the disjointed

of graphic language

simon j.m. pitt

The PrefaceThe Preface

Let me begin by saying that this piece of graphic discourse is in no way endorsed, or funded by, the RizLa+ Company. Nor does this work condone or promote the use of Rizla rolling papers as vehicles for smoking tobacco or other elicit substances. Instead, its use encourages, but is not limited to, an exploration of graphic language.

Thus, what you find here is a personal interpretation of fundamental tenets in graphic communication. Appropriating the more apt bits and pieces fromv Jacques Derrida’s theories on Deconstruction, and its unravelling of how we look at language, this work hopes to show an application of these ideas and how they relate to design. In the following section you will find a discussion of Derrida’s work, and its implications for graphic discourse, providing the conceptual foundation for this document.

Consistent with Derrida, and his uncovering of inherent polarised hierarchies within language, the A to Z section of this work is divided into 13 sections of three pages, each comprising a spread for each letter and a research page covering these opposed yet related concepts. They are not ordered alphabetically, due to this limiting an accurate formulation of appropriate pairs. They are, loosely, ordered from more practical graphic dynamics to more theoretical ones.

Lastly, for those eager beavers in need of a last bite, the reflections at the end provide an overview of the project as a whole, discussing its

conception, concept and challenges, as well as a more fleshed out explanation of the reasons for presenting this project in this specific state.

My hope is that there is at least one thing that is of interest to you. Thanks for looking in.

Much love,

Light&Uplifting Literature

Derrida, Design and Deconstruction

Derrida, Design and Deconstruction

Derrida, Design and Deconstruction

As the term ‘deconstruction’ gained momentum in the 1970s as a mode of literary critique, its application in graphic design practice over the following two decades was controversial and is perhaps still unfinished. In this essay I will argue that the implications of deconstruction in graphic design are still relevant today. Although frustrat-ingly difficult to define, I will give a brief overview of Deconstruction and its foundation in Jacques Derrida’s philosophical work, followed by a discus-sion of its application at Cranbrook in the 1980s and its rather blinkered treatment in the 1990s. Finally, I will look specifically at graphic design in public work and how its critical exploration of design language should not be viewed as having peaked in 90s grunge. Instead, I will argue that Deconstruction may still have a lasting relevance in design thinking as a method of understanding, exploring and solving design problems.

In order to even have a faint grasp of what De-construction can mean, it is important to start with Derrida. Although not formally labelled Deconstruction, these ideas are first laid out in Of Grammatology in 1962. Derrida sees that there is a fundamental problem in the way that the Western Tradition has always viewed language: as a metaphysical system of referents and mean-ing. He argues that the traditional view of a word having meaning according to a direct relation to something real is not in accordance with the way that language seems to function. He argues that the reason for this is that traditionally there has been a preference for the spoken word as the true

embodiment of language over the written word. Speech has always been treated as the unim-peded dispenser of thought. At odds with this, Derrida argues that the written word is not simply a phonetic transcription of spoken thoughts, but that instead these thoughts have sense only by some larger web of meaning that is spun by our culture through a written system. The meaning in our thoughts therefore does not originate with us as thinkers, but instead comes from an outside system that exists independent of our thought. If we are not the purveyors of our own thought’s meaning then this has implications for the way that our thoughts can be perceived. If meaning is not actively formed but negotiated, its meaning too is translated and interpreted.

As a result, it seems that written language su-persedes spoken word, as there does not seem to be a direct connection between thoughts and words. Instead, the written word seems to bear more resemblance to the way that we can give meaning to thoughts. As a system of signifiers (words) without signification (meaning) the mean-ing comes from a web of language that is rooted in the Derridean concept of Différance. A play on the French terms differé (differ) and defer, Dif-férance explains how the meaning of a word is always deferred to something else as there is nothing that inherently gives it meaning, whilst gaining meaning by differing to what it is not. The meaning of the word ‘bowl’ is therefore not found in some metaphysical concept of a bowl, but is instead deferred to the web of language where

the notion of a bowl is defined as not being a cup, not a glass, not a pen etc. It is this idea then that leads Derrida to suggest that there is “Nothing outside the text.” All meaning is gathered through interpretation by reference to a larger web of lan-guage, as well as social, political and even graphic constructs.

