Hrant... I don’t think I’m fully capable of thinking like that! ;-)
My first cognitive impressions are of calligraphic ampersand.
But before that I just admired the flow, balance and movement.
Looking forward to a signed copy I can hang up.
I would say the interesting bit is that your mind fills in the black spaces that can vary between the notion you have of what it is, I first saw an ampersand, now it’s a ’g’, because I start negating or adding spaces to the mental composition. I, however, have no idea what you are getting at – I am a bit of a n00b ;).
but seriously, i am trying to figure out what a “protoglyph” is. a glyph is a symbol with meaning, of course, according to our very own typowiki. and proto- is a prefix meaning first, earliest, or original. furthermore, in combination with other words, it means - more or less - a foundation or basis for things which come after it or develop from it. e.g., prototype, protolanguage, etc.
are you thinking your inadvertant squiggle has a universality or flexibility to be the basis for a whole - ahem - “set” of glyphs?
He is thinking to become a chirographer !
Yeah, get rid of the bouma for g∞d !
Check this out, maybe Aziz is on the run.
Cool protoglyphing doodling by the way !
Are you thinking what I’m thinking? That was the last election’ slogan for the Conservatives in England, wasn’t it? I remember there was a big billboard near my house with Howard’s face and the slogan and someone had sprayed on it “Are you smoking what I’m smoking?”.
Sorry, hrant, go ahead. This thread is beginning to read like a thriller. Can’t wait to see how it ends.
Sorry Hrant, but I only do long distance mind-reading on Thursdays... what are you thinking? Is it about the thick/thin stroke thinning and crossing over itself – like those impossible skidlines on a slippery road sign?
For Paul - this is my favourite Pinky-ism:
I think so Brain. But me and Pippi Longstocking: what would the children be like?
Oh well, whatever they’re like, they’ll be loved.
That, in the past, there were no plurals, rather convention dictated that nouns were the opportunity to 1. trial new pens 2. Or test that the pen they were currently using was still good for another few letters, that’s how we developed our modern ’s’ simply through an historical misunderstanding
you don’t have to tell me I got it, both you and I know
Please direct me to the correct forum.
I have a ? about fontographer. After all my work of creating my type face I am having no luck with the simple thing of making the space bar work. hopefully it is simple to you.
proto- |ˌproʊdoʊ| |ˌprəʊtəʊ| (usu. prot- before a vowel)
combining form
original; primitive : prototherian | prototype.
• first; anterior; relating to a precursor : protomartyr | protozoan.
ORIGIN from Greek prōtos ‘first.’
glyph |glif| |glɪf| |glɪf|
noun
1 a hieroglyphic character or symbol; a pictograph : flanges painted with esoteric glyphs.
• strictly, a sculptured symbol (e.g., as forming the ancient Mayan writing system).
• Computing a small graphic symbol.
2 Architecture an ornamental carved groove or channel, as on a Greek frieze.
DERIVATIVES
glyphic |ˈglifik| |ˌglɪfɪk| adjective
ORIGIN late 18th cent. (sense 2) : from French glyphe, from Greek gluphē ‘carving.’
Richard,
I think Duncan was posting in response to the thread not your question. I did send you an instant message to suggest you visit the Build forum with your query. http://typophile.com/forum/6
Richard, I’m positive Duncan was referring to the thread’s question “Is anybody else thinking what I’m thinking?” and I’m sure Hrant is well able for/used to light-hearted insults/remarks.
Conor, thanks...I went to BUILD after Tims idea and got an instant answer from a fellow member, no jokes, no insults, no reading between the lines. Hey I am new to this site and am a very serious designer looking for information. I will try and create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
My comments were definitely not directed at you or your post. I am sorry you understood it that way. If you read the messages on this thread prior to your postings I am sure you will see what my comments were refering to.
Also, as you use this site more I think that you will find that there is a generally light-hearted kidding that goes on here.
Again, I am sorry if you feel that I was insulting you. I was not.
Even with my active imagination I could have never imagined that this thread would become a microcosm of the human reality. You got your sex maniacs, your culture junkies, people who can’t stand guessing, math-heads, politicos, poets, persecution syndrome sufferers, and everything in between... All with a single protoglyph. I coulda been a Freud.
Spill the beans? Absolutely the most damage I could do to this thread at this point.
You got your sex maniacs, your culture junkies, people who can’t stand guessing, math-heads, politicos, poets, persecution syndrome sufferers, and everything in between…
Let’s see, I think I qualify as a 1, 2, 4, 5, and a 7.
for some reason Proto (glyph) seems to indicate that it is the Proto, or base of glyph. After all Protoplasm is the base form, so protoglyph is the base or clay form for a set of glyphs all based upon, or derived from this scribble.
To use the term “protoglyph” Hrant has not casually tossed this word in. It is there for a reason, so ignore the picture and concentrate upon the word.
Here’s a term that may clear up my ramble, think about it.
