ASTU

DURESSA
URGESSA
GRAPHIC DESIGN
PORTIFOLIO
 ABOUT ME
ARCHITECT AND GRAPHIC DESIGNER. Education
NOW I AM LEARNING
ARCHITECTURAL
DURESSA ENGINEENRING
URGESSA AT
ADAMA SIENCE AND
TECHINOLOGY
UNIVERSITY
AND
CIVIL ENGINEERING
AT
PARADISE VALLEY
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

My skills
3RD YEAR PS
ARCHITECTURE AI
STUDENT ID
AUTOCAD
ARCH CAD
REVIT
SKETCH UP

Hobbies
LANGUAGE PLAYING FOOT BALL
WALKING VACATION
OROMIC ONLINE PAGES
ENGLISH WATCHING MOVIE
READING BIBLE
AMHARIC
 CONTENT
THOERY OF VESUAL PERCEPTION
TYPOGRAPHY
QUOTES
LOGO
WORD AS AN IMAGE
AND MESSAGE REFELECTION
BOOK AND
BOOK COVER
POSTER
ALBUM COVER
BUSSINESS CARD
BASIC DESIGN STUDIO II
ARCHETCTURAL STUDIO I
 Theories Of Visual Perception
Introduction
Visual perception is the ability to see, organize, and interpret one's environment. In
our example, your eyes 'took in' the lines as well as the points on the ends of the lines.
At the same time, your brain was organizing and making sense of the image. This is a
very important process because it gives us the ability to learn new information. With-
out visual perception, you would not be able to make sense of the words on a page,
recognize common objects, or have the eye-hand coordination required for many
daily tasks.
Gestalt theory of Perception
The human brain is wired to see structure, logic, and patterns. It helps us make sense
of the world. In the 1920s a group of German psychologists developed theories
around how people perceive the world around them, called Gestalt principles. The
Gestalt principles of grouping (“Gestalt” is German for “unified whole”) represent the
culmination of the work of early 20th century. Gestalt principles or laws are rules that
describe how the human eye perceives visual elements, recognize patterns and simpli-
fy complex images when perceive objects. These principles aim to show how complex
scenes can be reduced to more simple shapes. They also aim to explain how the eyes
perceive the shapes as a single, united form rather than the separate simpler elements
involved. Designers use the principles to organize content on websites and other
interfaces so it is aesthetically pleasing and easy to understand.
 Principle #1: figure-ground

“Elements are perceived as either figure (the element in focus) or ground

(the background on which the figure rests).”
Figure/ground refers to the relationship between positive elements and negative
space. The idea is that the eye will separate whole figures from their background in
order to understand what’s being seen. It’s one of the first things people will do when
looking at any composition

Source: A Dwarf Named Warren

Principle #2: similarity

“Elements that share similar characteristics are perceived as more related than ele-
ments that don't share those characteristics.”

Any number of characteristics can be similar: color, shape, size, texture, etc. When a
viewer sees these similar characteristics, they perceive the elements as being related
due to the shared characteristics.

Source: Andy Rutledge

 Principle #3: proximity
The principle of proximity states that things that are close together appear to be more
related than things that are spaced farther apart. Proximity is so powerful that it
overrides similarity of color, shape, and other factors that might differentiate a group
of objects.

Source: Andy Rutledge

Notice the three groups of black and red dots above? The relative nearness of the ob-
jects has an even stronger influence on grouping than color does.

Principle #4: common region:

The principle of common region is highly related to proximity. It states that when
objects are located within the same closed region, we perceive them as being grouped
together. Adding borders or other visible barriers is a great way to create a perceived
separation between groups of objects—even if they have the same proximity, shape,
color, etc.

Source: Smashing Magazine

 Principle #5: continuity
The principle of continuity states that elements that are arranged on a line or curve are
perceived to be more related than elements not on the line or curve. In the image bel-
low, for example, the red dots in the curved line seem to be more related to the black
dots on the curved line than to the red dots on the straight horizontal line.

That’s because your eye naturally follows a line or a curve, making continuation a
stronger signal of relatedness than the similarity of color.

Source: Smashing Magazine

Principle #6: closure

The principle of closure states that when we look at a complex arrangement of visu-
al elements, we tend to look for a single, recognizable pattern.In other words, when
you see an image that has missing parts, your brain will fill in the blanks and make a
complete image so you can still recognize the pattern. For example, when you look at
the image above you most likely see a zebra even though the image is just a collection
of black shapes. Your mind fills in the missing information to create a recognizable
pattern based on your experience. Source: Eduard Volianskyi Principle #

Source: Eduard Volianskyi

 Principle #7: focal point
The focal point principle states that whatever stands out visually will capture and hold
the viewer’s attention first. When you look at the image bellow, for example, the first
thing you notice is the red square because it’s different than all of the black circles
around it. It’s the first point of interest that grabs your attention, and from there your
attention moves to other parts of the image.

