I'm glad to say that my last idea was was much better recieved, although there were still a few discenting voices from some of the other students. It was felt that I had now missed the point of the brief entirely. In as much as, It was a typographical exercise and I had now approached it from a completely different angle. I explained that I felt this was justified, as I had already tried a very literal interpretation of the brief and missed the points that had been made.

I explained that I had reviewed all that had been said during the previous crits and re-read all of the handouts supplied. These allowed me to realise that if I am going to achieve any real sort of skill in graphics, I need to be low tech. As I write this, It has dawned on me that actually, what I now need to do is exactly what I think many of the Photography students have missed out on or have never known. That is...a back to basics..no nonsense, get your hands dirty, how light and cameras work type of thing, but from a graphics point of view. Creativity is in my head and hands, not on a mac screen.

I think I get the point that Tim and John have been on about...Mark Making.

There is something more satisfying in actually connecting with a piece of paper rather than just working with text on screen. Had they actually said go paint or draw something, I think I would have connected sooner. I guess I've lost touch with that and interpreted the brief too literally. Hopefully this final approach should be more of a sucess.

Having now mooched about for the last couple of hours, I realise that the connection I might be missing is the simple act of Mark making. I know this was emphasised earlier but I think why I am so reluctant in picking up a pencil is because I haven't had to. I'm so use to adding text to any image I have shot, that in the absence of a picture, I'm lost.

The only way round this that I can see is to push myself to start sketching, I don't think they have to be brilliant, just as a exercise to re-connec.

Tabula Rasa......

My work has been slated again...I do feel a bit gutted, I genuinely thought I'd made some progress and I actually liked the final logo I'd come up with. I know it isn't stunning but I at least thought I'd get more positive feedback. I'm under no illusion that I have to prove myself to the other students and earn the right to be there.

From looking at some of the other students work, I don't think mine is any worse but I can see the standard that I need to reach.

It is odd though (in as much as that I'm surprised) that some of the more simple designs work very well, the sets that are just plain colour and fonts are good, but I rejected that idea myself as I thought it too obvious. As for the designs of the worked and reworked newsprint, that is something I have seen many times. While I don't deny that this work is good, I didn't attempt something like that because I felt it would be hackneyed and trite.

What I have yet to reach then is a point where I suspend my notions of composition and look at this anew. Even now, as I write this, the ideas I have had in the last few hours since the crit now seem no better that what I have already shown.

I spent the last few hours trying to think this logo through..The image I had in mind was a kind of industrial stamp, badge or logo that you might have found on a twenties or thirties radio, I think that this also works well with my choice of typeface. As for colour, I'm not sure if the blue is the best as to me it seems to look better in black. There seemed little point in just printing different colours just for the sake of it. If the core design and layout isn't good enough, changing the colour will not really help.

Surprisingly, I'm going to be noble in defeat and call it quits. I'm reasonably happy with what I have now come up with. Taking into account all that I have previously said, I tried a different approach, well different for me at least. I have tried to go back to basics and concentrate on space and negative space.

Message ends.

I'm still struggling, I had hoped that giving myself some more time to think that I would be more inspired.

I've yet to really make a connection between what I see in my mind's eye and getting that idea down in rough on paper. That might sound odd, but it's the only way I can describe it. I think that why I prefer to work directly on screen, rather than out on paper first, is that by the time I actually begin on screen, I already have a clear idea of what it is I want to illustrate. Working out in rough does seem a bit counter-productive as anything I put down has already been dismissed as a non starter.

Message ends.

I went back to basics and just spent the last hour playing around with block and text to try and see if anything presents itself. I kind of have a better idea now but it's not complete. The hardest thing I'm finding is letting go of how I normally think...I guess I'm so use to looking for the most practical solution to presenting something like this. In any presentation I have done before, I've needed to present information quickly and cleanly.

When I point a camera at someone or something I have a given area in which to work and so I often instinctively know what I want to capture. I see it and often know even before I've checked the preview as to what has worked. To me, I'm literally sharing my perspective and point of view. As I do so, I'm presenting this view to others hopefully without bias and I leave it to them to draw their own conculsions as to the back story.

With this project, using just text and colour, I don't have the luxury of having the images presented to me to re-interpret or relay to another. When I have done anything like this in the past, I haven't had a great difficulty in working with both pictures and images. I think this is because I have often had a clear idea of what is required and I have taken the shot required and then worked the text in to fit in with or around the pictures. The absence of any picture has meant that I have perhaps, on some level, felt a need to fill the space with text ?


I'm going to try one or two last redrawings of my stylized treble cleft CoS logo before I try a few other ideas. I really like the combined "of" and am going to explore some others combinations as well.

As for colours, again I think this a hangover from corporate thinking as in we had set guidelines to follow when presenting to keep a uniform feel, whereas with this, there are no rules and also more inportantly...no guides.

Message ends.

Views from the drawing board.

Having now had a bit more time to consider this project, I now realise that I should also try to create something that I would find attracting. That is, something that will make me stop and think. Ideally, it should make me want continue to look at it over time and not be bored by.

I know the kind of graphics style that I really like and thats the work of Rodchenko and the Constructivist movement. I think on some level, this was at the back of my mind when I first tried working up a design.

I think this comes through in as much as I worked in the Select, Buy, Play, Enjoy motif.

