Made as student project in Johannes Bergerhausen’s course atHS Mainz,What do you dream about?is — a typographic list of different types of dreams, from children’s dreams to daydreaming, up until nightmares, utilizing six different papers across the six chapters, ranging from light and transparent to thick and dark. the deconstructive nature of the exposed binding, as well as the grid on the wrapping, is used to break up the black and white book content and to further emphasize the experimental nature of the design. this is a list to reflect upon – to read from the beginning or to start in the middle, to use the bookmark and set aside, or to store away for a while.
This typography creates an introspective, experimental intellectualism that mirrors the fragmented nature of dream consciousness. ABC Stefan's rational form model with its closed apertures and vertical stress provides structural authority for the conceptual framework, while Altro Serif's dynamic characteristics and open forms soften the academic rigor with intimate, contemplative warmth. The pairing suggests serious inquiry tempered by personal vulnerability—perfect for a reflective exploration of the subconscious mind.
ABC Stefan's rational structure with tight apertures and consistent weight distribution provides the conceptual backbone needed for a typographic exploration of dreams, offering clarity without clinical coldness. Altro Serif's dynamic form model introduces the emotional register necessary for intimate content—its open apertures and subtle stroke variation create breathing room that mirrors the fluid, associative nature of dream logic. The contrast between rational organization and dynamic expression perfectly mirrors the tension between conscious curation and subconscious material.
This pairing follows contrast-with-cohesion principles by combining different form models while maintaining shared proportional DNA. Stefan's rational authority provides structural hierarchy for the conceptual framework, while Altro Serif's dynamic warmth handles the more personal, reflective content. The risk of mixing rational and dynamic models is mitigated by both fonts sharing similar x-height proportions and weight distributions, creating deliberate textural variation without losing typographic unity across the experimental binding format.