Source: Smashing Magazine

constructivism
the theoretical perspective, central to the work of Jean Piaget, that people actively
build their perception of the world and interpret objects and events that surround
them in terms of what they already know. Thus, their current state of knowledge
guides processing, substantially influencing how (and what) new information is
acquired. Also called constructionism. This controversy is discussed with respect to
Gibson (1966) who has proposed a direct theory of perception which is a 'bottom-up'
theory, and Gregory (1970) who has proposed a constructivist (indirect) theory of
perception which is a 'top-down' theory. Psychologists distinguish between two types
of processes in perception: bottom-up processing and top-down processing.
Bottom-up processing is also known as data-driven processing, be-
cause perception begins with the stimulus itself. Processing is carried
out in one direction from the retina to the visual cortex, with each
successive stage in the visual pathway carrying out ever more complex
analysis of the input. Top-down processing refers to the use of contex-
tual information in pattern recognition. For example, understanding
difficult handwriting is easier when reading complete sentences than
when reading single and isolated words. This is because the mean-
ing of the surrounding words provide a context to aid understanding.
 Gregory (1970) and Top Down-
Processing Theory
Psychologist Richard Gregory (1970) argued that perception is a constructive process
which relies on top-down processing. Stimulus information from our environment
is frequently ambiguous so to interpret it, we require higher cognitive information
either from past experiences or stored knowledge in order to makes inferences about
what we perceive. Helmholtz called it the ‘likelihood principle’. For Gregory percep-
tion is a hypothesis, which is based on prior knowledge. In this way we are actively
constructing our perception of reality based on our environment and stored informa-
tion. social constructivism is the school of thought that recognizes knowledge as em-
bedded in social context and sees human thoughts, feelings, language, and behavior
as the result of interchanges with the external world. Social constructivism argues that
there is no separation between subjectivity and objectivity and that the dichotomy
between the person and the situation is false: The person is intimately and intricately
bound within social, cultural, and
historical forces and cannot be understood fully without consideration of these social
forces. According to social constructivism, not only knowledge but reality itself is
created in an interactive process and thus people are solely what their society shapes
them to be.
 Ecological Theory
The birth of the ecological account can be followed through the work of the Gibsons
and their collaborators. J. J. Gibson’s joined the Air Force in the 1940s and his work on
aviation studies lead him to publish The perception of the visual world (1950) (Lom-
bardo, 1987/2017). In the 1960s, he published The senses considered as perceptual
systems, a book in which the traditional Aristotelian account of the senses changed
to be defined as active “systems rather than channels” (J. J. Gibson, 1966, p. 47). In
the same decade Eleanor J. Gibson published Principles of perceptual learning and
development (1969), where she proposed a working principle related to the concept of
specificity: the principle of reduction of uncertainty. Her work delved into ontogeny
and perceptual learning (as we will see in section Perceptual Learning) and on reading
(E. J. Gibson and Levin, 1975), while J. J. Gibson focused on perception. Ecological
psychology is an embodied, situated, and non-representational approach to cognition
pioneered by J. J. Gibson (1904–1979) in the field of perception and by E. J. Gibson
(1910–2002) in the field of developmental psychology. Ecological psychology, in its
very origins, aimed to offer an innovative perspective for understanding perception
and perceptual learning that overcomes the traditional psychological dichotomies
of perception/action, organism/environment, subjective/objective, and mind/body.
These dichotomies are at the basis of some theoretical assumptions in the field of
psychology, such as the poverty of stimulus and the passivity of perception. Precisely,
the ecological approach challenged these widely accepted ideas that mainstream ex-
perimental psychology sustained during its run-up at the first half of the 20th century.
Thus, once the framework of ecological psychology was established during the second
half of the 20th century, it became an alternative in the debate between cognitivism
and behaviorism. While both approaches considered themselves as competitors, they
were taken as complementary from an ecological standpoint (Reed, 1991). This is so
because they emphasized distinct stages of a whole cognitive picture sustained by the
same principles. The ecological approach rejected the inferential and representational
commitment of cognitivism and the physicalist idea of stimulus of behaviorism.
 Cognitive Theories
Cognitive theories emphasize the creative process and person:
process, in emphasizing the role of cognitive mechanisms as a basis for creative
thought; and person, in considering individual differences in such mechanisms. Some
cognitive theories focus on universal capacities, like attention or memory; others em-
phasize individual differences, like those indexed by divergent thinking tasks; some
focus on conscious operations; others, on preconscious, implicit, or unintentional
processes.
One classic cognitive theory, by Sarnoff A. Mednick, argues that creative insights can
result from associative processes in memory. In this view, ideas are chained together,
one after another, and more remote associates tend to be more original. This
perspective argues that more creative individuals tend to have flatter hierarchies of
associations than less creative individuals; in other words, more creative people have
many more relatively strong associates for a given concept, rather than only a few.

This is thought to provide greater scope for the simultaneous activation of far-flung
representations, which many believe to be an important engine of creative thought.
Along similar lines, another cognitive theory focuses on how concepts are combined
to generate novelty. Research suggests that conceptual combination – bringing two
different sets of information together – is often involved in creative ideation, that
original insights are more likely when two disparate features are brought together, and
that connections between these concepts might only be seen at a very high level of ab-
straction. This kind of thinking has been called metaphoric logical, the idea being that
something like ‘angry weather’ is only comprehensible in a nonliteral fashion. Such
processes may suggest creative alternatives to well-worn lines of thought.

More generally, research in the ‘creative cognition approach’ tradition, another im-
portant contemporary view of creativity developed mainly by Ronald A. Finke, Steven
M. Smith, and Thomas B. Ward, has likewise emphasized ideas drawn from cognitive
psychology (e.g., conceptual combination, conceptual expansion, creative imagery,
and metaphor) to understand how individuals generate ideas and explore their impli-
cations in laboratory-based invention and design tasks. Such processes are thought to
play out in two fundamental regimes of thought: generating ideas and exploring their
implications. In practice, the two are strongly interleaved and combined in the ‘gene-
plore’ model of creative thought (from generate + explore).
Finally, metacognitive processes (thinking about one's own thinking) are also fre-
quently tied to creativity. Many tactics for increasing creative problem solving have
been proposed and popularized, including ‘think backwards,’ ‘shift your perspective,’
‘put the problem aside,’ and ‘question assumptions.’ Tactical thinking is especially
useful for programs designed to facilitate creative problem solving since they are a
function of conscious decisions and can be employed when necessary.

