or lack of, or their supposed function], & communicate simply but incredibly effectively.
+ [here, i put up a quote from frank chimero's post i linked to in an earlier blog post. i said basically the same thing he is saying here & also that i said in my post.]
+ [here is the misleading slide—see below for clarification.]
+ so this is the big question & the crux of my thesis. i want to explore what makes print successful as print; what ways print media can be used to shine & sing & be the most effective communication it can be. to do this, i have to start with a ton of research. articles, books, yes, but also looking at what's being made—so, observational research. i'm also planning to hold a number of interviews with designers, design studios, and design educators about the thought & design of print works; to complement that, i will interview "end-users" of the product [so, readers or non-designers] & find out what works for them. i will look at everything & read everything & find as many examples of innovative print work as i can.
+ what i'd like to find out is whether there are specific ways in which print can be used effectively most of the time; if there are any "rules" to creating these things. what ways can print demonstrate its value as print? above, i have shown at least three ways [the heavy, dense design that seems to auto-value itself; the interactive design that becomes an experience in & of itself; the referential & subversive design that delights in pushing the boundaries of its supposed form], but i know there are more. my goal is to define a set of properties exhibited by most [it would be nice if it could be all, but i'd settle for 85%] of these works, & then create a series of innovative print pieces that utilize those properties.
after presenting, i received a lot of good feedback. the first thing people seemed to say was that this was too subjective. & they are right: it is very subjective. but what i hope to do is get as much data through interviews & surveys that those subjective things become rules. if enough people agree that tearing open pages works as an effective property of interactive print design, that then becomes one of my properties to work with. HOWEVER, i do understand that context is everything. the act of tearing open pages could be incredibly effective in one instance & confusing or off-putting & completely ineffective in another. attempting to define the ways these pieces are effective will be part of my definition of their properties.
daniel said something about how the interactivity was really key to this whole thing, & i think he was totally right. i wanted to get away from that & broaden my field of research, but what really interests me is interactivity in print. as a reader & a consumer of design, i get really excited when i can have a meaningful, interactive experience with a print object. i want to see who else is doing this & how they are doing it & then do more with it on my own. the 'value' question is really pushing me along & i know there are other ways to demonstrate value than interactivity, but maybe i should start with just that.
also i should probably find another name for it than "interactive print design" because "interactive" seems to be a term that is inherently digital. there are so many reasons i think that itself is bogus but it'd probably be more effective to come up with a different name than to try to fight the current on this one.
so i think that's it! now i have ALL SUMMER to work & plan & maybe start some of this research / doing interviews / etc etc.
also moving. that's a big one.
* there was a slide i showed that had the question "how can print objects earn the right to be printed?" & that was probably the worst phrasing i could have possibly used. it was meant for me to use as a lead-in to talking about what i wanted to do with my thesis project, but it ended up provoking more like moral questions. "printed" is not the right word either. what i had meant was: how can we design print objects that take full advantage of the medium, that provide a full print experience? this is not the same thing as the sentence i put on the slide. at all. my bad.
1 comments:
Great post, thanks for the shout out too! I'm so glad we got to do a test run on our ideas just so we could figure out some of these issues.
Post a Comment