Written Component 4

During the first half of Unit 2, I researched doublespeak and how it translates into the visual typographic content we consume every day. The goal was to understand what sort of technics it uses and its consequences. But mostly, I felt Design had an obligation to bring awareness to this form of communication since, in some cases, it is the one designing such language. However, it was not my original intention. 

Following work produced in unit 1, I first aimed to represent contradictory messages using typography and calligraphy. Around this time, I came in contact with George Orwell’s essay titled “Politics And The English Language” in which the author introduces the reader to a form of political speech based on euphemisms. Inspired by his writings, I analysed the way politics or other power institutions visually represent this language in our political context, comparing the message with the design methods implemented, and compiling the investigation’s results in posters. These applied collage of images, typography and other graphic elements, as a method to compare the two sides of the message. Although it served the purpose of showcasing the juxtaposition of the transmitted idea versus reality, I wondered whether the creation of more images that did not provoke any form of engagement was the best system at bringing clarity to this issue. Looking at Metahaven’s and GraphicDesign&’s work, I understood that the medium chosen can reinforce the work’s position and help transmit the message clearer, as they both use communication design to create an interaction between content and the user. Similarly, I felt I could use Graphic Design as a means for the user to make their collages, hence gaining another layer of understanding of my work’s position, while creating their images.

However, I faced a few challenges. I created a program that gives people the freedom to engage with the variables presented, which are the typefaces, their position within the image and the background. In the first experiments, I did not provide any guidance to the users, so the results received were incredibly eclectic. Which also meant they deviated from my original intention of using Design to critique the usage of doublespeak by the political power. That is where I started questioning how much freedom, or restrictions, I want to impose on the user to get the pretended results, and consequently, what is my role as a designer. I wondered whether Design served as a selection tool of the variables the user interacts with and if it had the power to reinterpret the outcomes received. I feel like the answer to these questions is in iterating with various versions of the program, testing different degrees of user’s freedom and analysing those results afterwards. That way, I think it would be possible to evaluate how much input the designer needs to insert without controlling the result too much.

To further develop this project, I intend to read ‘1984’, a book by Orwell that introduced the concept of doublespeak. During this unit, I analysed the most relevant chapters for my project but did not have time to read the full story. Additionally, I want to revisit some iterations I abandon during the first part of unit 2, for example, the possibility of creating a variable font that represents doublespeak. I think it could become an interesting project that would inspire me to iterate with other methods of engaging with this form of language.