Semiotics Approach
Visual semiotics is a sub-domain of semiotics that analyses the way visual images
communicate a message. Studies of meaning evolve from semiotics, a philosophical
approach that seeks to interpret messages in terms of signs and patterns of symbolism.
Contemporary semiotics consists of two branches originating contemporaneously in
late 19th century France and the United States. Originating in literary and linguistic
contexts, one branch (referred to as semiology) originated from the work of Swiss
linguist Ferdinand Saussure. The second branch expands on the work of American
pragmatist philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce.
A sign can be a word, sound, a touch or visual image. Saussure divides a sign into
two components: the signifier, which is the sound, image, or word, and the signified,
which is the concept or meaning the signifier represents. For Saussure, the relation
between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary and conventional. In other words,
signs can mean anything we agree that they mean, as well as mean different things to
different people.
The broadening concept of text and discourse encourages additional research into
how visual communication operates to create meaning. Deely explains that "at the
heart of semiotics is the realization that the whole of human experience, without
exception, is an interpretive structure mediated and sustained by signs." Semiotics
now considers a variety of texts, using Eco's terms, to investigate such diverse areas as
movies, art, advertisements, and fashion, as well as visuals. In other words, as Berger
explains, "the essential breakthrough of semiology is to take linguistics as a model and
apply linguistic concepts to other phenomena--texts--and not just to language itself."
Anthropologists like Grant McCracken and marketing experts like Sydney Levy have
even used semiotic interpretations to analyze the rich cultural meanings of products
and consumer consumption behaviors as texts. In their book Discourses in Place:
Language in the material world, Ron Scollon and Suzie Wong Scollon note that visual
semiotics has to do with turning "from the spoken, face-to-face discourses to the
representations of that interaction order in images and signs" (82). Interaction order
involves the various social interactions that takes place in any setting, such as being
alone, being with a companion, at a meeting, watching a show etc., and it "is almost
always complex", with various interactions occurring at once (83). When it comes to
images, says Scollon and Wong, there are also multiple relationships. These include
the relationships between the components of a visual image, the relationships between
the producers of the visual image, the relationships between the producers and the
components, as well as the relationships between the components of an image and
those who are viewing it. That's are the main point.
 The science of signs – back to the pictograph
▪ A sign is anything that stands for something else.
▪ Iconic – pictures, illustrations and photos – and film
▪ Indexical—a casual or other connection to something that
w can figure out – ashes are a sign of fire, colors in sky suggest
sunset
▪ Symbolic –signs that have to be learned
This interaction order has four main semiotic systems, says Scollon and Wong. These
include represented participants, modality, composition and interactive participants.
Represented participants are elements of a visual image, and are either narrative
("present unfolding actions and events or... processes of change") or conceptual ("show
abstract, comparative or generalized categories") (Scollon and Wong 86). Modality
is how true to reality a visual image is, and main indicators include color saturation,
color differentiation, depth, illumination and brightness, among others

With modality, it is often found "that truth, veracity, or sincerity might be expressed in
very different ways from one society to another," with Western cultures favoring natu-
ralistic representation, or as true to seeing it in person as possible (Scollon and Wong
89-90). Composition is the way in which represented participants within a visual
image are arranged in relation to one another, with the three main systems of com-
positions being ideal-real(top to bottom), given-new(left to right), and center-mar-
gin relationships (Scollon and Wong 92). So, for example, when reading a menu at a
fast-food restaurant, the given information would be something such as "hamburger",
and the new information would be the price, read left to right and recognized in that
order. As
mentioned above, interactive participants, explain Scollon and Wong, are the various
relationships that occur around a visual image, such as those between the producers
of the image and the represented participants in that image. In this way, these four
components work together to help convey the meaning of signs and symbols.

Huxley-Lester Model
This model states seeing is:
Sensing + Selecting + Perceiving = Seeing
Sensation: physical act of eyes taking in light
Selection: concentrating & isolating the focus of your vision Perceiving: grasping
or understand what you see.
Sight and thought are inseparable. We go through cycles of perceiving, focusing on
particular things we see, learning from that and committing it to memory and then
applying that knowledge to what we perceive. The more knowledge and experience
you gain, the easier it is to interpret what you’re looking at. So, “the more you know,
the more you see.”

Images with Messages

Typography
 Introduction
Writing is one of the most fundamental forms of communication, and it traces its
roots back to hieroglyphs or pictograms. Used by ancient civilizations of the world to
represent ideas, these images soon evolved into alphabets and phonographic writing,
which led to the development of various typographic systems.

Typography has an “illustrious” history and is obviously a crucial aspect of graphic

design. Sure enough, typeface designers need to have a thorough understanding of
typography—especially its evolution over the centuries—in order to incorporate or
revive older or even extinct typefaces, depending upon their requirements, and give
the letters a modern touch.

Let’s go through the evolution of typography briefly to gain a bit of insight. We will
not delve fully into the rich history of typography (as it can go on endlessly) but cover
some essentials that changed the course of typography.
The Evolution of Typography:
Ancient Era – Saying it with Pictures
Ancient cave paintings that date back to 20,000 B.C. are perhaps the very first record-
ed written communication. However, formal writing is said to have been developed
by the Sumerians at around 3,500 B.C. As civilizations advanced, the need to commu-
nicate complex concepts grew—hence the development of Egyptian hieroglyphics.
By 3100 B.C., the Egyptians began incorporating symbols or ideograms into their art,
architecture and writings. Also, by 1600 B.C. Phoenicians developed phonograms,
or symbols used to represent spoken words. At present, we have a number of pho-
nograms laced in the English alphabet such as % to represent “percentage” and # to
represent “number” and so on and so forth.

It is Phoenicians who are credited with creating the very first alphabet and around
1000 B.C.—the same alphabet was used by the Greeks. In fact, the word Alphabet is a
combination of the first two Greek letters, Alpha and Beta.

