Sunday, October 02, 2005

Rumors of the Deathof Typeography...

This article had some good, valid points. There are many people who believe that just because they have manipulated a typeface, they've created a new font. I understand that many typefaces have variations, which indeed was a transition from the root, but it was just that...a transition from the ROOT. People who try and change type that was produced years ago by letterpress isn't exactly authentic in my opinion. I like the quote by Eric Gill: "Letters are things, not pictures of things". Then when describing the difference between a fontographist and a type designer, he says it is simple: Ask a fontographist to draw a three-inch high roman S with a penci, without tracing. Then it will soon be known that there's isn't any real knowledge of the shapes of leters there. This is the problem I have with people today trying to create a new typeface by simply mangling an old one.

Unfortunately, I do agree that some graphic designers are attracted to this improper use of type, and have a hard time getting away from it. But to say "Graphic Designers..." insinuating that all designers do this, I don't agree with. It is sad that because there are some with no idea, sometimes as to what they are designing, that all designers get put in this category. But the other part of this paragraph is also unfortunate: "..since our visual circuits are so overloaded with snap, crackle, and buzz, people don't even notice letters anymore...". Though this may be true to an extent, it should be our duty to fix it. Lets weed out these bad fonts and they will eventually evaporate. There is no way this kind of type will succeed.



Post a Comment

<< Home