Week 1 Response
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Olivia Gulin
Sep 6, 2009, 11:52:38 PM9/6/09
to madad...@googlegroups.com
UH, I'm a little confused by the fact that we're not all responding in the same email...but here's my bit. I've responded to some of the other people here, so...read up!
In the given chapter of Kinross' essay on modern typography, the author traces the historical growth of typography into what we now consider "modern." In doing so, he points to several trends and ideas that fostered those changes. For Kinross, key to the modernization of type is its rationalization: it was through concerns of systemization, standardization, and legibility that modern type was born.
This notion is not without its exceptions in history, of course. Towards the end of the chapter, Kinross mentions objections to the Didot typeface. Though the Didot family was important in the rational standardizations of type, it had its detractors. Overstylized, the beauty of the letters were seen as an impediment upon the legibility of type. He describes it as "exceeding the limits of reason." He quotes Sobry, a contemporary printer who wrote of Didot, as saying this "sort of superficial prettiness" was introduced "to its obvious degeneration."
A shining example of this impulse in typography is the given essay by Beatrice Ward. Through her metaphor of a crystal goblet, Ward considers typography a transparent medium through which a message should not be hindered; that is, legibility should be of primary importance.
I guess I agree with these sentiments, though perhaps only in the most general way. For a majority of applications, and in the majority of instances I would like to read, I would like my type to be sweet and simple and inobtrusively beautiful. The ability to perfectly typeset such a page is a feat I have sincerely come to respect and a skill I seek to hone.
However, I often find myself most excited by type that, decorative or otherwise, legibile or not, highlight and emphasize the meaning of the displayed words. I don't think there is necessarily any "superficial prettiness" involved in making or using decorative type--though I can imagine this is often the case with more inexperienced typesetting; i.e. I believe May's self-described "typographic failures" may have been more of a result of naive type choices rather than inherent flaws in any decorative faces.
I belive the posters Emily mentioned are a good example of this. Like May suggested, I think they succeed in reflecting the psychedelic nature of the music. Were they necessarily legible? No. But, did that mean that they didn't communicate? Not at all; clearly, their decorative forms communicated much about the music that maybe the words couldn't.
As another example, what about the lettering in comics? Those great onomatopoieas splashed across every page do way more than if they were written "traditionally." I don't think any one of us would make Superman go "Woosh!" in Garamond just because it was easy to read :)
Perhaps Ms. Ward would find those examples to be nothing more than "vulgar ostentation." But, I think that type sometimes can and should do way more than just be easy on the eyes. Even the most subtle, legible face should be considered for its expressive qualities. I think Ward actually provides a great metaphor for this idea; her notion of "fine printing" is like a leaded window pane of glass: transparent, yet evident of some craft. I reject the notion that a less legible bit of type is necessarily bad; there's a balance to be found between legibility and expression that should be approached successfully and differently in any given situation.
On a side note, was it just my PDF download that went wrong, or was the copy of the Crystal Goblet really poorly typeset? I'm seeing fake italics, no kerning in the title, random paragraph breaks, no spaces after commas... talk about a gross metal tankard. Hurr hurr hurr.
--
- OG
http://www.oliviagulin.com
--
- OG
http://www.oliviagulin.com
Olivia Gulin
Sep 6, 2009, 11:56:38 PM9/6/09
to Prof. Madad / Type Design III
AH, email borked my formatting, sorry guys.
Will reformat if you want. :(
> "typographic failures"<http://groups.google.com/group/madad-type/browse_thread/thread/bf0d6e...>may
> 95KViewDownload
Will reformat if you want. :(
> have been more of a result of naive type choices rather than inherent
> flaws in any decorative faces. I belive the posters Emily
> mentioned<http://groups.google.com/group/madad-type/browse_thread/thread/8ba988...>are
> flaws in any decorative faces. I belive the posters Emily
> a good example of this. Like May suggested, I think they succeed in
> reflecting the psychedelic nature of the music. Were they necessarily
> legible? No. But, did that mean that they didn't communicate? Not at all;
> clearly, their decorative forms communicated much about the music that maybe
> the words couldn't. As another example, what about the lettering in comics?
> Those great onomatopoieas splashed across every page do way more than if
> they were written "traditionally." I don't think any one of us would make
> Superman go "Woosh!" in Garamond just because it was easy to read :) Perhaps
> Ms. Ward would find those examples to be nothing more than "vulgar
> ostentation." But, I think that type sometimes can and should do way more
> than just be easy on the eyes. Even the most subtle, legible face should be
> considered for its expressive qualities. I think Ward actually provides a
> great metaphor for this idea; her notion of "fine printing" is like a leaded
> window pane of glass: transparent, yet evident of some craft. I reject the
> notion that a less legible bit of type is necessarily bad; there's a balance
> to be found between legibility and expression that should be approached
> successfully and differently in any given situation. On a side note, was it
> just my PDF download that went wrong, or was the copy of the Crystal Goblet
> really poorly typeset? I'm seeing fake italics, no kerning in the title,
> random paragraph breaks, no spaces after commas... talk about a gross metal
> tankard. Hurr hurr hurr.
