7. Stance
neutralnost-kao-eticki-stav
What it is: for Müller-Brockmann, neutrality is not a style but an ethic — the poster states the
concert, not the designer's mood. "Subjective interpretation leads to falsification of the
message."
Second author — Massimo Vignelli: American Airlines 1967 — "We proceeded by logic, not
emotion. Not trends and fashions"; he refused to draw the eagle ("don't make a cartoon out
of it"). For him the ethic is not neutrality toward content but toward FASHION:
"Trends kill the soul of design" (Eye).
Counterweight: Max Huber — same school, opposite outcome. Systematic and loud are not
opposites.
Works carrying this principle (1)
neutralnost-je-stil
What it is: the claim that "neutral", systematic design is still one choice
of style among the possible ones, not the absence of choice — proven by a public
conflict between two competent, systematic designers holding opposite
positions on the designer's role.
Who does it: Wim Crouwel (public debate with Jan van Toorn, Museum Fodor,
9.11.1972, later the book The Debate; Van Toorn: "typography as such had
to be narrative").
Test: can the AUTHOR of the work be identified without a signature, even though it claims to be
"neutral"? If yes, neutrality is a style, not its absence.
sistem-moze-biti-nasilan
What it is: restraint and neutrality are not the same thing. A systemic image can be terrifying.
Who does it: Josef Müller-Brockmann (weniger Lärm), Lester Beall (Cross Out Slums);
Muriel Cooper (Learning from Las Vegas 1972 — Scott Brown: "the tyranny
of the template": the grid, triple leading, and blank-space ratio set before the content,
photographs reduced to "postage stamps"; the third author — violence of the system against
CONTENT, not against the image).
Works carrying this principle (2)
citljivost-na-granici
What it is: break down the form step by step and find the frame where identity cracks.
What's interesting is one step before that.
Who does it: Armin Hofmann; Emil Ruder (TM 10/1967 — the number "20" cropped to the edge
of recognisability; the Typographie cover — the word TYPOGRAPHIE legible even when
half the letters are upside down and scattered into unequal cells); Karl Gerstner (Opjekte,
1966 — a photograph of an object enlarged into a coarse halftone dot until it almost
dissolves into pure raster, extending from letter to photographic raster); Corita Kent (Sister Mary Corita)
(mary does laugh 1964 — the sign MARKET BASKET cropped by edges until the word can
no longer be assembled; give the gang our best 1966 — letters distorted by photographing
a crumpled advertisement); Roman Cieślewicz (Ty i ja 1968 — a leg in halftone with a dot
~1 cm, up close only dots; Zoom 1971 — a cyclops in coarse halftone; Eye 9: when
the repro camera could go no further, he filled in the dots by hand with a marker — the boundary
sought by hand, not by filter); Herb Lubalin (Avant Garde no. 8, 1969 — capital
ligatures and "tight-not-touching" setting: the boundary is not the breakdown of form but the CONTACT
of letters; Lubalin: bringing letters closer "doesn't destroy legibility, it just changes
reading habits" — the sixth author, the boundary shifted from form to spacing);
Muriel Cooper (MIT Press colophon 1965 — mitp reduced to seven trunks without
arches, crossbars and bowls; from five metres of shelf/barcode, the word only for one who
knows — the seventh author, the boundary shifted to CONSCIOUS unrecognisability); Wolfgang Weingart
(Typographic Process Nr 5, 1971–74 — "T E E" spaced out to +200 until the word becomes
a shape; his discovery from teaching: as spacing grows, the word becomes graphic and
"understanding the message was less dependent upon reading than we had supposed";
TM 12/1976 — setting photographed with a repro camera through several generations until edges break down —
the eighth author, the boundary shifted to SPACING and to GENERATION OF COPY, and the first to
formulate the boundary as a TEACHING exercise); Neville Brody (The Face 42, 1983 — the letter I replaced
by a slash in three cover words, HIDD/N, M/X, EXCLUS/VE: the word reads, but the eye stalls — the
boundary shifted to REPLACING ONE LETTER with a sign; FF Blur 1992 — the edge of the letter
blurred "like an out-of-focus photograph" (MoMA), three weights = three steps, a fourth would
merge the letters — the ninth author, the boundary at the letter's EDGE and the first to
sell the boundary as a typeface); David Carson (Beach Culture 1990 — masthead partly covered by a cap
from the photograph; Ray Gun 24, 1995 — headlines marker-drawn OVER faces; End of Print 1995 —
headline in damaged hybrid glyphs; National Theatre 2013 (V&A S.86‑2016) —
the word NATIONAL dissolved into coloured shapes, unreadable from any distance — the tenth
author, the ONLY one who deliberately CROSSES the boundary and sells it to a client; Shaughnessy, Eye 99:
"the end of reading" — the boundary as audience, not as exercise).
Why it matters to you: it is, literally, the program of glitch and your raster language —
just formulated in 1965.
Works carrying this principle (19)
neprijatelj-kao-zivotinja
What it is: the rank of characters is not in facial expression but in REGISTER: the enemy is
a cartoon animal (pig = police, rat = politician), the community is a
photograph or a dignified drawing. The animal is recognised by silhouette, so it
survives bad printing and doesn't require reading; and as soon as the enemy is an animal,
the image is a statement about role, not an opinion about the person.
Who does it: Emory Douglas (vol. 3 no. 18 1969 — two pigs, a small one in
uniform "U.S.", a big one in a suit; vol. 3 no. 23 1969 — Nixon and Mitchell as
rats on a flag; the system consistent throughout the paper).
Test: are ALL the characters in the same register? If yes — that's a comic strip, not this
principle. The principle is the difference of registers.
Application: satire (YT gaming) — before drawing, decide who's the animal and who's
the photograph; motion — different animation style per register (cut-out for
the caricature, posterised video for "us").
Works carrying this principle (2)
artefakt-nosi-distribuciju
What it is: distribution is built into the object itself — the back page of the newspaper
is a poster, so a paper bought for 25 cents ends up on a wall advertising itself.
A media plan disguised as layout.
By whom: Emory Douglas (All Power to the People 1969 — a boy with the newspaper
on the back page, same drawing as the standalone lithograph in the Getty collection; We
Shall Survive 1971; Powerful Woman 1969 — all back pages).
Second author — Jamie Reid (principle entered the shared index): Suburban
Press stickers 1972–74 (Switch On Something for the Miners; This Store Welcomes
Shoplifters; Keep Warm This Winter — Make Trouble) — the sticker IS the distribution,
the audience does the sticking; Better Badges badges (Pretty Vacant, Ø 5,5 cm) — a poster
reduced to a format worn on the body. The difference: Douglas builds distribution into
the newspaper (back page = poster), Reid makes it as a separate, cheapest possible artefact.
Third author — Barbara Kruger: the same work as a street poster (Your body 1989 — she
pasted it up herself with students, Eye 5), a billboard (We don't need another hero, Public Art Fund
1988–89), a mass-circulation cover (Esquire 1992, Hearst), a bag/t-shirt (I shop),
MetroCard 2017 (50,000), matchboxes, mugs (MoMA/Roberts 2004); v1: refusal of hierarchy
among carriers is part of the argument. The difference: Douglas and Reid build distribution
into ONE cheap artefact; Kruger makes a work that is IDENTICAL on every carrier — the format is
always a label + image, so distribution doesn't need to be built in, only multiplied.
Test: can a part of the artefact be separated and live on its own (on a wall, as a
profile picture, as a sticker) without the rest? If not — distribution has remained
someone else's job.
Bridge to my practice: YT — a thumbnail that works as a poster/profile picture without
the video's title; print — the back page/reverse as a poster, not as an imprint.
Works carrying this principle (9)
rebus-tjera-na-izvodjenje
What it is: a rebus (image + symbol + letter instead of the full word) forces
the viewer to SPEAK the message, not read it — and that act of speaking is an act of
adopting the message as one's own.
By whom: Milton Glaser (I ❤️ NY, 1976/77 — "I" + heart + "NY" forces the utterance
of the full sentence).
Second author — Shigeo Fukuda (福田繁雄) (principle entered the shared index): No More 1968 —
the viewer assembles the skull from bombs themselves (no outline); Look 1 1984 — the
viewer finds the step through which the leg passes; Kyogen 1981 — the viewer finds the
face in the spiral's void; Victory 1945 — the viewer realises on their own that the shell
is going in the wrong direction. The difference: Glaser's rebus forces the sentence to
be SPOKEN; Fukuda's forces the image to be COMPLETED (flip, error, hidden figure) — both
hand the message to the viewer to perform, one through text, the other without text. v1's
phrase for this: "an idea you assemble yourself is an idea you keep".
Third author — Paul Rand: Eye-Bee-M 1981 (IBM) — eye + bee + the actual IBM mark with
8 stripes; the name must be spoken aloud to be read, and the third element of the rebus is
the untouched corporate mark (IBM.com: the rebus "humanises" the company). The difference
from Glaser: with Glaser the image replaces a VERB in a sentence, with Rand the images
replace LETTERS of the name — the rebus as identity, not as slogan.
Test: must the message be spoken aloud (even silently to oneself) in order to be
read, or is it read directly as finished text? If it must — the rebus is doing its job.
Bridge to my practice: identity and campaigns where the goal is for the audience to
REPEAT the message themselves (slogan, motto) — the rebus is a cheaper and stickier way
to achieve that than simply writing out the sentence.
Works carrying this principle (7)
smjer-citanja-kao-hijerarhija
What it is: rank among several texts set by orientation, not size: upright =
primary, rotated 90° = secondary, upside-down/mirrored = tertiary. Same typeface, same
size throughout — the hierarchy is free, it comes from turning the template.
By whom: Corita Kent (Sister Mary Corita) (for emergency use soft shoulder 1966 — blue upright,
yellow upside-down, SOFT SHOULDER at 90°; give the gang our best 1966 — slogan
at 90°, only NOW! upright).
Second author — Neville Brody (principle entered the shared index): The Face 37 (1983),
50 and 57 (1984–85) — the MASTHEAD rotated 90° along the left edge when the portrait is
upright, staying horizontal when the image has a strong horizontal (42, 49); The Crackdown
1983 — the band's name and title vertical along the photo's edge, same size. The difference:
Corita rotates VOICES within the image (three texts, three ranks), Brody rotates the
MAGAZINE'S NAME — the identity agrees to a lower rank so the face can be first; with him too,
rotated = secondary.
Test (Brody): turn the masthead back horizontal — do you get every other cover of that
year? If yes, the rotation was carrying the hierarchy.
Test: remove all differences in size — can you still read what comes first?
Bridge to my practice: a poster with multiple voices; in motion, rotation to 0° as an
entrance into rank, instead of scaling.
Works carrying this principle (6)
boja-cijepa-rijec
What it is: a colour change MID-WORD isolates a hidden second word within it —
the word stays whole, but reads as two at once (ASSASS|INATION → SIN, NATION).
By whom: Corita Kent (Sister Mary Corita) (american sampler 1969 — Frieze, explicitly).
