Through photography I have documented storefronts in the Copenhagen suburbs. This has shown that many use the same visual rhetorics in an attempt to “shout the loudest”: Vivid colors and large amounts of text – often in capitals. This creates a visual cacophony that not only removes focus from the city’s architecture, but also makes it so that most stores do not really stand out. The sign will lose its role as identity carrier when it falls into a uniform expression with its environment. It still holds its formal qualities as a sign, but in a conceptual sense, I would argue that one can describe it as a “non-sign”.
Since the 1980's technological advancements has meant cheaper, quicker and therefore often worse solutions in signage. As a kind of protest against storefronts’ devalued signage and aggressive communication, I have removed all written elements from them and left only the background colors and images. This is also a reflection of the concept of a “non-sign”. Can a color surface without typographical execution go under such a category?