- ProtoType
Oho ! Something just occured to me. Left of normal thinking but not inconceivable. With a more complex “protoglyph”, it would be possible to have a font of one (1) glyph, where all characters are taken from using mathematical formula to extract from that single glyph all information to make and display each and every other glyph imaginable.
Alternately that single glyph cell could be made up of a grid of unconnected points where using same system as before, all characters and glyphs could be determined from.
Wow, imagine it, all font files would be tiny in size.
years ago a friend of mine in the national guard had the job of painting serial numbers on helicopters and other hardware. they used a rather crazy looking stencil that had multiple facets capable of generating any letter or number. it was an awkward thing; it had to be turned and flipped several times for some characters. the resulting “font” was funny in a strictly utilitarian kind of way... with variations minimized by guidelines but inevitable according to who wielded the tool. i’ll try to find an image of the thing.
OK, now that the wonderful brain-dumping has gone dormant I think it’s safe to reveal what I was thinking, even though it’s pretty boring compared to the previous flotsam and jetsam of the human psyche...
Not too long ago, in a thread as close as a few clicks away, there was (yet another) “discussion” about chirography and its [de]merits. I had made a distinction between painting and drawing, claiming that the former forms the bodies of shapes (and hence can’t make ideal notan) while the latter forms the boundaries of shapes (hence has a qualitatively better chance). Well, looking that that protoglyph (which I still think is a useful term) it struck me that you can actually draw a boundary chirographically! Which is not to say it’s practical and fruitful to do so. One clue that it isn’t is that absolutely nobody does that. And one great reason not to is that the topology of the glyph (in fact that 8 - yes, all I was seeing was a boring numeral) might make it non-sensical, since you can’t have crossing outlines. You can make an “o” for example, but to make a decent “x” you’d need to go around in a contortive way (although what else is new about chirography :-). Anyway, even though I think it’s unworkable it might still result in interesting experiments and extrapolations, so have fun with the idea if you like.
> I don’t suppose you were thinking of Barbara Hepworth?
I guess now I am!
> lorentz attractor
I love that thing. In college I actually made an animation of it with my Amiga, put it on videotape, and borrowed an A/V cart to show it in math class. The teacher was drooling... but I suspect the other students were squirming and sneering.
> moebius strip
> Escher
Those are interestingly parallel to the topological unworkability of the idea.
> Maybe you are thinking about getting into interior decorating…?
Well, I’ve always wanted to do clothing design.
But I’m curious how you got that idea from the protoglyph?
> it would be possible to have a font of one (1) glyph
I knew it would have to do with an [anti]chirographic stance in some way! Ha!
I don’t know how mindbendingly obvious this is to anybody but just in case it isn’t... ...draw a boundary chirographically! One clue that it isn’t is that absolutely nobody does that. You can of course do ’chirographic’ work with two pencils bound together. And you are working in the ’boundries’ in that case. And likewise you can do faux chirographic work on a napkin by drawing the seemingly ’chirographic’ forms out using a non-chirographic method. But Hrant, your example doesn’t seem chirographic to me in any way at all. There is no sense of a front moving. And the while the lines are drawn it is their seen relationship and/or their drawn relationship that might make the form ’chirographic’. Still, I can imagine a process where you start out with two pencils to experiment and end up tweaking those forms with an eraser and pencil on your way to a typographic form you wanted. Have I misunderstood you? What process do you have in mind?
Eben, I actually don’t think it’s anti. In fact it tries to find a place for chirography, although like I said I don’t think it can go anywhere highly functional.
> two pencils bound together. And you are working in the ‘boundries’ in that case.
No, that’s still painting, and not my idea here.
> you can do faux chirographic work on a napkin by drawing the
> seemingly ‘chirographic’ forms out using a non-chirographic method.
For the n-th time: it’s not about the tool, it’s about your mind’s intent.
Maybe thinking of Peter’s “para-chirography” would help.
> your example doesn’t seem chirographic to me in any way at all.
Hopefully because it’s not, in the conventional, ubiquitous sense. But the fact is those curves were made chirographically, which however is not how anybody draws letterform outlines.
David, most specifically I’m thinking about the making of
glyphs in a text face (although I suspect it can be broader).
Discussing this with Eben I realized that some key elaborations might help this idea along. First there’s the issue of: what’s the difference between this and drawing? I would say that drawing is slow, iterative, vague and deliberate, while this exhibits a true chirographic essence in its flow and certainty. As for the difference between conventional chirography and this, perhaps the best thing I can point to is the way stroke contrast is distributed: in chirography it results from the nature of the [virtual] tool, while in this method it results from an abstract decision on the part of the maker; if you look at that protoglyph, any part of it (I mean the black/body) can be any thickness*, determined only by the “whim” of the designer - something it shares with drawing. But again, it’s different than drawing because the organicity of chirography is there. I dunno, does that help?