According to Derrida, these contexts that meaning is deduced from are arbitrary and often seem to favour a particular way of thinking. In language it is the notion that speech is a direct link to thought and meaning when, as he argues, the way we understand through language seems to stem from writing. This opposition between speech and writing is often referred to as a Derridean opposi-

tion. There also seem to be oppositions in form/meaning, mind/body, inside/outside, presence/ab-sence, where one is usually preferred to the other. Poynor notes that:

“These oppositions are not natural and inevitable, as we tend to assume, but cultural constructions produced by discourses that depend on our taking them for granted. Deconstruction’s purpose it not to destroy these categories but to dismantle and ‘reinscribe’ them – to change their structure and make them function differently.” (Poynor, 2003, p.46)

As a direct way of communication in graphic design, a good example is typography. Ed Fella assert that if deconstruction is a way of expos-ing the glue that holds together western culture then space is what holds typography together. (Poynor, p.55) Traditionally, typography has been about regulating this space, with its application of letters, text, headlines and the like. The Modernist ideal standardised this practice, stressing clarity and consistency as its primary mode of communi-cation.

Specifically, Cranbrook Academy of Art in Michi-gan, USA is noted to be the most significant purveyor of Deconstruction as a rigorous and significant philosophy in understanding graphic language. Here students were encouraged to build meaning between both the graphic work and the viewer, in a manner parallel to verbal commu-nication. According to the co-chairs Katherine and

Katherine McCoy, P. Scott Makela and Mary Lou Kroh. Cranbrook Design. (Poynor, 2003, p.51)

Michael McCoy, “Students began to deconstruct the dynamics of visual language and understand it as a filter that inescapably manipulates the audi-ence’s response to it.” This somewhat analytical approach to graphic design resulted in work that did cut to the core of typographic dogma — jilting body text and inserting related text through unor-thodox and ambiguous means. This work is rather more exploratory, toiling through those vague gaps between author/audience and form/mean-ing. This seems to be the most honest treatment of Derrida’s use for Deconstruction, in identifying hierarchies and questioning these foundations.

During the 1990s this critical and more academi-cally rigid approach to exploring Deconstruction all

but disappeared. Riding the advent of the Mac-intosh in the 1980s a new generation of graphic design spawned a host of rough, rugged, glitchy, typographically challenging work. Steven Heller states that with the Mac, “The most profound stylistic and attitude changes since the 1920s, when European Modernists put forth the notion of design universality and formal purity… Faceless technology, paradoxically, made personal expres-sionism possible for everyone.” (Heller, 2002, p.4) With publications like Émigré, and later Ray Gun as well as designers Neville Brody, VanderLans, Zusana Licko and David Carson provided a wide-spread attack on typographic and graphic norms. Challenging rules and standards of practice, de-signers gallivanted their way through deeply held convictions. For the purposes of Deconstruction however, this sustained attack was rather limited. Instead, it focused most of its energies on leg-ibility, as opposed to undoing the strings of typo-graphics. David Carson as art director for Ray Gun argues that the rationalism of grid systems and other kinds of typographic formatting is ‘horribly irrational’ as a response to the complexity of the contemporary world. However, he also suggested that the articles in the magazine were probably not worth reading either way. (Poynor, 2003, p.62) This paradoxical approach to Deconstruction seems emblematic of the entire movement. Heller sums up the 1990s as graphic design emerging as a look-at-me profession, with a herd of design-ers smashing, blurring or contorting type. (Heller, 2002, p.6) Quick to destroy but shallow in its at-tack, the Grunge aesthetic of the 90s seems less

Above, ampaign by RAPP for animal-rights organisa-tion IFAW. September 2009, Scheveningen, NL.

Left, David Carson, Don’t Mistake Legibility for Com-munication

the formulation of a considered theory and more a mass discharge of designer cum Mac consumer.

