Reading Response: Bil'ak

The first part of the article dealt with asking designers what the definition of experimental type was. The closest was by Melle Hammer, David Carson, and Michael Worthington. Hammer stated that “Every type job is experiment. Experimental typography does not exist, nor ever has.” Carson stated that “Experimental is something I haven’t tried before … something that hasn’t been seen and heard.” Worthington stated that “True experimentation means to take risks.”

There is experimental typography in theory but in reality, there is only typography that we use now. The article talks about how typography as a subject is by itself; there are no other subjects like it. Due to that we are unable to effectively speak about typography rules. Bil'ak comes to the conclusion that “There is no definitive explanation of what constitutes an experiment in typography. As the profession develops and more people practice this subtle art, we continually redefine the purpose of experimentation and become aware of its moving boundaries.” This makes sense, because by the time the so-called experimenting is known by various individuals it will become a trend and part of the ever-changing world of typography.


Bil'ak's two most important statement in the article was that “the essence of experimentation is in going against the prevailing patterns.” The one statement that intrigued me was Bil'ak's thought that “constraints of the alphabet inspires many designers.” I did not quite think that was true for me, but it makes sense that we as designers are inspired by what confines us.