Computers in Visual Communication (review)

Books 369 REFERENCES See for example: F. Nake, Erzeugung aesthetischer Objekte mit Rechnenanlagen,in :R. Gunzenhauser (Hrsg.), Nichtnumerische Informationsverarbeitung (Vienna: Springer-Verlag, 1968); and G. Pfeiffer: Kunst und Computer, Magazin Kunst 10, 1883 (1970). F. Nake, Page 18 (Bulletin of the Computer Arts Society) (Oct. 1971). J. Lansdown, Page 19 (Bulletin of the Computer Arts Society) (Dec. 1971). Computers in Visual Communication. Society of Industrial Artists and Designers, 12 Carlton House Terrace, London, S.W.1, 1969. 32 pp., illus. Reviewed by : Dick Land* The title implies greater generality than is covered by the five papers and discussion recorded in the ‘Symposium Proceedings of the SIAD/STD Typographers ’ Computer Working Group’ (Feb. 1968). Typography is the focus of all the papers. The concern is for the use of computers in print design and the responsibility for reasonable incorporation of computer technology in print media production. Like all collections of papers, some are more valuable than others in this brief publication. A paper by David Martin discusses a computerized information service, manipulating titles, authors and abstracts for publication. He makes the important point that a highly structured data base, in conjunction with the development of interactive interrogation systems, would bring information sources and users closer together. Gordon Wright introduces two interesting concerns : (1) how an idea is best presented to the reader in print and (2), with various image transformation systems such as microfiche,how the typographer may aid in assuring that the information content remains complete through various processes. The excellent article by C. J. Duncan expands upon design responsibilities . The major point seems to be that technology has provided facility and flexibility where there are no defined design criteria. It is clear that print design should concern speed of reader access to data, the accuracy of that access and, perhaps in special cases, add information or emphasis. Apparently, printing finds itself bound by convention and tradition, with most design arising from intuitive activity rather than measured cognitive values. This is a specific case of the computer bringing an ‘art’ form to the point of asking what its fundamental features are. It is clear that the computer can offer adjustment of type size, font style, line length, inter-word spacing and other compositional variables. The point is made that ‘nowhere yet has any real fundamental work been done to use the power of the [computer]to analyse what we actually do, and whether this matches what we think we do, * Engineering Science Laboratory, Harvard University, 40Oxford Street,Cambridge,Ma. 02138, U.S.A. 24 or what we think we ought to do’. Indeed, the question comes down to: ‘What is readability? This Symposium revealed that typographers have been brought to some very hard questions with the advent of computer graphics and computeraided printing in general. The articles are perceptive in detailing some of the problems but offervery little substance in the answers. One fact that has emerged is that there is a lower limit to graphic quality. This is something like 130 lines per centimeter-at least for newspaper work. Beyond the ideas mentioned above, the document is for specialists in the printing field and much work has superseded the discussion. It is worth noting the event where the questions were asked but today’s reader would better spend his time on more recent literature concerning computer graphics applications . Art and the Stage in the 20th Century. Henning Rischbieter, ed. New York Graphic Society, Greenwich, Conn., 1969. Translated by Michael Bullock from the German edition of 1968. 306pp., illus. $35.00. Reviewed by: Elsa Gress* In the preface to this very handsome, very valuable and, of course, expensive book, the editor unwittingly manages to indicate the basic weakness of the work as potential source of inspiration to people professionally involved in the theater, as well as to the common reader. This weakness is, indeed, inherent already in the title that separates art and the stage as discrete entities, rather than fusing them into the whole they constitute in theater at its best. The preface further underlines the separation, asdoes much of the commentary,thereby foregoing the essential fact that pictorial art,just like written drama, means precious little to, or...