Test: does the word contain another word within it that changes the meaning? If
not, the colour is just decoration.
Bridge to my practice: headline, logotype, kinetic typography — the cheapest
"double meaning" without a single additional element.
Works carrying this principle (1)
jedna-operacija-po-radu
What it is: the whole work is ONE verb applied to ONE found image —
enlarge, mirror, repeat, subtract, replace. Two operations on the same image
produce mush; one gives an argument.
By whom: Roman Cieślewicz (Ty i ja 1968 — enlarge the halftone; Dziady 1967 and
Zoom 1971 — mirror; Che si 1967 — subtract the eyes; Moda Polska 1959 —
replace the hat with a rose; Mona Lisa series — same image, one operation
per piece).
Second author — Jamie Reid (principle entered the shared index): Anarchy in
the U.K. 1976 — tear (flag, then the photograph of the repair); God Save the Queen
1977 — cover (one strip over the eyes, one over the mouth — the same operation twice);
Holidays in the Sun 1977 — caption (someone else's photograph untouched, text added).
The difference: Cieślewicz operates on a photograph to show that the image lies; Reid
operates on an OFFICIAL image to show who holds it.
Third author — Peter Saville: Unknown Pleasures 1979 — invert (white on black,
against the band's wishes; everything else is subtracted, not added); Power, Corruption
and Lies 1983 — add a code (image untouched, one column of code); Blue Monday 1983
— enlarge (floppy disk 13,3 → 30,5 cm, 1:1 geometry). The difference: Cieślewicz and
Reid operate to ATTACK the image; Saville operates to PRESERVE it — the operation is
minimal so the quotation isn't damaged.
Fourth author — Ikko Tanaka (田中一光): Japan's Choices 1973 — invert (a newspaper page
white on black, nothing added except the title). Same operation as Saville's UP, opposite
aim: Saville inverts against the band, Tanaka so the paper becomes night.
Fifth author — Shigeo Fukuda (福田繁雄): Victory 1945 — reverse direction (the shell back into
the barrel); Keio 1975 — repeat and reverse (one module, the gap becomes the other
pole); Happy Earthday 1982 — replace (the handle's tip → a sprout); Mt. Fuji 1976 —
add one foreign element (a stick on a hanafuda motif, UMMA). The difference from all
previous ones: Fukuda operates on a DRAWN object, not on a photograph or someone else's
image — so the operation must be physical (direction, function, orientation), not
print-based (halftone, cut, inversion). Three verbs for the whole body of work: reverse,
repeat, replace.
Sixth author — Barbara Kruger: Your body is a battleground 1989 — invert half (Broad:
the face "split in positive and negative exposures", the cut exactly at x = 50%);
You Invest in the Divinity 1982 — cover with strips (image untouched, five black strips).
The difference from Saville and Tanaka (who invert the WHOLE image): Kruger inverts HALF
so that the division itself becomes the argument — the operation doesn't change the image,
it splits it.
Test: can you name the operation with a single verb? If it needs two —
cut one.
Bridge to my practice: poster and thumbnail — verb before sketch; motion — one
parameter animated per frame (halftone radius, mirror axis), not three.
Works carrying this principle (12)
zrcaljenje-pravi-cudoviste
What it is: a photograph mirrored along a vertical axis that passes THROUGH an
organ (eye, mouth, wound), not through the centre of the format — this produces a being
symmetrical like an icon and impossible as an organism (a cyclops, a face of cracks).
Related to simetricna-os-drzi-haos (Tadanori Yokoo, Milton Glaser), but with the opposite aim:
there the axis organises a crowd, here the axis PRODUCES a figure out of a single image.
By whom: Roman Cieślewicz (Dziady 1967 — cracked earth mirrored into a bust; Zoom 1971
— cyclops; series Figury symetryczne 1971–74; Mona Lisa cyclops 1973).
Test: did mirroring produce something that existed on neither half (a third eye, a
face-seam)? If the result is only ornament — the axis was in the wrong place.
Bridge to my practice: poster — Reflect with the axis manually placed through the
content; motion — AE Mirror, Reflection Center animated from the edge to the eye.
Works carrying this principle (2)
boja-samo-na-rani
What it is: in black-and-white work the only saturated colour sits exactly at the point
of injury or emotion — colour is diagnosis, not decoration. Related to
ukrstanje-je-fokus (Max Huber): there focus is created by overlapping two colours,
here by PLACING a single one.
Seen in: Roman Cieślewicz (Więzień 1962 — red flame on the neck; Ksiądz
Marek 1963 — magenta halo on the crown of the head; Dziady 1967 — red rim of the hole in
the chest; Vertigo 1963 — coloured target on the forehead of the skull).
Test: cover the colour with your finger — can you still say where it "hurts"? If not,
the colour was carrying the composition; if yes, the colour was doing its job.
Application: all three; in motion the colour ignites on the wound in a single frame, without
a fade.
Works carrying this principle (3)
tekst-na-mjestu-pogleda
What it is: the word physically occupies the position of the eyes in a portrait, the same width as
the gaze — the face still "looks", but the gaze is replaced by a name/message.
Seen in: Roman Cieślewicz (Che si 1967 — »CHE« / SI instead of the eyes;
Fresnault-Deruelle: the absent gaze is exchanged for the name).
Second author — Jamie Reid (principle entered the shared index, with the reverse
outcome): God Save the Queen 1977 — a strip with the anthem's title exactly over the eyes,
another with the band's name over the mouth. In Cieślewicz the face still looks (name = gaze);
in Reid the strip is censorship — the gaze is cancelled. Same position, two opposite meanings:
replacement of the gaze / removal of the gaze. The test below holds for Cieślewicz's variant;
Reid's is recognised by the strip having an EDGE (a piece of paper), not by whether it looks.
Test: does the face without eyes still look at the viewer? If the text sits on
the forehead or mouth — it's not this principle.
Application: portrait poster, thumbnail with a face — word on the eyes, not below.
Works carrying this principle (2)
slovo-nosi-ideju
What it is: the word remains a word, but ONE of its letters is redrawn so that it carries
the meaning of the whole word — O becomes a womb, I carries a skier, 7 is also a 2. It's not
an icon next to the word, nor a word reduced to a sign (Paul Rand) — the letter is still
readable as a letter. The modification has to be meaningful; if it's purely
decorative, that's lettering, not this principle.
Seen in: Herb Lubalin (Mother & Child 1966 — & as a foetus in the O; Ski
Switzerland 1959 — a skier in the stem of the letter I; card 72/69 — ambigram;
Families — "dot the L", L-i-i as a family, according to Unit Editions).
Test: cover the redrawn letter — does the word still read? Reveal it —
does the idea show without reading? Both have to pass.
Application: logotype, title, thumbnail — write the word first, then read letter
by letter; Illustrator: Create Outlines, one letter is changed, the rest are left
untouched.
Works carrying this principle (3)
slova-se-dodiruju
What it is: negative letter spacing as a deliberate parameter of the headline — "tight-not-
touching" or past the limit, into contact and overlap — so the word gets a
BODY, a single mass, instead of a row of letters. Only possible with phototype (a letter without
a lead body). Body text stays set normally; contact is only for the headline.
Seen in: Herb Lubalin (Avant Garde no. 8 1969 — ligature and contact;
Mother & Child — letters touch so the O closes; Ebony 1968 — the headline
as a single blow; No More War — wood type set tight).
Test: shrink the headline to 10% — does it read as ONE shape? Enlarge it —
do the letters touch at points you CHOSE, or wherever it happened?
Application: poster and thumbnail — optical kerning then manual; motion — tracking
animated to the point of contact, and the contact is an event.
Works carrying this principle (4)
zid-teksta-kao-oblik
What it is: all secondary text (terms, jury, colophon, thirty quotes)
set into ONE justified block that has geometry — a rectangle that sits
under a large word or replaces it. The block is a shape in the composition, not "leftover".
Related to bijeli-prostor-kao-oblik, an inverted sign: there emptiness is drawn,
here density.
Second author — Ikko Tanaka (田中一光): Japan's Choices 1973 (Mainichi) — the whole format is
a newspaper page in negative, one large headline across the middle; the wall is FOUND (someone
else's finished setting), not composed. Difference: Lubalin sets his own text into a wall,
Tanaka takes a finished wall and inverts it.
Third author — Paula Scher: Noise/Funk Broadway 1996 — thirty quotes from reviews
set into a wall around a cut-out figure, by rotation and width, not alignment; National
Theatre 2013 (V&A) — just the name, fifteen letters, each to the edge of its own field — a wall
without secondary text. Difference: Lubalin justifies, Scher fills — her wall has
true edges because the FORMAT is the edge, not the column.
Seen in: Herb Lubalin (Fact 1964 — the whole cover one block of quotes;
No More War 1967 — three columns under WAR; Avant Garde no. 8 — headline and paragraph
as one wall; U&lc 1974 — three columns like a 19th-century newspaper).
Fourth author — Cipe Pineles (chronologically first): Charm, January 1954 (photo W. Helburn) —
the entire background is a wall of lines of narrow capitals, promise-phrases from the issue ("that makes no sound"),
in front of which stands a woman; Scotford: a "typography-dominated cover" that introduces a 14-page feature.
Difference: for her the wall isn't secondary text but the issue's CONTENT turned into a ground.
Test: blur the page — does the block read as a clear grey rectangle with
true edges? If the edges are ragged, that's text, not a wall.
Application: graphics and poster — colophon and small print as a compositional element;
motion — text block as mask/plane, not as a caption.
Works carrying this principle (10)
dizajner-pise-naslov
What it is: the designer writes (or writes with a copywriter) the headline BEFORE layout, because
the headline determines which letter/sign can carry the idea. Lubalin: "The most
intriguing thing about advertising is writing the headline" (Eye 75).
Related to Corita Kent (Sister Mary Corita) (text as raw material), but here the text isn't found but
written.
Seen in: Herb Lubalin (Ebony 1968 — headlines by Barclay + Lubalin: "Some of
our best friends are bigots"; Fact 1964 — the colon he added to the name).
Second author — Barbara Kruger (principle entered the shared index): the whole body of work — every
sentence is hers (Your gaze hits the side of my face 1981; I shop therefore I am 1987;
Your body is a battleground 1989; I hate myself and you love me for it, Esquire 1992);
Eye 5/1991: the phrase and the image arise "almost simultaneous", "I'm someone who works with
pictures and words". Difference: Lubalin writes the headline with a copywriter to SELL and so that one
letter can become an image; Kruger writes alone, in the form of an advertising slogan, to ACCUSE —
the letter stays a letter, the sentence carries everything. In both: a different headline = a different design.
Third author — Stefan Sagmeister: AIGA Detroit 1999 — "Style = Fart" cut into his own
skin; SVA 2004 — "Thinking that life will be better in the future is stupid. I have to live
now." from his own diary, letters made of twigs; the whole series Things I Have Learned (2004–08)
are his own sentences. Difference: Lubalin writes the headline so that ONE letter can become an image,
Kruger to accuse, Sagmeister so that the WHOLE sentence can be built from material
related to the subject — for him the headline also chooses the technique, not just the layout.
