In his essay on Adrian Frutiger in Unjustified Texts, Robin Kinross floated the idea that “one could divide type designers into calligraphers and cutters. The former see and generate strokes, as if with a pen. The latter work by cutting away, seeing rather the space within and around letters.â€
Taken figuratively it can provide a gateway into how we approach the subjects of our work.
My roommate went on exchange to the Hague and she said one day one of the profs was looking at something she did and said that it was too “monkey-eat-bananaâ€. This story made me laugh, and it’s good advice too.
I find that sometimes designers want things to make sense right away, to be rewarding without much thought. Questions like “what do you get out of this” or “what does this say to you” may be good at determining what is immediately sensible but if there is no residue or nothing to be found further—then it can be just boring. It’s easily forgotten that trying to make meaning out of the unfamiliar is sometimes very memorable. At least certainly more involving and invigorating than something that is bent on the obvious.
On that note: what if banana-eat-monkey? What if banana-became-monkey? What if monkey-loves-banana? How about banana-sold-at-grocery-store? Or monkey-becomes-man?
Hah.