the overall aesthetic is quite nice and the type hierarchy is handled well. your concept map is no longer a map and is a "concept list", which doesn't show spatial relationships (stronger or weaker) between certain things, nor does it show gradients from one type of category to another. such is the value of spatial mapping. the color palette is nice looking, but a bit too subtle for super-easy recognition of the categories on the timeline. more color contrast would be helpful in picking categories out more quickly. use of scale to show time progression is well done, and type hierarchy again is good. given the proportions of each piece, it seems like you could maximize the space by putting both diagrams in the same space.
regarding the identity elements:nice organization of the elements, and it's good that you already have that stuff worked out. it all works together quite well and you're applying it nicely. it's all designerly looking and has nice form.my main problem with the whole identity is that it's very much just a formal response, devoid of nearly all meaning related to your conference theme. we talked about how the diagonal lines can reference your experiment, and you did a good job of adding that in, but that's really the only thing that addresses the idea of "installation" or "dimensionality" even remotely. you show the photos of your wadded paper type but there is currently no relationship of that to the other things. the new purpose of the experiments is to see if you can take what you learned and apply it to something "real" and hopefully the way you made things in those experiments would lead you to some new formal processes and interesting or unusual conference artifacts. right now it seems like you've just gone back to good ol' illustrator and done the usual and expected things. like i said before, it looks really nice; it just doesn't mean anything to me at this point.
Post a Comment