Initially we had the opportunity to view each persons response to this task without knowing the author/designer and make some initial comment about one chosen piece and aim to guess the originator. I have to say that my concentration during this session was somewhat marred by severe pain I was experiencing from a nasty bout of sciatica - not pain to be recommended I have to say. Following on from this we discussed in pairs our own work with the other person. This allowed me to reflect on he context of my own work, the concept and outcome at this stage. Both through this discussion and the later group crit of the work I felt taht I had achieved a reasonable level of visual communication in my chosen approach and layou of typography. However, my concept of focussing on the "pre Mac' " production of "mark up and paste up" to link to my own starting point in the design industries failed to some extent to hit the right "audience". Other members of the group clearly were "post Mac'" students and the subtlety of the "paste up" visual was to a greater extent lost on them. I felt that I was reasonably successful in developing my 50 list and managed to achieve some progressive and chronological links. With regard to basic communication/typographic layout it was pointed out hat my submission managed to communicate at two levels: the bold type headings; then the added descriptors and this was likened to dictionary entries.
I now need to consider for two weeks time an update of this work. Considerations will clearly need to focus on audience - appropriate visual concept; what changes will I make? can I edit down/group selections of information, will image illustration add to the meaning/readability?
Having looked at the work of Adam Hayes could I develop and Illustrated/typographic approach to the next stage or should I further investigate the existing typographic layout and readability by exploring scale/negative space?
No comments:
Post a Comment