yer a bit behind the times, willy b.

http://typophile.com/blog/110

Yeah, I just started looking at the tracker, and saw that after I posted. Blogs don’t show up in the main listings. Still, I would be interested in any who have actually used these fonts for additional views. They are really all outstanding work, which makes the comparison interesting.

> Blogs don’t show up in the main listings.

I thought they did (since Tiff’s does), but you’re right about this one.
So I guess sometimes yes sometimes no... A bug, then.

> I would be interested in any who have actually used these fonts for additional views.

Totally. But I think Paul is hinting there’s already a place to do that.

hhp

Could be because Tiff is a moderator?

pardon the intrusion, but i don’t have the fonts and i want to say a word or two:

you need a lot of courage to say that the work by Matthew Carter is great, but not so so great ” because it is a commissioned type family, designed within certain editorial constraints, it has become the most mainstream and “slick” adaptation.
Certain creative decisions must’ve steered it away from the Fleischmann model, insofar that it makes me wonder if I’m doing Fenway a disservice by including it in this comparative review instead of looking at it separately.

so...there’s a need to ask him

Sometimes, you have to say something wrong/borderline (although not intentionally - that sucks) to trigger a reliable correction. People react more often to correct something, instead of to reinforce it. Unfortunately. As I’ve said before -to Stephen’s great amusement, I remember- reckless speculation (which this isn’t even) is the key to efficient data mining.

hhp

you need a lot of courage to say that the work by Matthew Carter is great, but not so so great

not really, you just need to have your own oppinion and not be afraid to voice it. you should have some good reasons to make such a statement, however.

I like it, even Pelé failed penalties, why should Matthew Carter be inmune?

Altough I don´t have any of the faces and only know them by ocassional sighting this critic is a good place to start knowing them.

Héctor

first and foremost: I didn’t talk about “inmune” or to “be afraid to voice” your own opinion.

let’s read it again:

it is a commissioned type family, designed within certain editorial constraints...

Certain creative decisions must’ve steered it away from the Fleischmann model...

it makes me wonder if I’m doing Fenway a disservice by including it in this comparative review instead of looking at it separately.

• • •

in my opinion there was a need to talk to Matthew Carter; to hear about the “certain editorial constraints” that “steered it away from the Fleischmann model”.

maybe the client didn’t want the exact model? who knows.

then — when you have the point of view by Matthew Carter — you can say: i need to look at it separatley. or not. and why.

Tina, I think that your are being a bit harsh on Yves. His article was a great review. That being said, I would have liked to have heard what motivated Carter’s design decisions, too.
__
www.typeoff.de

“I think that your are being a bit harsh on Yves”

why? no. i don’t think so. we are here to talk and not to insult. this is like chemistry — a chain reaction.

and as Paul said: you just need to have your own opinion and not be afraid to voice it. you should have some good reasons to make such a statement, however.

You’re both being a bit prickly!

I think it would certainly have been nice to ask Carter (and the others too!) about this, but Yves was probably already over-drawn on this. And maybe he thought it would be too much of an imposition.

hhp

Maybe we can all sit down with Matthew at TypeCon and ask him. I’d be game.

I used Fenway a lot in 2002 and 2003, first in typesetting Language Culture Type, and then in all the print material for the ATypI conference in Vancouver. For the former, I made an extended OpenType version with additional diacritics, e.g. for Arabic transliteration, which I sent to Matthew for approval.

Judged as a Fleischman revival, I think Fenway is inevitably going to compare less favourably with most of the other designs that Yves reviews. But I’m not sure that it makes sense to judge Fenway in these terms. Fenway was designed as a text face for a magazine, and that is the first basis on which it should be judged. The fact that it is based in large part on ideas that can be traced to Fleischman’s types seems to me a secondary consideration. Fenway isn’t really a Fleischman revival; at least, it is no more a Fleischman revival than Galliard is a Granjon revival, and probably less so. One of Matthew’s great talents is the ability to reinterpret historical models as entirely modern typefaces, without any lingering whiff of antiquity: the models are clearly evident in the resulting designs, but the treatment of the ideas is very fresh and, as in the case of the Fenway ’k’, open to influences outside the model, or to multiple models.