However, it is the idea that the audience is more than a passive reader of well-established graphic language that is perhaps the most lasting relic of the Deconstruction period. In this sense the view-er has become more considered in the creation of meaning in graphic design. It may even be the case that the meaning of a graphic work lies quite heavily on the on the side of the viewer. Perhaps entirely so. For example, in the case of an animal conservation campaign by design agency RAPP, it is the viewer who must reciprocate in the play with the designer. It exploits traditional hierarchies of author and reader. As hundreds of cardboard turtles lay stranded on the beach, the meaning is ambiguous, and there is no real prompt for the viewer to lift one up and read the subsequent message. Instead, upon making an effort to find out more, the viewer is rewarded with an answer, in this case taking the form of an endangered ani-mal awareness campaign. Although it is unlikely that this is a direct result of Derrida, or even a response or reaction to Deconstruction, the man-ner in which a traditional media of an informative pamphlet has been restructured could be regard-ed as deconstructive.

Although Deconstruction as a definable philo-sophical concept is purposefully elusive, for the purposes of design, its uses as a critical method focusing on the dynamics inherent within design itself are still relevant today. Perhaps the over-

blown destruction of typographic rules in the 1990s has obscured the fact that it seeks not a complete overhaul of a system, but instead a refo-cus. In the current climate, with more graphic de-sign work happening in the public sector, this play between designer and viewer will become more important. It is here that Deconstruction can play a useful role, aiding creative solutions to problems involving dynamics of visual communication.

References

Heller, S. (2002). The graphic design reader. All-worth press: New York, USA.

Kendall (2009). Famous Graphic Designers. Ars-grafik. Retrieved on 5 January 2010 from http://www.arsgrafik.com/david-carson/

Lawlor, L. (2006). Jacques Derrida. Stanford Ency-clopaedia of Philosophy. Retrieved on 27/12/2009 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/#Dec

Lupton, E. (1994). Deconstruction and Graphic De-sign: History Meets Theory. Typoteque. Retrieved on 24/12/2009 from 9http://www.typotheque.com/articles/decons9truction_and_graphic_de-sign_history_meets_theory

Poynor, R. (2003). No more rules. Laurence King Publishing Ltd: London, UK.

Rorty, R. (1993). Feminism, Ideology, and De-construction: a Pragmatist View. Retrieved on 26/12/2009 from http://gort.ucsd.edu/jhan/ER/rr.html

Stocker, B. (2006). Routledge philosophy guide-book to Derrida on Deconstruction. Routledge: New York, USA.

Disjointed: An ‘A-Z’ of Graphic Language

セラブレイシオン！

Above left, Alan Aldridge, Self Portrait. Rest, packing-tape hand sculpture with a mache finish.

Editor’s note: The use of Katakana in the Cerebration spread is due to Japanese pronunciation, and its lack of appropriate sounds to differ-entiate between cerebrate and celebrate. A limitation of speech over writing.

Some say it’s a science, others that of the arts. Nevertheless, graphic design occupies that creative territory where practical solutions must be found on all types of design problems, complex or facile. A surprising amount of science seems to take place in design. Data is collected, preliminary sketches are made, concepts challenged, options are pitched, Research done. In an article written by the Design Assembly, “There is a terribly misguided belief that anyone with a ‘modern graphic design package’ can perform to the same standard as a qualified designer. Tools do not maketh the man.” Probably best then to do a little reading, stay sketching, understand type, drink fruit juice, and then have the kick-ass winning combo of brain and hand work.

！

Ah yes, the great pickle that all teenagers find themselves in. Do I go chill by the riverside, and risk the parents wrath, or do I throw everything under the bed and carpet? Ditto in design. From the ordered rationality of the Modernists and the International Typographic Style, through to the impulsive heckling of Dada and the computer-led grunge of the 90s, this extended issue of form and function has remained a hotly contested issue. Do yuo mkae it claer adn lgebile? Or just clear and legible.

Above, distressed mock-up for Eindhoveuh packaging, screen printed. See Eindhoveuh/Get It Out for finished product.

The Laurel and Hardy of graphic design. Playing around with scale can provide entertaining and satisfying results. Of course the notion of scale is relative, with something being big or small only in comparison to something else. It is therefore fun to exploit, and can therefore communicate in a unique way. Slinkachu’s miniature street-art instal-lations spring to mind.

