Looking back at studio brief 1, there is a clear difference in the intentions from the start of the project and the finished outcome at the end of the project. This was because several stages of the project, including group critique sessions, ultimately influenced and challenged the approach to the brief and the direction to go in.
From the initial ideas stage, I was sceptical about what sort of company my ideas would be applied to. However, after my first group critique, I had a wider range of contexts that peers thought the work would be best suited for. This gave me more confidence in how my work can relate to a situation and how it can reflect the interests of a business when turned into a logotype.
From this, I now have a way of structuring my research and initial idea stages during the process, which can prove useful for future work.
In terms of how the work was presented, I think that showing the word ‘diffidence’ in a range of different versions of the typeface, gave people a varied choice of which ones they thought would work best. Using graph paper to structure the letters also proved successful as it gave a more accurate representation of the word’s features and how I might go about manipulating them.
The overall outcome of this project showed one direction that the logotype went in and how I created the 5 final logotypes from it. However, I think it could have been improved further by trying another approach, contrasting some ideas to see what the result of this would be or how it could influence the 5 logotypes further.
No comments:
Post a Comment