The group who we were going to crit were responding to the word "Condense". The condense group were, in turn, checking out our work regarding the word "Build". Every group neatly placed their letterforms in a grid.
Within our groups we split up into two smaller groups who could crit the workd on a more individual and in depth level. Me and Ste worked together, as did Katie and Beth. We outlined 5 specific criteria - if a letterform didn't match the criteria, it would be turned over and eliminated. This was pretty brutal, man! At the same time, it was a learning curve and firm but fair. It made me think about the fundamental basics of each design and whether it was fit for it's purpose. It was quite weird turning peoples hard work over, knowing they could do the same to mine aswell! Anyway, the 5 criteria me and Ste decided on were:
1) Does it effectively communicate the theme of 'condense'?
2) Is it handmade?
3) Is the letterform legible?
4) Have they considered the frame and composition?
5) It well crafted and does it seem like appropriate time has been spent?
After we narrowed these down as smaller groups we came together as a group (the 4 of us) and decided on group criteria to narrow the work down to a final 5 that would kinda be the "winners" for each criteria, so there would the letterform with the presentation, the best layout, etc.
The group criteria was
1) Presentation
2) Layout
3) Communication
4) Craftsmanship
5) Legibility
We then showed these 5 to the rest of the course and explained why each one was the best in each category and what worked well and didn't work well.
It was also quite cool to see 3 of my letterforms make it into the top 5. The criteria they judged my work on was:
1) Quality
2) Legibility
3) Concept
4) Relation to the word
5) Meeting the brief
The 3 chosen were
Quality
Legibility
Concept
It was cool to see my work up there and getting recognised but I still think there's much room for improvement. I think the 2nd one doesn't communicate "build" enough
0 comments:
Post a Comment