* Specifically in my proto-8 the left of the head loop and the base of the bottom loop are heaviest, which is not something natural to conventional chirography. Now, this weighting was not intentional, but it could (and -probably- should) be.
In drawing in the art sense, there is what is known as gesture drawing as in some of Mattisse’s work where a quick knowing and skilled hand could, in a few flowing lines, convey an image of a human figure. There is also “tight drawing” like Durer who slowly built up the image with great deliberation. The constructivists and de Stijl artists also were deliberate and “constructed” their work (well duh-ah:-). Both of these styles are still drawing but perhaps Hrant might call gesture drawing chirography.
The difference is drawing an image versus drawing shape bodies,
which, beyond less tangible attributes have to be composed of
closed outlines, which furthermore cannot intersect.
BTW, what is a good name for this thing?
(I mean the technique, not the protoglyph.)
okay sorry to lead us into spacey new age territory but this universal glyph idea
reminded me of something i saw years ago and finally found a link for:
( no, not the military sencil) the Meru Foundation...
they’re dedicated to cryptic reading of sacred hebrew texts (yikes). they have this OBJECT, a 3-D shape, which can be rotated in any direction to be viewed as any letter of the hebrew alphabet.
they claim the hebrew alphabet can be also generated by posing the human hand, and was formed as a sort of proto sign language using the hand itself as the glyph mechanism.
this object was designed as a perfected version of the capabilities of the hand gestures.
i’m not sure i’m doing justice to their ideas, nor am i particularly inclined to pursue it all, just thought it was an interesting link for this discussion.
You could try
ambit – Latin ambitus circuit
margin – Latin margo edge
contour – Italian contornare draw in outline
profile – Italian (obsolete) profilo a drawing or border, from profilare from Latin filum thread.
> they claim the hebrew alphabet can be
> also generated by posing the human hand
Classic post-rationalization.
Quickie trivia question: what (mainstream) writing system has glyphs
based (partly) on the shapes of the mouth/tongue/lips when saying the
sound in question?
That 3D thing is a nice exercise though.
Tim, thanks.
I’m getting the feeling now that somethingo-chiro-graphy
(or chiro-somethingo-graphy) is just too cumbersome.
Hmmm, I’m thinking we’re finally close to a good term for drawing (as opposed to painting/chirography), which is really great! Maybe “margography”. But the ideal for this animal is something that combines something like “border” with something like “chiro” or “painting”...
>> Maybe you are thinking about getting into interior decorating…?
>Well, I’ve always wanted to do clothing design.
>But I’m curious how you got that idea from the protoglyph?
When I tried to find a definition for “protoglyph” a recurring theme was primitive drawings on the walls of caves. So I was playing with the long shot that you were implicating “wall art” based on your use of the word “protoglyph.”
“Liminality (from the Latin word līmen, meaning “a threshold”) is the quality of the second stage of a ritual in the theories of Arnold van Gennep, Victor Turner, and others. In these theories, a ritual, especially a rite of passage, involves some change to the participants, especially their social status.
The liminal state is characterized by ambiguity, openness, and indeterminacy. One’s sense of identity dissolves to some extent, bringing about disorientation. Liminality is a period of transition, during which your normal limits to thought, self-understanding, and behavior are relaxed, opening the way to something new.
People, places, or things may not complete a transition, or a transition between two states may not be fully possible. Those who remain in a state between two other states may become permanently liminal.”
I am suggesting this because the process I am seeing & hearing you think about seems all about process, looking for new methods as in ’technique’, but also of thought, and is also concerned with both white and black in terms of their relation or threshold rather than in terms of themselves. And ’liminal’ is already a solid academic term. So ya got that cred built right in.
I think the distinction you’re sketching here is the same as (or at least analogous to) the dichotomy between “linear” and “painterly” theorized by one of the “founding fathers” of the discipline of art history, Heinrich Wölfflin.
And even before Wölfflin, there are theories of art coming out of Italy that distinguish disegno (“design” or “drawing,” epitomized by Florentines like Michelangelo) from colorito (“colorism,” epitomized by Venetians like Titian). The term “disegno” in particular is often left in the Italian because “drawing” doesn’t entirely capture the additional meanings of composition, limitation, demarcation, etc.
Damn, if I wasn’t a designer I wanted to be a neologist, this could have been my chance of immortality:)
Out of curiosity, Hrant, which way up did you draw the liminograph, where was the starting point, were you standing or sitting, where did the line wander off to?
Well if you ever switch get yourself a
toga: it’s the official dress of neologists.
—
I must have been standing up, because I was testing/warming-up a “non-trusted” pen, which I typically only do when I’m in a hurry. And the orientation you see is pretty much how I was looking at it.
As for the starting point (and thus direction) it’s strange that I’m actually not totally sure. Normally I’d start something like that either going up rightward, or going down leftward (which I think is normal right-hander action) but this is neither. Looking at it some more though I suspect it was most probably started from the bottom-right loose end. Where did it wander off to? I think it must have ended pretty soon afterwards, either just straight or with a small reverse-flick.
