Helvetica and a field trip...

I was a little bit disappointed with Helvetica because I felt that every time an interesting conversation began, it was edited to a designer ranting or more shots of the font, so I will try and expand on some of the points that I was interested to hear more about. One of the designers claimed that “the meaning is in the context of the text and not in the type face;” however watching an hour and half about a single type face suggests that there is some cultural meaning behind the design of the text. After taking this class, I am inclined to believe that the two people who designed the typeface endowed it with cultural meaning. I am not sure what that meaning is exactly, but it reflects its time period with its simplicity and clarity, which say something about the changes that were occurring in the culture in which it was created. I know the designer who thought it was the typeface of the Vietnam and Iraq wars may have been a little crazy, but I think she made a good point. That typeface was associated with supporters of the wars, and its use for those companies impacted the meaning of Helvetica. The same designer also alluded to two cultures of design, but she only talked about the corporate culture and its use of Helvetica. She obviously associates with the other culture of design, a subculture, if you will. My perception of design is this constant ebb and flow between subculture and corporate culture, as what the corporate culture adopts the aesthetics of the subcultures, which then turn around and recreate their aesthetic to remain a subculture. This scenario reminds me of Hebdige’s discussion of punk, which constantly reinvents itself to remain a subculture. I also found it interested that Helvetica was associated with capitalism, socialism, and democracy, and one designer called it the typeface of the city. It has become more than a corporate design aesthetic, it has become the face of governments and wars, and its meanings continue to deepen with these associations. The last segment really started to get to some ideas I really wished they had pushed further. One designer fleetingly mentioned it being evidence of globalization, and I think this is definitely true – it predates computers but still lives on; it traveled from a small Swiss foundry; it is now used in the Western world by designers, corporations, and governments. I also really wished they had pushed the digital age piece at the end A LOT further. One of the designers suggested that now we create our identity through not only consumer choices but also visual communication on the Internet. Myspace was briefly discussed because users have the ability to manipulate their pages extensively, but now that facebook has seemingly taken over, I wonder what it means that we cannot really personalize our facebook profiles…we are all put in a white and blue box and told to stay there…

I think I will leave that open-ended, but two final thoughts on Helvetica: I am officially a convert, and I LOVED when one designer said “don’t confuse legibility with communication.”

Some thoughts on Leonardo Drew…

My own biases and subjectivity led me to see his work as a critique or reflection of urban life. There is stuff everywhere. It is messy and dirty. It is semi-controlled chaos. But despite all of that, there can be beauty and delicacy in urban life just as there is in his work. My two favorites: the grouping of smaller pieces in shadow boxes and the white paper in the glass boxes. The smaller pieces are probably in a favorite because I tend to like tiny, small, delicate things, but I like the paper-and-glass piece because it had a similar quality as the other pieces in that it invites you to come discover the details without letting you see them all but also provided a juxtaposition from the heavy, dark, rust-laden pieces in its airiness and lightness. The body of work as a whole seems to be in limbo, waiting to fall apart or be put back together.