The Romans, after several years, used this Greek Alphabet and on the basis of the
same, styled the Uppercase Alphabet, which is still used today. They also refined the
art of handwriting and fashioned a number of different styles of lettering. Additional-
ly, they also introduced different scripts – formal and informal for official and unoffi-
cial writings respectively.
The Middle Ages – Handwritten and Well-Illustrated Manuscripts
The Middle Ages were all about hand-written and well-illustrated manuscripts.
It led to the evolution of a wide range of writing styles. Unicals and half unicals
were prominent features, with rounded, elaborate lettering. The art of Calligra-
phy along with page layout and lettering forged new ground. Calligraphy masters
travelled across the known world to share their knowledge with the educated elite.

The Book of Kells, c. AD 800,

is lettered in a script known as
“insular majuscule,” a variety of
uncial script that originated in
Ireland. (Image source)

Gutenberg and Modern Typography

As we all learned in history class, the development of moveable type and the printing
press in the 15th century by Johannes Gutenberg was a turning point for the modern
world—and, of course, modern typography. During this time, both practical and dec-
orative typefaces appeared en masse, along with a lighter, more ordered page layout
with subtle illustrations.
By the Industrial Revolution typography was all about communicating with the mass-
es. Through signs, posters, newspapers, periodicals and advertisements, typefaces
became larger and catchier, with bolder lettering and shading—as well as experimen-
tal serif and sans serif typefaces. Ornamental typography was another major highlight
in this era. In the 1800’s, medieval art and hand crafted individual art has become
commonplace, and international artistic styles developed considerably.
Shifting to the Present
Graphic designers these days have the luxury of endless tools and technology to
create a wide range of typographic styles and even entire families of font families and
typefaces. Armed with the knowledge of typographic history, graphic designers can
expand their horizons and enhance their skills to produce a much more refined body
of work.
Understanding the various visual communication principles in typography since the
beginning of time can help designers determine which elements have more or less
remained the same and which ones have evolved with time—as well as the factors that
contributed to their success or failure.

Types of Typography with

Most typefaces may be divided into four common groups- those with serifs, the
ones without serifs, scripts and decorative forms. Over the years, typographers
and typography researchers have built various schemes to categorize styles more
accurately – some of these schemes have sub-category levels. A classification tech-
nique may help define, sort and mixing forms.
1. Serif Type Styles ]
These are the oldest and most common typography typeface of different styles.
This typeface has feet like design – a characteristic which makes it more legible,
and at the same time carries traditional atmosphere, reverence, comfort, and
durability.
• Old Style Examples: Adobe Jensen, Garamond, Goudy Old Style.
• Transitional Examples: Baskerville, Perpetua
• Neoclassical & Didone Examples: Bodoni Classic, ITC Fenice
• Slab Serifs Examples: Museo Slab, Rockwell, American Typewriter
• Clarendon Examples: Bookman, ITC Charter
• Glyphic Examples: Albertus, Cartier Book, New text

2. Sans Serif Type Styles

Although serif typeface has feet, on the other side, sans-serif (where sans serif
means “without serifs”) loses the adornments and feet that the serif has. This stirs
the feelings from the viewer about cleanliness, modernization, objectivity, and
peace. However, different weights of this typeface can display various ambiances.
• Grotesque Examples: Franklin Gothic, News Gothic.
• Neo-Grotesque Examples: Helvetica, San Francisco, and Roboto
• Humanistic Examples: Gill Sans, Verdana, Lucida Grande.
• Geometric Examples: Futura, Avenir

3. Script Type Styles

Script typefaces show a similarity to handwriting as suggested by the term. It also
provides an atmosphere of beauty, imagination and a girlish aura. Although the
script typefaces are lovely, the use in print-outs and web documents on body text
is not recommended. Two simple classifications exist: formal, and casual.
• Formal Examples: Bickham Script, Snell Roundhand, Kuenstler Script.
• Casual Examples: Brush Script, Bianca, Mahogany Script
• Calligraphic Examples: Belltrap, Blaze, Vivaldi
• Blackletter & Lombardic Examples: Goudy Text, Monmouth, Engravers Old
English
4. Monospaced Type Styles
Each character takes up precisely the same amount of space on the page or screen.
Smaller characters have more space across them to make up for the difference in
width. Varieties include Serif and San Serif.
Examples: Courier New, Consolas, Source Code Pro

5. Decorative Type Styles

The most visually striking fonts are expressive, special, welcoming, enjoyable,
show typefaces. While most of this typeface ‘s styles are too difficult and deco-
rative, there are those that are genuinely suitable for use as headers and titles.
Examples: Broadway, Cooper Black, Curlz

The Application of typography in graphic design

As you know, converting text into a design isn't a simple copy-paste job. It re-
quires both strategy and a good eye for visual aesthetics. Whether you're de-
signing a landing page, book cover, or logo, you may spend countless hours just
playing with the type. Why do we put so much time and energy into typography?
In no particular order, let's go over the top eight reasons why typography is im-
portant in graphic design.
1. Deliver a message
Graphic design is all about visual communication. Through typography, we can
heighten the message of a design in a clear and legible way. In a design that's
primarily image-based, the typography needs to be strong enough to get noticed.
In a text-heavy design, we need to use typography design in order to differenti-
ate different sections and call attention to important messages. Either way, there
needs to be an intentional and harmonious balance between different competing
elements in order to get the primary message across quickly and easily.
Locomotive's message of "work
hard, play hard" (emphasis on
"play") stands loud and clear
thanks to typography design.
2. Create hierarchy
One important way typography is used in graphic design is to create visual hier-
archy. This is often accomplished through sizing--the largest element on the page
naturally draws the eye first. In a text-heavy graphic design, such as a newspaper
or brochure, the headlines stand out and draw attention because they're larger
than the body text.
Dribble Image source
Another way to create typographic hierarchy is through the combination of dif-
ferent typefaces. For instance, using a geometric sans serif typeface for headings
and a classic serif for the body. The standard approach is to establish three levels
of typographic hierarchy: headings, subheadings, and body copy. Each level uti-
lizes a different font, and the hierarchy is further established through sizing.

