Then, we were told to make 10 A4, 10 A3, using the language opposite of your word.
I found this kind of difficult, just because Arabic lent itself to fewer options than latin, in terms of italics and bold, and I’m just more accustomed to working with latin.
I was again just trying to experiment, see what I could do with words on a page. I did some that were “safer,” and some that were very criticised during the critique.
These are my attempts at being subtle, and thinking about the placement of type on the page – off center, at about one-third way down or up the page.
These are attempts more related to scale.
This is me playing with typefaces, to change them to sometimes help the widths – as some typefaces are longer, so they take up two lines.
These were the critiqued one that formed strange shapes (ones a question mark, the other a smiley face). My intention was making a hole through type, but oh well:
We talked about, mainly:
- Informed Choices
- Poster vs. Text – Readability being important
Alignment was a huge discussion this time. We talked about the relationship of type to the page. About using modular or organic grids and squares to create a more intended relationship for the margins, between type etc.
This began to really overwhelm me at how complicated type was. I was very confused and I felt very stressed. I felt that this lesson taught me that type really has to be considered.
Just from looking at all the works from afar, we could see the difference between the last time. Type became so much more subtle in comparison. We began to think more about size of type and use of elements. This part really made me feel like type was a very picky process. However, I liked that there were systems and rules for the way type worked, because it gives use a baseline to work from – whether we are to follow or break them in future.