Test: would a different headline require a different design? If not — the headline and the design
weren't one job.
Application: all three; for YT — the episode title before the thumbnail, not after.
Works carrying this principle (5)
interpunkcija-kao-lik
What it is: a punctuation mark (colon, exclamation mark, ampersand) enlarged or
relocated so that it becomes a COMPOSITIONAL element or an identity device —
a colon that leads the eye into the content, an exclamation mark as a vertical post that holds
the right edge. Cheaper than any drawn mark and it carries through every application.
Seen in: Herb Lubalin (fact: 1964 — the colon isn't part of the name, added as an
entry point; No More War 1967 — ! as a black bar with the logotype in the dot; Mother & Child
— & as a foetus).
Test: remove the mark — does the composition lose its axis or entry point? If not — it was
decoration.
Application: identity (LØADERRØR — is there a mark that works as an "entry"?);
motion — punctuation as a wipe that stays as an element.
Works carrying this principle (2)
detournement-zvanicne-slike
What it is: an image that the STATE (or an institution) itself produced and distributed —
an official portrait, flag, anthem, stamp — taken literally as material and subjected to
one operation, so that the source's authority stays visible and works AGAINST the source.
Difference from slogan-u-novom-kontekstu (there text, here image) and from
istorijski-citat-kao-gradivni-materijal (there distant history, here today's
power). Situationist détournement in the strict sense.
Seen in: Jamie Reid (God Save the Queen 1977 — Grugeon's official jubilee
portrait + the oval of a stamp/coin + Union Jack; Anarchy in the U.K. 1976 — a torn
flag joined with safety pins; he draws nothing himself).
Second author — Barbara Kruger (principle entered the shared index): Untitled (You Invest in
the Divinity of the Masterpiece) 1982 (MoMA 79334) — Michelangelo's fingers from the Sistine
ceiling, the most official image of the institution (Church + art history), untouched, five black
bars OVER it; MoMA: "you" draws the viewer into "continuing the patriarchal narratives
of religion and art history". Difference: Reid takes the image of the STATE (crown, flag) and
tears it up; Kruger takes the image of the CANON (museum, church) and doesn't touch it — the operation is external
(the bars), the authority stays intact so it can work against itself. Institution instead of state.
Test: would the work lose its power if the image had been drawn instead of appropriated? If yes —
this is the principle; if not — the image was illustration.
Application: satire (YT gaming) — official key art, the ESRB rating, the Steam badge as
material; poster — an official form/stamp as the ground.
Works carrying this principle (3)
nadjeno-slovo-nosi-porijeklo
What it is: every letter is a different physical object (different source, typeface/cut, paper, angle) and carries the meaning of its origin BEFORE it is read — newspaper letters say "ransom, anonymity, threat". Identity is a PROCESS (cut it again), not a typeface.
Difference from slovo-nosi-ideju (Herb Lubalin): there the letter is drawn to become an image; here the letter is found and remains an object.
Found in: Jamie Reid (SeX PiSTOLS logo 1976; GSTQ 1977 strips; NMTB 1977 strip).
Test: do the same letters repeat identically? If yes — that's a font, not a principle.
Application: headline/thumbnail — print from three sources, cut with scissors, scan 1-bit, enlarge 3×; MOHO — every letter its own layer with its own pivot.
Works carrying this principle (2)
postupak-citljiv-kao-poziv
What it is: the work shows ITS OWN process so clearly that the audience sees it could do it too — and that is the message. The cut edge, the pencil line of the cut, the copy grain stay visible not as style but as instructions. Eye: DIY graphics that "became universal".
Found in: Jamie Reid (Pretty Vacant artwork 1977 — palm-sized collage with the cut pencilled in; Never Mind the Sex Pistols 1977–79 — the same template with different text).
Test: can the viewer reconstruct from the work alone how it was made, without a tutorial? If not — the process is hidden, the work is "professional", the principle doesn't apply.
Application: YT — a thumbnail that visibly shows "anyone could do this" draws a community; motion — leave the cut edge and the copy grain, don't clean it up.
Works carrying this principle (2)
namjerna-ruznoca-kao-napad
What it is: ugliness chosen as an ARGUMENT against the dominant taste of the context (McLaren on NMTB: "attack the idea of super-graphics") — it must be total (colour, typeface, layout), otherwise it looks like a mistake. Ugliness is measured against the ENVIRONMENT (the 1977 shop window), not absolutely — so it dates the moment the environment changes.
Found in: Jamie Reid (Never Mind the Bollocks 1977 — fluorescent yellow + pink of the same brightness, layout like a clearance-sale ad, strip set at an angle).
Second author — David Carson (principle entered the shared index): Ray Gun no. 1, 1992 (PGDA 22718) — scratches, stains, a black scrawl across a face, masthead set in mixed capitals/lowercase, a typewriter-set list; the editorial "Raw by choice" — ugliness declared as programme. Difference: Reid attacks the TASTE of the environment (super-graphics, 1977) and that is politics; Carson attacks the SMOOTHNESS of desktop printing in 1992 (everything the Mac had just made possible to make clean) and that is style — so it dated the moment smoothness stopped being the norm (Shaughnessy, Eye 99). Shared ground: total (colour, typeface, layout), not half.
Test: does the work offend the TASTE of the environment it's going into, or just you today? And: is EVERYTHING ugly, or half of it?
Application: thumbnail — look at ten neighbours in the feed, then pick the one that sits worst in that row; don't confuse this with bad craft.
Works carrying this principle (1)
dizajniraj-za-boju-ne-za-skicu
What it is: decide what goes into the press before you draw. A printer's idea, not a draughtsman's.
Found in: Max Huber, Josef Müller-Brockmann.
Works carrying this principle (1)
visestruki-registar-kao-potpis
What it is: the designer changes the ENTIRE visual system (technique, palette, compositional principle) to fit the content of each individual job, instead of applying one recognisable "signature" style to everything — consistency isn't in the look but in the decision to choose the look deliberately, every time anew.
Found in: Tadanori Yokoo (psychedelic collage for the 1965 self-portrait; pop-art halftone for the 1974 Graphis cover; art nouveau silhouette for Terayama's 1968 play; expressive painterly texture for Miyake's 1988/89 invitation — four different systems in one body of work, sometimes in the same year); Milton Glaser (six different visual systems across eight analysed works — Duchamp/art nouveau collage for Dylan, halftone illustration for WOR-FM, symmetrical photomontage for Mahalia Jackson, rebus typography for I Love NY, geometric logo for Bearsville, art nouveau/secession citation for Montreux — second confirmed author, principle entered the shared index).
Test: do you recognise the AUTHOR through completely different visual systems, or do you only recognise one system that keeps repeating? If the answer is the former — the signature is in the decision, not in the look.
Application: graphic design — before sketching, ask which EXISTING visual language (not your usual one) best carries this particular content, and borrow it openly.
Difference Yokoo/Glaser: Yokoo holds several registers SIMULTANEOUSLY within one work (collage, a clash of registers within the same composition); Glaser changes register IN SEQUENCE, project by project — each time resolved fully in one language, not collaged with others within the same composition.
varijabla-do-otkaza
What it is: the work is the outcome of an EXPERIMENT, not a sketch: declare one parameter (spacing, angle of the setting, photocopy generation, screen density), push it until the work stops working, and keep the step before failure. Results are published as a series, with the declared variable stated.
Related to citljivost-na-granici, but here the emphasis is on the METHOD (one variable, controlled), not on the outcome.
Found in: Wolfgang Weingart (Typographic Process Nr 2 "From Simple to Complex" 1973 — panels with one changed variable per panel; Nr 5 — spacing; TM 12/1976 — photocopy generation; his line about students who copy the surface and miss the method, Eye 4/1991).
Second author — Neville Brody (principle entered the shared index): FF Blur 1992 (MoMA 1064.2010) — one variable (edge blur, "degenerated through copying and recopying" per MoMA), three steps frozen as three cuts, Light/Medium/Bold; a fourth step would have merged the letters — the step before failure was kept. Difference: Weingart publishes the WHOLE series of steps as teaching evidence (Typographic Process), Brody keeps three and SELLS them as a typeface — the variable becomes a product, the method can't be seen from the product (which is exactly what Weingart blames students for).
Third author — Paula Scher: National Theatre 2013 (V&A S.622‑2016) — the variable is the WIDTH of the letter, pushed until the letter fills a 3 × 5 field: A loses its crossbar, O becomes a disc with a dot, T takes over the whole field — one step before the letter stops being a letter. The same variable in a milder form carries the whole Public Theater (widths "varied violently", v1).
Difference: Weingart publishes a series of steps, Brody sells three, Scher keeps ONE step per letter and publishes it as a poster — the variable is read across fifteen different solutions in the same format.
Test: can you say WHICH variable it is and HOW FAR it's pushed? If the work looks like Weingart but the answer is "I don't know" — the surface has been copied.
Application: a series of thumbnails with one changed parameter; AE — one slider (tracking, rotation, posterize) animated across the whole range, then the frame is picked from the render before the failure point.
Works carrying this principle (4)
moare-je-namjeran-sloj
What it is: two screens at different angles, one over the other, produce a third tone and depth that neither has alone — moiré isn't a printing fault but a planned layer; tone is chosen by screen density and angle, not by pigment. Difference from registar-kao-slika: there it's a plate shift, here it's the interference of two screens.
Found in: Wolfgang Weingart (Kunstkredit 1976/77 — one colour, four tones from the screen alone; Das Schweizer Plakat 1984 — diagonal screen stripes over screened clouds; LACMA: "lithographic half-tone dot and overlapping moiré patterns — as graphic elements"; Eye on Design: film layers "inches high" on the light table).
Test: remove one screen — does the tone carrying the hierarchy disappear? If it stays the same, the moiré was texture, not a layer.
Application: Illustrator — two halftone patterns of the same motif, one rotated 15°, Multiply; AE — two screen layers, only one rotates, the moiré changes over time.
Works carrying this principle (4)
stepenasti-tekst-kao-oblik
What it is: a block of text or type shifted line by line by the same step until it becomes a geometric shape (staircase, pyramid, diagonal) — type as building material, not as a sentence. Letterform Archive: "stepped text blocks intersected by bold rectilinear shapes".
Found in: Wolfgang Weingart (TM covers 1972–73; Typographic Process Nr 5 — two staircases of line-set type like the Alps between Zürich and Como).
Test: can the block be read BOTH as shape AND as text? If only one — it's either a paragraph or an illustration.
Application: AE — Position X = index × step on the text layers, animate the step from 0 to 40; poster — paragraph as silhouette.
Works carrying this principle (2)
oduzimanje-kao-autorstvo
What it is: the authorial act is REMOVING what convention demands (name, title, number,
logo) from a found image that is left untouched — the object becomes an artefact instead of a product
and pushes the buyer into a relationship. It only works when what remains has its own weight; otherwise it is
empty. Difference from jedna-slika-jedna-rijec: there it's reduced TO one word, here
even that is stripped away; from jedna-operacija-po-radu: there the verb acts on the image, here the verb
acts on the CONVENTION.
