I am glad I ventured down to the library to do this reading because I think it actually helped me figure out what I want to do with this project. I have been struggling to come up with a solid idea and after a lot of experimenting with projecting words on irrelevant surfaces that didn't create multiple levels of read or were just too "boring" and "pointless," I decided that I needed to reevaluate my original questions I created for my exploration. I originally wanted to combine highly ornamented type with 3-D surfaces with the use of a projector in hopes of creating new meanings/connections between the type and image. But inorder to create something interesting, I now realize that the message I am providing must be more provocative, explicit, or unexpected. By being too literal, I lost sight of everything "cool" about my concept. The word dead projected on the side of a building really just doesn't provoke enough interest or thought.
"Type and image work best when they complement each other—when they finish each other's sentences" This quote in the reading is essential to my concept. I want the word I am projecting to complete the message of what I am photographing.
"The image must be 'incomplete' so there is something left for the type to do."
"The text can support or contradict the images just as the image can illustrate or refute the written message." I want to keep this in mind during the final steps of my exploration.
For my typographic experimentation I have been using multiple strategies, such as fusion and fragmentation to combine type and image. I am blending type and image to form a unity and I am also using type and image to disturb or disrupt each other.
For this current project I am trying to find ways to fuse a word with a 3-D space/object to create a strong association/contradiction between them. In the reading it talks about how fusion can be used "to create an altered reality that challenges the viewer to reexamine a particular subject from an unexpected perspective." I want to use type to contradict an image by creating a new meaning. For instance, I want to project the word "skinny" on Nick Karn, or the word "short" on myself. I want to create a statement by using type to contradict what it is being projected onto. The word will still be part of the image, it will just change your perspective of it.
The formal qualities of fragmentation also seem to relate to my current type project as well. Elements of type are "torn, divided, or unevenly dispersed" due to the manner in which the word interacts 3-dimensionally in space or on the object's surface. I want to create friction between the word and the image to suggest new meaning. You wouldn't expect the word "skinny" to be juxtaposed with an overweight person, so this creates a more complex meaning than if I were to use the word "big" instead.
I did also use "inversion" to generate visual and verbal puns earlier in this project when I projected the words "cum", "fuck", and "love" on a dumpster because I was using type as part of an image to create a connection/pun with the combination of type and image. A "cum dumpster" is one message I was creating and another could be "trashy love"...You get the point.
Now..its time to actually make a list of words and a list of objects/people to project on.
---BUT!! This is where it gets confusing for me. How do I treat the type before its even projected? Originally I was all about the highly ornamented type and I wanted to incorporate that into my work, but now that I realize that the ornament on the type really has nothing to do with my concept or message, I don't know if its even worth trying to use. Instead, maybe I need to make/draw type that relates to the word itself. So..making the word short out of little tiny letters or the word tall out of really long skinny/tall letters. I could draw the word "fat" with big thick letters.
Essentially, I want to have a strong series of images to show that have a meaningful combination of type with image. Not only will the word relate to the object its being projected on, but the word itself will have characteristics that support its meaning. Or..perhaps I should flip it around and make the word appear as a contradiction of its meaning. ("fat" would be really thin, delicate letters)!? I haven't figured that out yet though!
No comments:
Post a Comment