Phil's Super Blog Typographic Double Feature - The Walls of OCAD

Yes, This is actually two, non-stop, end of your seat action, posts, rolled into one.


First i will address the type on the ocad walls. Now i suppose these are there to make us question things, and think about design..blah..blah..etc. But, are they effective design choices.

One - who are these people that these quotes are coming from. I dunno about you, but why would i get my education from a complete stranger. Sure its plausible, but if such education is valid, then why am i bothering to pay the school here to educate me. I could just go around and start talking to random people. It might be more effective too.

Second - why are they even putting down names? They are personifying these gray pieces of text on a wall. Do we feel they are more human now that are all in the same font. Maybe in the person's handwriting or in different colors might they grab a bit of individualism.

3rd - Why are we being programmed to even register this stuff?.. i mean " What if normality was not defined by exterior appearance"... well then we would be out of jobs... or etc... which seems to be the answer to most... but seriously, doesn't that just contradict the actually use of the quote on the wall.


Solution - no quotes/ or put some variety/identifiable icons up. even then, i think its kind of a questionable idea.















Now onto image two. The unnamed gentleman who put this piece of typography up is not part of the miniature type exhibit that is currently going on. However it seems to be much more interesting then some of the exhibits themselves. The piece seems to comment on its own validity. Through a) not being a valid exhibition piece and b)being transfers that are likely now, invalid. All through the construction of the letters using material and through the "^" symbols + alphabet indicated. The symbols help indicate it being directed at itself, and also form what is supposed be the association of "next". Now, i can't recall what next suggests, though i may have once known, but i feel like there is a c) to this analysis. It having been put up and associated with all the other work, and in many cases be identified among it, cant help but indicate some kind of commentary about the validity of the other work against this piece and maybe the other work is indeed less valid. Either through the time differentiation or effectiveness... it is possible that it could be a comment on the exhibit. But, i doubt it.