Who does it: Peter Saville (Unknown Pleasures 1979 — neither name nor title, permission sought;
Power, Corruption and Lies 1983 — V&A: „wilfully omitted type“; Blue Monday 1983 —
all text converted into code; OMD 1980 — name only as a sticker).
Second author — Ikko Tanaka (田中一光) (principle entered the shared index): Muji 1980 (with
Koike and Sugimoto) — logo stripped from the PRODUCT, kraft paper, cellophane, red lettering,
slogan „Lower priced for a reason“; the identity is what has been removed; Muji Aoyama c.
2001 — „愛は飾らない“ (Love does not need decoration) as a programme in one sentence. The proof is the
programme, not one poster. Difference: Saville removes the name so the object becomes an artefact for the
INITIATED; Tanaka removes the brand so the object becomes goods for EVERYONE — same operation,
opposite audience. Shared condition: the rule must be absolute, one exception and it
reverts to an ordinary brand.
Third author — David Carson: Ray Gun 26, May 1995 — top third photographs +
masthead, bottom two thirds EMPTY cream paper with a barcode and one pencil scribble;
Emigre 27, 1993 (MoMA 205.2006.27) — the cover of the issue about him is one
grainy black mass with the name tiny at the edge. Difference: Saville removes the NAME and leaves the image;
Carson removes the IMAGE (two thirds of the format) and leaves the name — the only one of the three where
subtraction only works in a SERIES (after 25 full covers), not on a single object.
Fourth author — Irma Boom: the verb acts on the convention of the BOOK, not on the image — SHV Think
Book 1996 (MoMA 899.2007): page numbers abolished, no contents or index, 2,136 pp. without
navigation; N° 5 Culture Chanel 2013 (Boijmans V 2887): INK abolished, the whole book in blind
embossing; Rijks Museum 2013 (DBVB): no logo, no image, the word cut off by the edge. Difference from
the other three: they subtract from a found IMAGE (name, image); she subtracts the instrument from the OBJECT
(pagination, colour) — the object stays full, it simply can no longer be used as before.
Test: strip the title — does the object become STRONGER or just emptier? Stronger → the principle
works; emptier → the image wasn't chosen, it was just subtracted from.
Application: poster/thumbnail — a version without a single letter as a mandatory step before
delivery; AE — reveal in reverse: elements disappear cut by cut until only the image remains.
Works carrying this principle (11)
sifra-umjesto-teksta
What it is: mandatory information (title, number, name) EXISTS on the piece, but coded
(colour, position, object) so that only someone with the key can read it — and the key is on another
product from the same house. Related to dva-rastojanja-citanja (Corita Kent (Sister Mary Corita), Herb Lubalin),
but the condition for the second message isn't PROXIMITY but OWNERSHIP of the key. Without the key it is decoration.
Who does it: Peter Saville (Power, Corruption and Lies 1983 — a stub of six squares
= FACT 75, key on the reverse; Blue Monday 1983 — strip of code along the edge = FAC 73 BLUE
MONDAY AND THE BEACH NEW ORDER; Section 25 From the Hip 1984 — code on stiles in a landscape).
Second author — David Carson (principle entered the shared index): National Theatre 2013
(V&A S.86-2016) — the word NATIONAL exists on the poster as coloured shapes („multicoloured
shapes which form the letters“, V&A), but without the key it doesn't assemble; the key is the TITLE in the
catalogue / on the wall. Difference: Saville encodes the catalogue number and gives the key on another
product from the same house; Carson encodes only the client's name and the key is the exhibition context —
code without ownership. Counterexample by the same author: Bryan Ferry in Zapf Dingbats
(Ray Gun 1994) — text coded, key does NOT EXIST → by the test below this is a gesture, not a code.
Test: does the key exist, and where? If the key isn't published anywhere — it's a pattern, not
a code.
Application: a series (thumbnails, sleeves) — its own colour ↔ letter table, key on the
website once; AE — decoding as animation (letters appear beneath the squares).
Works carrying this principle (3)
raskorak-slike-i-sadrzaja
What it is: an image deliberately taken from a register the content does NOT belong to (painting
1890 for synthetic pop, a tomb for an LP, a futurist poster for post-punk) and
left untouched — the message arises in the gap between the borrowed image and what's
inside, not in the image itself. V&A on PCL: „a sedate image which conflicts with the
unsettling title and the austere modernity of the music“. Difference from
istorijski-citat-kao-gradivni-materijal: there quotations are MERGED into something new; here a
single quotation is left alone so the gap remains visible.
Who does it: Peter Saville (Power, Corruption and Lies 1983; Closer 1980 — „the
graphics are purely historical, but the totality is a modern mix“; Movement 1981;
Fine Time 1989 — antiqua for acid-house).
Test: replace the image with one that "fits" the content — does the piece become dull? If
yes, the mismatch was carrying the message.
Application: a poster for content X — an image from the wrong register + one line of
classical type, small; do NOT soften the seam with typography.
Works carrying this principle (5)
podloga-nosi-polovinu
What it is: the material and finishing of the carrier (textured card, die-cut,
silver inner sleeve, rice paper, metal) is half the design and is written into the spec sheet,
not the file; colour is achieved through the CUT through another layer, not through pigment. The reverse of
jeftina-tehnika-kao-jezik: there poverty of means is the language, here excess
of means — but both speak through MATERIAL before image.
Who does it: Peter Saville (Unknown Pleasures 1979 — textured card; A Factory
Sample 1978 — rice paper + silver + bag; OMD 1980 — die-cut, orange through
holes; Blue Monday 1983 — die-cut + silver inner sleeve; Brotherhood 1986 —
titanium-zinc).
Test: remove the finish (cut, texture) and leave the same image printed flat — did half the
piece remain? If everything remained, the carrier was decoration.
Application: print — CutContour and card type as the first decision, not the last;
motion — the object as a mask (Track Matte) through which the content is seen.
Works carrying this principle (4)
lice-iz-modula
What it is: a face built exclusively from modules on a grid (rectangle, circle,
triangle by strip), with no outline — the expression arises from the POSITION of the modules, not from drawing. It only works
when the original face already carries coded make-up/mask (maiko, Noh, Sharaku) that the audience
recognises from three modules. Difference from jedan-primitiv-za-sve: there the constraint is
ONE shape, here it's the GRID.
Who does it: Ikko Tanaka (田中一光) (Nihon Buyo 1981 — three strips, face in the middle one; Communication
& Print 1991 — no grid, three dots = eyes and mouth, Cooper Hewitt).
Test: shift one module by one grid step — does the EXPRESSION change? If
only the layout changes, it's a diagram, not a face.
Application: thumbnail/character — a face of 8–10 shape layers on a grid; AE — the
expression as a snap Position of one module (Hold keyframe), never morph.
Works carrying this principle (1)
jedan-preliv-u-ravnom-polju
What it is: all planes are flat, exactly ONE spot has a gradient (airbrush, halftone
transition) — that's where the skin, the life is, and that's where the eye stops. Two gradients cancel the hierarchy.
The opposite of ravna-boja-na-daljinu at a single point: flatness is the rule, the gradient is the
accent.
Who does it: Ikko Tanaka (田中一光) (Nihon Buyo 1981 — pink cheeks and eyelids, everything else
flat; JAPAN 1986 — the soft edge of a deer on a flat orange, like tarashikomi).
Test: turn the gradient into a flat plane — does the piece become a diagram? If so, the gradient
was carrying the hierarchy. Count the gradients: > 1 → not the principle.
Application: Illustrator — Feather/Gradient Mesh on one shape; AE — one Ramp
or one Gaussian Blur layer, everything else hard edge.
Works carrying this principle (2)
podatak-kao-ornament
What it is: mandatory secondary content (programme, schedule, names, prices — 30+
items) arranged as ORNAMENT (multicoloured little squares, circles, strips) in colours that don't
appear elsewhere on the format; five metres of fabric, with half a metre of information.
Related to dva-rastojanja-citanja, but the second message isn't hidden but RE-DRESSED;
related to zid-teksta-kao-oblik, but with the opposite sign: there density into one block, here
scattered into a pattern.
Who does it: Ikko Tanaka (田中一光) (Kanze Noh 1981 — play titles in multicoloured
rectangles around the mask; 16th Sankei Kanze Noh 1969 — characters in multicoloured
circles on black, UMMA).
Test: remove the text from the ornament — does the pattern still stand on its own? And conversely:
can it be read from half a metre away?
Application: a festival/programme poster — the layout as a pattern instead of a table; motion
— the programme „falls“ like confetti and only lines up into rows at the end.
Works carrying this principle (1)
jedan-primitiv-za-sve
What it is: the whole image made of ONE geometric primitive (only circles,
only triangles); the only parameters are size, position and stacking order — and
that becomes the entire expression. The constraint is announced (in the title). An
exception for one other device (an eye-line) is allowed only if the image doesn't
read without it.
Who does it: Ikko Tanaka (田中一光) (Sharaku 1995 — „composed from Nine Circles“ in the
title; Hanae Mori 1977 — a butterfly made of four triangles).
Second author — Shigeo Fukuda (福田繁雄) (principle entered the shared index): No More 1968 —
one line-bomb, one size, tens of thousands of times; the skull emerges ONLY from
density; Keio 1975 — one leg-shape six times, and the gap is the other object;
Kyogen 1981 — the whole body (sleeve, face, foot) from one unbroken white stroke.
Difference: Tanaka's primitive is GEOMETRIC (circle, triangle) and the parameter is
overlap; Fukuda's primitive is an OBJECT (bomb, leg, stroke) and the parameter is
density or spacing. With Tanaka the constraint is announced in the title; with
Fukuda it isn't — the viewer discovers it from half a metre away.
Third author — Giovanni Pintori: Olivetti 1949 (MoMA 5839) — the whole format made of
DIGITS, parameters size, typeface and colour; Tetractys 1956 — only an arrow (size,
colour, direction); Summa Prima 20 — one string „1234567890“ wound into a spiral.
Difference: Tanaka's primitive is geometry, Fukuda's is an object, Pintori's is a
SIGN off the product's keyboard (digit, arrow) — the primitive is already content.
Test: count the TYPES of shape. Two → not the principle. Also: change the
overlap order of two shapes — does the image change meaningfully? If not, the
overlap wasn't doing any work.
Application: Illustrator — Ellipse tool and nothing else, 45 min; AE — Z-order
as the only animation (the face appears when the fan comes to the front).
Works carrying this principle (7)
lice-izranja-iz-crne
What it is: the ground is black, the face exists only where there's colour
(eye, lips, brow, collar); no outline, no tone — the fragment reads as a whole face
because the shot is familiar (Sharaku's mie). Related to Armin Hofmann's facial
fragment (Stadttheater), but Hofmann's fragment comes from tone in the photograph,
here it comes EXCLUSIVELY from flat colour; and to Roman Cieślewicz's
boja-samo-na-rani — here the colour is only on the make-up.
