This paper was written 6 months ago while I was working with Onur Yazıcıgil
at Sabancı University. My next paper will be derived from this one so I have put it up for referance purposes.


DECONSTRUCTING THE PRINTER 

Abstract: In this work I aim to experiment on controlled printing technics using a digital printer as an alternative designing process. As the deconstructivist typographers manifested in the 20th century, visual communication can be enhanced by breaking what the former designers did in the past years which was a set in strict rules, I will be working to put on top of it with the design choices itself and the output of the digital printer. Legibil- ity and communication notions are affected with the controlled and uncontrolled printing process but this is where challenge lies.

Keywords: Typography, print, control, deconstruction, communication.

BACKGROUND

The inspiration for this work comes from the works and ideas of deconstructivist typogra- phers of the 90’s who have broken the former rules of visual communication design and typography to take communication to an unorthodox level with their approach to broken typesetting and experimental typeface designs. Neville Brody and David Carson were the prominent designers during that period but we can’t call it a proper movement because it is a way of asking questions through the works. They dominated that period with their experimental layout designs for magazines such as FACE and Ray Gun respectively.

Deconstruction is the process of questioning the content and exposing the inside of it in terms of graphic design and typography, but in the original deconstructive theory of Jacques Derrida, he asks several questions: how does representation inhabit reality? How does the external appearance of a thing get inside its internal content? How does the surface get under the skin? [1]

While the deconstructivist design can be recognized visually by fragmented shapes, extreme angles and aggressively asymmetrical compositions [2], it is more than a visual style, it is a questioning process where the designer searches for a representation of the internal essence that can be exposed and expressed. Typography was shaking off its modesty and the boundaries between text and image were about to become blurred as Rudy VanderLans talked about his magazine Emigre’s 15th issue, “All text in this issue were meant to be both seen and read!” [3]. Emigre was a controversial type foundry and magazine founded by Rudy VanderLans and Zuzana Licko, both were highly experimental on their approach to type, that was criticized by Modernist designers like Massimo Vignelli as “typographic garbage factory”. The magazine heralded an era of experimental typography, followed them designers like Brody and Carson. Order was destroyed, the parts were reused. The integrity of the typeface could be attacked, and its geometric base disregarded. The grid organizing elements on the page wasrethought and elements scrambled. Graphic designers employed specific graphic strategies of mingling images and texts, overlapping cutting into their areas, layering of visual elements, and using type and the page layout to suggest a meaning [4]. Some thought this attitude have shattered “the crystal goblet”[5], but some of them saw this as an opportunity to express their vision on communication, like Carson did.

When we look at this attitude from the eyes of the Modernists, it destroyed – I would say deconstructed – legibility. As Beatrice Warde implied with “the crystal goblet”, type is invisible when it communicates right, you don’t notice it but it is there. Gerard Unger once asked to “design a typeface but no one must notice that it’s new.” This was for the signposts in Netherlands, and of course it should not take the attention away from the

“content” which is the place you are in or the direction you will choose to go in a minute, that is why it must be invisible. This applies to reading of course, Gerard Unger elaborates further about this: “It is almost impossible to read and look at the same time”: They are different actions. In short text, combining text and images made up of animal shapes is not a problem, but try it with a long text and you soon find it doesn't work: you keep trying to see the images as well as read the text [6]. While you are reading a novel for example, the text communicates with you through the content and it has to do this without any interrup- tions. The process of reading becomes automated if there are no obstructions as we tend to recognize the letters by their characteristic features and we read only parts of letters, we need the rest to help us out when we are doubtful or uncertain about what we have read, and go back to take more samples [7]. "Typefaces are not intrinsically legible. Rather, it is the readers' familiarity with faces that accounts for their legibility. Studies have shown that readers read best what they read most."[8] This observation by Zuzana Licko is true by all means as we can think of it really simple. If you try to read an astrophysicist’s scientific paper about how black holes affect space-time continuum, you would have to go over the same lines again and again as you are not familiar with the terms used in the text, so you would read slowly and the automatic reading becomes disrupted. Think of it like this: if this text was in Cyrillic, even if it is extremely legible, would you be able to read it?