I figured to do a quick digitization of the proto-8:
It’s based on a 20-degree rotation of the scan, and the bottom-right cross-over has been resolved... which of course makes it no longer “pure”, chiroliminally - but typographically it’s unavoidable. The alternative, contortive chirography, could also be seen as “impure”.
2.Feb.2007 9.26am
Is anybody else thinking what I’m thinking?
Hrant... I don’t think I’m fully capable of thinking like that! ;-)
My first cognitive impressions are of calligraphic ampersand.
But before that I just admired the flow, balance and movement.
Looking forward to a signed copy I can hang up.
2.Feb.2007 9.28am
> drew a “protoglyph”
ampersand?
2.Feb.2007 9.32am
An ampersand? This is getting interestinger and interestinger...
Actually I’m not after a glyph ID.
hhp
2.Feb.2007 9.37am
infinity
2.Feb.2007 9.56am
I don’t suppose you were thinking of Barbara Hepworth?
Tim
2.Feb.2007 10.01am
I would say the interesting bit is that your mind fills in the black spaces that can vary between the notion you have of what it is, I first saw an ampersand, now it’s a ’g’, because I start negating or adding spaces to the mental composition. I, however, have no idea what you are getting at – I am a bit of a n00b ;).
2.Feb.2007 10.09am
Is anybody else thinking what I’m thinking?
I think so brain, but this time, you wear the tutu. narf!
sorry hrant, i couldn’t help myself ;^p
2.Feb.2007 10.21am
“one’s a genius, the other’s insane...”
but seriously, i am trying to figure out what a “protoglyph” is. a glyph is a symbol with meaning, of course, according to our very own typowiki. and proto- is a prefix meaning first, earliest, or original. furthermore, in combination with other words, it means - more or less - a foundation or basis for things which come after it or develop from it. e.g., prototype, protolanguage, etc.
are you thinking your inadvertant squiggle has a universality or flexibility to be the basis for a whole - ahem - “set” of glyphs?
jarrod
2.Feb.2007 10.22am
I was thinking of a lorentz attractor. If you ask me to explain it I will say its a peek a boo or owl eyes.
Mike
2.Feb.2007 10.24am
but that’s not a proto-thingy :-(
2.Feb.2007 10.43am
Looks a bit like a mobius strip.
2.Feb.2007 11.04am
Are you thinking of a ’flipped’ or reversed ductus al la the moebius strip?
2.Feb.2007 11.32am
& on 2 infinity
That or simply “8 is enough”
:-)
ChrisL
2.Feb.2007 11.36am
or maybe it is that famous old Hollywood “Hourglass Figure”
ChrisL
2.Feb.2007 12.08pm
It looks like one of those lucite high-heeled shoes that strippers wear.
2.Feb.2007 12.11pm
Not the last Chippendale’s act I saw.... ;-)
2.Feb.2007 12.54pm
Mr Escher comes in mind
http://www.mcescher.com/
2.Feb.2007 1.23pm
Chiro-notanic protoglyph open stroke G-clef.
Or maybe a cute little butterfly on a breezy day! :-)
2.Feb.2007 10.54pm
Free-Hand Lissajous Figures?!
2.Feb.2007 11.35pm
Hrant
Rather than playing the guessing game, what are you thinking?
Gerald
3.Feb.2007 6.54am
He is thinking to become a chirographer !
Yeah, get rid of the bouma for g∞d !
Check this out, maybe Aziz is on the run.
Cool protoglyphing doodling by the way !
3.Feb.2007 3.15pm
Are you thinking what I’m thinking? That was the last election’ slogan for the Conservatives in England, wasn’t it? I remember there was a big billboard near my house with Howard’s face and the slogan and someone had sprayed on it “Are you smoking what I’m smoking?”.
Sorry, hrant, go ahead. This thread is beginning to read like a thriller. Can’t wait to see how it ends.
4.Feb.2007 3.46pm
Sorry Hrant, but I only do long distance mind-reading on Thursdays... what are you thinking? Is it about the thick/thin stroke thinning and crossing over itself – like those impossible skidlines on a slippery road sign?
4.Feb.2007 10.28pm
Yah... what is it???
:-) Mikey
5.Feb.2007 1.17am
While testing a pen ... something potentially interesting struck me. Is anybody else thinking what I’m thinking?
Sure. Your pen skips.
What!? That’s not it? Okay, why not shelve the guesswork games and “fess up”?
5.Feb.2007 2.44am
Lemon curry?
5.Feb.2007 4.01am
Can derive 20 of 26 alphabet characters from the thingie.
Warm, cold or Icy ?
And if this is a ball point, the ball is stuffed.
A pre-neolythic Picasso Bic peroid ?
5.Feb.2007 4.21am
For Paul - this is my favourite Pinky-ism:
I think so Brain. But me and Pippi Longstocking: what would the children be like?
