BLOG ENTRY CYS 031024
Cross-year studio / XY.B / Alphabet as Infrastructure
Rebecca and Cai
3/10/24
Group: Mark, Zeina, Virgil, Jingyi, Danxi, Nicks
In a group we discussed questions such as:
1 – How do writing systems change over time, and what aspects of them persist change?
2 – Who controls the alphabets we use?
3 – In what ways can alphabets reflect cultural or personal identity?
In answer, we all contributed to a rich discussion in which we talked about the following:
1
Danxi described that in China, over time and the increase of the territory through expansion meant that new ways of communicating were assimilated dynastically. So the alphabet(s) were enriched through geopolitical change. We also discussed the impact and technology, from pen to laptop, coding, and its impact on writing systems.
Broadly, we discussed how individuality helps resist change.
2
Initially we spoke about rich, white men that tend to rule the media and tech landscape. Murdoch, Musk, Zuckerberg. But by contrast, younger generations will continually influence language and writing systems through platforms like TikTok and Influencers. I referenced the generational gap between how my son and I communicate with our peers.
We discussed literacy and access to learning being a factor.
Because of this constant evolution of semantics, structure and media, we concluded that NO ONE controls alphabets and writing systems completely. It’s an evolution in and of itself.
3
Personal names and pronouns
Fashion labels that we all wear, or do NOT wear
Regional dialects
Handwriting
Zeina contributed a very interesting point regarding two local Indian dialects in Southern India, where originally alphabets and writing were done on trees. The shape and form of the trees directly informed the shape and height of the letterforms. Nature influencing human communication.
BRIEF
We chose ‘works only in the dark’ as our random scenario in which to create of set of characters.
Initially, we discussed sounds combined with tactile elements to communicate. Our first ideas were around the different types of positives and negative across our various language, the tone, noises, idiosyncrasies in how our parents spoke to us as kids. The discussion was fun, and we learnt a lot about each other. It was great.
After a short break, we decided against using tactile elements to use directly to communicate by touch, instead we decided to use them to create sounds to create our alphabet.
Objects included:
– paper
– metal cutlery
– A small bag of polystyrene packing material
– metal nails
– a pen, clicking
– polystyrene shape
To give our project structure, I volunteered to be the subject of a blind direction exercise, where we use simple commands (making up the ten characters in the brief) to direct me across a room and to a chair. The instructions were:
– YES/START – polystyrene bag
– NO/STOP – metal nails
– LEFT – paper
– RIGHT – pen
– UP – High voice
– DOWN – low voice
– SAFE – polystyrene shape
– DANGER – metal cutlery
We asked the class to venture out into the corridor to watch me walk a 5-8 metre path around two stools as obstacle, randomly placed by the group. I was unable to see, but thanks to my group I was able to make it to the chair via the instructions without injury!
TAKEAWAYS
I found watching the rest of the group’s projects informative, it had made me stop and question alphabets and how we use them, what governs the systems I take for granted as I communicate as a human. Its context internationally because of the varied cohort was very interesting. Cai and Rebecca gave some great content, the Norwegian (I think) example was excellent!
The group work was great, I now know people in year 2.
Finally, the most important theme for me across this brief and Methods of Investigating is a process of ‘unlearning’ my automatic responses as a designer, to sort and LOOK.
