Page Turners

I have rekindled* an old love for book design recently, which I think has come from the increased amount of reading I have been doing lately. And it is through the reading that I have noticed something about book design, which I feel makes for a good page turner.

The general idea is that sparse layout, with text spread out not on one page, but onto more pages—so no text is removed but more pages are added—and a high number of images maintains a readers [my] interest. This was noticed in 3 books: ‘The Architecture of Happiness’ – Alain de Botton, ‘The Medium is the Massage – Marshall McLuhan & Quentin Fiore, ‘Mourning Diary’ – Roland Barthes. None of them are perfect examples, but I feel they all have strong merits to the same point; let’s start with ‘The Architecture of Happiness’.

You can see the image-to-text ratio – images seem to dominate the page. But not without good reason, all the images used throughout the book are not decorative, they are used as examples in the text. There are some double-page-spreads which are purely text, but they occur perhaps once per chapter, of six chapters.

The way the designer has approached the captions is quite inspired – there is obligatory formal reference which essentially tells you what the image is, but then there is also a small quote from the text body in reference to the image. This gives you a direct link from text to image and instantly contextualises it. Architecture is quite hard to explain in text, and so having a simple but clear link from where in the text the writer is talking about a particular example is extremely effective.

The second example is the wonderful ‘The Medium is the Massage’.

The image-to-text ratio here is not as constant—the book design is quite experimental and can become quite abstract in it’s use of text and images—unlike ‘The Architecture of Happiness’. But there is not a single double page spread without any use of imagery at all – and the images do illustrate the text, they are not mere decoration. Pages with a relatively large chunk of text, as above, are almost always followed by an equally large image spread:

(You can see the slight abstraction in the use of imagery). It is quite nice not having captions alongside the imagery too, all references are left to the end which allows for a much clearer playground for the text and the image.

What both books so far are starting to play with is pacing, engagement and the flow of the text. The heavy use of imagery begins to upset the natural flow which one experiences when reading a large text block with little, to no imagery at all. I think this is a very good thing. This upset of a natural reading flow leads to the heightened sense of engagement. I am sure we all have days where we cannot read a text without drifting off into daydream, even while our eyes race ahead in the text, without us. A constant re-reading and a forced slowing down is, for me, the only remedy, or indeed a long break and a coffee. The imagery forces you to slow down, it forces you to consider smaller sections of text at a time and then gives you an image to juxtapose what you have just taken in—a chance to ponder and understand.

Roland Barthes’ ‘Mourning Diary’ is slightly different, in that there is no imagery at all (lie: there are 4 glossy image pages in the centre of the book, as is common with hardbacks, but for now, these are not worth mentioning). However, the text is still very sparsely set—there is a lot of white space. The book was not written as a book, but on a number of small cards which were handwritten, by Barthes, over a number of years directly after his mother’s death.

Given the nature of the writing—extremely personal, expressive, bold, and in typical Barthes style, quite heavy—the vast white space gives you what the images give in the previous examples, time to think, consider and understand the text.

But I feel the sparse layout of the text does another thing, it allows you turn more pages, more often. Turning a page of a book you are reading is a satisfying experience, a small reward after 2-3 minutes of reading—it marks your progress in the book and indicates how far, or near, you are to the end. Finishing a book is an even greater reward, I would say any avid reader dislikes the idea of starting a book but leaving it unfinished, and regardless of the importace of, or feelings to, the text, turning the pages is felt as a good feeling. Turning a page to find a largely empty page, with a small amount of text is equally hard to leave un-read.

There is no reason why this approach could not be taken to most books. It does take a carful consideration of the text, but ultimately any book worth considering, should be worth it. Ultimately I feel it leads to a greater appreciation of the text, due to a greater understanding. Illustration (imagery) used in a careful and thoughtful way can very much improve a text, whether through example or juxtaposition. These ideas, given my new-re-found love for book design, will hopefully be tested soon.

Josh

*is that why it’s called a kindle?

Undrawable

Undrawable – Micheal Hansmeyer

Architect Micheal Hansmeyer uses generative computational methods (largely using Processing) to build complex outcomes based on very simple inputs which are also controlled used very simple controllers – the algorithms are relatively simple, but the complexity grows with iteration.