I would go so far as to say that in one important respect at least Fenway may be superior to — or at least more interesting than — the various recent Fleischman revivals or Fleischman-inspired designs: what Matthew has taken from Fleischman’s types is not the baroque details that make the original so immediately distinctive but which, on closer examination, are quite superficial. What he has revived is not Fleischman’s style, but Fleischman’s ideas about readability, applied to an entirely contemporary typeface for a specific design brief and printing environment.

John, great stuff. Except the “Fleischman’s ideas about readability” bit: these have yet to be applied, as far as I’m concerned.

hhp

ah ha. great stuff, John (I just hope that Yves isn’t going to hate me :) ).

I’m going to hate nobody, relax! I haven’t read anything harsh or unfair until now. :-)

This is a great thread, and I’m truly honoured that my review instigated this interesting discussion. While I’d like to delve a little deeper into the different points raised here, I’m terribly busy right now preparing a special little something to promote Typographer.org at Typecon, which needs to go to the printer’s by next Monday (groan). So please bear with me, I will respond to your remarks (some of which are a bit off the mark I think)... but not right now. ;-)

Oh, and please don’t mind me: carry on! :-)

>the baroque details ... are quite superficial.

I don’t think so.
Fleischmann put them there for a reason. They’re part of the design.
Most typographers follow the Morison line, favoring bland text types.
I prefer the strong beer. With blue cheese.

One of the pleasures (and challenges) of working with historical sources is that they force you to articulate what it is you like about them. With so many type designers engaged in this kind of work, it’s increasingly difficult to find new ways to react to old fonts; I really wonder whether the world really needs another Caslon revival, and we surely haven’t seen the last of them. But I also felt this way ten years ago, and from the vantage point of 2005 I really can’t imagine typography without Matthew Carter’s “Big Caslon.” (Substitute Justin Howes’ “Founders Caslon,” or Mark Andresen’s “NotCaslon,” if you like — the point is that each of these designers reacted to something different, but very specific, in the same source, and in expressing this reaction produced something truly vital.)

This might be a good time for me to confess something I shared with Yves, which is that I don’t really think of Mercury as a Fleischman revival. I did in the beginning: my first drawings in 1996 attempted a strict facsimile of Fleischman’s No. 65 & 66, complete with all the baroque details both general and specific (droopy ball terminals, dart-like serifs on the caps, a very narrow italic, and those blobby serifs that imitate the look of letterpress.) I presented these to the art director of Esquire, who politely told me that he didn’t think they were right for the magazine. In struggling to express what what was wrong with the fonts, his assistant came closest when he characterized the fonts as “sluggish.” I returned to the drawing board, and tried to figure out whether there was a way to “quicken” my drawings, or whether I should start from scratch.

In trying to solve the problem, I spent some time thinking about what I liked about Fleischman in the first place, to see whether these attributes could be reconciled with my newly focussed brief. I discovered that it wasn’t the details that I liked: I don’t especially like the mannered peak of the cap A, or the sleepy lowercase g, and I quite dislike the rococo serifs on the caps E, F, T, L, C, G, S and Z. What I loved was the economy of the design — its thrify proportions and excellent fit — and its sparkle. I wondered if these attributes could be amplified, even at the expense of historical fealty, and decided to give it a shot.

Happily, Esquire loved the result, and I did too. I found that the less I looked at Fleischman types in the Enschede books, the happier I was with Mercury. As Yves observes, there is indeed some Rosart in Mercury’s Italics — there’s also some Fournier, and a little Luce. The italics may be the part of Mercury that departs most dramatically from Fleischman, which perhaps also explains why the italic is my favorite part of Farnhamn: Christian figured out a way to capture all the virtues of Fleischman’s italics, and still make the font look badass. I also think Fenway deserves a closer look: among other things, Matthew is the only designer who has ever managed to wrangle Fleischman’s figures into a workable font. Fenway’s figures have all the ardor and wit of Fleischman’s, and that Matthew managed to imbue his short-ranging figures with the qualities of these old-style ones speaks to both his skill and sensitivity as a designer.

