New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Black wheights funnier than light wheights?
Posted by fonthausen in
22 Aug 2003 — 12:43pm
22 Aug 2003 — 12:43pm
It was just a thought, but am i wrong?
User login
Support our Sponsors
22 Aug 2003 — 1:21pm
Makes sense.
We already associate light weights to "elegance"/"seriousness" anyway.
22 Aug 2003 — 2:14pm
Interesting topic. Maybe they usually end up "funny" because the femimine Carolingian foundation of most contemporary work makes dark weights chubby and cute. But if you picture a really dark fraktur for example (or anything angular), I'd say it's the opposite of funny.
hhp
23 Aug 2003 — 10:57pm
Maybe because black weights suffer major deformations in the shape to fill the inner space
24 Aug 2003 — 7:26am
H
24 Aug 2003 — 7:48am
When a typeface gets very bold, its features become more
exaggerated until it becomes almost a caricature of the
"normal" weight. I think exaggeration is the key. It is, after
all, one of the basic elements of humor.
24 Aug 2003 — 1:04pm
Does everything have to be funny?
hhp
24 Aug 2003 — 1:23pm
What do you mean?
24 Aug 2003 — 1:29pm
I don't think a Black weight has to be a funny caricature, and sometimes it plain shouldn't be - it depends on the character of the face. Galliard for example is a very "joyous" design, so its Black is perfect. But Patria's Black should be (and will be) austere.
hhp
24 Aug 2003 — 2:19pm
I would agree with that. I should have said that features
can become exaggerated to the point of caricature.
I was just speculating why some very bold faces do look
"funny." I didn't mean to imply that all of them do.
I'm thinking of things like Cooper Black or Gill Kayo, for
example.
24 Aug 2003 — 2:45pm
...Blackoak anyone?
24 Aug 2003 — 4:12pm
why not mike ?
24 Aug 2003 — 5:11pm
I stand corrected!!
24 Aug 2003 — 5:19pm
If there's one font that totally dessimates the "we read best what we read most" claptrap, it's FF Extra.
Paul Neville, thank you!
hhp
24 Aug 2003 — 5:25pm
Mike, the more a situation is desperate, the more people will "appropriate" unrelated channels to voice their dissenting opinions. You could say that's a natural and useful "automatic" tool for fighting injustice, since the more desperate a situation the more urgent help humanity needs.
hhp
24 Aug 2003 — 5:50pm
Also, during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Typophile's moderators invited participants to express their political views by modifying their avatars/portraits/monograms/logos.
24 Aug 2003 — 11:12pm
Hrant said:
"If there's one font that totally dessimates the "we read best what we read most" claptrap, it's FF Extra."
I too consdier this prhase is tricky, considering that familiarity is only one of the factors which aid type legibility, but how does this font particularily tears down the saying.
25 Aug 2003 — 1:24am
Sorry guys,
I started this thread, but I couldn't react myself sooner.
I was just wondering this question myself. Because as you commented right, when a face is made bold, it starts becoming a caricature. Several people have tried different theories to make type more bold. But most of them didn't loose the caricature factor. Why is this?
Couldn't there be a way to make type bold, whitout this effect?
And I have a second question. Now we take bold type for granted, but it is a 'modern' feature of faces.
25 Aug 2003 — 11:34am
RE: Political messages.
Sorry. I did not realize that it was invited by the moderators. I am happy to abide by the rules ...etc.
I made the comment because for me type and books are a way to relax and find some small enjoyment in a difficult world. It is a minor irritation to be reading along with a smile and then encounter a slogan that slams 'my president'. I just do not want to deal with that while I am here.
Please do not make the assumption that I am not active, engaged or that I am somehow creating a lifestyle of avoidance, as that would not be correct.
I have invested a great deal of time researching this who Iraq situation, talking about it and staying abreast of it. I read a number of publications that deal with word issues, events, politics, policy and so on.
Typophile and type related pursuits are a break for me. That is all.
Thank you for the polite and helpful responses and I am glad my question did not derail the topic of this tread!
;)
25 Aug 2003 — 12:01pm
As much as I disagree with the Bush Administration and it's policies, I tend to agree with Mike. Let's talk type and leave political discussion to the folks at the FreeRepublic or Democratic Underground. (Whichever suits your taste!)
25 Aug 2003 — 1:15pm
Dont worry mike i
25 Aug 2003 — 8:45pm
H
25 Aug 2003 — 9:36pm
> but how does this font particularily tears down the saying.
H
26 Aug 2003 — 11:37am
>Is a bold wheigth just a 'normal' wheight made
>fatter, or can is it a totally different design
>which can be use a bold version of a lighter
>wheight?
A good example of a bold different from the regular is Frantisek Storm's Lexon Gothic.
There's a short explanation on this design, written by Storm himself, scrolling down the page.
I think it's more interesting when bold and regular actually have different designs, but like Hrant said, it depends on the overall design.
22 Aug 2003 — 2:03pm
In many ways I think black weights are more human than light weights, but I'm not so sure they are always more funny. I'd like to see what you are thinking. Can you post some examples?
24 Aug 2003 — 4:01pm
>...Blackoak anyone?
You call that a black face? This is a black face!
Citation adapted from Paul Hogan in Crocodile Dundee
25 Aug 2003 — 11:46am
Invitation is not quite true- modifying user icons really came from user request (during a Typophile Lunchbox, I believe), and we said "OK, go for it"