3. Build brand recognition

A powerful role of typography in graphic design is to establish and grow brand
recognition. This is especially true when it comes to logo design. When you think
about popular brands like Coca-Cola, Harley-Davidson, and Disney, you can
easily visualize their unique logotype in your mind. The same concept holds true
for other variations of graphic design; for instance, the simple, sans-serif typeface
Instagram uses for their app user interface. Creating brand recognition through
typography helps create a unique attachment and feeling of familiarity between
the brand and the consumer. P.S. Want to learn how to use typography and other
skills to create stunning, goal-oriented websites for your clients? Sign up for our
free masterclass, High-Value Web Designer Secrets.
4. Show personality
Some typefaces, particularly in the display category, add personality to a graphic
design. The intentional use of typography can indicate whether a brand is playful,
warm, mysterious, edgy, youthful, refined, and so on. Therefore, it's important to
understand the traits of a brand or design project in order to use typography that
conveys the right personality. Bold and rounded typography is typically used to
convey playfulness and friendliness in graphic design. In contrast, thin and subtle
letterforms give off an air of sophistication and sincerity. With a little bit of prac-
tice, it's fairly easy to read the personality of a given typeface and decide whether
it's a good fit for your project.
5. Make an impact
Typography can create a strong visual impact. There are many ways to get creative
with typography in graphic design in order to make an impression on the view-
er. It can even be used in such a way that no other supporting visuals are needed
in order to effectively communicate the message of the design. some of graphic
designs in which typography is front and center and makes a marked impact. the
typography is essentially art; it takes a lot of skill and artistic ability to pull off this
effect.
6. Establish a mood and tone
Similarly, to how typography conveys personality, it also helps establish the mood
and tone of a graphic design piece. In this way, typography visually brings out
a brand's values, without needing to explicitly state what those values are. For
instance, a brand that values minimalism can help convey this value through the
use of a modern, lightweight sans serif font. Typography can also heighten the
emotional factor of a piece of text.
7. Draw attention
One of the most important roles of typography is to draw attention to important
messages. Typography is an easy and impactful method for making a word or
phrase stand out in a design. Some ways to draw attention through typography
include increasing the size, changing the color, and changing the font or typeface
to contrast with the surrounding elements.
8. Create harmony and consistency
Typography helps create harmony and consistency in a design. In brand identity
design, it's important to create visual consistency across all platforms. In website
design, this looks like using consistent heading and body fonts throughout the
site. Visual consistency creates a professional and streamlined look and promotes
brand recognition.
Harmony in graphic design refers to visual balance and continuity. Harmonious
designs are easy to follow and aesthetically appealing.
QOUTES
LOGO DRAW AND REDESING
 WORD AS AN IMAGE
AND MESSAGE REFELECTION
 BOOK AND BOOK COVER

THET WO MINDSETS AND THEC OURAGE TO BE YOURSELF

THET WO MINDSETS
AND
THEC OURAGE TO BE YOURSELF

The ability praise pushed students right into the fixed mindset,
and they showed all the signs of it, too: When we gave them a
choice, they rejected a challenging new task that they could learn
from. They didn’t want to do anything that could expose their
flaws and call into question their talent.
When people with a fixed mindset talk about their conflicts, they as-
sign blame. Sometimes they blame themselves, but often they blame
their partner. And they assign blame to a trait — a character flaw.

“No one can build you the bridge on which you, and only you, must cross the
river of life,” wrote the thirty-year-old Nietzsche. “The true and durable path
into and through experience,” Nobel-winning poet Seamus Heaney counseled
the young more than a century later in his magnificent commencement
address, “involves being true … to your own solitude, true to your own
secret knowledge.”
Almost anybody can learn to think or believe or know, but not a
single human being can be taught to feel. Why? Because when-
ever you think or you believe or you know, you’re a lot of oth-
er people: but the moment you feel, you’re nobody-but-yourself.

https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/29/carol-dweck-mindset/
AND
https://www.themarginalian.org/2017/09/25/e-e-cummings-advice/
 Fixed vs. Growth: The Two Basic Mindsets That Shape
Our Lives
How to fine-tune the internal monologue that scores every aspect
of our lives, from leadership to love.

“If you imagine less, less will be what you undoubtedly deserve,” Debbie Millman counseled in one of the
best commencement speeches ever given, urging: “Do what you love, and don’t stop until you get what
you love. Work as hard as you can, imagine immensities…” Far from Pollyanna platitude, this advice
actually reflects what modern psychology knows about how belief systems about our own abilities and
potential fuel our behavior and predict our success. Much of that understanding stems from the work
of Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck, synthesized in her remarkably insightful Mindset: The New
Psychology of Success (public library) — an inquiry into the power of our beliefs, both conscious and
unconscious, and how changing even the simplest of them can have profound impact on nearly every
aspect of our lives.