Yves mentioned that Fenway was “designed within certain editorial constraints,” as obviously was Mercury, but I can’t think of this as a shortcoming. External constraints give you something to push against, as Tobias likes to say; they demand that you substantiate your choices, and they provide criteria for evaluating a design’s success. This is not to say that a revival that’s subject to extraordinary constraints will be historically accurate (imagine a Cresci italic for cellphone screens), but the result can still achieve originality and even greatness. It will certainly be better than a historical revival that takes no position whatsoever, which to my mind is the direct route to blandness. Happily, I don’t think any of our homages to Fleischman are guilty of this particular sin.

Excellent post, Jonathan. Thanks for the insight into your process.

....and guys — please keep this thread clean...

Having done several revivals, that stray from the original to varying degrees, I do of course agree with the legitimacy of adapting it to one’s own muse, or that of one’s client.

And I would have to admit that typefaces do have a life of their own, beyond the initial intentions of their designer: Futura, for example, with most of Renner’s signature characters falling by the wayside. But some remained, such as the straight-line j and the splayed M.

The classics have their signature characters which have not been bowdlerized by future generations: the broken lower bowl of the Baskerville “g”, the lower left serif on the Bodoni “b”, the different angle of the top serifs on Garamond T etc. These are the exception, however, established by long usage in fine books, prior to mass media.

The case for the original must still be made, exactly as rendered by its inventor, ’warts’ and all.

The fact that the idiosyncrasies do not belong in the typography of a particular type designer, art director or publication is an indicator of mainstream conservatism when confronted with something a little “over the top”, rather than a mistake by the original designer. In other words, it is a question of aesthetic preference, not ergonomics.

So, a mass-circulation publication’s text type will have discreet features, because it must satisy the bell-curve’s hump of readers’ tastes, not because there is any inherent poor readability in the occasional idiosyncrasy.

Readability is a lot more than mere familiarity (not that the latter is even remotely understood by anybody in type anyway). Many people reject this because it makes their job harder.

In the case of Fleischmann, the idiosyncracy is also in his structures; that’s where his readability kicks in, and that’s what has yet to be revived. Would that people would revive his ideas, instead of just his quaint forms.

hhp

Would that people would revive his ideas, instead of just his quaint forms.

sounds like you have your work cut out for you, hrant. ;^D

Touché, my friendly cowboy! But you should see what I’m doing with my Baskerville’s italic. It will be what JB would have done... if he were a well-meaning zombie haunting the 21st century.

hhp

— Would that people would revive his ideas, instead of just his quaint forms.

Did you not read my post? Or do you just think my font sucks?

I’ve always read every word you’ve written. Did you read Yves’s review? He quotes me thus: “To me they all seem like great fonts.” This is because there’s a lot more to a good font than Hrant’s ideas of how best to carry out a revival. Type is about the user, not one of us. This however cannot stop each of us from having personal opinions.

Non-literal revivalism doesn’t necessarily revive the original’s ideas; generally it reinterprets the forms according to the ideas of the reviver. This is certainly not useless. But it also doesn’t go deep enough in a certain direction, in this case that of structures conducive to greater readability.

What I was referring to was more a process of:
1) Trying to figure out what the original designer was thinking; not just observing/borrowing what he ended up with.
2) Deciding which of his (presumed) ideas are worth reviving.
3) Applying those ideas to forms of this age.

I think Fleischmann was a genius*, somebody whose thoughts -not just products- are worth paying attention to. But what could he have been thinking in making his #65?! I mean beyond the superficial baroque styling. Certainly nothing that shows up in any of the fonts here, not even Kaiser’s, somebody who explicitly started with my #1 above. Maybe what he was thinking is incompatible with contemporary design. Sure, that’s not something to ignore; but at least let’s recognize what it is, or even just what it might be, and discuss it.