Left, perspective-challenging work of Slinkachu. London, UK.

Left, Eindhoveuh, a series of screen prints taken in the author’s hometown of Eindhoven, NL. Also, failed experimental prints on patchwork Rizla.

Title based on the local pronunciation, which to the uninitiated may seem crass and unrefined.

Showing off our privates to the general public is something we tend not to. Even in graphic design it can often seem that revealing too much (of one’s character) can be counterproductive in effective communication. Objective problem solving has no place for voyeurism. Nevertheless, having an idiosyncratic approach to living and the way you build up a bank of knowledge and ideas could be the key to any success as a designer, whether in ‘hard core graphics’, illustration or even packaging design. As such it may be about how you apply your personal experiences, wisdom and creative trickery, After all, the work will usually end up ‘out there’, at some point in public, dangling, for all to see. May as well be worth it.

At the disposal of any 21C graphic designer is a vast arsenal of tools to spruce up work, organic and digital. From this author’s personal standpoint, it seems that there is no right or wrong as to how you go about implementing technology. As the technology becomes increasingly more advanced and demanded, it is probably wise to stay on top of new innovations. Nevertheless, getting your hands gooey in a pot of flower and water gel still has its place. As they say on drinking. Moderate.

Left, Digital typeface inspired by layerings of Rizla over a lightbox, below. Below right, type based on the digital, produced using machéd Rizla on acetate.

Coming from the perspective of a design student, the designers task of creating some half-wind-sor’s annual report seems strangely mythical. The direst of the dire. Yet, even in what should be the lonely outhouse of graphic practice, revitalising light seems to seep through its door. As a shining example of such spirit, take for example Croatian creative agency Bruketa & Zinic, who designed an annual report for food company Podravka. Before reading, it has to be oven baked for 25 minutes at 100c.The challenge to communicate something a little different is ever present, and perhaps a constant challenge to every designer.

Left, The Lighten Up Mix-ture, a CD of stimulatingly mellow hip-hop, funk and soul. Top, Annual report for Podravka, by Bruketa & Zinic

The perennial gulf that exists between the artists

and the scientists. The suits and the creatives.

English Lit and Mech Enge. Pertinent to design

because, more often that not, it employs a

healthy dose both. With careful measurements

and a head full of primary school maths providing

the backdrop, at the forefront may rest an

original, inspiring and enjoyable design. In this

case a collection of restroom ruminations lifted

wholesale from the loos of Eindhoven, NL.

Left, lavatory wall that provided ample fodder in its poetic output. Above, snippets of Restroom Poetry.

Nothing new under the sun. So they say. Many a great work has been formed through the direct appropriation of others work. Rap music, the graphic work of Barbara Kruger, the essay present within this document, all quoting in some form. Whether it be through stylistic, musical or lan-guage quotation, by redefining and interpreting other work, these references provide a platform for a new expression.

Above, Pops, fixing and understand the acquired typewriter. Only three euros fifty! The rest, different applications of text to an environment.

Note: Text for spread based on a passage from Isabel Allende’s City of the Beasts.

Only 10 letters left!!Just 10 letters left!! Only 10 letters

Traversing the gamut from the everyday to the truly unique, the play between the exception and the norm can be intriguing. Sometimes the exception to the rule is what is so refreshing and new, whilst at other times refashioning the banal can be equally rewarding. Also, working within parameters can be liberating, this notion providing the catalyst to this project for example.

Above and right. Experi-mentations with with Rizla and type.

Above, tea-light candle-holder, paper maché. Right, lamp shade.

The inside and the outside. The frame and the content. The form and the function. The everyday issues that a designer faces. Do you let the formal side take over, and let the content take a back-seat, or make sure that the subject matter is presented in the most efficient way possible? As per usual, it is difficult to say. The most sensible answer is probably that it depends on the task at hand. Some things could probably do with more character to garner interest (neuroscience textbooks), whilst others could possibly do with a touch of humility (Pen and Pixel). In most cases it is probably wise to work to the purpose. A textbook could well do with a sprucing up in terms of its layout, efficiency of reading, and even helpful illustrations, but it might be unwise to distress the text beyond recognition. Pen and Pixel on the other hand would be well advised to just leave.

