I may have finally refined my mental concept of what I want this blog to be, enough to the point where I can start to hone in on an idea without cutting off the option to explore new things.

That is a ridiculous sentence.

Let me explain.

I’ve always loved the structure of communication–speeches, the written word, how well-designed typography conveys a word and meaning in a way that is visually pleasing. In grad school, I tried to organize my studies around this idea. That did not always work, especially when I got distracted by things like the lack of scholarship around Queen Victoria. I was equally hamstrung by my inability to articulate what was interesting to me in this area.

“Rhetoric,” broadly, fits the definition somewhat. “Visual rhetoric” might be a better descriptor, but it’s a very stilted, academic term. And the idea of rhetoric also misses the aim of truth.

My vague idea when I started this blog was trying to determine if the Truth has certain aesthetic qualities. (Talk about stilted and esoteric!) The problem is, I also don’t want this blog to be a dry academic ~tome. I want it to be fun, and useful, and insightful.

So a ponderous quest for Truth was out. Besides, that was too much pressure.

I’m still interested in things like fashion, and k-pop, and the many ways that people can lie in photographs.

Finally, today, I had mulled over enough horrible taglines for the blog that I finally found one worth refining further: “Style reflects structure.”

It’s a good start.

The best visual design is design that most accurately and efficiently conveys the message of the text to the reader. This is both in emotional content (font shapes and evocations) but also in cognitive and vision science–what tends to hook a reader and help him retain information. There’s an interplay between the purpose of the document, and its physical manifestation.

The style is born of the mission. It does not necessarily drive the mission, but it is integral to the communication of that mission.

Not everybody things in structures, so I changed that to “substance,” which I think works fine. Style is not substance. Anyone who thinks they can have substance without style is kidding themselves. (Even the default is a style, and tells you something about the person who uses it.)

And then I changed “reflects” to “reveals,” because I feel like it works better. Like a woman reveals the character of a man, style reveals the character of an argument. Maybe it’s cohesive, maybe it’s utilitarian, maybe it’s the default option, but the style can tell raise many questions.

Now, there are a lot of considerations. What if it’s a book designed by the design pros in a publishing house? Well, that tells us a lot about the book publishing process, doesn’t it. Once a book makes it out of the editing and publishing process, it’s no longer a single idea. It’s an idea that’s been edited (hopefully by someone who cares about preserving the source material but who knows), that’s been reinterpreted by a designer and a merchandiser and a marketing blur writer and an executive or two.

Anyway, I’ll keep posting about a lot of random stuff here, but I plan on making this blog a little more cohesive. I’d like to explore more historical styles and take a look at what people are doing now.