In all honesty I feel that the grid is another one of those typographic boundaries developed by the bold, systematic designers. I used to embrace the grid as a tool ( and don't get me wrong, it really is) but now I feel more to the notion that it inhibits my personal creativity. For example, our most recent project, in trying to develop a unique form of the common magazine I felt trapped by the restrictions of having a continuous grid forming the framework for the entire piece. Only until I abandoned the grid concept was I able to jump outside my comfort zone and develop my magazine in a direction that was truly unique to me. I have studied grid concepts and developed enough work based upon that grid toknow how it works and what it's purpose is. Come to find out, despite what most typographers, designers and such will tell you... I don't think it is entirely necessary 100% of the time.
In one form of design which I feel constantly requires a grid-like system is information design. Even if I don't love the grid idea, I love information design. I don't feel systamatized by the grid in information design simply because it is a more subjective form of design. It requires you, as the designer, to react as your audience would. It becomes necessary to organize information, not only to form a successful solution, but also because the message your audience recives is dependant upon how, and when they receive the information. Large quantities of text can bore the common reader, so being able ot organize your information can capitalize your design.
The grid to any designer is absolutely necessary. Once you are able to understand the purpose of the grid in both elemental and typographic form, you can then develop to be a better designer even without using a grid-system.

In terms of creating design, there is always an importance in setting up a grid system for yourself. This elicits uniformity and alignment. A grid system is most useful for page layouts. Things can now be displayed in a logical way and can be unknowingly easy on the eyes. Design that is set up with a grid system is more easily viewable. But why do we always have to utilize this "system." It's not like there are specific rules involved with setting up the grid. So why must we labor over it? What would design be like if we were to just... discard it?

When I open up a magazine, upon first sight I do not notice the underlying grid system that the designer has set up for the reader. The average person would NEVER notice. But upon closer inspection I can find it. I can tell how the designer set up the document: there are a certain amount of columns and the text is usually aligned at the same position throughout the page, i.e. visual uniformity. But do I only notice this because I am a designer? Do I notice because I have been "trained" to notice?

Now: back to the average reader. Do they really appreciate it? If there were no grid system, would that person really care? OR would they even notice? I'm going to say the latter. People are so used to opening up a magazine and quickly flipping through the pages, thus all of that highly considered graphic material is somewhat lost to them. The average Joe doesn't really consider: text color, typographic choices, subhead content, or body text alignment... to them it's just the "stuff" that makes up the magazine. Because of this, I feel like the grid system isn't really that important to readers.

But I cannot imagine what layouts would be like if it weren't for the grid. If I didn't set up some of my work with a grid system, I'd be trying to "wing it" anyway. I would want things to line up without even knowing why. But the fact is that I do try to set up a grid: it serves a real purpose although the average person doesn't really notice it anyway. But if a layout were set up without a grid system, it would probably look really odd to the reader. Imagine if text were running off the page, or if body text were set up to be wall-to-wall with its outligning text box. This would certainly create visual chaos and therefore would be much more hard to read.

The fact is that we need the grid system in design. It seems as if there are no rules when setting up a grid system, however there is a purpose: to present information in a clear and logical way. Without this, the nature of magazines and layout would change.

Grid and Design Philosophy

I think that it is strange that I never really planned grids, they tend to happen. But when I do need to create one I seem to struggle with it. I have found that they are places that we don’t even realize they are, for example coupons. You are probably think coupons, really? Well you have to have standards set or people would put the UPC wherever they wanted, and make them to small. Grids are a set of standards. I think I notice that I am making them most when I create business cards. Each company has their own design but they all have grids. They are small but they are there. I think I use my guides as my grid. I don’t set out to create one, but in the process of making sure that things line up where I want them and to be sure spacing is correct I use a guide. You need to make sure things line up, that there is some kind of sense to your design.
Now I know that this also brings up the issue of how creative or artistic is that? Well it is all on how you use the grid that is already in place, or how you create it. Grids help us to read better. But if you are trying to make an artistic statement and you can explain why then you don’t need to have one, then that is fine. I do think that grids are always nessesary. But they help to organize the mess of commotion we have in out lives. So I do admit I don’t like using them, but not for a good reason. I need to learn how to make them, and use them more often in my design in a purposeful and meaningful way. The only person stopping me is me. And I can’t speak for everyone, but I would think if people don’t like them or understand them they haven’t learned enough about them.

found it interesting that mcmurtrie uses the word “cult” to describe the typographic trend of expanding the usage of lowercase letters. okay, i found it interesting, and maybe an intcie bit offensive seeing as i am one to have jumped on –rather, have been blindsided by- the bandwagon of this style. i am coming to the realization that I have no legitimate defense in using the technique after reading of its origin and i also believe the trend was indefensible in its first uses. however, i am more intrigued by the evolution of lowercase usage, which seems to point toward a more sound defense. (let’s hope.)

i agree that the lowercase is the easier read, maybe that is why i feel more comfortable using them. lowercase letterforms have a certain comfortable persona, they leave a gentle feel to a typographic body.

SIMILAR TO LOWERCASE, CAPITALS ALSO HAVE A PERSONA. in recent years, with the advent of on-line instant messaging the use of the capital letter allows one to show emotion or attitude through a computer screen. our conversation is so incredibly complex that, without that physical presence the intonation, accent, and obvious punctuating characteristics of someone’s voice (not to mention body language), other means may be necessary to represent these things. for example, the phrases, “ I HATE YOU,” and, “ i hate you,” sound a lot different in your head.

i don’t think that tradition is the single cause for uppercase use. our culture has developed rules and standards set to capital letters, therefore the easy read may be what more people understand. for instance, “god” and “God.” this is a HUGE ( <--you like that?) issue, proving my point that the capital “G” is used to differentiate one god from another. “god” often refers to any god other than the one Jewish God.? capital letters, in our language serve many purposes. many people agree that English is by far the most complicated language, maybe one reason this is true is because we have purposeful laws based upon the use of distinct letterforms. capital letters represent proper nouns, proper nouns in speech are easily identifiable, therefore easy to read. example; the word “mom” in text may not distinctly refer to your “Mom” or my “Mom” as our speech enables us to project more clearly.

i won’t let mcmurtrie take the heat for bringing up the notion for the tradition argument though, it’s just- I feel the need to defend the capital because , yes, i would surely be disconcerted if it wasn’t there anymore. and maybe this means that i really am subject to the tradition. you’ll notice, in trying to use only lowercase letters for the majority of this writing, i cannot break the habit of capitalizing out of obligation or respect to the entity the word refers to. tradition or not, they are not going away because it is what people know and understand best. capitals are not convenience, they’re defensible standards of our language. the use of lowercase might negate such standards, but that might be why it is identified by stylistic techniques, not tradition. for myself, the cockroach typographic style has been, if nothing other than a style, a learning tool. it begs questions like, “why is it more comfortable?” or, “ why does it look more unified?” questions mean answers, mean learning.

p.s. how did you read these sentence?:
“… it begs questions like, “why is it more comfortable?” or, “ why does it look more unified?” questions mean answers, mean learning. “

yes, i meant for this to be two sentences, read like this; “ It begs questions like, “Why is it more comfortable?” or, “ Why does it look more unified?” Questions mean answers, mean learning. “

without capitals, the punctuation at the end of the first sentence (if i even typed it right) does not give the idea of the sentence break, therefore the sentences run into one another. there is a time for lowercase, and being able to define that moment has now become a responsibility.