* And I don’t use that word lightly.

To be fair, the sort of design I’m thinking of is quite unlikely to make it into a review of Fleischmann revivals. People would go “Huh? That’s nothing like the dresses Marylin used to wear!”

hhp

> (not that the latter is even remotely understood by anybody in type anyway)

Of course. Only the gifted outsider knows the truth.

sorry, inadvertant double click.
a “delete” button in the edit mode would be nice.

No, I know virtually nothing about Familiarity! :-/ It’s one of the biggest holes in my understanding - probably the biggest. I’ve asked Kevin for help on that, since studying empirical research is the best foundation (although it can only take you so far). So at least I want to learn, grow. My ideal business card would have “Eternal Student” as my title.

hhp

>I know virtually nothing

If you know nothing, how can you tell whether others do or do not know anything?

From the things they say, the arguments they put forth. You don’t have to grasp something completely to detect that some people are just making it up as they go along, gilding the cage. That’s what’s so comical about the common ideas concerning Familiarity: the chirographers use it to justify their pet ideology, and the PoMo/Emigre crowd does the same, but of course both groups are very careful to avoid intelligent debate and empirical research about it... Christ, who knows what inconvenient places Thought and Logic can lead! Bah, those are just shackles on a Great Artiste, after all. Screw the reader.

hhp

Nick wrote: The fact that the idiosyncrasies do not belong in the typography of a particular type designer, art director or publication is an indicator of mainstream conservatism when confronted with something a little “over the top”, rather than a mistake by the original designer.

The thing with idiosyncrasies, it seems, is that they should be properly personal, as the term suggests, so the whole question of idiosyncrasies in revivals is problematic. A copied idiosycrasy is no longer idiosyncratic: it has lost the personal touch that made it meaningful and, often, made it work. When Fleischman cuts his idiosyncratic rococo details, he is exercising a personal creative decision within the decorative context of his cultural milieu. When someone copies those details in a 21st century revival, neither the personal creativity nor the cultural milieu is preserved, so what was gloriously idiosyncratic in the 18th century becomes affectation.

I like true idiosyncrasy in type design. The first time I saw František Štorm’s Biblon I was dancing inside. But when it comes to revivals, I’d rather see the idiosyncracies of the reviver than the slavishly copied idiosyncracies of the original.

>empirical research

I don’t think you can find out anything that will help design better typefaces, in a lab.

The best lab is the centuries of research and experimentation that have occurred in the “marketplace” of typography, where a consensus has emerged as to what are the features desirable for readability in a typeface.

In the right hands, I think that both approaches are valid. It’s interesting to see the work that Gerard Unger is doing these days, as he’s bringing a decidedly personal (and modern) style to a number of different historical idioms; it’s equally interesting to see what happens when a thoughtful designer intentionally tries to slavishly imitate an artifact warts and all (I always think of Justin Howes’ “Founders Caslon” here), in the interest of providing designers another type of raw materials with which to work. I think typography, and all of us here, are big enough to admit both kinds of typeface.

Hrant, you seem to be suggesting that Mercury looks like Fleischman. I really don’t think it does; it was the intention of the design to participate in some of the qualities of Fleischman’s work that I described above, but not to actually replicate any of Fleischman’s shapes. (That was the point of my post, and as always you’re making me regret the forty-five minutes that I spent writing it.) I’d really encourage you to look at both designs a little more closely, after which perhaps you’ll share whatever additional specific observations you have.

You asked in another discussion about my thoughts regarding historical revivals in general, and in considering the question I’ve been straining to articulate precisely how my feelings have changed over the years. While I chew on this a little longer, I can at least leave you with this: Mercury represents the kind of work I’m most interested in doing right now, and it’s consistent with an approach that Tobias and I have explored for the last few years. See Gotham for more information.

would you mind (any of you) to post a sample? so we’ll see what is No.65, 66.

thank you

> I don’t think you can find out anything that will help design better typefaces, in a lab.

