From Multitudes to Multiples

Convened and collated by graduating students Aaniyah Khan, Charlotte Chan, Han-Jo Tan and Samiya Bashaeb, this conversation brings together two projects concerned with collective representation. Aaniyah, Han-Jo, and Samiya developed a publication for prospective BA Graphic Design students; Charlotte proposed a visual identity for the course’s student-organised graduate show.

Both projects are concerned with how to make a cohort visible without fixing it into a single image. Working with typography, voice, publication, motion, process, and participation, the students considered how individual positions might remain distinct while still contributing to a shared visual language.

Their discussion moves between authorship and collaboration, experimentation and constraint, audience and client, process and outcome. It considers the shifting conditions of design practice, from negotiation, editing, compromise, iteration, and how designers can engage productively with others.

From multitudes of voices and perspectives emerge multiples—publications, identities, prototypes, versions, and revisions. What results is not a singular portrait of a cohort, but a set of graphic forms through which it might be encountered.

This conversation took place at the students’ graduate show, Murmur, at Copeland Gallery in London in July 2026. The transcription has been edited for flow and concision.

Where the Projects Began

Han-Jo: With the course publication, our aim was to represent the student voice and show what we were like as a cohort—showing them how things could or would be when they join. It was looking at student input, process, work-in-progress, and the student experience. Our graphic language emerged from that in quite an organic way and was refined throughout the process. We wanted to produce something that was experimental and informed, reflecting how we see the course.

Aaniyah: The main visual language began with typography. The direction leaned really heavily into bold, distinct typography because we wanted our publication to immediately be seen as a ‘graphic design’ publication. Because each typeface has its own distinct stroke and style, we wanted the identity itself to almost give each student their own voice—typography itself is just the visual manifestation of a voice. Because the specific format was dictated by the brief, we could also push this identity even further through the smaller components, such as interviews and postcards containing people’s experimentation. It was really important to have this identity and visual voice that could spread across the entire format in different ways. We knew that if we were excited about it, other prospective students would be as well. Student to student.

Charlotte: For our self-organised degree show, there was the opportunity to present our proposals for the identity. It was put to a majority vote to decide how we would proceed with the show. Similar to Aaniyah, Han-Jo, and Samiya’s project, my pitch brought in the idea of everyone’s voices. I didn’t want to do a very literal representation—you know, how puns or objects are sometimes used to symbolise the identity of a cohort. I wanted something that came from a more authentic place—literally their voice.

I wanted to explore it in a very graphic way. The concept came about from a place of visualising typography formed by sound waves. The connection just kind of came to me! Typography becomes both a visual translation of everyone’s individual voices and a visual shorthand. Other than the visual direction, the proposal considered ways for including the voice, through other mediums, such as with social media content. It would include a lot of documentation and video content that would display the contributions of every student. I liked how it was multimodal in that way.

Both projects involved designing for a wider group.
What considerations shaped your approach from the outset?

Han-Jo: For us, it was important to try to communicate voices because we were such a large cohort. Our first instinct was to go directly to the students themselves. The concept of our project was to communicate student to student, so it was important that the design reflect the students and represent both demographics simultaneously. What we then did was go into the studio, asking people questions in relation to studio culture, documenting photos of work and how people like to work in the studio itself.

Charlotte: When I was developing a proposal for the degree show, I was quite excited because I’d been to a number of degree shows—mainly in my home country of Singapore. In those cases, their identities would be for the whole school of art & design and not just for one course. While I recognised that that context was different, those identities had an abstract, multi-object kind of thing where a particular shape or colour became a representative code. I felt it lacked any significant meaning, and it was therefore not a direction I wanted to pursue. I initially considered using the metaphor of a domino to represent our cohort. Dominoes allude to networks and the cascading impact practitioners have on each other in the industry—you can imagine lots of motion graphics and stuff coming out of it. However, it also felt a little flat as a concept. All those thoughts about what it means to enter the profession, develop your practice, and enter the industry ruled out certain design directions and eventually led to the voice as identity.

In what ways did other people and collaborative methods inform the project?

Aaniyah: Since you worked on that proposal alone, it’s more about ‘people’ than ‘collaboration’—right?

Charlotte: Kind of. The idea of ‘people’ played a part in the visual identity through the typography itself—or rather, through the content of the typography. All the text is made up of people’s names, and I also imagined it expanding to include people’s quotes and such. In a lot of the past identities I’ve seen, because they are more abstract representations, the identity didn’t necessarily tie into a specific cohort. Whereas, because the voice identity would have to be generated through content from our specific cohort, I wanted it to feel really unique to us.

