Lyrical Modernism
Kathryn Ault
I could use some clarification on categories, etc.
Seems some time ago, when Don Hosek
could be found, he posted the "plan"
for the Serif covers, laying out a typeface
for each of the humanities categories
Bringhurst suggested.
Here is a recap:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Don Hosek
Subject: Re: Art History. . . again
This is very similar to the overarching plan behind covers and typefaces in
the first Serif magazines.
So far we've had:
Renaissance: Stained glass window (actually Victorian) and Monotype Centaur
Mannerist: Painting (again actually ahistorical) and ITC Galliard CC
Baroque: Viola d'amore and Adobe Caslon
Neoclassical: Statue of Venus and Font Bureau Wessex
Romantic: Waterfall in San Gabriel mountains and HTF Didot
On deck
Realist: Railroad bridge and ITC Charter (Bitstream)
Planned:
Geometric Modernism: E+F Futura (Bauhaus building on cover)
Lyrical Modernism: Linotype Sabon, or perhaps Aldus (Frank Lloyd Wright's
mile high skyscraper on cover)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't have convenient access to a book
documenting typeface creation dates,
and designer's names.
If one were to lay out a timeline
with the dates and cultural/humanities
classification overlayed for the above,
how would it work?
More specifically, Sabon is Lyrical Modernism,
seems to be categorized as Old Style, and
is contemporary in origin?
Also, has anyone seen more work
done in this area? More than one
typeface per category?
Thanks,
Trying to understand it all alittle better.
k
Michael Scarpitti
Bembo, Centaur/Arrighi (Arrighi is the italic), and
Poliphilis/Blado (Blado is the italic) are all "new"
old style fonts, designed in this century, but
patterned after Renaissance forms.
Palatino and Goudy Old Style are just two examples of
"mannered" old style faces.
There are several good sources on type and type
history. There is one by Tschichold that is very good.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Gary Munch
>Rogers from Aldus's Hyp.Poliphili
>Mannerist (or Late Renaissance) c1550-c1650// ITC Galliard CC c late
>1970s, Matt. Carter
>Baroque c1600-1725//Adobe Caslon c1980-90 Carol Twomley from Wm. Caslon
>Neoclassical c1700- c1810// Font Bureau Wessex ?
>Romantic1800-1870// HTF Didot ? from Firmin Didot (cf. Bodoni)
>Realist c 1850-1950// ITC Charter c.1990 M. Carter (Clarendon, Century)
>Geometric Modernism c1920-c1950 E+F Futura ? from Paul Renner
>Lyrical Modernism c1950-c1970//Linotype Sabon 1967 Jan Tschichold from
>Garamond models
or perhaps Aldus Hermann Zapf 1954 from his Renaissance-based hand.
Postmodernist c.?-? // Veljovic' 1984
NeoHumanist c 1967-pr // Syntax Hans Ed. Meier 1968 (this last is oddly not
in the section in my Bringhurst)
Some visual periods do overlap the music and literature periods, sometimes
closely matching. Of RB's categories, Realist and on aren't really art
periods as I would name them: Impressionist, Post-imp; Expressionist,
Cubist, Dadaist, Futurist, etc. RB really doesn't deal with display faces,
in which case you'd have to add in Victorian, Edwardian, Arts&Crafts,
Jugenstil, Art Nouveau, A. Deco, etc.
Dates here are top-of-head, on the fly, not resp. for memory lapses.
Gar
Gary Munch
gmu...@pipeline.com
http://members.aol.com/munchfonts/
Type & Type Design
David Lemon
> I could use some clarification on categories, etc.
> Seems some time ago, when Don Hosek
> could be found, he posted the "plan"
> for the Serif covers, laying out a typeface
> for each of the humanities categories
> Bringhurst suggested.
> I don't have convenient access to a book
> documenting typeface creation dates,
> and designer's names.
> If one were to lay out a timeline
> with the dates and cultural/humanities
> classification overlayed for the above,
> how would it work?
A first step might be to read Elements of Typographic Style (if you haven't
already), and Bringhurst's expansions on the topic in the back issues of
Serif. The second step would probably be a (European) art history course
(if you haven't had one yet).