Well, somebody who’s not looking won’t find it anywhere...
Unless by “better” one means “more expressive of me me me”. (Shudder.)

> you’re making me regret the forty-five minutes that I spent writing it.

I shouldn’t have that power over you (and I don’t think I do). When you post something, it can never be a conclusive monolith. I’ve noticed that you tend to make long, neat, carefully-crafted posts, and if somebody takes issue with anything in it, you snap back with a one-liner. It’s like you don’t want anybody to touch what you’ve sculpted; even if it can’t be the last word, at least it can float in its ether, unsoiled. Well, purity and closure are not features of free exchanges. A magazine article, sure; an interview, usually; but not Typophile. Nothing to do with me.

And certainly don’t write anything just for me! Think of all the varied people benefiting.

> I’d really encourage you to look at both designs a little more closely

Where are the things that make the #65 so unique? The variance in finish (like the foot versus head serifs) is admittedly there, but the deeper stuff isn’t.

> You asked in another discussion about my thoughts regarding historical revivals in general

Yes, and I appreciate that whenever you have the time/desire. But even more welcome would be exchanges, not monologues, since that’s what helps the most people most. There are people here who disagree with a lot of what you say and make -way more than me- but in the interest of comfort and tact they remain quiet. Typophile loses.

hhp

Sorry, Tina, of course! :-/

http://www.themicrofoundry.com/other/Fman65.gif

(BTW, the bitmap font is Mana-16.)

The #66 is its Italic. I don’t know much about that. Mostly because I don’t see “true italics” as an indispensable part of a system (which doesn’t make them useless however). I’m interested in Fleischmann’s ideas, and they are most evident -or more accurately least obstructed- in the Roman #65 (something Andy Crewdson originally made me realize).

hhp

I gave David the scans Hrant e-mailed me, but now I notice he didn’t put them online. :-/ I’ll ask about it.

And I just got a message from Robb that he’s going to let me know about publishing theFenway PDFs.

Thanks for all of your insights, especially to Jonathan Hoefler for your extensive
explanation of your development of Mercury.

Jonathan, please don’t be put off typophile by Hrant’s obtuse remarks. Hrant benefits
typophile by stirring the pot with provocative remarks. And he harms it when he goes off
into his ’bizarro world,’ as you put it, in which muddled generalizations are mixed with
personal insults. Since I enjoy typophile, I just try to appreciate Hrant when he is on point
and ignore him when he goes bizarro. Thousands will read your comments, so don’t be
put off by the loudest guy in the room.

Hey, it’s even harder for me! I have to try to ignore that you’re an apologist for
fascism and rape. That’s worse than the worst font anybody could ever make.

hhp

I think you owe William an apology, Hrant.

Maybe. But I guess I should apologize to Typophile. I’m sorry.

William can cause me to lose control in disgust, and I can’t just shut that on and off, especially when he uses the ruse of pampering Jonathan’s psyche to mount a classic veiled little Western personal attack. We’re insulted by different things; you’re not more human than I am.

Of the hundreds and hundreds of type people I’ve met, he’s the only one I can’t stand; think about what that implies. I guess as a self-defense I want people to know that, to know what he’s like under the neoclassical veneer.

hhp

Nothing riles Hrant more than the threat of being ignored.

;/

Yeah, that’s out of line. If I were a moderator, I would delete that post.

__
www.typeoff.de

Hrant, I said you owed him an apology, not another round of insults.

What’s all this anti-West BS anyway?
I thought you were proud to live in LA.

Have you been to LA? Anyway. There are good things about the West, and bad things; same for the East (like its sickly fatalism). I’m in the middle. This here is a Western environment. I like to point out flaws, with the hope of improvement, no matter where I am. When I was in Beirut in April I was complaining about the problems there. That should explain a lot. As for William, to me he primarily represents a lot of the things wrong with the West, things that are causing my people grief (and not just 90 years ago). This is more important than fonts. Most people here enjoy the luxury of not really being under cultural/ethnic pressure. They are -understandably- more interested in enforcing a stable social environment, by censorship if need be. They don’t understand the anger somebody like me can feel, so they have trouble absorbing the resultant lapses of control. Lucky them.

hhp

>Most people here enjoy the luxury of not really being under cultural/ethnic pressure.

