The last week of January was unusually typographically themed for me. Various and somewhat disparate events, situations and miscellaneous moments made me very aware of typography. At the end of the week I just knew I had to write about it, though not knowing what the connecting thread was, if any, nor if I had a point to make. As a therapeutic exercise I decided to bullet-point these and see what, if anything, they reveal.
1. The Focus Group
At the office we have been working on an identity design since September of last year and arrived at two strong recommendations — two different icons, one shared typographic treatment — sometime in November. Since then, the identity has been presented to various interested parties to gain consensus and receive feedback. I sat in one session, one that particularly leaned towards a typographic discussion — much to everyone’s surprise. With most of the feedback received being “why would you choose such a font?” There was no reason this particular group would be feisty about typographic choices — much less about a sans serif — yet their feelings were undeniably fervent. We designers are regularly qualmish about people not getting what we do, but at this moment, when I was discussing the modern-yet-industrial qualities of this specific typeface I wondered if non-designers now knew just a little too much more about what we do. I was relieved that no one was actually able to articulate what they didn’t like about that typeface. That final jump from “gut feeling” to “rational contextualizing” of what a typographic choice conveys was something that they couldn’t quite bridge. We usually can.
2. John Hodgman on WIRED
The latest issue of WIRED hosted a wonderful redesign that features four type families from Hoefler & Frere-Jones. As part of the issue’s feature story John Hodgman answers questions about the universe in his trademark know-it-all way but not before praising — snarkily, yes — the typographic choices: “The new fonts are awesome”. Hodgman, now a celebrity in his own right, cheerleading font choices in an internationally distributed trade magazine may be an indicator of why things like number 1 above take place. And why the word “font” might eventually replace “type,” “typeface,” and “typography” — forget about “type families” — rendering it merely as an item from your pull-down menus in the computer, not as a discipline that relies on knowing the historic relevance of typefaces and succeeds in the thoughtful interpretation and execution of each typeface’s design. Here, again, is a gap that non-designers are unlikely to cross or care for, and where we can cement our expertise and consideration of typographic choices.
3. The “Type Selector”
About a month ago I received a copy of Thames & Hudson’s Type Selector, the “user-friendly font swatch.” Designed like a Pantone color guide, the Selector fans out to display over 225 typefaces categorized as Serif, Slab Serif, Sans Serif, Blackletter, Script and Display. At the office, I sarcastically joked that, finally, I would be able to select typefaces and I could quit my pin-the-tail-on-the-font technique. For the past ten years, at least, I have been gobbling type specimens, catalogues and foundry promotions, dumping a useless — “useless” because I doubt I remember all of them at the same time — number of type references in my head that make the Selector look like nothing more helpful than Cliff’s Notes. When one of our younger designers picked it up last week, he was giddy with excitement and fanned the Selector back and forth admiring the easy categorization and helpful layout. I acknowledge that ten years ago I may have shown the same excitement as he did. I then wonder how design students are learning about typography in school? Are they just pulling down fonts from a menu? Does anyone bring in a copy of the massive and legendary FontBook, or some of Emigre’s old catalogues and specimens? Can a lightweight novelty like the Selector be enough? Without any history and context or with more than eight lines of typesetting? I hope not.
4. Type Directors Club Judges Night, or, Typobsesiveness
On Thursday, the 28th, our own Marian Bantjes and type designer Luc(as) deGroot spoke about their work and showed how deep, varied and rich one can extend their passion for typography. What was most amazing that night was to see two polar opposites of obsessiveness and determination. Marian, it goes without saying around these parts, manipulates letterforms to her whims, burning hour after hour, to achieve highly complex and new typographic structures that are only reminiscent of their original form. On the other side of the globe (and of artistic expression), Luc(as) is pushing the boundaries of formal typeface design by kerning more pairs than snowflakes exist and by designing impossibly thin and thick typefaces — not to mention comprehensive type families used around the world. Both Luc(as) and Marian display a devotion to typography that is beyond the norm and most designers too.
5. Type Directors Club TDC53 Competition
That same Thursday, Graham Clifford, Chair of the TDC53 Competition e-mailed me about filling in for ex-Speak Up author Graham Wood who was unfortunately stuck in New Zealand and could not return in time to New York to judge the competition that weekend. I had been looking forward to sleeping in that weekend but I knew that would have been the lamest reason to turn down the invitation. So on Saturday at 8:30 a.m. I was ready to judge some typography. 2,046 pieces of typography to be exact. Now, the hard thing about this competition is that you have to judge use of typography, not layout, color or production. Sure, they come into play, but we had to extract only the typography and assess that “layer” above any other. An interesting exercise to say the least. After ten hours of being on our feet we had seen posters, books, brochures, logos, magazine spreads and more from the U.S., Europe, Asia, Israel and Latin America and I was floored by the quality of the entries. In less than a day I had a typographic education that could never be replicated in four years of undergraduate education or two years of graduate at the finest school. This was typography at its best, fullest and rowdiest.
It was during this weekend that I convinced myself that despite all this worry about non-designers taking our jobs and doing our work thanks to the proliferation of affordable software and availability of “fonts” there is a sensibility that good designers possess that separates all of us from non-designers. We know how to combine typefaces, we know how big or small to scale them, we know when less is more and when more is more, we know when to make it black and when to knock it out, we know how to manipulate all these variables to convey an idea, a sentiment, a promise. We know. We know typography and that is the one skill that will consistently allow us to do better, and more meaningful, design work than marketers, lawyers and cooks ever will think they can do. People might never realize that, when it comes to craft and adding power to message, typography is the one thing we can offer that no niece-who-can-draw will be able to deliver. People might know “fonts” and John Hodgman might make them sound funny, but typography, good typography, can’t be downloaded for free from the internet and can’t be understood from joking commentaries. You earn it. And you earn good typography by practicing it, understanding it, taxing it and challenging it until you can make it do what you want. “Typography” can do you want. “Fonts” can’t.
Thanks for the article, Armin. I agree with your sentiments that typography is key to the trade of a graphic designer.
I had a type/font poster thrown before me this weekend. One of those situations where a friend that knows I take design seriously and do it freelance as well. He had an advertisement that's going out for a bash at his company. Probably from hearing me rant and rave about usage of type and placement in different situations. He showed me this poster, realizing it wasn't very good, I assumed. I was mortified. It was hidious. So I actually went about trying to explain why it was ugly and a horrible display of advertising, much less design. I got part of the way through my explanation and I realized...I can't explain this. There was so much wrong with this poster, it would take me all day to explain why everything, especially the usage of type, was just ugly. I appreciated your article b/c of how this incident occurred. I explained what I could, but I fell back on...I would just have to redesign this. It's too badly designed to salvage. Our jobs are at least safe in the typography realm...thanks for reminding us of that.
God bless,
On Feb.06.2007 at 04:54 PMMatt