Experimental typography. Whatever that means.
This article really spoke to the unclear lines between what is considered "experimental" and what is not. In many instances, people toss the word experiment around when there's no clear reason to their work. If we were to speak scientifically, then we would be making questions/hypothesis's that we would be using type to prove. But this doesn't really mean the result will be groundbreaking or "novel."
With the limitation of communication on us, our experiments must already conform to some sort of convention. But out of all of this what I got was that the definition of experimentation is extremely subjective, and no matter what opinion or view you tend to lean towards, it seems that most importantly, like design overall, the experiments are all about process.
"It is experimental only in the process of its creation."
This reading really gave me some insight into the variety of standards regarding what people consider to be experimental typography. It's so subjective, I'm not sure why people want to analyze it. But it was interesting when the author pointed out that even if it is something that does not have a practical use when it was made, often times the discoveries made in the process of the experimenting lent itself to some better purpose.
RADICAL TYPE DESIGN
function and aesthetic
I thought this was a much more interesting reading the perspective that it has as much to do with the experimenter as the experiment. This reading made me really excited to approach the risks involved in the process of creating these experiments. Again, it's all about process process process of it all! This project seems like it's going to be a sort of embodiment of the design process, explored through the element of typography.