Since the selection of music is very diverse, there really is no common theme. The existing album is linked by a common performer, where as we are having to create a common identity where none exists. I think that is what lead me to think along the lines that I did and the result is something that is bland and generic. What I need to do is use the key elements I like and work in something more eye-catching.

After being savaged during yesterdays intial crit, I think the most valuable comment made was that it looked like a Powerpoint presentation. I wasn't that clear on that yesterday but now see the point being made.

Looking at work I have presented, I see actually that I have done is an exercise in what I think a graphics presentation is, and not really presented a piece of graphics that is anything other than proficient. There is no real sense of me in it, the ideas are valid, as there are many elements I like, they just need to be distilled and refined.

So, back to the drawing board...

Message ends.

I went for a walk in the West End today and I photographed about a 130 shop logo's. I'm now looking at various uses of the word / font Circus.

I sat and watched the Helvetica film, twice and the interview extras. It's fascinating.
I liked the work of David Carson/Raygun and also the work from Push Pen Studios.

It has inspired me a bit also, in terms of being able to see that I shouldn't get too hung up on the technicalities and rely on my instincts a bit more also.

I have started to play around with ideas and looked at a number of different fonts. I'm also going to try to find some more fonts to install.

I have also got a little light reading for the weekend :

Stop Stealing Sheep, Graphic Design School and How to be a graphic designer without losing your soul.

Message ends

From a web search, quoting from wikipedia.

The Designers Republic was a graphic design studio, founded in 1986 by Ian Anderson, and based in Sheffield, England. It was known for its anti-establishment aesthetics, while simultaneously embracing brash consumerism and the uniform style of corporate brands, such as Orange and Coca-Cola.

Initially, Ian Anderson founded The Designers Republic to design flyers for the band Person to Person, which he managed at the time. His first ideas were inspired by Russian constructivism. From their beginning, the works should be viewed in contrast to the current understanding of design.

“...tDR is a declaration of independence from what we perceive to be the existing design community”.


The Designers Republic's works are often playful and bright, and considered Maximum-minimalist, mixing images from Japanese anime cartoons and subvertised corporate logos, with a postmodern tendency towards controversial irony, featuring statements like "Work Buy Consume Die", "Robots Build Robots", "Customized Terror", "Buy nothing, pay now", and "Made In The Designers Republic". They also celebrated their northern roots with phrases like "Made in the Designers Republic, North of Nowhere" and "SoYo" (referring to Sheffield's county of South Yorkshire) — affirming they were not from London's design community in Soho.

Constructivism was an artistic and architectural movement that originated in Russia from 1919 onward which rejected the idea of "art for art's sake" in favour of art as a practice directed towards social purposes. Constructivism as an active force lasted until around 1934, having a great deal of effect on developments in the art of the Weimar Republic and elsewhere, before being replaced by Socialist Realism. Its motifs have sporadically recurred in other art movements since.

...the constructivists took an artistic outlook aimed to encompass cognitive, material activity, and the whole of spirituality of mankind. The artists tried to create works that would take the viewer out of the traditional setting and make them an active viewer of the artwork.

Ok...?

“Curiouser and curiouser!” said Alice

The tracks given within the brief already actually appear on the following CD, entitled "Play"


1. 42nd St stomp
2. Libertango
3. Hughe Ashton's ground
4. Autumn in Warsaw
5. Incarnation II
6. Endgame
7. Strumming
8. Player piano study No 11
9. Even tenor
10. Forlorn hope fancy
11. Sonata No 5 (sonata and interludes)
12. Alcotts (concord sonata)
13. Ship in embrace of the endless dark ocean
14. Allemande (partita no 4)
15. Dance it

"It is the fifth album for Sound Circus for the UK contemporary classical pianist, Joanna MacGregor. On 'Play' she performs Elizabethan compositions alongside modern jazz material. 'Endgame'and 'Strumming' were co-written with Talvin Singh and MosesMolelekwa respectively"


Audio CD (12 Nov 2001)
Label: Sound Circus
ASIN: B00005QJVT

Message ends...

I've re-read the brief a number of times, to see if I could make any connection between them (in terms of theme or title etc).

I have noticed that the brief also requires further clarification on a number of points.

I have assumed that we are required to produce 11 CD covers, but I don't think this is necessarily correct.

From looking at them, it seems that each title supplied is in fact a single track.

So, are 11 actually required or is it just one?

Who or what is Ian Anderson at Designers Republic ?

It requires creating identities for each of the "11 first titles in the series".
This implies that more maybe issued at some point, it would be useful to know exactly how many.

Also, the use of language...why "11 first titles" not first 11 titles ?

The artist list supplied starts with number 02 ?

Has 01 yet to be decided upon or is it already in existance ?

Why have 12 artists been supplied ?

If 01 exists already, do I need to only produce numbers from 02 to 11 (10 in total) or 02 to 12 (11 in total) ?


I've started by first looking at each artist, to find a little more about each of them.
(Personal histories etc.)

Then, looked at existing covers for these artists and made copies of them for future reference.

Also, need to visit library to source sound recordings.

message ends...

So.... this is how the hip and trendy communicate?

Ok, how do I stop this becoming just an endless stream of consciousness?

Or am I too late?

Blog up and running...........check

A2 presentation folder........check

Sleeve folder........................check

Sketchbook..........................check

Message ends...