William was right to call you on “muddled generalizations”.
You’re making an awful lot of assumptions about “most people”.
How can you presume to know, and minimize, the pressures others feel, in relation to your own, as an excuse for losing your cool?

The fact is, you are a bully who enjoys putting people down.
No sooner has Jonathan dipped his feet in the Typophile waters than you accuse him of not properly getting into the spirit of exchange, diss his typeface for not being deep enough, and hint darkly that there are hordes of lurkers who dislike his work even more than you do. Yeah, you want to engage him in a pissing match, but he has too much class to take the bait.
Most recently, you have satirized me as the “Great Artiste” whose attitude is “Screw the reader”.
Where do I cast my ballot to vote you off the show?

I guess the same place you do everything else, like formulate your arguments, hoard all the perceived insults (and not just against you), and even design type: your imagination! Voting. A show. Indeed.

BTW, if anybody ever suggested that William be excluded from Typophile, for whatever reason real or imagined, I would be the first to oppose them. If that’s too complex for you, I understand.

hhp

Maybe it was the pizza* I just had, but: William, I’m sorry for exploding. I can’t and won’t apologize for how I feel about you, but I can and should apologize for how I behave, no matter how anybody else does. Especially in an environment I value so much.

* So was it the Italians or the Chinese who invented it? ;->

—

But the questions, those remain:
What was Fleischmann thinking? If the funky stuff in the #65 is not a mistake (and how could it be? not a rhetorical question), why does it go unrevived? Also: am I the only person who wants to hear Nick, Jonathan, and the other Nick discuss (as opposed to monologue, even thought that’s better than nothing) the [de]merits of revivalism, in all -or at least some- of its many shades? In the furore I forgot to commend Jonathan for his “I’ve been straining to articulate precisely how my feelings have changed over the years.” Change is good. Strain builds character. And maybe if/when Jonathan goes to the trouble of elaborating further, that can be a springboard for a catalytic exchange, something the Undecided (which I myself always am to some extent, if never totally) certainly value greatly.

I hope we care about the content, about Typophile, more than about exposing mutual character flaws and feeling insulted. If we do, we will not fail to address the content.

hhp

I first saw Fenway in 1998 when it was submitted to the very first TDC type design competition. I remember what struck me then was the larger-than-usual height of its small capitals which were very strongly drawn, and, of course, its excellent figures. I must confess, it did not feel like a revival at all...

I used Fenway twice: in 2000, in typesetting the Reports of the [ATypI] Country Delegates, and in 2002, in designing Language Culture Type (see John’s post above). In both jobs those small caps and figures worked wonderfully.

The optimal size range of small caps was one of the important features that was studied and discussed in the process of developing the multilingual fonts for the MS ClearType Font Collection. It felt that the larger s.c.—of the Fenway kind—could work better across all three scripts that constitute the MSCT character set (Latin, Greek and Cyrillic).

>What was Fleischmann thinking?

I think that the period he was living in was quite remarkable (at least in his younger days). Science and arts were in full swing, there was excitement in the air - discoveries were made, inventions done, improved communication made for greater awareness of what happened everywhere, etc.
So F. may have felt part of this movement to Enlightenment and could think outside of this constraining box of “I have to make a living” and tried to have fun doing his job, pushing the boundaries, being creative, trying to lift the level of his craft, showing of to others (“Look what I did!”) — in other words, behaved like a prima donna of typecutting.
And that is what made him a genius of course.

(For a great, though perhaps not always historically accurate view of the period, read Neal Stephenson’s Baroque Cycle. Three wonderful books.)