The generative systems were then lent to a more practical sense. Hansmeyer felt that the column was a suitable way to go. Incidentally, I feel this was a particularly bad choice as in fact even the most famous of columns are mere embellishment as a symbol of power and wealth. However the column does demonstrate that these, initially, unmanageable constructs based on pure algorithm, can in fact be controlled and influenced to create an object of a certain design.

Therein lies Hansmeyer’s problem with this way of working—Hansmeyer was unsure of the level of agency the architect (designer) can claim in the production of such an object. The architect creates the algorithm—the starting conditions—and then all he can do is watch the ‘object’ grow. The architect can no longer design for a finished outcome, but can only design the initial state which then goes on to govern the final result.

This is a particular area of interest of mine—this idea that a modern designer no longer designs for a finished outcome, but in fact designs a set of conditions, or a framework within which a conversation can take place (socially, computationally, and beyond) and then must let this system evolve at its own wil. A designer can no longer design with a view of the final outcome, the designer must hand over the baton to the user whom becomes dictator of the outcome. I think this is an aspect to a new way of designing which is currently in it’s early days, but I am almost certain (less and less based on gut feelings) that this is the future of design—an almost styleless, egoless form of design which is based on evolution and generation—and one which does not only apply to architecture.

On a side note, Hansmeyer did experiment into taking his complex structures outside of a computer, and this was one of the results. He noted on current 3D printers lack of a resolution high enough, and robotic carving machines being too large to navigate the minuscule areas of complexity at a micro level. A layered, laser cut approach was deemed appropriate, and the above image is quite fascinating. Hansmeyer also stated, and I agree, that is is only a matter of a few years until 3D printers will have the resolution for such complexity, and this structural experiments will not take long at all—as with everything, the rate of development needs to increased for notable developments to be made.

More fantastic lectures to be found here:  Bartlett School of Architecture on Vimeo.

Josh

Playdays — 1.’Firsts’

The first Playdays is done, and I think it was successful on a number of terms.

Fist of all there was a decent enough turnout, which is always nice. We maxed at 14 people which made for a nice sized group to work with, large enough to get a feel for what it is like working on a slightly larger scale. It also showed that there are enough people keen to get involved – I am quite confident that the next Playday will involve more people.

The start of the day was always going to be the hardest bit, and there was a lot of silence to begin the day. The standard brainstorming session led the way and everyone began to chip in. One thing I noticed during the idea-generation-stage was that people are most willing to share an idea if it is one which goes against an idea just said. By that I mean people are more willing to disagree with someone else’s idea than to contribute a new one – which makes sense – people naturally do not want to be put down, and the fear of that inhibits the free flow of sharing of ideas and thoughts, but one can quite easily deter an idea or thought put forward by someone else. This essentially shows that there needs to be, however, a certain number of people who are willing to get shot-down, for the sake of the larger scale idea generation.

Something worth noting that ran throughout the day, is that people are more than happy to sit and talk through ideas, for a long period of time, but are reluctant to actually try them. Trying to organise small scale experiments of the many ideas we came up with proved to be quite hard. A tendency to over-plan, down to the very last detail even the most simple of tasks was common. But once something was started, it seemed like people were willing to continue to the end. Unfortunately too, it seemed that if something was deemed a failure, it was deemed a waste of time – there was a failure to see the benefit even in a failed experiment among some in the group.

After a number of attempts at both personal and impersonal experiments, it was agreed upon, at the end of the day, that the experiments which involved a communal approach to the concept were far better than the experiments which involved a communal approach to the outcome.

It was also discussed that there were discrepancies as to the expectations of the day. Many admitted to hoping that there would be some kind of tangible outcome to the Playdays; something which is still worked on collaboratively, but an end product none-the-less. This highlights the communal idea generation vs communal outcome point. It may take a little while for participants to realise the benefit of exploring the process rather than the outcome, but I think we will get there, and reap the rewards.

I already feel like I am learning something about how to work collaboratively and organise collaborative work. It takes patience, but there must be an instigator – something to spark interest and debate. People prefer to disagree, than to agree.

People procrastinate.

Josh

We Live In Public

We Live In Public — Ondi Timoner

I just watched this film – and I’ll start by saying it was really great.