One of the most basic beliefs we carry about ourselves, Dweck found in her research, has to do with
how we view and inhabit what we consider to be our personality. A “fixed mindset” assumes that our
character, intelligence, and creative ability are static givens which we can’t change in any meaningful way,
and success is the affirmation of that inherent intelligence, an assessment of how those givens measure
up against an equally fixed standard; striving for success and avoiding failure at all costs become a way
of maintaining the sense of being smart or skilled. A “growth mindset,” on the other hand, thrives on
challenge and sees failure not as evidence of unintelligence but as a heartening springboard for growth
and for stretching our existing abilities. Out of these two mindsets, which we manifest from a very early
age, springs a great deal of our behavior, our relationship with success and failure in both professional
and personal contexts, and ultimately our capacity for happiness.
The consequences of believing that intelligence and personality can be developed
rather than being immutably engrained traits, Dweck found in her two decades of
research with both children and adults, are remarkable. She writes:

For twenty years, my research has shown that the view you adopt for
yourself profoundly affects the way you lead your life. It can determine
whether you become the person you want to be and whether you accom-
plish the things you value. How does this happen? How can a simple belief
have the power to transform your psychology and, as a result, your life?
 Believing that your qualities are carved in stone — the fixed
mindset — creates an urgency to prove yourself over and over.
If you have only a certain amount of intelligence, a certain per-
sonality, and a certain moral character — well, then you’d bet-
ter prove that you have a healthy dose of them. It simply wouldn’t
do to look or feel deficient in these most basic characteristics.

I’ve seen so many people with this one consuming goal of prov-
ing themselves — in the classroom, in their careers, and in their
relationships. Every situation calls for a confirmation of their in-
telligence, personality, or character. Every situation is evalu-
ated: Will I succeed or fail? Will I look smart or dumb? Will I
be accepted or rejected? Will I feel like a winner or a loser? . . .

There’s another mindset in which these traits are not simply a hand
you’re dealt and have to live with, always trying to convince your-
self and others that you have a royal flush when you’re secretly wor-
ried it’s a pair of tens. In this mindset, the hand you’re dealt is just
the starting point for development. This growth mindset is based on
the belief that your basic qualities are things you can cultivate through
your efforts. Although people may differ in every which way — in
their initial talents and aptitudes, interests, or temperaments — ev-
eryone can change and grow through application and experience.

Do people with this mindset believe that anyone can be anything,

that anyone with proper motivation or education can become Ein-
stein or Beethoven? No, but they believe that a person’s true poten-
tial is unknown (and unknowable); that it’s impossible to foresee
what can be accomplished with years of passion, toil, and training.

At the heart of what makes the “growth mindset” so winsome, Dweck found, is
that it creates a passion for learning rather than a hunger for approval. Its hall-
mark is the conviction that human qualities like intelligence and creativity, and
even relational capacities like love and friendship, can be cultivated through effort
and deliberate practice. Not only are people with this mindset not discouraged by
failure, but they don’t actually see themselves as failing in those situations — they
see themselves as learning. Dweck writes:
 Why waste time proving over and over how great you are, when you
could be getting better? Why hide deficiencies instead of overcoming
them? Why look for friends or partners who will just shore up your
self-esteem instead of ones who will also challenge you to grow? And why
seek out the tried and true, instead of experiences that will stretch you?
The passion for stretching yourself and sticking to it, even (or especially)
when it’s not going well, is the hallmark of the growth mindset. This is the
mindset that allows people to thrive during some of the most challenging
times in their lives.
This idea, of course, isn’t new — if anything, it’s the fodder of self-help books and
vacant “You can do anything!” platitudes. What makes Dweck’s work different,
however, is that it is rooted in rigorous research on how the mind — especial-
ly the developing mind — works, identifying not only the core drivers of those
mindsets but also how they can be reprogrammed.
Dweck and her team found that people with the fixed mindset see risk and effort
as potential giveaways of their inadequacies, revealing that they come up short in
some way. But the relationship between mindset and effort is a two-way street:
It’s not just that some people happen to recognize the value of challenging
themselves and the importance of effort. Our research has shown that
this comes directly from the growth mindset. When we teach people the
growth mindset, with its focus on development, these ideas about chal-
lenge and effort follow. . . .

As you begin to understand the fixed and growth mindsets, you will see
exactly how one thing leads to another—how a belief that your quali-
ties are carved in stone leads to a host of thoughts and actions, and how
a belief that your qualities can be cultivated leads to a host of different
thoughts and actions, taking you down an entirely different road.

The mindsets change what people strive for and what they see as success.
. . they change the definition, significance, and impact of failure. . . they
change the deepest meaning of effort.
But her most remarkable research, which has informed present theories of why
presence is more important than praise in teaching children to cultivate a healthy
relationship with achievement, explores how these mindsets are born — they
form, it turns out, very early in life. In one seminal study, Dweck and her col-
leagues offered four-year-olds a choice: They could either redo an easy jigsaw
puzzle, or try a harder one. Even these young children conformed to the charac-
teristics of one of the two mindsets — those with “fixed” mentality stayed on the
safe side, choosing the easier puzzles that would affirm their existing ability, artic-
ulating to the researchers their belief that smart kids don’t make mistakes; those
with the “growth” mindset thought it an odd choice to begin with, perplexed why