Who does it: Ikko Tanaka (田中一光) (3rd International Print Biennale Tokyo 1962 —
cyan eye, red-orange brow, purple lips, ochre kimono, everything else black).
Test: remove the black ground (put white instead) — does the face fall apart
into blotches? If yes, black was carrying the outline.
Application: thumbnail — a figure in the dark, colour on only two or three
details; AE — the frame black, the facial elements as separate coloured layers with
a soft Track Matte, never the whole face.
Works carrying this principle (1)
identitet-je-ponasanje-ne-znak
What it is: a publication or brand is recognised by HOW it behaves (the
masthead rotates, changes colour, position, size; one constant geometric plug in
the corner), not by a fixed mark in a fixed place. The style guide is a list of
allowed behaviours, not a logo construction. The opposite of
identitet-je-prirucnik (Lester Beall, Massimo Vignelli): there the rule freezes, here the
rule permits. Related to Wim Crouwel Stedelijk (v1), not verified.
Who does it: Neville Brody (The Face 1983–85 — masthead vertical and black on
issue 37 and 57, vertical and red on issue 50, horizontal on issue 42 and 49; a
diagonally split square in the top left corner on all five); Brody 1987: „If a page
element existed just as taste or style, it could be abandoned“).
Second author — Paula Scher (principle entered the shared index): Public
Theater 1994–2008 — no fixed lockup; the rule is a behaviour of the setting:
capitals set in wood grotesque in multiple widths, fill the field, rotate when it
doesn't fit, two-three colours, the logotype upright in the corner (season 95–96
MoMA 1543.2000; Diva, Him, Some People 1994; Noise/Funk 1996). Her sentence (Fonts
In Use 2197): „designed to be flexible, because we knew it would need to be handled
by individual designers over the years“; Pentagram: the whole city theatre campaign
took over the behaviour. Difference: Brody rotates the MASTHEAD (the mark yields
rank to something else), Scher rotates the HEADLINES, and the logotype is the only
constant of the place — the behaviour is in the content, the mark stays still.
Third author — Stefan Sagmeister: Casa da Música 2007 — the mark (the building's
polyhedron) rotates and is recoloured from application to application, „like a
chameleon“ (himself), while the lettering „casa da música“ in the same typeface
stays right, at the same height, always. Difference: Brody rotates the masthead in
a fixed cut, Scher rotates the headlines while the mark stays still, Sagmeister
rotates THE MARK ITSELF while the typeface stays still — a third arrangement of the
same rule: the behaviour is in the mark, the constant is in the typography.
Test: rotate the mark 90°, change its colour and position — is it still
recognisable? If not, the identity was in the mark. And the reverse: if it's
recognisable ONLY by the mark, there's no behaviour.
Application: LØADERRØR — a list of allowed behaviours instead of a logo-sheet;
YT — a channel-mark that changes position per episode, one constant plug.
Works carrying this principle (8)
nacrtaj-pismo-za-jedan-posao
What it is: a headline of 6–12 letters drawn for THAT job, at that size, from
two or three primitives (bar, wedge, arc), instead of chosen from a catalogue; the
rest of the text in one ordinary typeface. The typeface carries the theme (electro →
machine) and lasts one issue. Difference from nadjeno-slovo-nosi-porijeklo
(Jamie Reid): there the letter is found, here it's drawn; from slovo-nosi-ideju
(Herb Lubalin): there one letter of a catalogue typeface is reworked, here all
letters are new.
Who does it: Neville Brody (The Face 49 „Electro“ 1984 — seven letters from bar and
wedge, E and C opened by a diagonal; The Pope's Wedding / Saved 1984 — condensed
capitals with a rough edge; Typeface One–Six 1979–86 per the 1988 monograph).
Test: is any letter of the headline from a catalogue? Also: would a different
headline in the same issue call for a different typeface? If not — it's a font, not
a principle.
Application: poster and thumbnail — 45 min in Illustrator, only Rectangle + Pen
at 0/45/90°; motion — drawn letters as shape layers, the construction is animated
(bar then wedge), not opacity.
Works carrying this principle (2)
znak-umjesto-slova
What it is: exactly ONE letter in a word replaced by a mark (slash, plus,
circle, number) — the word still reads, the eye catches; or the mark replaces
punctuation/a word in the system (a small square instead of a comma, a numbered
circle instead of „premiere“). The mark is furniture of the page, not an
illustration. Related to interpunkcija-kao-lik (Herb Lubalin), but there the mark
grows into a figure, here it stays small and systemic.
Who does it: Neville Brody (The Face 42, 1983 — HIDD/N, M/X, EXCLUS/VE; The Face
49 — a small square as a comma, a plus in a circle as a support; The Face 37 — an
asterisk as the link between the line and the name; The Face 57 — a mark in a
circle as a counterweight; Royal Court 1984 — circles 1, 2, 1+2 as the date
layout).
Test: cover the mark — does the word still read? Reveal it — does it mean
something (mask, tempo, counting)? Replace TWO letters — does it fall apart? If
yes, the principle is „one“.
Application: episode title — one letter from an interface element (icon,
button); poster — dates as numbered circles, not a table.
Works carrying this principle (6)
razmak-usporava-citanje
What it is: one line per format spaced ≥ 1 em (the gap wider than the letters
themselves) — the line reads SLOWER and becomes a band/frame instead of a
sentence; Smashing (per Wozencroft): „widely spaced letters… deliberate reading
pace slowing“. Difference from citljivost-na-granici in Wolfgang Weingart (spacing up
to +200 until the word becomes a shape): Brody stops well before that — the word
stays a word, only the tempo changes; the reverse of slova-se-dodiruju
(Herb Lubalin).
Who does it: Neville Brody (The Face 42 — BODY AND SOUL; 50 — ISSUE; 57 — WRIT
LARGE; The Genius 1983 — THE GENIUS, ROYAL COURT THEATRE; The Pope's Wedding 1984 —
EDWARD BOND; The Crackdown 1983 — a vertical setting along the edge).
Second author — Barbara Kruger (principle entered the shared index): Untitled
(not) 1985 (MoMA 59853) — the only word on the format, three small yellow letters
spaced ≈ 4 em apart below crossed hands; Untitled (No Radio) 1988 (SFMOMA) — two red
words spaced ≈ 3 em apart directly on the photograph, without a caption, in the
headline's place. Difference: Brody spreads a SECONDARY line as a breath before the
headline (the magazine's tempo); Kruger spreads the ONLY word to make it the
quietest element of the format — an exhale after the image, a label on an object
instead of a slogan. For both, the word stays a word (doesn't become a shape as
with Weingart).
Test: count the spaced-out lines on the format — more than one → the tempo is
lost. Also: read it aloud — does it take longer than the same line set normally?
Application: poster — subtitle or house name, once; motion — tracking
animated from 0 to +400 over 12 frames then hold, like a „breath“ before the
headline.
Works carrying this principle (7)
hibridna-slika-po-rezoluciji
What it is: one composition made of elements of DIFFERENT RESOLUTION and origin —
video-still (dither), bitmap 72 dpi enlarged, photograph (continuous), 3-D render,
flat plane — and the difference in resolution is not equalised, it IS the plan of the image: every
layer is recognised by grain before it's recognised by content. Greiman 1990: „hybrid imagery“.
Difference from visestruki-registar-kao-potpis (Tadanori Yokoo): there the registers are
STYLES (collage, halftone, Art Nouveau), here they are recording/printing TECHNIQUES; from
zrno-i-zamucenje-kao-oblik: there one grain as form, here several grains as depth.
Who used it: April Greiman (Sci-Arc 1986 — dither sky + bitmap Vitruvian Man +
sharp photograph in the middle; Workspace 1987 — 3-D render + video-still + photo +
dither plane; DQ 133 — MacVision video + MacPaint + Mac text; Snow White 1986 —
bitmap serif + halftone + video-still; CalArts 1978 — photos of the hall + colour portraits).
Test: count the resolutions on the format — one → not a principle. Also: equalise them
(vectorise, sharpen) — does the depth disappear? If it stays the same, the difference wasn't doing the work.
Application: LØADERRØR and thumbnail — every element with its own dpi (logo 16 px
enlarged with Nearest Neighbor, photo full-res, text vector); AE — Preserve Resolution when
Scaling / Draft on the bitmap layer, camera parallax reveals resolution as depth.
Works carrying this principle (6)
lebdeca-ploha-baca-sjenu
What it is: depth on a flat sheet without perspective: a rectangle (photograph,
plane) floats above another plane, and ONE element steps out of it and casts a shadow on
the paper — this makes the whole image become an object in the viewer's space. There is one shadow, on
one element; two shadows are a furniture catalogue. Difference from
providni-sloj-kao-dubina: there depth through transparency, here through shadow and stepping out.
Who used it: April Greiman (Olympics 1982 with Odgers, V&A O140223 — legs emerge from
the blue square of sky, the foot lands on white and casts a shadow; CalArts 1978 — objects
cast soft shadows on the hall floor; Workspace 1987 — 3-D chair and green plane with
offset). Kutztown also lists Iris Light 1984 (yellow foot with shadow) — not documented.
Test: remove the shadow — does the element go back INTO the image? If so, the shadow was carrying
the space. Count the shadows — more than one → not a principle.
Application: poster — Drop Shadow on only one element, offset 3–4 % of the format;
AE — one layer with Shadow, the rest without, camera parallaxes gently.
Works carrying this principle (3)
tekst-je-predmet-u-prostoru
What it is: the word is not set like a heading (horizontal, at the top) but placed into
the space of the image as an OBJECT: at an angle, upright, mirrored, doubled, stretched —
and without rank (three words, three directions, same rank). Her sentence: „Why people
didn't put typography on the diagonal, I could never figure out“ (AIGA 2019).
Difference from smjer-citanja-kao-hijerarhija (Corita Kent (Sister Mary Corita), Neville Brody): there
rotation = rank; here rotation = position in space, rank doesn't exist; from
strelica-i-dijagonala-kao-kretanje: for her the diagonal is SPACE, not movement.
Who used it: April Greiman (Your Turn, My Turn 1983 — title at 10°, doubled
cyan/magenta, mirrored; Workspace 1987 — OPPORTUNITY diagonal, CONFLICT
upright, SURVIVAL next to the chair leg and mirrored; Pacific Wave 1987 — „Pacific“
stepped, torn apart, „1987“ at the bottom).
Test: rotate the word horizontal and put it at the top — did the RANK change, or
only the place? If only the place, the word was an object. Also: does it read from five metres? It doesn't
have to — but then the image must.
Application: poster — one word as an object with its own Z (rotation 8–12°,
doubled); AE — text as a 3D layer with Position Z, not as a caption on 2D.
Works carrying this principle (3)
format-je-prva-odluka
What it is: before the sketch, the PHYSICAL FORMAT of the artefact changes — a magazine becomes a poster
of 2 m in a jacket, a poster gets glasses, one sheet is cut into three posters or
stands whole — because a new tool or a new theme first change what the object IS, and only
then how it looks. Difference from artefakt-nosi-distribuciju (Emory Douglas):
there the format serves distribution, here the format IS the message; from podloga-nosi-polovinu
(Peter Saville): there it's material, here it's geometry and assembly.