Josh Harris seems like an incredibly interesting guy – a trouble guy growing up, but a smart one too. His experiments into surveillance, networking and the human condition are fascinating. It has got me thinking about working with people and social structures – creating them, playing with them.

A self-led ‘workshop’ initiative (I am yet to find a better word than workshop, as it isn’t strictly a workshop) that myself and a number of other people in my class at university have collectively organised is launching in a week. The ethos behind it is collaborative thinking and collaborative working. We will not be working towards a fixed outcome, but will have a vague and open starting point. My hope is that the day will unfold organically feeding off the great pool of ideas generated by the mass of minds working together. My hope too is that eventually this will grow, in itself, into a larger entity in which we can invite more people, outside of our university and also outside of our practice, to work with new interesting people. Although this is nothing like the crazy experiments that Josh Harris conducts, I am without a doubt, going to be casting a critical eye on the structures that form in these workshop days to try and better understand notions of collaborative thinking and working.

Incidentally, the series of workshops, is called Playdays.

Josh

Finding My Way

I think I am starting to understand what it is I actually want to do – in terms of a career. I think I’d quite like to be a designer; in the broadest of senses.

I have always struggled with finding a single niche – something which I can do all day, every day, and always enjoy. It’s not necessarily that I get bored, I just enjoy lots of things. I enjoy research and learning about why things are the way they are, in design terms, but also not; socially, anthropologically, emotionally, psychologically, etc. I enjoy working on smaller scale experiments to test ideas, rather than polished, beautiful outcomes. My second year of university education is well under way now, and it is now that I am starting to develop a concern for my lack of direction, but now I wonder if this lack of direction is in fact the direction. A broader knowledge of everything may lend itself well to a design director role. I would like to be able to design things which I may or may not actually have a role in creating. I can’t say I really know what this ‘job’ is (creative director?), but I like the idea of it.

Realising this now has also, in part, reinforced my want to pursue an MA at the Royal College of Art. I can’t help but notice every designer I admire turns out to have spent some time there. But I do also feel my way of working and thinking would be suited quite nicely to the RCA. It is also another two years to not have to worry about the real world – which is always nice. I write this now, intentionally*, on an online blog, so that I can come back to this when I am in fact working full time at the climbing wall. Time tells all.

Josh

*Because I am more likely to re-read an online blog than a physical – I am not sure how I feel about this, but it is true.

Organising Thoughts

It has been a while since I last posted anything, and so I thought it would be nice to start again, which I intend to now do somewhat regularly, with some organisation. Some of my interests as-of-late are:

Frameworks

The development of a framework, in which people can navigate and function within.

Largely digital, with the obvious social networking frameworks such as Facebook and Twitter; blogging with Blogger and Tumblr; open source with things like Processing, Linux, Wikipedia; and other areas.

Also physical with notions of community and person-to-person relations and folk culture.

Is the future designer one which designs frameworks, and no longer a designer which designs graphics, imagery and type – the visual is superseded by the experience and interaction.

Open Source

Mentioned before, but open source as it’s own philosophy is quite a large concept. Opening up ideas, information, data, tools etc. to the masses, for free and without discrimination, and to allow the masses to work as a self-regulating system which, in theory, improves and develops.

Also mentioned above, Wikipedia being a prime example. A device which is free and allows anyone and everyone to contribute, and yet over time, the ‘system’ (people) has learnt to regulate itself and to form its own cultures and feedback techniques – which has led to it being one of the most regularly used tools on the internet and far surpasses it’s official rivals, Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Data

Data as the new currency, and questioning and understanding its inherent worth.

The availability of data and ways in which it is ‘mined’. How can data be quantified if we can all find our own?

All these ideas intermingle and work together. I have been, and aim to build prototypes which work towards or challenge ideas I have mentioned. I also aim to write more on the topic which will hopefully mirror the design work and add some worth to small scale experiments.

A book I am currently reading is We-Think, by Charles Leadbetter. It talks a lot about the ideas I have mentioned and celebrates them. Definitely worth reading if any of this resonates with you.

Amish Barn Raising — Originally seen on Chris Thomas‘s blog, whom shares some interesting ideas.

Josh