Over recent years, and with the growth of typography as a discipline for communication, type has been used more and more as a 'stand-alone' way to send messages to the public. Words, it seems, can just as much impact, and in some cases an even greater impact, than the use of images in order to make a message reach the public. Type can be used to make bold statements in a clear-cut manner; getting straight to the point, something which images cannot always do in such a way.
The contemporary American artist, Jenny Holzer, uses typography in sites of public display to convey messages to a wide audience. In some of her early work, she used projections of text on large-scale buildings; with words from various poets, or some of her own work. These texts often had deep meaning to the artist, and aimed to make the reader think about the text. Her statements were often controversial and/or daring in some cases - which, in my opinion, is highlighted by her sole use of type standing alone as the display. Her later works involve the use of LED light displays, which adds a contemporary feel to the work, yet still allows the text to say everything it needs to.
This use of typography to reach a large audience demonstrates the power of words and type, and the impact it can have when applied correctly. Many advertising campaigns also focus on the sole use of type; as it is often a more powerful way of conveying a message; 'to-the-point' and harsher when it needs to be.
So do you think that one of the key strengths of the word - and what typography can do with the word - is its' immediacy? That it can 'cut through' the possible ambiguity of the image with something that's more direct? Although is it ever as powerful of a really strong image? I guess it's different, but in what way(s)?
ReplyDeleteAre there any examples of publicly-communicated typography that aren't direct? That are ambiguous and require a bit of working out by the viewer?
Paul
I think that the immediacy of type is definitely one of it's key strengths; peoples' attention can be just as much directed towards a powerful word as a powerful image. However, I think it also depends on the context and positioning of the word, and the kind of audience it's being directed at - whereas, in some cases, an image may be more universal and perhaps more easily understood by a wider audience?
ReplyDelete