Oh well, whatever they’re like, they’ll be loved.
5.Feb.2007 5.20am
...and the other is insane”
ChrisL
5.Feb.2007 2.20pm
> “protoglyph”
Actually I’m not after a glyph ID.
Then it’s a model for a glyph yet to be developed, accepted and adapted for use.
But it just looks too familiar to be seen as new.
5.Feb.2007 2.43pm
Don’t stop… Squiggle squiggle — Outhere Brothers (1995)
5.Feb.2007 7.25pm
That, in the past, there were no plurals, rather convention dictated that nouns were the opportunity to 1. trial new pens 2. Or test that the pen they were currently using was still good for another few letters, that’s how we developed our modern ’s’ simply through an historical misunderstanding
you don’t have to tell me I got it, both you and I know
—N
6.Feb.2007 6.53am
Please direct me to the correct forum.
I have a ? about fontographer. After all my work of creating my type face I am having no luck with the simple thing of making the space bar work. hopefully it is simple to you.
R
6.Feb.2007 7.05am
proto- |ˌproʊdoʊ| |ˌprəʊtəʊ| (usu. prot- before a vowel)
combining form
original; primitive : prototherian | prototype.
• first; anterior; relating to a precursor : protomartyr | protozoan.
ORIGIN from Greek prōtos ‘first.’
glyph |glif| |glɪf| |glɪf|
noun
1 a hieroglyphic character or symbol; a pictograph : flanges painted with esoteric glyphs.
• strictly, a sculptured symbol (e.g., as forming the ancient Mayan writing system).
• Computing a small graphic symbol.
2 Architecture an ornamental carved groove or channel, as on a Greek frieze.
DERIVATIVES
glyphic |ˈglifik| |ˌglɪfɪk| adjective
ORIGIN late 18th cent. (sense 2) : from French glyphe, from Greek gluphē ‘carving.’
6.Feb.2007 7.21am
Maybe you are thinking about getting into interior decorating...?
Or, maybe you are thinking that if you post a vague question you will get a lot of funny, wrong answers... ?
6.Feb.2007 7.40am
go figure
nothing good to say so trash talk rules
good bye
oh yeah thanks for nothing
6.Feb.2007 7.46am
Richard,
I think Duncan was posting in response to the thread not your question. I did send you an instant message to suggest you visit the Build forum with your query.
http://typophile.com/forum/6
Tim
6.Feb.2007 7.49am
Thanks
Tim thanks for your advice, but no in reality Duncan could have easily said what you said but no, insults rule. I am not surprised.
Richard
6.Feb.2007 8.15am
Richard, I’m positive Duncan was referring to the thread’s question “Is anybody else thinking what I’m thinking?” and I’m sure Hrant is well able for/used to light-hearted insults/remarks.
6.Feb.2007 8.25am
Conor, thanks...I went to BUILD after Tims idea and got an instant answer from a fellow member, no jokes, no insults, no reading between the lines. Hey I am new to this site and am a very serious designer looking for information. I will try and create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
thanks
R
6.Feb.2007 8.39am
My first thought was an 8, then a female torso, then a LC g.
6.Feb.2007 8.44am
Richard,
My comments were definitely not directed at you or your post. I am sorry you understood it that way. If you read the messages on this thread prior to your postings I am sure you will see what my comments were refering to.
Also, as you use this site more I think that you will find that there is a generally light-hearted kidding that goes on here.
Again, I am sorry if you feel that I was insulting you. I was not.
Duncan
6.Feb.2007 8.57am
Even with my active imagination I could have never imagined that this thread would become a microcosm of the human reality. You got your sex maniacs, your culture junkies, people who can’t stand guessing, math-heads, politicos, poets, persecution syndrome sufferers, and everything in between... All with a single protoglyph. I coulda been a Freud.
Spill the beans? Absolutely the most damage I could do to this thread at this point.
hhp
6.Feb.2007 9.10am
Duncan,
thanks
call me thin skinned...no worries. I guess I will attempt to create a new thread in the build forum.
R
6.Feb.2007 10.01am
Bee flight?
(btw got to love wikipedia, Phoebe has got an illiterate admirer)
Tim
6.Feb.2007 11.30am
Hrant, I’ll take my answer off line then. ;-)
6.Feb.2007 1.13pm
I see the beginings of what could be a nice art-deco S.
6.Feb.2007 3.36pm
typotheticals hinted at it, channeling Picasso?
6.Feb.2007 3.38pm
6.Feb.2007 7.24pm
Hrant’s empty bourbon bottle? ;)
6.Feb.2007 7.27pm
You got your sex maniacs, your culture junkies, people who can’t stand guessing, math-heads, politicos, poets, persecution syndrome sufferers, and everything in between…
Let’s see, I think I qualify as a 1, 2, 4, 5, and a 7.
Do I win?
6.Feb.2007 8.00pm
i know, it’s a “back to work” reminder ?