I don't get the impression that Bringhurst is trying to make things simple;
he's just trying to redefine classification in a way that makes more sense
to him. Like some of Don Hosek's ahistorical cover art, it doesn't always
make sense to classify 20th-century typefaces according to the time and
place they were designed. As I understand Bringhurst's point, there's a
quality to most designs which places them in a larger cultural context
(which may occasionally be a past culture). The idea would be that you can
look at the design and know where it goes in the classification, without
knowing who designed it when.
I'll admit this is easier said (or written) than done, but I think it's a
very interesting approach. And I like the idea that one should be able to
see whether a design is Baroque or Classical, and so forth. I see this as a
more useful palette to work with (something like learning the color wheel
in painting) than notions like Transitional or Modern, which say less about
mood.
- David Lemon
type nerd
Tony Di Pietro
online, for everyone's perusal. It offers a slightly different approach to
historical classification, in that it cross references may classification
systems to one another, potentially bridging the gap between various schools
of thought as to typeface classification.
Cheers.
--
Tony Di Pietro
Systems Administrator, UR School of Engineering
mailto:to...@seas.rochester.edu
http://www.seas.rochester.edu/~tony
(716)275-0870
Gary Munch
>I'll admit this is easier said (or written) than done, but I think it's a
>very interesting approach. And I like the idea that one should be able to
>see whether a design is Baroque or Classical, and so forth. I see this as a
>more useful palette to work with (something like learning the color wheel
>in painting) than notions like Transitional or Modern, which say less about
>mood.
>
>- David Lemon
On the other hand, the traditional classes of Old Style, Transitional,
Modern, Scotch, etc. are useful as descriptor-tags for the physical
structure of the letterforms. Say 'Baroque' and I'll think of Fraktur (a
mid- and late Renaissance style that, with its broken rounds, ogee curves,
and ornammentality presage qualities that are essential to Baroque
architecture), which is not at all like Caslon; Baroque and the other
Bringhurst descriptors can bring (at least, for me) too many other
associations to the party.
Because Bringhurst's categories, or at least the examples he uses for them,
are for roman (white-letter) only, they're limiting in that they permit and
even encourage such other associations. This might also lead someone to
think that faces in a particular historical category are useful only for
material dealing with the corresponding historical period --- clearly not
what is intended.
The fineness of Bringhurst's points might like some broader categories in
which to stick them --- in which case the trad. categories could function
to make clusters of the historical periods based on broader physical
attributes.
Old Style
Renaissance
Mannerist
Baroque
Transitional
Neoclassical
Modern (now a misnomer, but entrenched)
Romantic
And then the Realist category. It ends up including the Scotches,
Egyptians, Slab, -and- the grotesque sans serifs, very different
structurally even though the stroke-weighting may be similar. Where the
early categories are separated out, here there's a lumping together.
Anyway, sure; categorizations are helpful, and Bringhurst's are a method
that, along with other methods, help refine the description of typefaces.
But too, over-reliance on classifications can pigeonhole faces and
unintentionally restrict their uses.
Gary
Hrant H. Papazian
> I don't have convenient access to a book
> documenting typeface creation dates,
> and designer's names.
Rookledge's Guide to Type Designers is great that way, although
there are practically no type samples. It's basically a pretty
comprehensive set of concise but precise biographies, with
listings of all the designers' typefaces. If I remember
correctly, I think FontHaus (now DsgnHaus) has it.
Another good one (with a limited number of specimens)
is the hefty but affordable "Typography. When, Who, How".
If you want an actual *book* (as opposed to a reference),
the best one I've ever found is Alexander Lawson's "Anatomy
of a Typeface"; I can't recommend it enough.
> If one were to lay out a timeline
> with the dates and cultural/humanities
> classification overlayed for the above,
> how would it work?
The problem is that the genre of the typeface
is not necessarily linked to an actual point
(or range) in time. The thing is, this is
what makes it work!
David Lemon wrote:
> it doesn't always make sense to classify 20th-century
> typefaces according to the time and place they were designed.
> The idea would be that you can look at the design and
> know where it goes in the classification, without
> knowing who designed it when.
Right, and I myself like RB's method, mostly because the
best way to analyze a given typeface is with respect to its
cultural "hooks". The problem, of course, is that since such
a scheme does not depend on actual visual component-attributes
(like serif shape), it's much harder to use, and requires an
understanding of the constellation of genres and how they relate.
