when you get a chance:
type means never having to say you're sorry
it's a post by jessica helfand about making wise typeface choices and how the educational process can either perpetuate uninformed / mindless decisions ("my teacher told me these are the classics" is not a good enough reason) or provide appropriate cultural and historical background to make smart choices. some of her comments made me wonder if i do enough in my type classes to flesh out these aspects of typefaces, and question the depth to which you students understand your type choices beyond "it looks modern (or classical)" or "i like it". fellow professors and students alike, do you feel confident in our students abilities to make informed typographic choices, that students understand the reasons and contextual issues surrounding the design of the typefaces they select for their work? read the article above and let's share some thoughts.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
read this
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Actually, Eppelheimer had us (the sophomore type studio) read this article last semester, after which came a series of thick stapled pamphlets on the history of our ten, "School of Design" typefaces.
Honestly, I think the history of typography should be a separate study in the School of Design. In type studios (at least thus far) it feels like an addendum, something that is crammed in along with the work we do, in order to give us a richer understanding of the type we're using.
As Helfand suggests, the history of type is quite important. Yes - intuitive decisions on the aesthetic qualities of typography can be valid (sometimes by accident), but without a deep understanding of the contextual environment in which the letterforms were created, how is a designer expected to make informed and poignant decisions about the best way to wardrobe their words?
Granted, much of the general public (usually our audience) doesn't know, or even remotely care to know the history of typography. Most will not know the difference between Bodoni, Garamond, and Caslon. Most will not understand the subtle yet distinct contrasts between the stroke widths and serifs, or even the historical climate in which they were manufactured; However -- if they don't care to know, and many design students (as Helfand reports) don't care to know either.... then who will? As designers it is our responsibility to have a deep understanding, and even a passion for the history of type. Much of our job is taking complex ideas, and beautifully condensing them into approachable and understandable combinations of image and type. Without a respect and interest in what has come before, any prospective designer will not the sense to combine type and image effectively, so effectively that the distinct relationship between the two evokes a rich and interpretive feeling. That's the goal anyways, right?
In any case, I think so far the history of type seems like an addendum to the type studio class, and if possible through the bureaucratic structure of KCAI, I'd like to see it as a required secondary class to type studio.
good thoughts ramzy. the idea of a type history course is very interesting. we're trying to pack history into certain projects where we can, so it augments the required design history, but unfortunately we can only require so many credits for our major. otherwise we get into adding another semester or year onto the degree, which some schools are doing. so to add it in, we'd have to sacrifice another course; which course to axe would be nearly impossible to determine.
anyone else have thoughts? dissenters? agreers? (yes, i just made taht word up)
tyler
True, I did give the sophs a bunch of photocopies after that reading! Would that be considered guilty conscience stapling?
Ramzy's right of course, the history of type is secondary to the studio work in my type classes and usually used as a support to the current project we're on. A separate history of typography would be a great addition to design history, for graphic designers and printmakers (I assume) alike.
As to Helfand's article, making the "right" typeface choices should not be wholly dependent on either historical context or formal attributes. Sensitivity to both issues as well as a clear understanding of medium and context should be enough to help you make informed decisions. In any case, after you choose your historically-accurate-yet-flexible-in-
most-situations-and-easily-paired-
with-system-fonts-for-web-usage-and-emails typeface is when the hard work begins.
And why use Futura when you can use Univers, what else does a designer need?
Maybe one day, Adobe will incorporate a little message that pops up after you select a typeface, that gives a little history about what you're about to use.
:o)
Post a Comment