“Frankly, I can’t imagine anything more “stab myself repeatedly in the eye with a blunt plastic fork” boring than doling-out the hippest new style. At smashLAB, designers are free to deliver any creative solution, so long as it in-fact solves the problem. No treatment is unacceptable, so long as it can be backed-up with intelligent and plausible reasoning.” Eric Karjaluoto, smashLAB www.ideasonideas.com

In graphic design these days, style seems to be the dirty word. Style is nice to look at, but flimsy and too often lacking in substance. Too often the catalyst to overdone and head-wrecking fashions. However, often a refined, funky or simply recognisable style can help work stand out. Although it is certainly wise to let style be dictated by function first and foremost, maintaining unique and innovative aesthetics can certainly invigorate the outcome. The problem seems to occur when a truly stylish design, with style being an innovative, creative and unique design solution, becomes the victim of fashion.

I WORRY BECAUSE YOUNg DESIgNERS WHO CONFUSE

WITH DESIgN ARE LEARNINg TO COPY THEIR HEROES’ TECHNICAL TRICKS AND STYLISTIC FLOURISHES, BUT NOT NECESSARILY LEARNINg TO COMMUNICATE IN THIS MEDIUM. “BULLET TIME” IS gREAT FOR “THE MATRIx,” BUT NOT FOR DOCUMENTARIES. JEFFREY ZELDMAN

lightup

Right, examples of booklets, each with a different theme. Also, logotype created for the Light&Up campaign. Left, letter included with campaign, encouraging the involvement of others in interpreting the Light&Up message. Above, Response by Jochem Follink, entitled IDRINKBLACK

From this Friday’s Cargo flyer to the Rosetta stone’s of yore, there is no denying that there is a fundamental difference in worth between these two types of text. Writing in particular, seems to have an enduring quality about it, one that is perhaps culturally ordained. Although with the internet this may be changing to an extent, notions of attaching such values seem inherent throughout most cultures. In design, it is often the case that work must be produced quickly, with a life span of only a few days or weeks, before the information itself becomes obsolete. With other work, it may be more important that it lasts as a type of documentation.

Note: Text used in spread booklet is by the rapper Too Poetic on One Life, by the Last Emperor. Diagnosed with colon cancer a year prior, this was the last song he recorded before passing away in 2001.

A reflectionA reflection

With the rather open brief and large scope of graphic practice, defining this project has proved difficult from start to finish. In this final chapter, I would like to reflect on the project as a whole, from the initial conception of ideas in the workshops through to the ration-ale for the final outcome.

It all began a long, long time ago last October, when we were first presented with a vast array of sign-up sheets, enticing in their vast treatment of various areas of design. Dealing primarily with graphic language, the work-shops covered the languages of typography, product design, subvertising and the like, as well as their application through graphic media. Specifically, a few workshops stand out as having influenced the decisions made in this project. There was a session that dealt with the visualisation of ideas like poetry or fiction, as well as concepts like perfection, exploring context as well as conceptual visual communication. In addition to a workshop specialising in culture jamming and subver-sive advertising, I was excited by the idea of expressing thoughts this round about way, as well as a more direct play with context and perception.

One evening, I was sat with my flatmate, playing with his rolling papers, when I thought

that they would make for ideal booklets. Complete with self adhesive strips, a refash-ionable packaging, and cheap and seemingly endless pages, they seemed the ideal canvas for further exploration. I constructed book-lets of the alphabet, looked into stop-frame animation and failed, designed lampshades, inspired-by CD cases, a typeface etcetera. It seemed like there was nothing you couldn’t do with Rizla. I had a 30 strong list of things still to do. However, at this early stage, the work was experimental and lacked any sense of focus, or even purpose. My initial list of coverable letters included things like scale, booklet, light, repetition. Boring. Stuff. I decid-ed to apply the concept challenge. But I had no concept. I liked the idea of staging a type of jamming campaign where the stressbust-ing booklets I had fashioned in screen printing would be inserted surreptitiously into peoples layabout Rizla packets. This would be part of a campaign called LightenUP (later rebranded as Light&Up), which was supposed to provide light-hearted and uplifting messages through graphic means. Nothing too heavy. I thought this could provide the basis for the project, showing the different graphic elements that would provide the crux to such a campaign.