6.Feb.2007 9.51pm
?
7.Feb.2007 1.16am
Ch>>>> I love love love your composite image. Very good. The draggqueen ice-skater priceless!!! hahahahahaaha.
Mikey ;-)
7.Feb.2007 4.26am
A rethink on this “protoglyph”.
for some reason Proto (glyph) seems to indicate that it is the Proto, or base of glyph. After all Protoplasm is the base form, so protoglyph is the base or clay form for a set of glyphs all based upon, or derived from this scribble.
To use the term “protoglyph” Hrant has not casually tossed this word in. It is there for a reason, so ignore the picture and concentrate upon the word.
Here’s a term that may clear up my ramble, think about it.
- ProtoType
Oho ! Something just occured to me. Left of normal thinking but not inconceivable. With a more complex “protoglyph”, it would be possible to have a font of one (1) glyph, where all characters are taken from using mathematical formula to extract from that single glyph all information to make and display each and every other glyph imaginable.
Alternately that single glyph cell could be made up of a grid of unconnected points where using same system as before, all characters and glyphs could be determined from.
Wow, imagine it, all font files would be tiny in size.
7.Feb.2007 7.35am
years ago a friend of mine in the national guard had the job of painting serial numbers on helicopters and other hardware. they used a rather crazy looking stencil that had multiple facets capable of generating any letter or number. it was an awkward thing; it had to be turned and flipped several times for some characters. the resulting “font” was funny in a strictly utilitarian kind of way... with variations minimized by guidelines but inevitable according to who wielded the tool. i’ll try to find an image of the thing.
7.Feb.2007 8.12am
It looks like a klein bottle to me.
20.Feb.2007 10.23am
OK, now that the wonderful brain-dumping has gone dormant I think it’s safe to reveal what I was thinking, even though it’s pretty boring compared to the previous flotsam and jetsam of the human psyche...
Not too long ago, in a thread as close as a few clicks away, there was (yet another) “discussion” about chirography and its [de]merits. I had made a distinction between painting and drawing, claiming that the former forms the bodies of shapes (and hence can’t make ideal notan) while the latter forms the boundaries of shapes (hence has a qualitatively better chance). Well, looking that that protoglyph (which I still think is a useful term) it struck me that you can actually draw a boundary chirographically! Which is not to say it’s practical and fruitful to do so. One clue that it isn’t is that absolutely nobody does that. And one great reason not to is that the topology of the glyph (in fact that 8 - yes, all I was seeing was a boring numeral) might make it non-sensical, since you can’t have crossing outlines. You can make an “o” for example, but to make a decent “x” you’d need to go around in a contortive way (although what else is new about chirography :-). Anyway, even though I think it’s unworkable it might still result in interesting experiments and extrapolations, so have fun with the idea if you like.
hhp
20.Feb.2007 10.39am
And picking up some scraps:
> I don’t suppose you were thinking of Barbara Hepworth?
I guess now I am!
> lorentz attractor
I love that thing. In college I actually made an animation of it with my Amiga, put it on videotape, and borrowed an A/V cart to show it in math class. The teacher was drooling... but I suspect the other students were squirming and sneering.
> moebius strip
> Escher
Those are interestingly parallel to the topological unworkability of the idea.
> Maybe you are thinking about getting into interior decorating…?
Well, I’ve always wanted to do clothing design.
But I’m curious how you got that idea from the protoglyph?
> it would be possible to have a font of one (1) glyph
No, that wasn’t it - I did that years ago:
http://www.themicrofoundry.com/ss_uniglyph1.html
> a rather crazy looking stencil ... i’ll try to find an image of the thing.
Please!
> maybe you are thinking that if you post a vague
> question you will get a lot of funny, wrong answers… ?
I guess now I am!
hhp
20.Feb.2007 11.25am
“in fact that 8 - yes, all I was seeing was a boring numeral”
I did wonder seeing that the file name starts with ’new8’
Plus the fact that it looks much like an 8 :)
20.Feb.2007 11.29am
I did post “8 is enough” a while back ;-P
ChrisL
20.Feb.2007 12.13pm
I knew it would have to do with an [anti]chirographic stance in some way! Ha!
I don’t know how mindbendingly obvious this is to anybody but just in case it isn’t... ...draw a boundary chirographically! One clue that it isn’t is that absolutely nobody does that. You can of course do ’chirographic’ work with two pencils bound together. And you are working in the ’boundries’ in that case. And likewise you can do faux chirographic work on a napkin by drawing the seemingly ’chirographic’ forms out using a non-chirographic method. But Hrant, your example doesn’t seem chirographic to me in any way at all. There is no sense of a front moving. And the while the lines are drawn it is their seen relationship and/or their drawn relationship that might make the form ’chirographic’. Still, I can imagine a process where you start out with two pencils to experiment and end up tweaking those forms with an eraser and pencil on your way to a typographic form you wanted. Have I misunderstood you? What process do you have in mind?