>
> --
> - OGhttp://www.oliviagulin.com
>
> KLUDD.jpg
> reflecting the psychedelic nature of the music. Were they necessarily
> legible? No. But, did that mean that they didn't communicate? Not at all;
> clearly, their decorative forms communicated much about the music that maybe
> the words couldn't. As another example, what about the lettering in comics?
> Those great onomatopoieas splashed across every page do way more than if
> they were written "traditionally." I don't think any one of us would make
> Superman go "Woosh!" in Garamond just because it was easy to read :) Perhaps
> Ms. Ward would find those examples to be nothing more than "vulgar
> ostentation." But, I think that type sometimes can and should do way more
> than just be easy on the eyes. Even the most subtle, legible face should be
> considered for its expressive qualities. I think Ward actually provides a
> great metaphor for this idea; her notion of "fine printing" is like a leaded
> window pane of glass: transparent, yet evident of some craft. I reject the
> notion that a less legible bit of type is necessarily bad; there's a balance
> to be found between legibility and expression that should be approached
> successfully and differently in any given situation. On a side note, was it
> just my PDF download that went wrong, or was the copy of the Crystal Goblet
> really poorly typeset? I'm seeing fake italics, no kerning in the title,
> random paragraph breaks, no spaces after commas... talk about a gross metal
> tankard. Hurr hurr hurr.
>
> --
> - OGhttp://www.oliviagulin.com
>
> 95KViewDownload
Jacqueline Marinacci
Sep 8, 2009, 11:45:04 AM9/8/09
to Prof. Madad / Type Design III
think Ward actually provides a
> great metaphor for this idea; her notion of "fine printing" is like a leaded
> window pane of glass: transparent, yet evident of some craft. I reject the
> notion that a less legible bit of type is necessarily bad; there's a balance
> to be found between legibility and expression that should be approached
> successfully and differently in any given situation.
I'm surprised there was no mention on 'mistakes' poor quality prints
> great metaphor for this idea; her notion of "fine printing" is like a leaded
> window pane of glass: transparent, yet evident of some craft. I reject the
> notion that a less legible bit of type is necessarily bad; there's a balance
> to be found between legibility and expression that should be approached
> successfully and differently in any given situation.
an accidents. I believe all those aspects must be accountable for when
it come to letter set printing as it makes the character more
uniformed and unique. the edgy loose ink give the piece a more hand-
held feel which makes it more expressive and one's own piece.
> have been more of a result of naive type choices rather than inherent
> flaws in any decorative faces. I belive the posters Emily
> mentioned<http://groups.google.com/group/madad-type/browse_thread/thread/8ba988...>are
> flaws in any decorative faces. I belive the posters Emily
> a good example of this. Like May suggested, I think they succeed in
> reflecting the psychedelic nature of the music. Were they necessarily
> legible? No. But, did that mean that they didn't communicate? Not at all;
> clearly, their decorative forms communicated much about the music that maybe
> the words couldn't. As another example, what about the lettering in comics?
> Those great onomatopoieas splashed across every page do way more than if
> they were written "traditionally." I don't think any one of us would make
> Superman go "Woosh!" in Garamond just because it was easy to read :) Perhaps
> Ms. Ward would find those examples to be nothing more than "vulgar
> ostentation." But, I think that type sometimes can and should do way more
> than just be easy on the eyes. Even the most subtle, legible face should be
> considered for its expressive qualities. I think Ward actually provides a
> great metaphor for this idea; her notion of "fine printing" is like a leaded
> window pane of glass: transparent, yet evident of some craft. I reject the
> notion that a less legible bit of type is necessarily bad; there's a balance
> to be found between legibility and expression that should be approached
> successfully and differently in any given situation. On a side note, was it
> just my PDF download that went wrong, or was the copy of the Crystal Goblet
> really poorly typeset? I'm seeing fake italics, no kerning in the title,
> random paragraph breaks, no spaces after commas... talk about a gross metal
> tankard. Hurr hurr hurr.
>
> --
> - OGhttp://www.oliviagulin.com
>
> KLUDD.jpg
> reflecting the psychedelic nature of the music. Were they necessarily
> legible? No. But, did that mean that they didn't communicate? Not at all;
> clearly, their decorative forms communicated much about the music that maybe
> the words couldn't. As another example, what about the lettering in comics?
> Those great onomatopoieas splashed across every page do way more than if
> they were written "traditionally." I don't think any one of us would make
> Superman go "Woosh!" in Garamond just because it was easy to read :) Perhaps
> Ms. Ward would find those examples to be nothing more than "vulgar
> ostentation." But, I think that type sometimes can and should do way more
> than just be easy on the eyes. Even the most subtle, legible face should be
> considered for its expressive qualities. I think Ward actually provides a
> great metaphor for this idea; her notion of "fine printing" is like a leaded
> window pane of glass: transparent, yet evident of some craft. I reject the
> notion that a less legible bit of type is necessarily bad; there's a balance
> to be found between legibility and expression that should be approached
> successfully and differently in any given situation. On a side note, was it
> just my PDF download that went wrong, or was the copy of the Crystal Goblet
> really poorly typeset? I'm seeing fake italics, no kerning in the title,
> random paragraph breaks, no spaces after commas... talk about a gross metal
> tankard. Hurr hurr hurr.
>
> --
> - OGhttp://www.oliviagulin.com
>
> 95KViewDownload
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages