experimental = don't need to care about the client.

;o)

In my opinion, good experimenting comes after you have learned the basics and have experience of producing quality - expected, acceptable solutions. Good experiments can build off the previous experiments. And some bad experiments validate the previous good ones.

I guess what I am trying to say is that experimental shouldn't mean wacky, crazy.

I think we owe it to clients to experiment conceptually based on the parameters of their project; that's where breakthrough ideas come from. But, I have a hard time experimenting in a vaccum at a clients expense for my own personal gain of a cool new look.

Me think as Darrel, 1st thing that defines experimental works is you don't care about the client, even better, usually you don't have a client.

Or yourself is the only client, except for the fact that, while doing experiments, you allreday know you will be judged by all your pairs. And this thought, probably, will drive yr experiment in a way or the other.

So maybe experimental=don't need to care about the client/don't need to care about the others.

I tend to agree with Darrel.

But on that note, There is a time and place for that type of design to co-exist in corporate / mainstream design. The entertainment genre, for example, I think has room and opportunity for experiments. Movie Titles, web design, magazine spreads - are some mediums that can be quite successful, provided that the intended target fits the appropriate age, profile, psycho-demographic, etc..

I applaud the effort...but. The background is extraneous. So is the foliage. Why does this strike you as experimental?

>what can I do to make it new?

Why this self-inflicted angst of wanting to create something new? Isn't the notion of doing something �new’ an inherent trap of being �trendy’?

>Isn't the notion of doing something �new’ an inherent trap of being �trendy’?

Not exactly. It would be more of a 'trendsetting' then come the 'trend-followers' then the work becomes 'trendy'.

>So is the foliage.

There is a better explanation for that project here. Warning= old website.

>Why does this strike you as experimental?

Have you ever seen anything like that before? and I'm not saying that in a snobbish/elitist/how dare you question me - way. I would say it's experimental, because that's exactly what it was, an experiment. Using two completely different elements and mixing them together.

>Why this self-inflicted angst of wanting to create something new?

Because it's fun. It's a challenge. And it's not angst, it's drive.

> I would say it's experimental, because that's exactly what it was, an experiment.

I'd say that sums it up for me when it comes to answering the question "Is it experimental?"

I believe the same rules applies to so-called experimental design as the rest of the business. Hitting buttons in Photoshop until you see something that "will do" or just rendering messy and abstract 3D-graphics won't pass, because it obviously (well, quite often) isn't thought through, and is most often the product of a lack of both ability and meaning.

When, however, a thought developes into an idea that obviously has been taken further by a determined effort, and invested with the proper skills to achieve the desired result what more must it be than an experment to be experimental?

(Man what a hideously long sentence.)

-M

There is no real experimentation without testing. The word "experimentation" is abused a lot, usually in order to lend a serious air to the games designers play, often to relieve the artistic angst they keep bottled up. But true experimentation requires much more thought than

action, and is incomplete -maybe even pointless- without careful evaluation of the results.

hhp

I think to experiment you need to know the fundamentals. How can you break rules if you don't know what those rules are?

I would disagree with Darrell. You should keep the client in consideration if a client is involved. Experiment or not - the design needs to execute it's purpose.

Armin - I think the Convergence gallery would have more impact if you added a thumbnail of the original, flat glyphs to each letter image.

The original �artwork’ is interesting by its own merit. I'm not so sure about the cast-iron, 3D bit. But I think it will look great as a buckle or jewelry.

>if you added a thumbnail of the original, flat glyphs to each letter image.

That's a good idea, because every time I try to explain it without visuals I get blank stares.

>But I think it will look great as a buckle or jewelry.

That would go great with my snake skin boots ; )

But is it more than just an excuse to cover poorly developed design? or even a lack of design basics knowledge?

If someone lacks "basic design knowledge" (whatever that is), then I'd suggest that just about everything they "design" is experimental for them. And is to be encouraged.

some zen quote goes something like:

“in the mind of the master the possibilities are few, in the mind of the begginer the possibilities are endless.”

and bruce lee said something like:

“you must know the forms before you can break free of them.”

>If someone lacks "basic design knowledge" (whatever that is)

Basic design knowledge would be possessing an understanding of typography, space, color and form.

>everything they "design" is experimental for them. And is to be encouraged.

That is a good point. I had not thought of it that way.

I found this nice example, browsing through the news posted on Kaliber, H23.

See 'characters' on the left menu, I think this is a nice, neat, example of experimental work.

Experimentation is a way of thinking. A breaking down of the ideas that you have been taught over the years to recognize as "good." Chip Kidd says "good is dead" and maybe he's right. Maybe that's what real experimentation is all about. People who have pushed the envelope of design haven't taken things that exist now and reordered them into something slightly different; they have approached a given problem with a different vision than that of the traditional designer. To call this piece experimental, no offense meant, would be a bit of a stretch. This is an experiment, sure. But experimental implies that you are breaking out of your normal conceptual methodologies.

Experimental designers are challenging readers to interpret the combination of text and image in new and interesting ways. Any great movement in art (or design) begins as experimental; when the established look down their noses at that which they do not understand, ie, abstract 3D.

The process of experimental design is not something that you can just decide to approach. It is a feeling and a drive that must be present in all of your work. It must be present in your eyes.

It seems that every young designer today is "experimenting"...especially on the web. I think that a very few experiments are actually adding anything to design.

The first question I would ask you regarding your experiment. Can you explain why you are doing it? How does this reason relate to adding to the design world's knowledge of design? To merely say that you want to show Blackletter in a new setting is not at all adding to design. It is merely doing what hundreds of other "experimental" designers have done before you with modern typefaces.

The design world is currently being run by 2 schools. The traditional Bauhaus school and the "experimental" school. In both instances it is merely to avoid any real attempt at defining design and typography for the digital age and beyond.

Thanks for posting this topic Armin. It is a question that plagues my thoughts and I truly want to help find that revolutionary new avenue in design without succumbing to the "experimental" cop-out.

Peace

mGee

>The first question I would ask you regarding your experiment. Can you explain why you are doing it?

Sincerely? Because I had nothing better to do at marchFIRST and started messing around with some blackletters and a 3D program. Because I was bored with the never ending images I had to optimize for some now-bankrupt web sites. Because I felt like it. Because I thought it would be pretty damn cool (even if nobody got it or cared). Because I wanted to do something different.

>How does this reason relate to adding to the design world's knowledge of design?

I'm not sure, that wasn't my real purpose. Maybe 20 years from now, somebody will run into it and figure out a) what a piece of crap, who could do something like this? or b) oh my God! this has added so much to the world of design!. I'm sorry for my irony, but projects like these, to me, don't need so much justification. Maybe I'm wrong.

>To merely say that you want to show Blackletter in a new setting is not at all adding to design. t is merely doing what hundreds of other "experimental" designers have done before you with modern typefaces.

I would disagree, if there is anything close that resembles this project I'll be glad to know about it. I think it has added something new and unique. Maybe I'm wrong again.