Another challenge was to take all the base forms and see if I would be able to relate something with each one of them.
Now, how would this help me design a type? Maybe it doesn’t help me. But that was my way of looking at aesthetics. I mean if the form has to look really beautiful, beyond good proportions and legibility, it has to be related to the aesthetic form in our mind.
Although I struggled a lot to figure out the metaphors with some help from Asutosh and Armeen since they don’t know the language or can relate to the script.
For me this exercise was tough, for these reasons:
1. Whenever I used to think of a letter, I used to think of the image that is usually associated with the sound. For instance, in Engish, When I say ‘A’ you will think of apple. Now that is based on the sound. But can we think of an image with the form?
2. I am exposed to script too much. And that is in a way, sometimes works against. You are so familiar to forms you treat them as text and you try to change the structure accordingly. But there needs to be an objective base to build a letter set and not intution.
3. Asutosh provided this insight: “Why don’t you try gerometric forms? I mean, use circles and squares. Maybe you will be able to look at proportions mathematically, rather than going by a few hand written examples.” Suddenly everything fell in place. I knew what direction I should take.
4. Dr Bhagvat suggests that categorization of the letterforms can also be done according to: (i) The size (ii) Simplicity (iii) Motion/stroke/angles (iv) Endings/flourishes (v) Anatomy
5. Dr Bhagvat has also studied characteristics of Devanagari. And his analysis is comprehensive, although debatable. But I also need to study the characteristics of the Kannada letterforms. It will help me when I start constructing the letterforms.
At this moment, the stuggle is to understand proportions. Not much standardization has been brought about in the Kannada script.