As for collaboration, because my identity was a pitch and stopped at the speculative stage, there wasn’t a whole lot of collaboration involved. Both Gabby Hodgman and Stanley Plowman pitched individually but, after tying for first place, worked together to realise the ‘Murmur’ identity. That led to a different, serendipitous development of the identity. Proposals aren’t fully formed in the first instance, and I think it’s great because they got to bring together their skill sets; Gabby is more print-oriented, whereas Stanley is more digital and motion-oriented. From those two approaches, something new was created. In a parallel universe, I would’ve been quite interested to see how my proposal could have developed through collaboration.

Charlotte: You came to your project as a group; how did that influence the process? How did each of you shape that aspect of it?

Aaniyah: We each had distinct ways of approaching design. For me, it was bold, expressive typography, which I worked on heavily for the poster side of the publication. For Han-Jo, that meant developing a lot of the typesetting across different components and incorporating it alongside our unique lettering. With Samiya, that meant selecting and pushing the layout of different typefaces and the lettering itself. So, in that sense, we each pushed the design in our own distinct ways, which also came together to develop the publication as a whole.

Also, it wasn’t just collaboration within our group, but also with the students, lecturers, technicians, and alumni from the course. The interviews we conducted with alumni Quba Brown-Higgins, Daniel Roberts, Jack Niblett about their experiences on the course became a central part of the publication. It was important for prospective and current students to see where graduates have gone and how they used the course to get there. This approach also led us to contact Jack and Jacob Wise (another alumnus) about including some of their typefaces as well. So collaboration for us just kept developing throughout the project and was definitely the defining characteristic of our process.

Han-Jo: The outcome couldn’t have been that experimental without the collaboration. I think that really contributed to how it actually looked and gave it that distinct style, because it came from the three of us individually rather than following a set identity from the outset.

Samiya: There was constant communication between the three of us. We’d always come back together and show each other what we had done, just to make sure there was a common theme throughout all three sections. So, it wasn’t like we were doing it completely on our own; we’d always have meeting points where we’d discuss the changes we had made and talk about what else we could do to move things forward.

Aaniyah: Yeah, there were continuous discussions and meetings about reprinting our design over and over, even though it felt repetitive at times. And because this was a publication about the course, our collaboration and meetings with Marcus Leis Allion, our tutor, were another meaningful part of the project.

Samiya: Marcus gave us a different outlook on our ideas and helped in moments where we couldn’t really see what we were creating; he could see things developing that we couldn’t recognise ourselves because we were looking at it so much. It was helpful having a fresh pair of eyes.

What were your primary methods of making?
How did they relate to your individual practices?

Charlotte:I only had two to three days to formally work on the pitch, and my natural instinct when beginning a project is mainly digital. With the voice identity, I really wanted to explore a reactive identity with source-based generative visuals. For example, using TouchDesigner or Cavalry, where you can input some sort of source material. The actual proposal I presented was just fixed and 2D—no motion—but I imagined it developing in a way where you could input audio, people’s voices, and have that translate visually into the identity. I’ve personally focused a lot on visual identity this year and was interested in, you could say, procedural or emergent visual systems, so this project was a great for ideation.

Han-Jo: For us, I think we started off working on it digitally, but after that we moved on to paper experiments—so, actually printing out our design elements and different typeface choices we had in mind, then physically putting them together on the table and seeing what worked and what didn’t. That links to my practice because I used paper experimentation in another self-directed project, and it became a defining direction for that project.

Aaniyah: I think it was really different for me because my practice revolves more around digital design. So we started off digitally, but we also moved on to more physical experiments, moving around cut-out design elements on a layout because we realised digital wasn’t working as well. It helped us solidify that we wanted our publication to showcase the experimental process behind any student project, because to us that process was more important to highlight to prospective students than the outcomes.

Samiya: In my practice, taking things out of the digital and making them physical is always a defining moment, because for me, that’s the best way to learn and develop. Making physical mockups helped us a lot on this project. Taking it out of the digital gave us a different perspective on the sizing and other things that we wouldn’t have seen otherwise across those multiple stages.

Charlotte: Since this was a live brief, did you see that as a limitation or as something that gave the project structure as it developed?

Samiya: I think it was both a limitation and also a positive because, at some points, we couldn’t go as crazy as we wanted to. The brief was set and there was a specific outcome we were working towards, so you couldn’t just go off on your own to the same extent.

Aaniyah: I think the brief itself was specific in some areas, but considering the format, it was also…

Charlotte: Open-ended?