There are several questions by Gerard Unger about invisible and obtrusive type and these questions will lead in to my own work: “Terms like ‘invisible’ and ‘obtrusive’ need to be more clearly defined. Where is the borderline? When do types and typography become too obtrusive? The short answer is that there is no sharp borderline. Is visibility always bad? Does being obtrusive have a purpose? Few will disagree with the statement that the design of text can be not only useful but also attractive and exciting – but how attractive or exciting, and for whom? For the designer it is difficult, not to say impossible, to keep everyone happy. Even so, a type designer can still try to do much as possible to meet all these different wishes. But is the result of that effort going to be worth looking? Isn’t it going to be a matter of leaving us all with the lowest common denominator?” [9]

Imagine if Ray Gun by David Carson was designed to appeal the Modernist architects of Chicago, or the dentists’ union. Would it be as exciting or attractive as a rock n’ roll magazine that appeals to young people that has an alternative lifestyle? "Don't mistake legibility for communication. Legibility is not the whole story, for communication you need more." These are the words of David Carson on legibility. Ray Gun was illegible as it can be, but for a reason.

THE EXPERIMENT

Deconstructing the Printer is an experiment to explain expressiveness on communication, as you are reading this wall of text being “deconstructed” on the way. The printing process of this work is inspired, and mostly re-done, by Royal College of Arts’ research project Control Print. The research team of the project uses the digital printer as tool for transfor- mation. They emphasize on the query that reading is a recording by all your senses, like how the pages move, what the paper feels like or how heavy is the book, that defines the experience of reading and is different every time the book is different as the content, feel or heaviness is changing. The books become artifacts, with cultural and personal signifi- cance.

As this wall of text is being deconstructed on the way, I am experimenting on ways to break some of its legibility at the expense of communicating with the reader better. The reader is not obliged to read it only but needs to perceive it. It becomes difficult somewhat as the printer’s cartridge goes over and over again on the paper but this is a challenge that needs to be overcome in the first place.

The challenges in this experiment starts with the questions, “how do I affect the physical outcome of the printed page?” and “how the design on screen is different from the outcome?” The layering system of the design software products like Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator enables designers to make endless layers of image and type. I can design anything on those software products and hit ‘print’ to get the exactly same thing I see on the screen. However as the papers rolls through the printer with the buzzing of the cartridges, some actions can be made to affect the outcome totally, like pulling the paper as it comes out of the printer case or interrupting the process totally and re-feeding the paper in to the tray again to print on top of it. This looks like a primitive action but it is only one of the things that can be done. I personally have no experience in programming or physical computing, if I had any I would be able extend the interruption process from meddling with the drivers of the digital printer to hacking the motors of the printer itself. The latter can lead to a future experiment.

Printer used in this experiment is a low cost digital inkjet printer. It is a start for the experiment but there are difficulties. The printer uses the common technology with the other same level printers, you can’t properly interrupt the printing process. Usually this is a good feature but it interrupts my interruption. If I do anything to the paper while it is in the printer, it fails to print and stops the process completely. However I was able to re-feed the paper 10-15 times and print on top of the early design to make it different from the screen. This leads to screen vs. printed page query. Printer reacts different to layers then screen. If any color or shades of black other than %100 is printed over black, the black areas stay solid. However on the screen you can cover black with any color that is opaque.

Digital printer’s limitation can affect the creative process with chance based operations. When re-feeding the paper in to the printer to print on top of it, the position of the paper, the color of the design and manual interruptions made by the designer changes the outcome significantly. Royal College of Arts’ Control Print research names these unique outcomes “artifacts”. The marks that the printer leaves because of the ink on the previous pages spread to the paper roller in the printer, amplifies notion of artifact.

Future work that can take further this experiment includes hacking the hardware of the of printer to execute differently, like changing the level of the nozzles spray paint, movement of the cartridges and any physical touch that will make the printer behave out of convention. Another powerful way that can grant me access to a more experimental environment is to go in to the driver of the digital printer. That way I will be able to override most commands the software sends to the printer that gets in my way during any physical interruption process.

REFERENCES:

1. Ellen Lupton, A Post-Mortem on Deconstruction, 1994 

2. Ellen Lupton, A Post-Mortem on Deconstruction, 1994 

3. Rudy Vanderlans, Emigre No15, pp 3, 1990 

4. Virginia Smith, Forms In Modernism, pp 128, 2005

5. Beatrice Warde, Printing Should Be Invisible, 1955 

6. Gerard Unger, While You Are Reading, 2007 

7. Gerard Unger, While You Are Reading, 2007 

8. Zuzana Licko, Emigre No15, pp 12, 1990

9. Gerard Unger, While You Are Reading, pp 51, 2007 

10. Sara Carneholm and Leah Harrison Bailey, Control Print in Baseline No 56-57, 2007