Upon my first inspection of these two works you get a true feeling for both of them. Matthew Fuller's work, I get quite the impression. An hour or so later after reading it I found myself bored, and perplexed about where all of this was going. The type face was a classic 'No-no' if you wanted anyone to actually enjoy what you're writing. Thin, with serifs, on a computer monitor, or an iPod it was terrible to read. Formulaic, exact, boring.
Informitive though. The text iself.
Upon hunkering down to read Paul's work, "Rhythm Science" I found it interesting at least, visually the book was stimulating, and indeed a remix of a book. It broke, all of the rules I know of, except for the justified text rule. Paragraphs were non-existant, text blocks where all over the place. Text itself when it came to being a graphical item, spanned over pages, and took a simple color scheme. Much different then text ment to be read at length. Text was in massive walls, blocks and chunks. Separated by the hole within the page, and squished by various margin widths.
Perhaps the professor is meaning to give us the two extremes of text and see what we do with them.
The texts:
Matthew Fuller's "It Looks Like You're Writing a Letter: Microsoft Word."
Paul D. Miller's "Rhythm Science: The Art of the Mix Creates a New Language of Creativity"
No comments:
Post a Comment