20.Feb.2007 12.33pm
> I had made a distinction between painting and drawing.....
painting and drawing letters, or just any kind of painting & drawing?
20.Feb.2007 1.19pm
Eben, I actually don’t think it’s anti. In fact it tries to find a place for chirography, although like I said I don’t think it can go anywhere highly functional.
> two pencils bound together. And you are working in the ‘boundries’ in that case.
No, that’s still painting, and not my idea here.
> you can do faux chirographic work on a napkin by drawing the
> seemingly ‘chirographic’ forms out using a non-chirographic method.
For the n-th time: it’s not about the tool, it’s about your mind’s intent.
Maybe thinking of Peter’s “para-chirography” would help.
> your example doesn’t seem chirographic to me in any way at all.
Hopefully because it’s not, in the conventional, ubiquitous sense. But the fact is those curves were made chirographically, which however is not how anybody draws letterform outlines.
David, most specifically I’m thinking about the making of
glyphs in a text face (although I suspect it can be broader).
hhp
21.Feb.2007 9.47pm
Discussing this with Eben I realized that some key elaborations might help this idea along. First there’s the issue of: what’s the difference between this and drawing? I would say that drawing is slow, iterative, vague and deliberate, while this exhibits a true chirographic essence in its flow and certainty. As for the difference between conventional chirography and this, perhaps the best thing I can point to is the way stroke contrast is distributed: in chirography it results from the nature of the [virtual] tool, while in this method it results from an abstract decision on the part of the maker; if you look at that protoglyph, any part of it (I mean the black/body) can be any thickness*, determined only by the “whim” of the designer - something it shares with drawing. But again, it’s different than drawing because the organicity of chirography is there. I dunno, does that help?
* Specifically in my proto-8 the left of the head loop and the base of the bottom loop are heaviest, which is not something natural to conventional chirography. Now, this weighting was not intentional, but it could (and -probably- should) be.
hhp
22.Feb.2007 4.54am
In drawing in the art sense, there is what is known as gesture drawing as in some of Mattisse’s work where a quick knowing and skilled hand could, in a few flowing lines, convey an image of a human figure. There is also “tight drawing” like Durer who slowly built up the image with great deliberation. The constructivists and de Stijl artists also were deliberate and “constructed” their work (well duh-ah:-). Both of these styles are still drawing but perhaps Hrant might call gesture drawing chirography.
ChrisL
22.Feb.2007 7.22am
The difference is drawing an image versus drawing shape bodies,
which, beyond less tangible attributes have to be composed of
closed outlines, which furthermore cannot intersect.
BTW, what is a good name for this thing?
(I mean the technique, not the protoglyph.)
hhp
22.Feb.2007 7.35am
Most people call it doodling.
22.Feb.2007 7.56am
“what is a good name for this thing?”
Closed figure outlines, perimeter drawing, or perhaps just constructs?
ChrisL
22.Feb.2007 8.38am
What’s the Greek (or Latin) root for outline/border?
hhp
22.Feb.2007 9.01am
okay sorry to lead us into spacey new age territory but this universal glyph idea
reminded me of something i saw years ago and finally found a link for:
( no, not the military sencil) the Meru Foundation...
they’re dedicated to cryptic reading of sacred hebrew texts (yikes). they have this OBJECT, a 3-D shape, which can be rotated in any direction to be viewed as any letter of the hebrew alphabet.
they claim the hebrew alphabet can be also generated by posing the human hand, and was formed as a sort of proto sign language using the hand itself as the glyph mechanism.
this object was designed as a perfected version of the capabilities of the hand gestures.
i’m not sure i’m doing justice to their ideas, nor am i particularly inclined to pursue it all, just thought it was an interesting link for this discussion.
22.Feb.2007 9.30am
You could try
ambit – Latin ambitus circuit
margin – Latin margo edge
contour – Italian contornare draw in outline
profile – Italian (obsolete) profilo a drawing or border, from profilare from Latin filum thread.
Tim
22.Feb.2007 9.47am
> they claim the hebrew alphabet can be
> also generated by posing the human hand
Classic post-rationalization.
Quickie trivia question: what (mainstream) writing system has glyphs
based (partly) on the shapes of the mouth/tongue/lips when saying the
sound in question?
That 3D thing is a nice exercise though.
Tim, thanks.
I’m getting the feeling now that somethingo-chiro-graphy
(or chiro-somethingo-graphy) is just too cumbersome.
hhp
22.Feb.2007 10.32am
How about comtourgraph? or simply outlinegraph?
ChrisL
22.Feb.2007 10.44am
Margraph (latin/greek construction)
Downside is it sounds like European nobility (although I like the word)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margrave
Tim
22.Feb.2007 10.51am
What’s the Latin for painting?
hhp
22.Feb.2007 11.00am
pictura, from pict- ‘painted’ (from the verb pingere).
