Thoughts On Type
I recently had the opportunity to give a talk here in France as part of a symposium on typography. The event entitled The Shape of Type to Come took place in Paris 17.11.21 and was organised by Simon Renaud. It brought together an eclectic mix of designers who are using programming or system based approaches in their work. When Simon contacted me about giving a talk, I thought it would be a great moment for me to dive into my archives and try to find some common themes running through my work over the past ten years. Little did I realise that this would take a considerable amount of my time to do. Nevertheless, it proved to be an enriching endeavour and it indeed helped in shedding some light on some of the work I have undertook in the vicinity of typography. I’d like to share with you a few of the thoughts that ensued.
Firstly, it should be pointed out that I’m not a typographer. My interest in letters has perhaps more to do with my background in languages and my curiosity for other writing systems such as Chinese. The work I have undertook in the realm of typography is a loose set of experiments in letter form and specifically using code as the main medium of creation. My lecture presented workshops, teachings and odd bits of research, with a particular angle on tool-making for exploring letter form. I started with a wonderful quote by the Hungarian artist Vera Molnar.
The beauty of that particular reference is that Molnar pinpoints an artistic process that I have followed and developed ever since starting to program. From the very beginning, not only does the strict language of code impose certain restrictions, it encourages a methodology and eventually instills a way of thinking. Some may say that programming is counter-intuitive to the creative process and especially when starting out. I see this point of view all the time with my students. There are a lot of hurdles to jump before one can start playing with one’s code and exploring the artistic possibilities. We could say then that Molnar’s words are quite the opposite for creative coders. That coding at its inception is essentially logical and that it is more at the phase of exploration that the logic needs intuition in order for the art to arise. Is this not a plausible take?
Molnar’s words resonated throughout my talk because essentially it was about this idea of organising the particulars and what I mean by this goes beyond that task of sifting through archives and piecing together parts of a puzzle in order for me to present something coherent and of worth. Organising the particulars really underlines a lot of what I do in my approach and it works at two distinct phases of my work. One is at the conception, where I need to think about the various parameters of a program. The London based graphic designer Paul McNeil puts it really nicely in an interview with Eye magazine, 2017.
Again, this neatly emphasises Molnar’s view. An idea needs to be thought out. There are a multitude of ways to do this of course. It just so happens that within the medium of code, you are already in an environment that facilitates a sense of order. The logic of a computer language, its syntax, idioms and the world of algorithms is already a wonderful means of structuring those ideas. Once one begins to actually write a program, another phase takes over. I also call this the organising of the particulars and it is here that I tend to see the flip side of the creative coin. A good majority of time is spent tweaking the system as it were. Changing parameters values ever so slightly, observing the outcomes, then returning to make more changes. It is a constant process of iteration with the program at hand, fine-tuning until one get’s the visual results one can feel intuitively at home with. This is the reversal of Molnar’s thoughts or it is perhaps just the process coming full circle? From that spark of an idea to that moment of aesthetic delight when one can just ‘feel’ that the image before you is right, sublime even!
Whilst I was preparing for this lecture, there were a few points that came to light that I had wanted to conclude my talk with. Unfortunately, presenting ten years of research didn’t fit into the hour allowed and I had to skip. So, I’m sharing them here, albeit in a rather brief manner. I’m sure there are some points that could make for further letters. If you have thoughts or wish to respond, please do get in contact with me.
1). Code is an interesting medium for exploring an idea because it is performative and dynamic. That is to say that what appears to be a fixed, rigid and mathematically precise system, is actually, and more importantly, a language. And like all languages, the semantic field is gloriously vast, extensive, fluid and open.
2). An idea is only as good as the time you invest in it to explore it. Essentially, I have learnt that code is a great medium for prototyping an idea and laying out a means for exploration. However, one need to spend time with those ideas, with the program, in order to observe, question, develop and tease out the best of what it may give.
3). Creativity is more about restricting one’s ideas and enabling processes of enquiry or discovery. Code is also a great medium for this.
4). Generative typography is not mainstream. It is a niche community that ebbs and flows with various moments and perhaps certain fashions.
5). Tool making is a creative act that has lost its attraction in the graphic design field over the years. This is due to the imposed software that produces and encourages the spectacular and efficiency of pre-packaged ideas. I remain optimistic that in the graphic design community we will return to the ideals of craftsmanship, engage with open source philosophy and re-unite with the beauty of one’s own ideas in an environment and approach that enables one to fully explore them.