Although Rizla got me hot under the collar, it seemed that even with this diverse and

Top, A visualisation of ‘Fiction.’ Above, subvertising, redefinition of Mercedes Benz.

flexible material, some of the letters would prove a bit of a stretch. Thankfully, Visual Cultural Theory came to the rescue, covering the notion of Deconstruction first set out by Jacques Derrida. Perhaps I was a little naïve, a tad confused, thinking that what I had been doing was deconstruction, either in graphic design, or simply deconstructing Rizla itself. I decided to roll with it. Incidentally, this has been either the best decision or the worst for this project. It made the theory behind this project quite complex as I struggled for over a week to come even to a laymen’s understand-ing of what deconstruction actually is. Then even when you do, Derrida is quite explicit in saying that it cannot be defined. And that is just concerning what he is writing about, language and grammatology. How on earth does this apply to graphic design?? The bulk of my understanding on Derrida and Decon-struction is fleshed out in the essay included at the beginning of this document. One thing that stood out as important however, was the idea that when using deconstruction, it usually involves finding the opposing struc-tures that are inherent in language. In lan-guage itself, Derrida asserts, there has been a traditional opposition between speech and writing. In graphic design these polarisations within communicating seem to occur in visual elements like scale (big/small) or text (frame/

content), as well as more theoretical dynam-ics in author/audience and personal/public. I therefore decided to cover 13 pairs of these opposed but related concepts, covering one for each letter of the alphabet. To compensate

for the more exotic letters, I decided that using the straight concept was impractical, if not dull. For example, for scale, big became Blow Up and small Tune Down, for B and T respectively.

Having a wad of experimental work using Rizla, I was drawn to the challenge of incor-porating in some way, these fine papers, and still reflecting accurately the relation to graph-ic practice. The quote by Heinrich Heine that where men burn books they will one day burn people also seemed to play into the concept of hierarchies that we take for granted. Books are considered sacred, a testament to free

thought and the spread and access of ideas. However, a Rizla paper is by nature built to burn. Perhaps not the most profound thought, but the idea that a paper as single-purpose as a Rizla, could suddenly be imbued with all this value, seemed worth exploring further.

With a solid foundation in place is was more straightforward, albeit with a vast amount of

work to do to reflect accurately the individual ideas. Whether or not they are successful rests entirely with the viewer. To coincide with Derrida’s thought, I did not want to put too fine a point on objectivity or what exactly I think graphic design is. The collection of images, research and descriptions are simply one way of interpreting various elements in graphic language.

I was a bit hung up about whether or not to produce this PDF for print, or

make it more screen based. Over the course of the project I have constructed a number of objects

either made or inspired by Rizla. As a result, I decided that it would be consistent to extend

this to both the PDF and also a print-based version.

As the concept of decon-struction is also quite

elusive and based on interpretation, I de-cided the unorthodox

packaging of a book through Rizla-like

papers would be appropriate.

Although there are no page

numbers, the pages are presented sequen-tially. There are no rules for what to do with the pages afterwards. They could be thrown, hung, rearranged, given away, or (perhaps ap-propriately) used for kindling. I did not feel the need to apply strict navigation and order too rigorously, allowing for more freedom and use of the pages themselves. Instead I tried to incorporate the Rizla packaging to an extent, using many of the elements that constitute a booklet. The different chapters are therefore sectioned up quite clearly according to the original packaging aesthetic, with the remain-ing 50 pages constituting the actual content. I chose not to mae these consistent with the Rizla design, as this would be rather predict-able, and would also not reflect my own in-terpretation of the medium itself in relation to deconstructing graphic design. Although this publication has yet to be printed in full, I have designed a mock-up, with the full colour print soon to follow.

I hope that this publication has found you well and that the outcome was enjoyable, in some way informative and perhaps even uplifting.

All the best,

Simon Pitt

lightup

SIMON J.M. PITT