Calligraphy is like logos

In the questions after the first lecture today (as an introduction into calligraphy) I discovered that different calligraphy is not like different fonts in our culture and even not comparable to different handwritings. A more accurate comparison came from a Turkish student which gave the example of the IBM logo. In the (IBM) logo the typeface is set, but doesn't really represent the meaning. What really gives meaning and recognition is the way the letters are placed, how letters connect to each other as the lecturer -Çetin Sarıkartal- said.

Something with an even more open ending was the 'clash' of calligraphy and interaction design. Calligraphy is understood -even now- by a limited amount of people, not even all writer understand it. And it was kind of meant that way. It is not made with the idea to be easily understandable, unlike interaction design were you help the user to understand where she is working with. The idea behind it is that it is more pleasing to understand it after the considerably amount of work you spend on it and also the status you receive when reaching that point. Well, if I got this right. :)

It will be interesting to work out that difference between interaction design and calligraphy in the coming weeks. On the other hand, today I learned to not look at the concepts/ideas behind something but rather on the experience it gives you. With that in mind calligraphy and interaction design aren't each others counterparts anymore, both are about the interaction between the environment (the text) is in and the user on the other hand.