Art by Lia Halloran for a letter by Marina Abramović from A Velocity of Being: Letters to a Young Reader. (Available as a print.)
Dweck quotes one seventh-grade girl, who captured the difference beautifully:
 I think intelligence is something you have to work for … it isn’t just
given to you.… Most kids, if they’re not sure of an answer, will not raise
their hand to answer the question. But what I usually do is raise my
hand, because if I’m wrong, then my mistake will be corrected. Or I will
raise my hand and say, ‘How would this be solved?’ or ‘I don’t get this.
Can you help me?’ Just by doing that I’m increasing my intelligence.
Things got even more interesting when Dweck brought people into Columbia’s
brain-wave lab to study how their brains behaved as they answered difficult ques-
tions and received feedback. What she found was that those with a fixed mindset
were only interested in hearing feedback that reflected directly on their present
ability, but tuned out information that could help them learn and improve. They
even showed no interest in hearing the right answer when they had gotten a ques-
tion wrong, because they had already filed it away in the failure category. Those
with a growth mindset, on the other hand, were keenly attentive to information
that could help them expand their existing knowledge and skill, regardless of
whether they’d gotten the question right or wrong — in other words, their priori-
These findings are especially important in education and how we, as a culture,
assess intelligence. In another study of hundreds of students, mostly adolescents,
Dweck and her colleagues gave each ten fairly challenging problems from a non-
verbal IQ test, then praised the student for his or her performance — most had
done pretty well. But they offered two types of praise: Some students were told
“Wow, you got [X many] right. That’s a really good score. You must be smart at
this,” while others, “Wow, you got [X many] right. That’s a really good score. You
must have worked really hard.” In other words, some were praised for ability and
others for effort. The findings, at this point, are unsurprising yet jarring:
The ability praise pushed students right into the fixed mindset, and
they showed all the signs of it, too: When we gave them a choice, they
rejected a challenging new task that they could learn from. They didn’t
want to do anything that could expose their flaws and call into ques-
tion their talent.

In contrast, when students were praised for effort, 90 percent of them

wanted the challenging new task that they could learn from.
The most interesting part, however, is what happened next: Dweck and her
colleagues gave the students a subsequent set of harder problems, on which the
students didn’t do so well. Suddenly, the ability-praised kids thought they weren’t
so smart or gifted after all. Dweck puts it poignantly:
If success had meant they were intelligent, then less-than-success meant
they were deficient.
But for the effort-praised kids, the difficulty was simply an indication that they
had to put in more effort, not a sign of failure or a reflection of their poor intel-
lect. Perhaps most importantly, the two mindsets also impacted the kids’ level
of enjoyment — everyone enjoyed the first round of easier questions, which
most kids got right, but as soon as the questions got more challenging, the abili-
ty-praised kids no longer had any fun, while the effort-praised ones not only still
enjoyed the problems but even said that the more challenging, the more fun. The
latter also had significant improvements in their performance as the problems got
harder, while the former kept getting worse and worse, as if discouraged by their
own success-or-failure mindset.

It gets better — or worse, depending on how we look at it: The most unsettling
finding came after the IQ questions were completed, when the researchers asked
the kids to write private letters to their peers relaying the experience, including
a space for reporting their scores on the problems. To Dweck’s devastation, the
most toxic byproduct of the fixed mindset turned out to be dishonesty: Forty per-
cent of the ability-praised kids lied about their scores, inflating them to look more

In the fixed mindset, imperfections are shameful — especially if you’re tal-

ented — so they lied them away. What’s so alarming is that we took ordinary
children and made them into liars, simply by telling them they were smart.

This illustrates the key difference between the two mindsets — for those with a
growth one, “personal success is when you work your hardest to become your
best,” whereas for those with a fixed one, “success is about establishing their
superiority, pure and simple. Being that somebody who is worthier than the no-
bodies.” For the latter, setbacks are a sentence and a label. For the former, they’re
motivating, informative input — a wakeup call.
But one of the most profound applications of this insight has to do not with
business or education but with love. Dweck found that people exhibited the same
dichotomy of dispositions in their personal relationships: Those with a fixed
mindset believed their ideal mate would put them on a pedestal and make them
feel perfect, like “the god of a one-person religion,” whereas those with the growth
mindset preferred a partner who would recognize their faults and lovingly help
improve them, someone who would encourage them to learn new things and be-
come a better person. The fixed mindset, it turns out, is at the root of many of our
most toxic cultural myths about “true love.” Dweck writes:
 The growth mindset says all of these things can be developed. All — you,
your partner, and the relationship — are capable of growth and change.

In the fixed mindset, the ideal is instant, perfect, and per-

petual compatibility. Like it was meant to be. Like rid-
ing off into the sunset. Like “they lived happily ever after.”

One problem is that people with the fixed mindset expect ev-
erything good to happen automatically. It’s not that the part-
ners will work to help each other solve their problems or
gain skills. It’s that this will magically occur through their
love, sort of the way it happened to Sleeping Beauty, whose
coma was cured by her prince’s kiss, or to Cinderella, whose
miserable life was suddenly transformed by her prince.
This also applies to the myth of mind-reading, where the fixed mindset believes
that an ideal couple should be able to read each other’s minds and finish each
other’s sentences. She cites a study that invited people to talk about their relation-
ships:
Those with the fixed mindset felt threatened and hostile af-
ter talking about even minor discrepancies in how they and
their partner saw their relationship. Even a minor discrepancy
threatened their belief that they shared all of each other’s views.

But most destructive of all relationship myths is the belief that if it requires work,
something is terribly wrong and that any discrepancy of opinions or preferences
is indicative of character flaws on behalf of one’s partner. Dweck offers a reality
check:
Just as there are no great achievements without setbacks, there are
no great relationships without conflicts and problems along the way.

When people with a fixed mindset talk about their conflicts, they as-
sign blame. Sometimes they blame themselves, but often they blame
their partner. And they assign blame to a trait — a character flaw.
 But it doesn’t end there. When people blame their partner’s per-
sonality for the problem, they feel anger and disgust toward them.

And it barrels on: Since the problem comes from fixed traits, it can’t be solved.
So once people with the fixed mindset see flaws in their partners, they be-
come contemptuous of them and dissatisfied with the whole relationship.

