Typography & Graphic Explorations

01 Typography case study

Two complete alphabets, two opposing moods

This 2017 personal project translates the contrasting moods of Langston Hughes's Dreams and Enemy into two complete illustrated alphabets. Across 52 uppercase letterforms, flowers, creatures, figures, and anatomy become the stems and curves of the characters themselves.

The central design problem is shared by both sets: how much imagery can a letter hold while its shape remains recognizable? The A–Z comparison brings the systems together, making it possible to follow the same structural problem through two very different visual languages.

Enemy & Dreams A–Z

A01 / 26

EnemyBeauty and unease

DreamsGrowth and possibility

2017 letterforms, sequenced as a 2026 portfolio comparison. The same character advances in sync across both alphabets. Select an image to see its original sheet.

Enemy: hold beauty and unease together

The Enemy alphabet combines bones, figures, creatures, and the darker, Ukiyo-e-influenced imagery described in the original project. A uses limbs and bone-like contours around a skull. C draws the eye around an incomplete curve through a figure and skeletal arm. D places a horned face inside the rounded body of the letter. These images make the familiar character feel more unsettled without giving up its overall shape.

Hatching, asymmetry, and abrupt changes in contour distinguish this system from Dreams. Dense marks create focal points, while thin connecting lines keep the drawing from becoming a solid dark shape. In S, a skeletal spine supplies the same reversing movement that the peacock provides in Dreams. The two sets differ in mood and texture, but both rely on an identifiable silhouette and deliberate gaps between details.

Dreams: let growth shape the letter

The Dreams alphabet uses flowers, foliage, animals, and ornamental curves to suggest growth and possibility. Blossoms gather around the apex and feet of A while its triangular counter stays open. In B, leaves and flowers describe the two rounded bowls without filling their interiors. The decoration follows the character's structure rather than sitting on top of a neutral outline.

The drawings also vary the kind of image that carries the letter. C becomes a tree-and-rock landscape; O becomes a floral wreath; S follows the reversing curve of a peacock. Thin stems connect denser clusters, and areas of white space separate the forms. This gives each character its own image while keeping a shared rhythm of growth, branching, and open space across the alphabet.

Keep the structure legible from A to Z

Different letters expose different structural problems. A needs a clear apex and crossbar; B and D need distinct outer curves and counters; C must keep its aperture open. O makes the contrast especially visible: a floral wreath in Dreams, a horned skull held inside a continuous ring in Enemy. At Z, clouds carry one diagonal and a hooded figure carries the other. The motif changes, while the underlying letter still gives the eye a route through the drawing.

The paired sequence compares the same character in both systems. It reveals consistency through placement, contour, and white space rather than through one repeated ornament. These are illustrated display letters for individual attention, rather than a typeface for continuous reading.

A and B illustrated twice: Enemy's anatomical and creature details on the left, Dreams' flowers and foliage on the right — A–B · Enemy is on the left; Dreams is on the right. Image-filled strokes surround open counters in both systems.

C and D in the Enemy and Dreams alphabets, comparing a figure and horned face with a tree-and-rock landscape and foliage — C–D · A figure, horned face, landscape, and foliage take on the same structural jobs. White space preserves C's aperture and D's counter.

02 Typography case study

Make the word perform its meaning

In this 2019 typography study, I explored four ways to make “Doubt” express its meaning. Two alternatives build question marks from the letters; a third enlarges the t into a cross-like form; a fourth uses scale and rotation to suggest a puzzle. Each gives the same letters a different job in the composition.

The question marks give the eye a familiar symbol before it reconstructs the word. The other pair creates more tension through fragmentation. With color removed, scale, rotation, spacing, and negative space carry the hierarchy. These are four alternative readings of the word, with a visible trade-off between a strong image and immediate legibility.

The first pair makes recognition start with the silhouette of a question mark; the reader then discovers the letters inside it. The cross-like t reverses that hierarchy by making one character dominate the spread. The puzzle arrangement distributes attention across separate pieces. Comparing them shows how a change in scale or orientation can change the route through an otherwise identical word.

Two black-and-white Doubt compositions arranging the letters into question marks — Doubt · Two question-mark alternatives compare a dominant u with a symbol assembled from all five letters.

Two Doubt compositions using an enlarged cross-like t and a puzzle-like arrangement of rotated letters — Doubt · A cross-like t and a fragmented letter puzzle make uncertainty feel less stable and less immediate to read.

03 Typography case study

Give expression and reading different priorities

2026 follow-up study: I set the same paragraph in two layouts to give display impact and reading flow different priorities. Display-led uses an oversized e as the entry point and compresses the paragraph into a narrower column. Reading-led adds a clear title and gives the paragraph a wider, stable measure, while the e recedes to the edge.

The display-led route gives the letterform priority; the reading-led route gives the title and text block priority. Line length, spacing, and contrast determine what receives attention first.

Unlike the illustrated alphabet, these layouts have to support a connected passage. Keeping the wording constant makes the hierarchy easier to compare: the difference comes from the entry point, text measure, and relative weight of the letter and paragraph. The comparison extends the earlier concern with expressive form into the practical question of how much attention the surrounding text needs.

2026 follow-up study: Display-led hierarchy with an oversized lowercase e and the same paragraph — 2026 follow-up study · Display-led entry lets the oversized e establish the first visual stop.

2026 follow-up study: Reading-led hierarchy with a clear title, wider measure, and the same paragraph — 2026 follow-up study · Reading-led hierarchy gives the same paragraph a wider measure while the e recedes.

Rui Duan