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.
In my own projects I initially try to envision the material as a whole (the space within and around) I tend to see a subject as part of a greater mass of relations. On the other hand, some of my friends start by seeing the borders of a subject, trying to find what is within the subject area (the strokes).
Taken figuratively it can also provide a gateway to how we make our work.
You could make a form with a certain guided intent (generate strokes) or else perhaps generate form out of the mass of material, working with the space around a subject (cutting).
Both ways of seeing and doing can be very fruitful, but both can succumb to the relevance trap.
The ‘relevance trap’ is something I started terming the process by which I erect walls that prevent me from thinking in certain directions. It’s so easy to omit something or draw a border just because we have the impression that it “doesn’t apply†to what we are doing. I call it a ‘trap’ because if you eventually erect four walls, a floor and roof—you are stuck in a box. (At least until you make a door or window)
Something that is ‘relevant’ is just immediately applicable; I would go as far as to say that ‘relevance’ often is just a plain and obvious connection. The irrelevant bits are harder to connect to what you are doing, they are harder to see and require a bit more thought and time (in turn they can prove to be more rewarding).
I agree about irrelevancy.
Sounds a lot like lateral thinking.
Have you read Edward de Bono?
Thanks, Abi.
(http://www.mysterywesterntheory.com/ginger/)