This is especially difficult with *contemporary* genres, which
are still evolving, and whose definitions will only converge
in the future. I think RB's system works great, but only for
genres whose definitions are "dormant".
What would be ideal is a *network* of systems where all
the faces are cross-indexed (like Tony's work), and a given
system is chosen depending on what's needed. Such a system
would also give even more insight into the conceptualization
of type.
hhp
Michael Scarpitti
Minion, for example) can be designed centuries apart,
yet still have some similarities. My opinion (just my
opinion) is that structural similarity takes
precedence over period of design; within "style"
groups, there can be many variations of detail that
have nothing to do with historical origins.
I'm generally for historical classifications and
interpretations of things, but in the case of type,
with the many revivals and re-revivals, it loses some
usefulness.
=====
You must have Adobe Acrobat Reader 3.0 or later to read the Acrobat PDF version of my resume attached. If you do not have Acrobat reader, you can get it free from Adobe. You can download Adobe's Acrobat Reader software from this link which will allow you to view and print the PDF. Please refer to:
http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html#reader
The Adobe Acrobat PDF format allows you to view this formatted document electronically on most computers. The freely available Adobe Acrobat reader is required to view and print PDF files.
Roy Preston
Roy P
Typo-L cartoon
http://www.lds.co.uk/preston/typo/cart.htm
Nguyen, Phan
connoisseur, to appreciate typefaces as things. It has limited--and mostly
indirect--reference to physical attributes.
No classification scheme can categorize typefaces for every purpose
imaginable. Most concentrate on physical attributes for the purpose of
facilitating typeface choices, finding physical relationships among the
myriad of faces, and ordering typefaces historically.
It's hard enough to find a near-ideal typeface classification system to
serve any single purpose. And because there are so many letter variations,
most classification systems that attempt to deal with multiple purposes will
be far less than ideal. Ironically, most classification schemes were either
coneceived to deal with more than one major organizational problem or to
deal with some vague intents. The major systems, such as DeVinne and Vox
(and their variants), usually do the job well enough. But we could still use
some more specialized systems today.
I feel Bringhurst's system deals primarily with outlining the *heritage* of
typefaces, and it does so eloquently. Secondarily, the Bringhurst system is
suitable for choosing typefaces on the basis of allusive typography. Using
the Bringhurst system for any other purpose would be using the system as an
afterthought. That's my current opinion, and it's entirely debatable.
The beginnnings of the Bringhurst system can be found in a neat little
booklet entitled, _Shoes, shovels and the slow rotation of letters_, printed
as a keepsake by the Alcuin Society in Canada (I think).
Okay, I'm setting Typo-L to NOMAIL now. Tomorrow morning, I'm leaving for
Boston. I'll be hanging out there for a week, and then I'll see some of you
folks at ATypI.
Bye-bye!
Gary Munch
>Is this a legit description, or your own, Gary?
Yep, legit, blackletter v white letter. Kinda rare to see it these days,
though. My memory was jogged by seeing the term just recently, in passing .
. . . Hmm, probably Nesbitt's -Lettering-.
You realize that my own terms would, by your line, be -bastarda- ?:-)
G.
George E. Thompson
>I don't get the impression that Bringhurst is trying to make things simple;
>he's just trying to redefine classification in a way that makes more sense
>to him. Like some of Don Hosek's ahistorical cover art, it doesn't always
>make sense to classify 20th-century typefaces according to the time and
>place they were designed. As I understand Bringhurst's point, there's a
>quality to most designs which places them in a larger cultural context
>(which may occasionally be a past culture). The idea would be that you can
>look at the design and know where it goes in the classification, without
>knowing who designed it when.
>
>I'll admit this is easier said (or written) than done, but I think it's a
>very interesting approach. And I like the idea that one should be able to
>see whether a design is Baroque or Classical, and so forth. I see this as a
>more useful palette to work with (something like learning the color wheel
>in painting) than notions like Transitional or Modern, which say less about
>mood.
>
The problem that arises in approaching type classification this way is
that it lumps typefaces from different times and cultural milieus
together. There should be a way to differentiate types that were a
stylistic response to particular time, place & idea and those that come
from a later time and place, but are related to the former.