Who used it: April Greiman (DQ 133 1986 — 32 pages → double-sided poster 25.5 × 76.5
in, Walker: „reinvent the format of the magazine itself“; Your Turn, My Turn 1983
— poster + 3-D glasses she made herself, Cooper Hewitt; SCI-Arc 1994 — Eye:
double-sided, „trimmed horizontally into three separate posters or displayed intact“;
CalArts 1978 — „poster or folder“ 28 × 117 cm, V&A).
Test: can the same content be delivered in a standard format without loss?
If it can — the format wasn't a decision. If the format was chosen AFTER the sketch — it isn't
a principle.
Another author — Irma Boom (principle entered into the shared index): The Architecture of the
Book 2013 (DBVB; MoMA 784.2014) — the SAME content of 800 pp. in two extremes, mini 43 × 55 × 28 mm
(5.500) and XXL 345 × 450 × 58 mm (150), jury: „the tiny clarifies the relationship between book
and postage stamp, the megalarge that between book and poster“; SHV Think Book 1996 — 2.136
pp. as a 3,5 kg brick, without pagination; N° 5 Culture Chanel 2013 — thickness 5 cm = the number 5.
Method: mock-ups before design, „I build the design in the book, not on the computer screen“
(Designers & Books). Difference from Greiman: she changes the format so a magazine becomes a POSTER
(a different genre); Boom stays within the book, but derives the block's dimensions from the content or from a number in the theme —
format as ARGUMENT, not as genre.
Application: LØADERRØR — the site as one long folded poster, not a grid of cards;
print — CutContour/folding as the first item in the brief, before a single sketch.
Works carrying this principle (3)
zamjenica-bez-antecedenta
What it is: the sentence on the piece begins with a pronoun (you / I / we / your / my) that is nowhere
on the format told who it refers to — so the viewer has to decide alone whether they are
the addressee, the speaker, or included. An ad makes the same move to position „you“ (the buyer);
here the same move is left unresolved. Kemper: pronouns create „polarity, a relationship of
protagonist / antagonist“ and shift the viewer from their place; MoMA: „you“ implicates the viewer.
Difference from rebus-tjera-na-izvodjenje (Milton Glaser): there the viewer SAYS „I“ and
adopts the message; here they don't know if „I“ is them — the message can be neither adopted nor rejected.
Who used it: Barbara Kruger (Your gaze hits the side of my face 1981 — „you“ = the male
observer, Smarthistory; You Invest in the Divinity 1982 — „you“ = the buyer of the canon, MoMA;
I shop therefore I am 1987 — „I“ = the hand? you?; We don't need another hero 1987 — „we“
draws the viewer into refusal; Your body is a battleground 1989 — „you“ = a woman, the same
word, a different audience; Esquire 1992 — „I“ = Stern/her/the reader).
Test: replace the pronoun with a name („Howard hates himself“) — does the piece turn into
a caption under an image? If so, the pronoun was carrying the piece. Also: can you say WHO is speaking? If
you can — it isn't a principle.
Application: episode title / thumbnail — second person without a name („You paid for this“);
poster — never the company name in the sentence, only „we“.
Works carrying this principle (6)
etiketa-preko-slike
What it is: the text is NOT set into the image but stuck ONTO it like a price tag:
a rectangle the width of the word (not a column), a solid fill, a sharp edge, no integration with
the tone of the image — the seam is visible and it is the message („this is someone else's image, I am labelling it“).
The label never sits on the eyes — the face must be looking for the address to work. Difference from
tekst-na-mjestu-pogleda (Roman Cieślewicz, Jamie Reid): there the text replaces or
cancels the gaze, here it BYPASSES it; from Reid's tape: the edge of Reid's tape is torn
paper, Kruger's is typeset — a professional label, not a collage.
Who used it: Barbara Kruger (Your gaze 1981 — seven white labels the width of the word, in a
column; I shop 1987 — a label like a card IN the hand, red on white; Your body 1989 —
three red labels, three widths, „is a“ narrow so as not to cover the eyes; Esquire 1992 — three
labels stepped, „hate“ over the mouth, eyes free).
Test: cover the eyes of the face — does the sentence still work? If so, the label wasn't on
the face but on the image. Also: measure the width of the label against the word — if the label is wider than
the word + 0,5 em, that's a column (block), not a label.
Application: Illustrator — Point Type + Appearance fill with Convert to Shape (relative
0,4 em) so the label grows with the word; AE — label as Hold, never fade.
Works carrying this principle (4)
traka-kroz-cijeli-format
What it is: a plane of text that runs from the left to the right edge of the format — it belongs to the FRAME,
not the image; it cuts the image top/bottom and acts as a verdict that comes after the image
(below) or as a grille through which the image is viewed (several bands). Difference from
etiketa-preko-slike (a label is an object IN the image or ON it, the width of a word; a band is
part of the format, the width of the format) and from crna-traka-kao-adresa (Massimo Vignelli — there
the band carries identity and is always in the same place; here the band carries a sentence and chooses its place
according to the gesture in the image).
Who does it: Barbara Kruger (We don't need another hero 1987 — one red band y 55–72 %,
between fist and finger, Whitney; You Invest in the Divinity 1982 — FIVE black bands, two
empty, image as if seen through a blind, MoMA; Don't tread on me / Don't tempt me 1989–90 — red
boxes top and bottom, Kemper).
Another author — Paula Scher (principle entered into the shared index): The Diva is Dismissed 1994
(MoMA 1540.2000) — two bands from edge to edge, DIAGONAL (≈ 25–30°), crossed in an X
over the mouth, eyes free; the band is in the COLOUR OF THE GROUND (yellow), so it does not look pasted on
but like a slit cut through the blue image — the image is "released" where the text is. Difference:
Kruger's band is a verdict AFTER the image (red, horizontal, external); Scher's is a cut INTO the
image (ground colour, diagonal). Both avoid the eyes.
Test: shorten the band so it doesn't touch the edges — does it become a label (object) instead of a
verdict? If nothing changes, the band was not working as a frame.
Application: thumbnail — bottom band to the edges as a "verdict" below the frame; AE — band
as a Track Matte cut, enters on Hold, not wipe.
Works carrying this principle (3)
fiksan-sistem-kao-brend
What it is: three decisions that NEVER change (typeface, colour, label shape) + two
that change every time (image, sentence) — so every variation becomes legible
as CONTENT, because the form makes no noise (v1). Cost: the system is recognised without content and can
be stolen as style (Supreme 1994; Fonts In Use tag "Barbara Kruger style"). Related to
serija-kao-identitet (Josef Müller-Brockmann, Armin Hofmann), but there the series is for ONE
client; here the entire authorial body of work is one series, forty years.
Who does it: Barbara Kruger (body of work 1981–present; Esquire 1992 — system returned into a
magazine and indistinguishable from advertising; Roberts/MoMA 2004: "countless graphic designers
have adopted her style"; artnet: Jebbia gave Supreme's designers her book).
Test: strip away the image and the sentence — is the author recognisable from the empty label? If so,
the system is a brand (and can be stolen). If not — the system was in the content, not the form.
Application: LØADERRØR and the YT series — write down three unchanging and two
changing decisions before the first card; and expect someone to copy them.
Works carrying this principle (1)
rotacija-radi-popune-ne-ranga
What it is: a word is rotated 90° (or onto a diagonal) BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FIT horizontally —
rotation is a tool for filling the field, not a mark of rank or attitude. Rank is carried by WIDTH and SIZE;
the largest word stays upright. The opposite of smjer-citanja-kao-hijerarhija
(Corita Kent (Sister Mary Corita), Neville Brody — there direction = rank). Carson verified 14.09.2026: across
four reviewed Ray Gun covers only the content's spine is rotated (RG 10) — this is edge filling, but for one
word; there is no proof either of filling or of attitude → the tag does NOT go to Carson.
The outcome in Scher is a 19th-century auction advert: all words equal, format full.
Who does it: Paula Scher (Best of Jazz 1979 — everything on two diagonals, nothing horizontal;
season 95–96 1995 — WASP, FRAGMENTS, KING LEAR rotated because they don't fit, NOISE/FUNK/2 WOMEN
horizontal because they fit; Some People 1994 — SOME upright in the corner, PEOPLE horizontal across
the top; Noise/Funk 1996 — captions in both directions around the figure).
Test: put the rotated word back horizontal at the same size — does it fit? If it fits, the rotation
was attitude (a different tag). If it doesn't fit — it was filling. And: is the largest word upright?
Application: a headline of N words — each at a different width, the same capital height, rotate
only the one that doesn't fit; AE — animate Scale X and Rotation 0/90, never Position.
Works carrying this principle (4)
parodija-trazi-prepoznavanje
What it is: someone else's work taken WHOLE, with a minimal substitution (a watch instead of a glove) and with the
source CREDITED — so the piece only works for an audience who knows the original; the less that's changed,
the stronger the joke, and changing it "to make it your own" turns the joke into theft. Difference from
istorijski-citat-kao-gradivni-materijal: there the quotation is material for a NEW whole; here the
quotation IS the whole. From detournement-zvanicne-slike (Jamie Reid, Barbara Kruger): there
the image of power is attacked, here you salute a colleague.
Who does it: Paula Scher (Swatch 1984/85 — Herbert Matter's Pontresina/Engadin 1935 in full,
three Swatches on the wrist, credited "Koppel & Scher with Herbert Matter"; Brower/AIGA: it hung
in Swatch's meeting room — an informed audience; Retinart: sought permission from AIGA and
the estate).
Test: show the piece to someone who doesn't know the original — is it anything on its own? If it is,
it's not a parody but a quotation. And: is the source credited?
Application: LØADERRØR experiments — when quoting a known poster, quote it WHOLE and
credit it; never "inspired by".
Works carrying this principle (1)
fragment-umjesto-lica
What it is: a figure is shown through one recognisable fragment (hairstyle, leg, arm), while
the place of the face stays empty in the ground colour — so the figure can be anyone, and the name need not
be spoken (a legal, budgetary, or dramaturgical need). Related to Armin Hofmann Stadttheater
(fragment of the body as a mark, but in the TONE of a photograph, with a face) and znak-za-temperaturu-ne-
slika-radnje; difference: here the fragment replaces IDENTITY, not action.
Who does it: Paula Scher (Him 1994, MoMA 1539.2000 — Elvis's pompadour hairstyle, black with a
blue sheen, no face, HIM where the forehead would be; Dancing on Her Knees 1995, Cooper Hewitt
1998‑2‑3 — a leg in a yellow stocking seen from behind, no body, text aligned with the top of the shoe —
as described in the record, not seen in person).
Another author — David Carson (principle entered into the shared index): National Theatre 2013
(V&A S.86‑2016, screenprint 88 × 62 cm — SAME client, same year, same format as Scher) —
three black silhouettes of men in suits, faces blacked out, in the top fifth; a "stage"
without actors who have a name. Difference: Scher keeps ONE attribute (hairstyle, leg) so the figure stays
specific; Carson keeps only the OUTLINE so the figure becomes a role (anyone on stage).
