My admiration of/for Ron Cobb's "Semiotic Standard" (originally, concept art for the movie "Alien") and all of its virtualities led me to further/deeper explore the design and its intricacies.
More than just a trivial object/concept produced for a movie (and destined to be "consumed" -- "lost"/"buried" in the scenes' background -- and done with, once the film was finished), it resulted, instead, in a notable exercise in design, simplicity, consistency, expressiveness, coherence, ingenuity and meaning, all of it “lending” it a life beyond. It, surely, merits/warrants a closer inspection in some (all?) of these domains. Case study material.
Prompted (also) by these qualities, I've asked myself "what is the best way to go about it?". Back to basics! I revisited the original (from Cobb's book "Colorvision") and it dawn on me how/that, in a way, the artist's "process" was also there (“embedded” in the result). But one example of this is the progression: the standard set first, then the extension set, then the amendments (sign/symbol #30), ...
And. At the same time. A previous feeling of "I wish (the original) had survived with better (visual) quality" visited me. Once again.
This led me to search for renditions others could have produced. What I’ve found. A disappointment. The effort was more in “updating” and “upgrading” than in giving it a face-lift. While having nothing against that, per se, the resulting versions were not always without changes or, even, without losing some aspect of the original. And so. Of marginal interest to me.
So. After some thought, it followed fast and logically: "I should do a rendition/version/replica myself, as a way of know (more about) it, and (partly) the process that led to it and, also, to obtain a higher quality version (visually)".
But. I knew what I didn't want as a final result: a "better" version (no! better automatically means different so... no!); a pristine, shiny, error-free, afterthought-free, and, yet, "soulless", "empty" version (in a meta-way, there is meaning also in the manner of how the original "emerged", doing away with that would be losing that level of significance).
No. "All" (or most) of it should be there (from the original) after I finished the "task".
I would not want to discard, advertently or inadvertently, any of the characteristics that helped to this design's longevity, "durability", generic nature and universality
And what about what I did want?
I proposed myself to recreate/retrace (so to speak) the original design process itself, and by doing so, trying to grasp some spark of the original creative process (if at all possible!)
There had to be (some) knowledge (gained) in going through the whole process (added to its value as a design object). That was my final motivation.
That, coupled with the fact that I could not find no “suitable” (I mean, by my POV) rendition "convinced" me to push forward.
Impressed by the set of constraints that emanated from the original, I decided to create some of my own to govern the execution of the project.
And. So.
Without further ado, here are the (self-imposed) "constraints" (better read: "opportunities") I (finally) decided to "enforce":
• To preserve the original information - More specifically: no deletions, no additions, and, only, isomorphic transformations -- if possible and/or necessary. When all else is impossible, the better (possible) approximation should be used.
• To preserve the original aspect ratio of the signs/symbols (rectangular, with sides 18-by-19 units) - Several of the renditions/versions I've had access to do not adhere to this, instead, the original rectangle "morphed" into a square. Why is this important? Because there is meaning in the orientation -- important/vital in an environment where directions can change with time. Discarding this is going against the original purpose/spirit of the design.
• To preserve meaning by color (it's Semiotics, color has meaning...) - Again. In several of the renditions I've seen, colors appeared misplaced, and, by being so, invalidate the consistency (and meaning) of the original design. The most blatant example I've seen of this is #8 the sign/symbol ("Pressure Suit Locker") that appears with red inside (which conveys/means "alive", in this case -- because it appears inside a pressure suit -- a live human/astronaut) thus effectively signifying/meaning "Place for Hanging a Pressure Suit With Someone Alive Inside" (or something like that) -- which is funny but, not at all what was intended (even if by Ron Cobb's own admission some of the original designs were semi-humorous).
• To do it with pixels - No vectors or other scalable type of design; pixel as the unit, "honoring" (in some measure), the original grid based design of R. Cobb -- even if the original design/illustration is analogic in nature. In much the same way the Ron Cobb original had the guide/constraint of the underlying grid paper, I sought a similar "challenge" by limiting myself to the structure/guidance of the basic pixel grid (digital being my medium of choice, and all).
• To preserve, as much as possible, the original angles, curves, ratios and relative measures (and other design elements) – Simply put, the offset ("error") from the original should not amount to more than 1 pixel.
--
That was the why and the how (to some extent).
The where? The final result can be checked after the first jump, below.
A final, fun, fact: no (letter) 'J' was used in the making of this work... (better still, by R. Cobb in the original work) :)