Those with the growth mindset, on the other hand, can acknowledge their part-
ners’ imperfections, without assigning blame, and still feel that they have a fulfill-
ing relationship. They see conflicts as problems of communication, not of person-
ality or character. This dynamic holds true as much in romantic partnerships as in
friendship and even in people’s relationships with their parents. Dweck summa-
rizes her findings:
When people embark on a relationship, they encounter a partner who is
different from them, and they haven’t learned how to deal with the differ-
ences. In a good relationship, people develop these skills and, as they do,
both partners grow and the relationship deepens. But for this to happen,
people need to feel they’re on the same side. . . . As an atmosphere of trust
developed, they [become] vitally interested in each other’s development.

What it all comes down to is that a mindset is an interpretative process that tells
us what is going on around us. In the fixed mindset, that process is scored by
an internal monologue of constant judging and evaluation, using every piece of
information as evidence either for or against such assessments as whether you’re
a good person, whether your partner is selfish, or whether you are better than the
person next to you. In a growth mindset, on the other hand, the internal mono-
logue is not one of judgment but one of voracious appetite for learning, constant-
ly seeking out the kind of input that you can metabolize into learning and con-
structive action.

In the rest of Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, Dweck goes on to explore
how these fundamental mindsets form, what their defining characteristics are in
different contexts of life, and how we can rewire our cognitive habits to adopt the
much more fruitful and nourishing growth mindset.
 The Courage to Be Yourself: E.E. Cummings
on Art, Life, and Being Unafraid to Feel
“To be nobody-but-yourself — in a world which is doing its best,
night and day, to make you everybody else — means to fight the
hardest battle which any human being can fight.”
“No one can build you the bridge on
which you, and only you, must cross the
river of life,” wrote the thirty-year-old
Nietzsche. “The true and durable path into
and through experience,” Nobel-winning
poet Seamus Heaney counseled the young
more than a century later in his magnif-
icent commencement address, “involves
being true … to your own solitude, true to
your own secret knowledge.”

Every generation believes that it must bat-

tle unprecedented pressures of conformity;
that it must fight harder than any previous
generation to protect that secret knowl-
edge from which our integrity of selfhood
springs. Some of this belief stems from the
habitual conceit of a culture blinded by its
own presentism bias, ignorant of the past’s
contextual analogues.
But much of it in the century and a half since Nietzsche, and especially in the
years since Heaney, is an accurate reflection of the conditions we have cre-
ated and continually reinforce in our present informational ecosystem — a
Pavlovian system of constant feedback, in which the easiest and commonest
opinions are most readily rewarded, and dissenting voices are most readily
punished by the unthinking mob.
 E.E. Cummings by Edward Weston (Photograph courtesy of the Center for Creative Photography)
Few people in the two centuries since Emerson issued his exhortation to “trust
thyself ” have countered this culturally condoned blunting of individuality more
courageously and consistently than E.E. Cummings (October 14, 1894–Septem-
ber 3, 1962) — an artist who never cowered from being his unconventional self
because, in the words of his most incisive and competent biographer, he “despised
fear, and his life was lived in defiance of all who ruled by it.”
A fortnight after the poet’s fifty-ninth birthday, a small Michigan newspaper
published a short, enormous piece by Cummings under the title “A Poet’s Advice
to Students,” radiating expansive wisdom on art, life, and the courage of being
yourself. It went on to inspire Buckminster Fuller and was later included in E.E.
Cummings: A Miscellany Revised (public library) — that wonderful out-of-print
collection which the poet himself described as “a cluster of epigrams, forty-nine
essays on various subjects, a poem dispraising dogmata, and several selections
from unfinished plays,” and which gave us Cummings on what it really means to
be an artist.
Addressing those who aspire to be poets — no doubt in that broadest Bald-
winian sense of wakeful artists in any medium and courageous seers of human
truth — Cummings echoes the poet Laura Riding’s exquisite letters to an eight-
year-old girl about being oneself and writes:
A poet is somebody who feels, and who expresses his feelings through words.

This may sound easy. It isn’t. A lot of people think or believe or know
they feel — but that’s thinking or believing or knowing; not feel-
ing. And poetry is feeling — not knowing or believing or thinking.

Almost anybody can learn to think or believe or know, but not a

single human being can be taught to feel. Why? Because when-
ever you think or you believe or you know, you’re a lot of oth-
er people: but the moment you feel, you’re nobody-but-yourself.

To be nobody-but-yourself — in a world which is doing its best, night

and day, to make you everybody else — means to fight the hard-
est battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting.
Cummings should know — just four years earlier, he had fought that hardest
battle himself: When he was awarded the prestigious Academy of American Poets
annual fellowship — the MacArthur of poetry — Cummings had to withstand
harsh criticism from traditionalists who besieged him with hate for the bravery of
breaking with tradition and being nobody-but-himself in his art. With an eye to
that unassailable creative integrity buoyed by relentless work ethic, he adds:
As for expressing nobody-but-yourself in words, that means working just a
little harder than anybody who isn’t a poet can possibly imagine. Why? Be-
cause nothing is quite as easy as using words like somebody else. We all of us
do exactly this nearly all of the time — and whenever we do it, we’re not poets.

If, at the end of your first ten or fifteen years of fighting and working and feel-
ing, you find you’ve written one line of one poem, you’ll be very lucky indeed.

And so my advice to all young people who wish to become poets is:
do something easy, like learning how to blow up the world — unless

POSTER

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUrKLwA8rEg&t=824s
 BUSSINESS CARD

ARC
RCHHITEC
ECTTURE, URB
RBAAN PLANNING
DESIGN AND CO
CONNSTRACTION
COM
CO MPANY AND CO
CONNSULTANCY

ARC
RCHHITEC
ECTTURE, URB
RBAAN PLANNING
DESIGN AND CO
CONNSTRACTION
COMPANY AND CO
COM CONNSULTANCY
BASIC DESIGN STUDIO

ARCHICAD
ARCHETCTURAL STUDIO I
CONCEPT!

SKETCH UP APP