Test: add a face — does the poster become a portrait of one person (and does it then require
permission)? If so, the emptiness was doing the job.
Application: a YT character from a single attribute (cap, controller) without a face — cheaper for
animation, and anyone can picture themselves in it; AE — the attribute as the only animated layer.
Works carrying this principle (2)
rijec-lomi-se-po-mrezi
What it is: a word is broken across the FIELDS of a grid (3 letters per row, regardless of syllable:
NAT/ION/ALT/HEA/TRE), and every letter is stretched or compressed to the edge of its field — so the
word only becomes legible once the viewer accepts the grid; until then it's a black raster. Related to
lice-iz-modula (Ikko Tanaka (田中一光) — a face made of a grid) and zid-teksta-kao-oblik; difference: here the
module is the LETTER, and the break is deliberately "wrong".
Who does it: Paula Scher (National Theatre 2013, V&A S.622‑2016 — 3 × 5 fields, A without a
crossbar, O a disc with a dot, screenprint, 88 × 62 cm).
Test: break the same word by syllable in the same grid — does it become a typographic poster
instead of an object? And: does it read at five metres as a word or as a raster (it needs to be both)?
Application: a channel/brand name as a stamp: a 3 × N grid, one letter per field, one colour;
Illustrator — Free Distort per field, not Scale.
Works carrying this principle (1)
tip-na-tonskoj-masi-ne-na-formatu
What it is: the text is not placed according to the edges and grid of the format but according to the tonal
masses of the photograph — the edge of a letter rests against the edge of a dark/light
mass, and the text is allowed to be partly covered by the image. The composition holds as long as the photograph is there; without it, it falls apart (v1: "look at his work in black and white with the words blurred out and the
compositions hold"). Difference from fotografija-je-layout: there the photograph IS the
layout; here type is GLUED onto its masses — part of the same principle, but as a procedure.
Who does it: David Carson (Beach Culture 1990 — masthead on a cap, covered; Ray Gun 1,
1992 — masthead on the brightest patch, the list follows the edge of the yellow; Ray Gun 24, 1995 —
masthead half on a green plane, half on the photograph, handwriting over the face; Ray Gun 10,
1993 — the reverse: all text on WHITE, the collage does not touch the letters).
Another author — Stefan Sagmeister (principle entered into the shared index): Lou Reed's Set the
Twilight Reeling 1996 — lyrics written by hand across the face: over the forehead in arcs following the eyebrows, down the
cheeks in columns, under the chin funnelling in; only the eyes stay empty; not one line touches the edge of the format. Difference: Carson pastes SOMEONE ELSE'S lettering onto a FOUND
photograph and the text is debris on the image; Sagmeister writes BY HAND onto a COMMISSIONED photograph and the text becomes
skin — with Carson the masses are an obstacle the text goes around, with Sagmeister the masses are paper.
Test: move the photograph 10 % — does the text have to move too? If not, the text was
on the format. And: Threshold 50 % — does every letter touch the edge of some mass?
Application: poster — Image Trace at 3 colours just to see the masses, headline on the edge of a mass,
then delete the trace; AE — text parented to a null in the photograph, not to the composition.
Works carrying this principle (5)
masthead-mijenja-pismo-svaki-broj
What it is: the series identity is POSITION and WORD, not typeface — the name is set each time in a different typeface (and colour), in the same place. Contrary to identitet-je-ponasanje-ne-znak
(Neville Brody rotates the masthead but does not change typeface; Paula Scher logotype always upright
in the corner) — here there is no mark, only behaviour.
Who does it: David Carson (Ray Gun 1 — red mixed capitals/lowercase; 10 — heavy lowercase with
spacing; 24 — narrow bold grotesque (sans serif); 26 — wide bold italic; all in the top
fifth, x 20–90%).
Test: cover the masthead — is the magazine recognisable by the rest? If yes, the name can
change typeface. And: is the position the same across all issues?
Application: brand system for music/festival — table of issue / typeface / colour, position
fixed; YT channel — name in a different typeface per episode, same corner.
Works carrying this principle (3)
nedovrsenost-kao-poziv
What it is: the piece deliberately looks UNFINISHED (unprimed cream paper, pencil
scribble, grainy photocopy edge, name as a sticker) so the reader finishes it — it is not a DIY instruction
(postupak-citljiv-kao-poziv, Jamie Reid) but the absence of process.
Who does it: David Carson (Emigre 27, 1993 — grainy black mass without a title, oval like a
sticker; Ray Gun 26, 1995 — cream emptiness and pencil scribble bottom right).
Test: add a finishing layer (white background, sharp edge, clean title) — does the piece become
BETTER? If yes, the unfinishedness was laziness; if worse — it was an invitation.
Application: thumbnail/poster on cream background with one hand-added mark — not
digital brush; AE — frame without easing, with the trace of the previous one.
Works carrying this principle (1)
praznina-kao-provokacija-kioska
What it is: two thirds of the format empty in the SURROUNDINGS of full formats —
ugliness by Reid's test (measured against neighbours), but of the reverse sign: silence instead of shouting.
Works only in a sequence (after N full ones) and only in a row on the newsstand/feed.
Who does it: David Carson (Ray Gun 26, May 1995).
Test: put the piece in a row of ten neighbours — is it the only one that stays silent? And: is this the first
in the series? If so, it doesn't work.
Application: series of thumbnails/posters — one in the sequence 2/3 empty, cream, barcode in the corner.
Works carrying this principle (1)
ista-vrsta-slova-dvije-velicine
What it is: two ranks in the setting (name / list) from the same typeface in two sizes without a
middle one — within the list all names the same size, joined, without rank. Related to
dva-rastojanja-citanja, but within the SETTING, not image/text.
Who does it: David Carson (Ray Gun 10, 1993 — masthead large, contents spine small, all
names equal; Ray Gun 1 — typewriter-set list without rank).
Test: is there a third size? If there is, the rank has leaked into the list.
Application: festival poster — title + list of names equal size, never a "headliner" bigger; AE — list as one layer, scale animated as a whole.
Works carrying this principle (1)
postupak-je-poruka
What it is: the method of MAKING carries the content — a piece about pain is carved into
skin, a sentence about time built from twigs eaten by caterpillars, the word "happy" laser-cut into salami; the process
is not style or texture but argument, and it must be seen to be real (v1: "the evidence
of making is the message"). Difference from jeftina-tehnika-kao-jezik (Paula Scher,
Corita Kent (Sister Mary Corita)…): there a LIMITATION of technique is declared as vocabulary; here the technique is
CHOSEN by subject, without limitation. Against postupak-citljiv-kao-poziv (Jamie Reid): there
the process invites you to repeat it; here no one needs to repeat it (a cut into skin is not an instruction).
Who does it: Stefan Sagmeister (AIGA Detroit 1999 — benchmark; SVA 2004 — twigs; Lou Reed
1996 — hand on face; Fresh Dialogue 1996 — actual tongues; Happy Show 2012 — sugar, salami,
chewing gum; negative: monkeys 2007 — the object overpowered the sentence, by his own assessment).
Test: can the subject of the piece be stated as a sentence about material ("pain = cut", "time =
twig")? If the material can be replaced by another without harm — the process was style.
Another author — Irma Boom (principle entered the shared index): N° 5 Culture Chanel 2013
(Boijmans V 2887; DDA) — a book about perfume ENTIRELY in blind emboss, without ink: "scent =
invisible, yet present"; DDA jury: the sense of smell captured through sight and touch. Sheila Hicks:
Weaving as Metaphor 2006 (DBVB, Eye 88) — the block edge roughened with a circular saw: "weaving =
an unravelled edge". SHV Think Book 1996 (Typotheque) — holes printed without ink as an "unknown
future", diminishing toward the past. Difference from Sagmeister: he PERFORMS the process on material
and photographs it (a cut into skin, twigs), then the result is printed; Boom builds the process into the
industrial print run itself (emboss, saw, edge) — each of 5,000 copies IS the process, not an image
of the process. "I hate one-offs" (Eye 88). Her own rule: "If I do cut holes in pages, it is
always for purpose. I can't design without an idea" (Typotheque).
Application: poster and thumbnail — before sketching, answer "made from what"; motion — animate
the MAKING (cutting, building), not the result; never render what can be filmed.
Works carrying this principle (7)
slovo-je-napravljeno-pa-snimljeno
What it is: the title is neither set nor drawn but BUILT as an object (model, twigs, cut in
skin, holes in a belt) and photographed — shadow, perspective, and material imperfection are part of the
letterform. Difference from nadjeni-predmet-kao-rijec: there the object stands IN PLACE of the word;
here the object IS the letter. Against slovo-nosi-ideju (Herb Lubalin): there the letter is from a catalogue
modified; here the letter is not in any catalogue.
Who does it: Stefan Sagmeister (Feelings 1997 — Cooper Hewitt: "The type was made as an
actual model and then photographed"; AIGA Detroit 1999; SVA 2004; belt Trying To Look
Good — pixel letters are the holes of the belt).
Test: does the letter have a shadow it casts, not one it received in Photoshop? And: can the same
title be repeated in another size without being remade? If it can — it was a font.
Application: episode/poster title made in material on a table, phone, window, without
retouching; AE — footage of the making as write-on, not Trim Paths.
Works carrying this principle (3)
omot-nastavlja-scenu
What it is: the packaging (sleeve, box) is part of the same scenography as the performance/tour — the motif and
material continue from the product into the space; the sleeve is not a picture of the album but a piece of the set.
Who does it: Stefan Sagmeister (Bridges to Babylon 1997 — filigree slipcase and desert
strip "following the design of the tour set", sagmeister.com).
Test: could the sleeve stand on stage as a prop without change? If it's just a
picture of the band — no.
Application: for music/festival — one material (cut, fabric, metal) that goes on the
sleeve and on stage and in motion; motion graphics as an extension of the packaging.
Works carrying this principle (1)
slika-kao-pitanje
What it is: the piece itself WRITES OUT several possible readings of its own image (in small text) and does not
answer — the openness is deliberate and documented in the piece itself, not in a subsequent
interpretation. Difference from rebus-tjera-na-izvodjenje: there the viewer completes ONE
message; here they choose among several offered.
Who does it: Stefan Sagmeister (AIGA New Orleans 1997 — "Is it a metaphor for the
profession? …" in the corner of the poster; MoMA lists four readings).
Test: does the piece itself have text offering at least two readings of the image? If readings are
offered only by a curator — it's not this principle.
Application: poster with one strong image and small "could be A, could be B" — the
audience remembers what they choose themselves.
Works carrying this principle (1)
paleta-uzorkovana-iz-slike
What it is: the identity has no house colour — the colours are TAKEN (sampled) from the image next to which
the mark stands, by rule (n samples → n facets of the mark). The palette is a procedure, not a list. Difference
from paleta-po-iskljucenju (Otl Aicher): there colours are chosen by elimination in advance;
here they are not chosen at all.
