I just wanted to "claim" my idea for a thesis. This immediately came to my mind during class:
Reminiscent of the transition from handwritten to print, eReading has its advantages but these should not come at the sacrifice of the beautiful and purposeful typographical design of the original print medium.
I'm concerned that the focus is too modern, but I really want to compare and contrast these two transitions.
I talked to dr Burton and he said I have to focus/be anchored in the past. I don't know if I can focus on the post but still make it an argumentative comparison. I think I might be able to. In the end my argument is we should not ditch the format Like what happened in the past.
ReplyDeleteHey what about saying something along the topic of : Changes in typography actually changed the way people studied X/changed peoples ideas on X. Or you could go the other way around and say that changing values or ideas about some topic actually were reflected in changes in typography.
ReplyDeleteOr building off Mike's thought, the similarities in social mentality (individualism, freedom, creativity) between the two times facilitated a second typography renaissance.
ReplyDeleteYou could also talk about which fonts are most appealing to people when reading (which ones make it easier to read, etc.) and why they should be used so that we don't have to "ditch" a certain format like we did in the past.
ReplyDeleteI like your argument, and i think you can make it work. But like Dr. B said, the focus has to be on the past, so you should concentrate on the transition from handwriting to print and how that changed "typography" and then only do speculative comparisons to the current revolution from print to digital. This goes along nicely though with the THIRD learning outcome!
ReplyDelete