This typographic experiment, modular in design is an exploration of 'medium'. The letterforms are created by repeating a 'primer' over and over - a straight line that curves at the end. 

We create technology that affects the way we interact with the world, whether it is a lever or the internet. Changing our relationship with the world changes us – how we think, what we think, the time we have to think, how we see and hear, and what we see and hear. We no longer just create tools to master, but
virtual environments to inhabit and explore – why? What spurs this incessant need to improve our relationship with the worlds around us?

I believe at the heart of the matter lies a design-flaw in ourselves. The virtual world of our creation is not the only nearly-world we navigate. Each of us has an interior world of thoughts, ideas, hopes, fears, dreams, whimsy; things we can’t or won’t articulate. But we’re a black-box design; there is no way to experience the thoughts of
another (an odd oversight in the evolution of a social animal).

Locke described the thoughts of others as invisible (1968, pp. 404–405), while some philosophers query the very existence of ‘other minds’. This essay accepts that existence and addresses the issues inherent in transmitting and receiving the contents of other minds.

We have adapted to our inefficient interface by developing means to communicate. Barnlund (1962) defines communication as the process of creating a meaning. There is an fundamental dichotomy in that simple statement. He exerts that ‘messages are generated from the outside – by a speaker, a television screen, a scolding parent – but meaning is generated from within’.

 

I agree that communication depends on the completion of a circuit, both a transmitter and receiver are required. I would argue though that this process takes place, not between entities without and within, but is the consociation of two interior worlds that share a language, requiring the message to pass through the exterior world to reach its
destination. Berlo (1960, pp. 175) writes,
‘Communication does not consist of the transmission of meaning. Meanings are not transmitted, nor transferable. Only messages are transmittable, and meanings are not in the message, they are in the message-user.’
 

I would add that where there is a shared language (be it verbal, written or artistic), the message creator may hold a reasonable expectation that meaning will be generated by the message receiver, or as Sartre (1988, pp. 53) put it, ‘In short, reading is directed creation.’