Who does it: Stefan Sagmeister (Casa da Música 2007 — Beethoven, Philip Glass, Lou Reed:
portrait → six samples → faces of a polyhedron; institutionally black).
Test: change the image — does the mark change without anyone's decision? If someone has
to "choose" a colour, the palette wasn't sampled.
Application: LØADERRØR / YT channel — a script that takes 4–6 colours from the episode thumbnail
and colours a fixed shape; Cavalry/AE — Color Sampler expression instead of a manual palette.
Works carrying this principle (1)
rub-bloka-je-stranica
What it is: the fore-edge of the book block — the place where books usually have NOTHING — carries
an image, text, or texture visible only on the closed book or while fanning it, and disappears when it
opens. Content is relocated from the page into the OBJECT. Difference from podloga-nosi-polovinu
(Peter Saville): there the material of the page carries the message; here the geometry of the block. Against
format-je-prva-odluka: this is one localised move, not a decision about the whole object.
Who does it: Irma Boom (SHV Think Book 1996 — MoMA: the edge printed so that fanning left
gives a field of tulips, fanning right gives verses of a Dutch poem — benchmark; Sheila Hicks 2006 — edge
roughened with a circular saw as unravelled weaving, DBVB/Eye 88; Rijks Museum 2013 — fore-edge
uncut, trimmed by gathering, DBVB; Raad voor de Kunst c. 1990 — edge brushed with gold, Eye 13).
Test: does the object change if you trim the edge flat and leave it white? If not — the edge was
finishing, not a page.
Application: brochure/catalogue — one piece of information or colour ONLY on the block's edge (offset print on
the edge or coloured cut); poster — an 8–10 mm strip along the trim edge with another message; AE — an element
visible only while scrubbing, disappearing on pause.
Works carrying this principle (4)
bez-navigacije-citanje-je-lutanje
What it is: deliberately abolish all instruments of search (page number, contents, index,
linear chronology) so that reading shifts from “retrieval” into “wandering” — the book is not
USED but INHABITED. Works only when the audience doesn't have to find anything. Difference from
oduzimanje-kao-autorstvo: there, the name/image is stripped from the object; here, the FUNCTION
is stripped.
Who does it: Irma Boom (SHV Think Book 1996 — MoMA: no page numbers, contents or index, 2,136
pp., chronology reversed; Boom, Eye 88: the model is early internet browsing, “going in and out, the
endless zapping past images”; Typotheque: “a journey not from A to B but from K to D”; the only
orientation — red ribbons, v2).
Test: does anyone in the audience need to FIND something in this object? If yes — the principle must not apply.
Application: own sketchbook / LØADERRØR archive without an index; a website without a main menu,
only “next” and “back” — but never for a catalogue or a manual.
Works carrying this principle (1)
debljina-bloka-je-poruka
What it is: the third dimension of the book (thickness, weight) is derived from the CONTENT or from
a NUMBER in the theme, and carries the message before the book is even opened — a brick, a cube, a figure
in centimetres. Condition: the measurement has a reason that can be spoken out loud. Difference from
format-je-prva-odluka: there, what the object IS changes (magazine → poster); here the object stays a
book, only Z changes.
Who does it: Irma Boom (SHV 1996 — 2,136 pp. = everything the archive gives, 3.5 kg, 22.5 × 17 × 11;
N° 5 Culture Chanel 2013 — thickness 5 cm = the number 5, book-as-exhibition; Every Thing Design 2009
— museum collection as a cube, 15.6 × 12.7 × 7, MoMA; 1001 vrouwen 2013 — 137 × 189 × 70, jury: “a
marvel of proportioning”; Architecture of the Book mini — 43 × 55 × 28; Best Boek 1989 — 20.5 ×
17 × 11.5).
Test: why exactly that many pages / that many millimetres? If the answer is “to look rich” —
it's not the principle. If the answer is a number from the theme or the extent of the source — it is.
Application: print — page count and paper weight as the first item of the brief, derived from the
extent of the content, not rounded to a press sheet; motion — clip duration derived from a number in the theme.
Works carrying this principle (5)
korice-su-katalog
What it is: the cover doesn't show one work but ALL works, reduced to a mark, in a grid without
rank and without margin — hierarchy is replaced by quantity; the individual work appears only inside,
at actual size. Difference from korice-kao-plakat: there, one sign seen from a distance; here,
texture from a distance, archive up close (dva-rastojanja-citanja achieved through scale, not letter size).
Against paleta-uzorkovana-iz-slike (Stefan Sagmeister): there, colours are taken from one
image; here, the whole body of work is taken as the sample.
Who does it: Irma Boom (Otto Treumann monograph 1999, MoMA 902.2007 — approx. 600 thumbnails in
a grid covering the whole cover, the title small and upright along the edge, v2; Typotheque: inside, the works
"near-actual size" — two extremes of scale).
Test: can ONE work be recognised from the cover? If it can — it's not a catalogue, but a collage.
Application: portfolio/showreel PDF — first page all works as thumbnails in a grid without rank;
YT channel banner — all season thumbnails reduced into a single texture.
Works carrying this principle (1)
rijec-sjecena-rubom-formata
What it is: a name or title deliberately DAMAGED by the convention of the format — cut off by the
trim edge, mirrored, printed without colour — so that it's recognised, not read. Works only for a word
the audience already knows. Difference from rijec-lomi-se-po-mrezi (Paula Scher): there, the grid breaks
the word into lines, all letters remain; here, letters are MISSING. Against sifra-umjesto-teksta
(Peter Saville): there, the text is encoded; here, it's legible but incomplete.
Who does it: Irma Boom (Rijks Museum 2013, DBVB / Design Reviewed — RIJKS MU large at the bottom,
the word exiting the format to the right, the IJ ligature of the Rijksmuseum typeface — benchmark, v2; Best Boek 1989,
MoMA 893.2007 — BEST mirrored and without colour in velvet above the blue BOEK, v2).
Test: what percentage of the word can go missing and still be recognised? Measure it on three people. If the whole
word is needed — the word wasn't known and the principle doesn't work.
Application: LØADERRØR on a poster and thumbnail — the name cut off by the right edge at a fixed
percentage; AE — the title enters from off-screen and STOPS before it fully enters.
Works carrying this principle (2)
avangarda-kao-kvalitet-proizvoda
What it is: a procedure from avant-garde art (photogram, collage, rayograph) taken
literally onto mass packaging or an advertisement — not to explain the product but to lend it
the status of the gallery. The product isn't shown better; it's shown by a different means
than all the competition on the shelf.
Who does it: Paul Rand (El Producto Cigar Album c. 1952 — Man Ray's photogram of cigars and
an ashtray on black, multicoloured serif lettering; MFAH: Man Ray gives the product an “avant-garde
sophistication”, v2 + documented). Local tag.
Test: when the title is removed, does the image still belong to the product category (cigars) or
does it look like an art work? If it looks like an art work and the object is still
recognisable — the principle works.
Application: LØADERRØR and client jobs with a cheap product — one technique from
video art or photo experimentation (photogram, scan of an object, glitch) instead of stock photography
of the product; in motion — the object shot with a scanner instead of a 3D render.
Works carrying this principle (1)
specifikacija-stampe-na-stranici
What it is: technical information about the making (print process, paper, number of colours) is set
INTO the work itself as part of the composition — a small but constantly present block stating what
the image was made with. The work is at once an image and a sample; the professional reader verifies
the claim on the same sheet.
Who does it: Bradbury Thompson (Westvaco Inspirations 194 and 202, 1953–55 — Nature,
Victory, Worship: a colophon "Printed by lithography on …" with the name of the Westvaco paper
in the corner of each spread, the same size as the folio). Local tag.
Test: is the information placed as an element of the grid (aligned, consistent on every
page) or added at the end as a minor obligation? Only the former is this principle.
Application: poster for a printer or paper company, riso/screenprint editions, LØADERRØR print —
the technique and number of colours as a typographic element; in motion — codec, frame count or
render parameters as part of the title card.
Works carrying this principle (1)
tijelo-nastavlja-slovo
What it is: the figure's pose extends the stroke of the letter — the arm continues the vertical of the
word, the line of the clothing carries it further — so the title and the body form a single line. Related to slovo-nosi-ideju.
Who does it: Cipe Pineles (Ann Smith, Stretch, 1969 — the outstretched arm reaching to the baseline
of the word STRETCH, the white trim of the leotard carrying the line down to the foot).
Test: remove the letters — does the pose still show where they stood?
Application: covers, posters with a figure; motion — the actor's movement ends in the stroke of the title.
Works carrying this principle (1)
kontrolisan-slucaj
What it is: elements look scattered, but a hidden curve (density, tone, direction of colour) holds
them and leads the eye to one place. Related to mreza-drzi-haos, but without a grid — the order lies
in the distribution.
Who does it: Giovanni Pintori (Olivetti 1949 — a carpet of digits, warm tones above, green below; digits
around the logotype darkened so the white “olivetti” jumps out by tone; Elettrosumma 22, 1962 — isometric
blocks of various colours, but each block following the same light logic).
Test: blur the image — can the focus still be seen? If not, the disorder isn't controlled.
Application: a poster with many small elements; motion — particles following a density curve, not evenly distributed.
Works carrying this principle (2)
logotip-tih-i-nisko
What it is: the brand name is small, quiet, in a corner or passing through the image — trustworthiness
is read from stillness, not from size.
Who does it: Giovanni Pintori (Lettera 22 c. 1953 — small lowercase bottom left; Tetractys 1956 —
a small grotesque next to a large product name; Olivetti 1949 — the only white element, small).
Test: cover the logotype — can you still tell whose poster it is (by the series' regime)?
Application: a poster/thumbnail series — the signature stays the same and small, the image carries recognition.
Works carrying this principle (3)
slovo-kao-okvir-za-ikonu
What it is: a large letter (or a fragment of one) becomes a frame holding a small image inside it —
the letter is both sign and window at once.
Who does it: Giovanni Pintori (Lettera 22 c. 1953, MoMA 8824 — fragments C, E, H with a stepped
outline; inside them a typewriter, a telephone receiver, a hand).
Test: remove the icons — do the letters still hold as rhythm? Remove the letters — do the icons hold the composition?
Application: a poster/cover with initials; motion — a letter opens like a window into the scene.
Works carrying this principle (1)
apstrakcija-gore-dokaz-dolje
What it is: the upper, larger part of the format is an abstract image of the function; the photograph
of the product is smaller, below, as proof that the thing exists. Difference from fotografija-u-crtezu
(Emory Douglas): there, the photograph is INSIDE the drawing; here, it sits below, in its own field.
Who does it: Giovanni Pintori (Lexikon 80 c. 1950; Lexikon 1954; Summa Prima 20 c. 1960;
Lettera 22 — a sailing ship, reversed order: photograph above, abstraction below).
Test: swap the fields — if the photograph gets the top, is it still a poster or a catalogue?
Application: advertising poster, product thumbnail; motion — an abstract sequence, packshot at the end.
Works carrying this principle (4)