Example: Jenson's Roman was an original response to printing in or near
Italy in the late 1400s. Around the turn of the century then several
redesigns based on Jenson's Roman appeared: Golden, Doves, etc. Then as
the private press movement influenced American book design some more
occurred: Centaur, Eusebius, etc. Then more recently more revivals and
redesigns of Jenson occurred. A classification system should account for
the visual similarites among all these faces, but should also
differentiate among the different intents and impetus that led to the
later designs. Morris, Rogers, Middleton & Walker all had different
ideas, and though their types were original, they were based on a single
past idea which arose in an altogether different time, place and culture.
George
George E. Thompson Art & Design Department
No Bodoni Typography Columbia College Chicago
gtho...@nobodoni.com gtho...@popmail.colum.edu
http://nobodoni.com http://www.colum.edu/
"I felt bad because I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no Bodoni."
Kate Gladstone & Andrew S. Haber
posted no contact-info for the Alcuin Society ...
Yours for better letters,
Kate Gladstone - Handwriting Repair
325 South Manning Boulevard
Albany, NY 12208-1731
518/482-6763 *or* (for toll-free dialing in the USA/Canada)
ENTER ACCESS CODE 04 at my new 800 number, 800/394-9482 (800/EX-HW-ITAlic),
access code 04
(remember:
EX for EXcellent, HW for HandWriting, ITA for ITAlic ... then, access
code 04)
----------
>From: "Nguyen, Phan" <Ngu...@EVERGREEN.EDU>
>To: TYP...@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
>Subject: Re: Lyrical Modernism
>Date: Thu, Sep 30, 1999, 7:53 PM
Robin Kinross
>Example: Jenson's Roman was an original response to printing in or near
>Italy in the late 1400s. Around the turn of the century then several
>redesigns based on Jenson's Roman appeared: Golden, Doves, etc. Then as
>the private press movement influenced American book design some more
>occurred: Centaur, Eusebius, etc. Then more recently more revivals and
>redesigns of Jenson occurred. A classification system should account for
>the visual similarites among all these faces, but should also
>differentiate among the different intents and impetus that led to the
>later designs. Morris, Rogers, Middleton & Walker all had different
>ideas, and though their types were original, they were based on a single
>past idea which arose in an altogether different time, place and culture.
Yes, indeed.
I once tried to float the same idea:
>> Claude Garamond was a French punchcutter in the sixteenth century. On
>>the basis of the letters that he may or may not have made, punches that
>>he may or may not have cut, we have constructed different Garamonds as we
>>have needed them: an American Garamond from the years of the First World
>>War, a late-1980s Californian Garamond, a solid Frankfurt Garamond in the
>>mid-1920s, a German-Swiss Garamond of the 1960s, a Garamond from Turin in
>>the mid-1950s, two Garamonds from London in the 1920s; and more. <<
('Type as critique', *Typography Papers*, no.2, 1997)
Existing pigeon-hole classification systems don't bring home this kind of
fine-grained historical bacon - to mix several metaphors. But such
distinctions are also what users of type need to know.
RK
Quentin Fennessy
> Where can I get "Shoes, shovels, and the slow rotation of letters"? - Phan
> posted no contact-info for the Alcuin Society ...
I found a citation in this biblio:
http://canlit.st-john.umanitoba.ca/canlitx/Bringhurst.html
A.29 €€Shovels, Shoes and the Slow Rotation of Letters: A
Feuilleton for John Dreyfus. Vancouver: The Alcuin Society, 1986. 16 p.
Paper. "The edition is limited to 600 copies." Approx. 450 were printed on
grey paper, 14 x 21.5 cm, and 150 on beige, 14 x 22 cm. Essay. Reviews:
S.59.
--
Quentin Fennessy
'94 R BS 66
Gary Munch
>fine-grained historical bacon - to mix several metaphors. But such
>distinctions are also what users of type need to know.
>
>RK
Neo-Mannerist, Neo-Romantic, Neo-NeoClassical.
So, George's example of the Golden & Doves type would be a Neo-Renaissance
(or perhaps Neo-Incunabular).
But then, in a couple of generations there'd be Neo-Neo-NeoClassical
revivals of 1990s revival faces.
G.
Lindsey Thomas Martin
>A.29 €€Shovels, Shoes and the Slow Rotation of Letters: A
>Feuilleton for John Dreyfus. Vancouver: The Alcuin Society,