Aaniyah: Yes, it gave us enough room to explore beyond the format, but also to push against its restrictions to an extent.

Samiya: The brief’s limitations helped us find other creative solutions for how we wanted to develop our initial ideas. Without those limitations, I don’t think we would have been able to create the outcome that we did.

Han-Jo: For me, it was one of the few projects where the format really influenced the design because we were given quite a specific size and format. It kind of made us think about how we could incorporate our design within the format itself, whereas usually it was the design influencing the format. So that was a nice way of thinking about things differently. And that kind of led us to think more about materials and how they influence the design as well.

How was the project ultimately resolved?

Charlotte: While my design wasn’t chosen, I still really liked it and wanted to continue developing it. There was an identity design brief related to libraries that gave me the opportunity to continue it. I’d never started a project with such a defined direction already in mind but using it as a starting point I found the Human Library in Copenhagen. It’s really interesting because, rather than books, you engage with people—sitting down with them and listening to their stories. Its focus is on empathy and understanding, especially around stigmatised topics. For example, there are people there who talk about experiences of depression, ADHD, being a gay parent, having extensive tattoos, and so on. I thought this was a really fitting place.

It was a bit odd, as my process involved carefully adapting a proposal designed for one context to another. I needed to leave room for exploration. I contacted Ronni Abergel, the founder, and a lot of what he said resonated with me and with the identity, but also built upon it. However, where my designs for the graduate show identity made use of highly saturated neon colours, in this new context they needed to become more muted. I used shades of grey to represent nuance and difference between people rather than seeing everything in the extremes of black and white. My engagement with the Human Library significantly informed how the project developed.

Aaniyah: Our project was going to be professionally printed, but towards the end there was a change in budget and our design had to change—I want to say—quite significantly. A lot of the design had to shift in response to the new format. We’re planning another print run in the future in a smaller batch, incorporating those adjustments, and I think it was ultimately an unavoidable but necessary process in order to achieve a print outcome we could all agree on. Even the medium changed because of those constraints, and I think the more we had to adapt—even in minor ways—the more it actually helped develop the design further.

Han-Jo: What’s interesting is that this led to each of us having different outcomes. Because it was a live project and it wasn’t going to be printed until after assessment, we had to find a way of producing an outcome. So we started thinking about different ways of printing and what we could do. I made use of screenprinting which allowed us to realise our initial vision for it. We could choose the metallic silver we wanted, as well as the paper stock and colour. Actually having it printed and folded was useful as well, because it gave us a physical reference that we could then use to make further changes.

Who were you designing for?
How did that shape your design decisions?

Charlotte: Who was the audience for this design—prospective students and parents?

Aaniyah: We were interested in the publication being designed by students for students, so parents were not a key consideration. The aim was to create a publication that reflected our shared passion for graphic design. Even if they’re newcomers to it, how can we reflect that sort of excitement that got them interested in graphic design and use that to welcome them to our course?

One of the changes we had to make after our submission was to incorporate course-level information, so we could balance what we wanted with that detail.

Han-Jo: Yeah, I think when we were thinking about audience, we were also thinking about our own experiences and what we would have wanted as prospective students. We’d been through the whole process, so we were thinking, what would I have wanted to see as a new student who might be thinking about studying graphic design, especially when they weren’t sure what it could be. I think that came through strongly in our design, yeah.

Samiya: Yeah, as Aaniyah and Han-Jo said, we wanted prospective students to be excited by what the course publication is. We wanted them to want to keep it and be like, ‘Oh, this is cool!. We really wanted to capture that excitement we have and that buzz around the course for someone who is thinking about joining us.

Aaniyah: I wouldn’t say the design was developed around our perspective alone, because any student in our year, or even across the course, could give a good sense of what it’s like to study here. So it was simply one representation of a sensibility that is shared by students across the course.

Charlotte: For me, I had a very similar way of thinking from the perspective of a prospective student because, personally, I first engaged with degree shows before university. When I was looking at which school to go to, I was going to different schools’ degree shows or looking at their relevant websites. In that way, I was thinking, ‘What would appeal to this new generation of upcoming designers?’ But at the same time, because the people attending these shows are also from the creative industry and could be potential employers, I wanted the identity to show that we are a contemporary graphic design course.

A lot of schools might be—I think in London especially—associated with a certain sense of heritage. They might be very print-focused, which a lot of us also love—me included—and that isn’t a bad thing at all. However, realistically, we have to show that we can do different things. I think that also played into my interest in exploring something like TouchDesigner and making bolder design choices, such as the vibrant colours, because I didn’t want it to feel conservative in that way. I wanted the identity to declare to the design industry, ‘We are here!’