22.Feb.2007 11.12am
Hmmm, I’m thinking we’re finally close to a good term for drawing (as opposed to painting/chirography), which is really great! Maybe “margography”. But the ideal for this animal is something that combines something like “border” with something like “chiro” or “painting”...
hhp
22.Feb.2007 11.51am
How about Charro? :-)ChrisL
22.Feb.2007 2.54pm
This goes back several posts now:
>> Maybe you are thinking about getting into interior decorating…?
>Well, I’ve always wanted to do clothing design.
>But I’m curious how you got that idea from the protoglyph?
When I tried to find a definition for “protoglyph” a recurring theme was primitive drawings on the walls of caves. So I was playing with the long shot that you were implicating “wall art” based on your use of the word “protoglyph.”
It was silly and a stretch :-)
Duncan
22.Feb.2007 3.04pm
Liminography !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liminality
From the wikipedia
“Liminality (from the Latin word līmen, meaning “a threshold”) is the quality of the second stage of a ritual in the theories of Arnold van Gennep, Victor Turner, and others. In these theories, a ritual, especially a rite of passage, involves some change to the participants, especially their social status.
The liminal state is characterized by ambiguity, openness, and indeterminacy. One’s sense of identity dissolves to some extent, bringing about disorientation. Liminality is a period of transition, during which your normal limits to thought, self-understanding, and behavior are relaxed, opening the way to something new.
People, places, or things may not complete a transition, or a transition between two states may not be fully possible. Those who remain in a state between two other states may become permanently liminal.”
I am suggesting this because the process I am seeing & hearing you think about seems all about process, looking for new methods as in ’technique’, but also of thought, and is also concerned with both white and black in terms of their relation or threshold rather than in terms of themselves. And ’liminal’ is already a solid academic term. So ya got that cred built right in.
Happy?
22.Feb.2007 4.44pm
I love it - the existential angle is right on.
(Although to be clear I mean for drawing, not this thing.)
BTW Duncan, you were thinking of petroglyph, right?
hhp
23.Feb.2007 6.20am
I think the distinction you’re sketching here is the same as (or at least analogous to) the dichotomy between “linear” and “painterly” theorized by one of the “founding fathers” of the discipline of art history, Heinrich Wölfflin.
And even before Wölfflin, there are theories of art coming out of Italy that distinguish disegno (“design” or “drawing,” epitomized by Florentines like Michelangelo) from colorito (“colorism,” epitomized by Venetians like Titian). The term “disegno” in particular is often left in the Italian because “drawing” doesn’t entirely capture the additional meanings of composition, limitation, demarcation, etc.
So maybe you’ve been “disegning”? :-)
23.Feb.2007 6.35am
I am liking “Liminography” Eben!
ChrisL
23.Feb.2007 7.23am
Damn, if I wasn’t a designer I wanted to be a neologist, this could have been my chance of immortality:)
Out of curiosity, Hrant, which way up did you draw the liminograph, where was the starting point, were you standing or sitting, where did the line wander off to?
Tim
23.Feb.2007 9.40am
Well if you ever switch get yourself a
toga: it’s the official dress of neologists.
—
I must have been standing up, because I was testing/warming-up a “non-trusted” pen, which I typically only do when I’m in a hurry. And the orientation you see is pretty much how I was looking at it.
As for the starting point (and thus direction) it’s strange that I’m actually not totally sure. Normally I’d start something like that either going up rightward, or going down leftward (which I think is normal right-hander action) but this is neither. Looking at it some more though I suspect it was most probably started from the bottom-right loose end. Where did it wander off to? I think it must have ended pretty soon afterwards, either just straight or with a small reverse-flick.
BTW, what about “chiroliminal” for this?
hhp
23.Feb.2007 10.10am
I figured to do a quick digitization of the proto-8:
It’s based on a 20-degree rotation of the scan, and the bottom-right cross-over has been resolved... which of course makes it no longer “pure”, chiroliminally - but typographically it’s unavoidable. The alternative, contortive chirography, could also be seen as “impure”.
hhp
23.Feb.2007 11.19pm
> most specifically I’m thinking about the making of glyphs in a text face (although I suspect it can be broader).
OK. I see. But why 2 terms — drawing & painting, and not just designing glyphs?
> claiming that the former [painting] forms the bodies of shapes ... while the latter [drawing] forms the boundaries of shapes...
I think that the best term is line drawing, and not drawing (I know, as you said — thinking about the making of glyphs but...):
This is line drawing/ drawing/ painting (?):
24.Feb.2007 8.17am
> But why 2 terms
Because the method (different than the tool) affects the results.
Painting the body of a glyph is different than drawing a notanic border.
BTW, there are a lot more than two ways.
In fact what I’m describing here is a third way.
> This is line drawing/ drawing/ painting (?)
I think it’s a painting.
But since it’s not a glyph, it doesn’t matter (for the sake of staying focused).
hhp