C Studio Project One
Week One, August 30
I enjoyed this week’s introduction to some of the basic principles and programs/ techniques within Communications design; it’s rewarding to immediately take what we learned in class and identify or apply it while studying our publication.
Also very happy that one of the handouts brought up some design books! I’ve been trying to start reading more on design, but it can be kind of overwhelming to decide where to start. I actually ordered “Making and Breaking the Grid” for my birthday a week ago, so it was reassuring to see it referenced in class.
Regarding the first project- I don’t have much familiarity with grids, but hopefully this assignment will give me a solid introduction to them. Hannah and I compared a lot of layouts we asssumed to be different but ended up originating from the same grid. We’d like to further analyze the connections between the MIT Technology Review’s history, and how that has impacted its recent redesign as a unique characteristic of our publication. I would like to step back and keep some perspective between macro and microanalysis, and push myself when creating the presentation. It’s nice to be in a partnered project the first time around as I work some things out, and it’ll be interesting to see how we come up with something harmonious with but not identical to the bold redesign of the magazine.
Week Two, September 6

Hannah and I have become much more familiar with the MIT Technology Review in the past week. We discovered that, opposed to what we assumed to be many different grids, there was a single 12-column grid format for all of the spreads. Having identified that, we looked into the reasons for the consistency (and occasional inconsistencies) of the formatting. We spent time tracking the magazine’s many changes in purpose, reach, and audience. Next week, I’d like to go beyond how this history has impacted the publication’s ethos and delve into its influence on the current visual elements instead.
Originally, the presentation followed a format borrowed from the publication itself; the “1,2,3” recurring section provided a neatly structured narrative for the story we wanted to tell. While we plan to stick with the organization, I think the Tuesday dry-run came at an apt time and provided some necessary redirection; taking so heavily from the magazine muddied our own voice.
But overall, it’s been a worthwhile week of research and work. The magazine has a much longer and more design-centric history than I had anticipated. I’ve also been introduced to Google Slides as a more serious format for presentations; I was never aware of all its capabilities, and I plan to take advantage of them much more frequently in the future.
Looking ahead, Hannah and I plan to address some of the shortcomings we identified within the presentation and continue to practice the verbal portion. I’m really looking forward to including some of the information I found after the Tuesday critique into our presentation! Reading about Muriel Cooper and her associated brand of midcentury graphics has been incredibly insightful in tracing how the editorial reached its current appearance.
Reflection, September 11

From its introduction to the final presentation, this project developed in unexpected but rewarding ways, prompting me to discover new tools I can use to analyze the design around me and to better inform my own work.
Some valuable lessons on working with a partner– compromising on visual language and choice of content are unavoidable, so I’ve learned to treat it as an exercise in minimalism, filtering through to the points I absolutely want to convey. I’m thus encouraged to step back and reassess my own methods, and whether or not they’re as effective or significant as I thought. If our aim is to communicate with our audience, it’s key that we first communicate well between ourselves; Hannah and I met up frequently to develop the presentation, practice our script, or discuss and implement the feedback we’d received, ensuring that we were both up to date on the project and on each other’s perspectives.
Together, we found an angle of research we were excited to pursue. Keying in to the magazine’s long history under MIT was a primary step, and looking specifically at the design history and its influence on the 2018 redesign formed the basis for much of our insights. Vicki and Juan were both super helpful in steering us towards the significance of the visual cues we were pulling out of the magazine, and digging deeper into their elements. Their feedback nudged us towards strengthening our own visual language and changing lenses to refocus on the publication’s design presence. Reworking the presentation pushed us to look more closely at how we were structuring our own presentation.
It was super satisfying to understand the connections between Bauhaus graphic design and the Technology Review’s systems; beyond the clear graphic parallels, there was also unity between the principles of Bauhaus and the long-standing mission of the magazine. The dedication to a “compelling form of narrative journalism” is echoed in the design movement’s staunch celebration of simplicity and boldness. Powerful and playful, inquisitive and insightful — the magazine’s design history is proudly featured throughout its present. Discovering these associations reminded me to always, always research. Many of the visual elements that initially stood out to me turned out to be grounded in thoughtful grid, typography, and graphic decisions.
Overall, it’s been a productive two weeks! I’ve had a lot of fun working with Hannah and analyzing the magazine, and I think it’s been a great introduction to the sorts of close analyses I’ll have to conduct on structure, system, and form in the future material I plan to consume and create :)