[ Moderator comment: Someone suggested that a moderator delete Hrant’s attack at William in this thread. With apologies to William, I think I prefer to leave Hrant’s comment there in its stinking, festering form so people can see for themselves who is behind it - a guy who otherwise seems to be knowledgeable and helpful. I’m tired of pushing the steaming wheelbarrow behind Hrant. ]

>Change is good. Strain builds character. And maybe if/when Jonathan goes to the trouble of elaborating further,

Hrant, on the one hand you say you want Jonathan to participate, and on the other, in the guise of a compliment you patronize him with amateur psychology, suggesting that his character is weak because he is stuck in a rut. Then you imply he is lazy because he can’t take the trouble to elaborate further.
Perhaps that’s not what you meant, but that’s the way it comes out.
For goodness sake, quit fronting and “address the content”, nothing more.

You have to resist the impulse to editorialize, it’s a can of worms. Please stop telling people how you feel, how they feel, why they’re doing what they’re doing, why they believe what they do, and what they should do to improve themselves and their work (unless they ask). I apologize for this advice, it’s the last time.

While I lack the training to contribute to a deep analysis of Fleischmann’s types, I am learning a great deal by reading (most of) this thread. I’m fascinated by the perspectives given and am adult enough to make my own judgements about them (since they are, after all, individuals’ perspectives, not hard-set Truth). Many of the lurkers here are just interested in an honest discussion with tactful/respectful phrasing, as it’s my understanding that this is why Typophile is here in the first place.

It may be hard to see, but there truly are more open minds than open mouths here. I’d love to see this discussion continue on course, and I encourage everyone who’s participated to continue contributing to the main thread of debate and discourse.

Joe, you might also note that the guy(s) on the other side are nearly always middle-aged Anglo males. My point isn’t necessarily that there’s something wrong with that demographic, and certainly not with every member of that demographic (that would be racism), but that the problem is much broader than single individuals; we are largely products of our circumstances, and our little squabbles are the ripples on the surface of things that are out of our hands. Now, this certainly doesn’t remove individual responsability (and that’s why I realized an apology was needed - because it was the right thing to do on my end), but it does create a further responsability of not demonizing individuals, not matter how cozy that makes us feel; that’s a sure way to perpetuate problems.

> on the one hand you say

All I can say is: I’m not a box.

> You have to resist the impulse to editorialize

While should succumb to the temptation of actually addressing the content. Please.

> there truly are more open minds than open mouths here.

Nice expression.

—

> outside of this constraining box of “I have to make a living”

This is in fact quite relevant here I suspect. One thing I’ve been meaning to ask people like Jonathan (who have spent way more time than me analyzing the history and dissecting the forms) is something Andy brought up years ago: after making the #65, why did Fleischmann revert to more conventional forms on occasion (if not consistently)? The only hunch I have, based on the detailed “development” tables in the Enschede specimen books, is that he made the #65 on his own (it was a size in a style that he thought was needed), or at least without external “art direction”, while some of the later works were specifically commissioned, presumably by people who said -or at least were assumed to think- “I want a ’normal’ font in this size, for this use, etc.” I wonder if this hunch holds any water. If not, then it becomes possible that Fleischmann was just an indecisive fellow! :-/

hhp

Whoosh - the sound of ballot #2 dropping into the box...

> I’d love to see this discussion continue on course

I thought this thread was about Johann Michael and his progeny, not about Hrant... And I tried to contribute to it.

Whoosh - the sound of ballot #2 dropping into the box…

*sigh*

i’ve been following this thread, not because i have anything to add, but at points it’s been rather insightful. i thought johnathan’s comments were particularly so and hrant, thank you for your comments on design. we don’t even hafta get along, but can we please put all pettiness aside and remain on topic? thank you.

And I tried to contribute to it.

Thank you, Maxim.

not picking on you, chris, but that was a last straw for me

>>They don’t understand the anger somebody like me can feel, so they have trouble absorbing the resultant lapses of control. Lucky them.

Yeah, Hrant...well I might. To purport that anyone on the face of the planet can’t understand your pain and suffering...spare me (us) the martyrdom. Poor me, I’m a Black man in a white man’s world, 25% of Black adult males have been to jail partly because of socio-economic standards and flaws in our education system.