What did you learn through navigating the different, and often competing, demands of design practice?

Charlotte: Personally, a restriction I’ve inadvertently put on my practice is that I’m not naturally inclined to collaborate or, you know, work with people in a professional capacity. I’m certainly not against it; I just don’t naturally go towards it. I think if I had just mustered up the courage and combated that introversion to ask someone to work with me on the pitch, it might have led to a more dimensional proposal. Dimensional in the sense that the people I was pitching to might have felt like, ‘Oh, this was worked on by multiple people, and I can see them and believe in them as designers who can represent me.’

In terms of the actual visual identity that emerged—because it is still at an early stage of development—I can’t really say how I would have done it differently, because I’m happy with the original concept.

How about each of you?

Samiya: I think because we’ve done so many things differently because of all the changes, we’ve had to change our way of working.

Aaniyah: What we would have done differently, we had already done.

Samiya: And all the different formats we explored in the latter half became other possibilities for how the project could have developed.

Han-Jo: The change in budget was after the actual project. So then looking back, maybe what we could have done differently was more in regards to the communication side with stakeholders.

Charlotte: So it’s really about communication. You know how with mine, it’s wanting to present differently to the people I’m presenting to. For you guys. It’s also trying to present more favorably and convincingly to your client who is funding the project?

Aaniyah: Maybe. Going back to what I said earlier, having more consideration of the realistic side to this publication and perhaps not completely ignoring the ‘traditional’ aspects of any course publication, and finding a way to have balanced this earlier on in the project.

Samiya: Could we say that we were encouraged to be experimental and not to worry about the budget? To not worry about the nitty-gritty things and just create. That’s what we were pushed to do.

Aaniyah: I think it was relevant in terms of our outcome towards the submission, but I think we didn’t really worry about it after submissions. We let the client, in a way, almost lead the second half of this project; we somewhat relied on what they wanted to do—maybe a bit more than we wanted to.

What lessons will you take from these experiences as you move forward in your design practice?

Samiya: I think for me, I now know how important communication is with the client, and also we know that things can change. We won’t get so set on an idea and wait for change, knowing that things will change through development.

Aaniyah: Yes, that’s one of the most positive things about this project. In the later part, it was the experience and almost having to let go of your design because of certain conditions. But it was a great yet necessary learning curve that you’ll come across in any project with any client in the future.

Han-Jo: It’s also that everything is a chance for learning. Even though an element might not get used in the final outcome, it doesn’t mean that it can’t be used for other projects or to serve as a starting inspiration when you do like different projects in the future.

Charlotte: Completely agree. For myself, I’m going to speak specifically about the pitching space. The pitch was given at the end of term 1—after that, I did multiple other identity pitches, and none of them came through as well. I don’t think those were cases of the identity being ‘invalid’. Sometimes it’s really just up to chance. So I think as I go into the industry and eventually become a midweight or senior designer, where pitching to clients becomes part of the role, it’s about learning not to be too attached to your identity pitch.

At the same time, I’m also not saying that I completely believe in my work and that there’s nothing wrong with it. It’s still about learning to be flexible and learning from whatever you’ve ‘failed’ at… I wouldn’t exactly call it failure. It’s also similar to what you guys were saying, where it’s not just about the design itself, but about how you communicate that design and physically present it to people.

Han-Jo: I also think, at the end of the day, design is subjective. If you’re pitching you’re putting forward an idea that might land nicely for you, but it might not land as well with other people because they have different perspectives, different aesthetics, and things like that. So I guess it’s a fine line between thinking about your own design style and not compromising yourself too much to please the client. It’s about learning that balance as we go on to work in industry.

Charlotte: On the topic of subjectivity, when the votes were tallied for the different show identity pitches, it was apparently a relatively even split. Sometimes, even on the client side, there isn’t just one person making the decision, right? There are multiple people involved. In my case, it might have been the whole cohort split into, like, maybe 25 people voting for this and 24 voting for another one. Does that mean the one that got 24 votes is worse? Not really. It’s about accepting the situation for what it is.

Aaniyah: Moral of the story: don’t get too attached to any design!

This post foregrounds the voices and work of students, while recognising the teaching and intellectual exchange that supported their development. With thanks to Aaniyah Khan, Han-Jo Tan, Samiya K. Bashaeb, and Charlotte Chan for sharing their experiences, reflections, and perspectives as emerging designers.

September 2026