Crack-cocaine (blue-collar drug) carries a harsher penalty than cocaine (white-collar drug).

African-Americans in the United States have never received reparations for slavery. Educational standards in the United States are drawn by property lines leaving many in ghettos (primarily African-Americans) to go to school with a substandard education.

I can keep going on...but give me a break!!! What does ANY of that have to do with type? What any of us feel politically have nothing to do with Typophile. (Unless the thead calls for it.) I have only been on Typophile for over month, but I have witnessed you in virtually every thread I’ve read insult others or speak in a high and mighty tone. Your “anger” as you call it, is misdirected. No one faults you for anger, but when you take anger and create negative energy with it, there’s a problem. Martin Luther King and Gandhi felt anger...and they channelled it in another way.

If you have such a problem with the west then get out of the country. While I know Nick Shinn can more than speak for himself, the remarks you often throw at him are as racist and elitist as the causes that you are so against.

There’s a band called System of a Down that I’m sure you know. They’re heavily active in Armenian genocide organizations. If you need a specific example of how to channel your anger, listen to their music and pay attention to their social activism. They don’t wear it on their sleeve.

There really is no excuse for being cruel. You owe everyone a SINCERE apology, not a half-hearted one.

Thanks, Terry

> To purport that anyone on the face of the
> planet can’t understand your pain and suffering

Yes, that must have been what I meant when I wrote “most people here”... In fact most people on this planet can understand pain and suffering way better than me* (and certainly you**), they’re just not on Typophile... I wonder why... Like you say, this is a “white man’s world”; actually it’s much more narrow than that; how is it “insulting” to suggest that somebody from my background will naturally have/cause problems here? Now, it is up to me to control that; sometimes I fail; but I try to apologize. And I try to make up for it by adding what you might call “positive energy” in return, and an energy decidedly on-topic!

* Materially I live very comfortably. If I didn’t, I’d probably cause your system real touble. Like those pesky Palestinians.

** BTW, maybe you’re not doing enough for your own people? Have you considered that your “channeling” might in fact be more like dilution, to save yourself the aggravation? Maybe you’re angry at me because I’m indirectly making you feel guilty? Maybe I’m stopping you from shutting out your people’s problems?

> What does ANY of that have to do with type?

Everything has to do with everything. Compartmentalizing reality is one way the system maintains itself. But very often politics doesn’t have enough to do with type, I admit. On the other hand, a lot of my work in Armenian type is in fact motivated by cultural/political realities, and needs. Would it better for me to design exclusively for... Hollywood for example?

> Your “anger” as you call it, is misdirected.

Yes, it often is. I am sorry for that.
But I’m not alone, including on Typophile.

BTW, I know Serge personally. He’s a great guy, but don’t assume he feels free to express every single thing on his mind in song. Sony wouldn’t have signed him if he did; but he has managed to find a way to get some of the message out, much more than I ever could. But he has more talent than me in his field, plus Rock gets a little bit more exposure than type...

> You owe everyone a SINCERE apology

I regret making that post. For me, that’s as sincere as it gets. Maybe you’re used to politicians making promises and apologies, but I’m not a politician. I’m not a showman who gets voted on/off. Typophile is not so crass.

—

Now for a really crazy idea: follow Maxim’s strategy. He doesn’t need to agree with my behavior (in fact you can be pretty sure he doesn’t) to actually talk about type. Carl is wrong :-) if all else fails, ignore me.

hhp

>> Maybe you’re angry at me because I’m indirectly making you feel guilty? Maybe I’m stopping you from shutting out your people’s problems?

This kind of comment doesn’t even warrant a response. Low-blow, and you know it.

BTW, its “Serj” not “Serge”.

>>>I regret making that post. For me, that’s as sincere as it gets. Maybe you’re used to politicians making promises and apologies, but I’m not a politician.

Thank you for the apology. I however, didn’t make any assumptions about you, I would think you’d be kind enough to extend others the same courtesy.

This is all I have to say. I will not lower myself to the level of petty name calling. If you prefer, by all means, continue belittling others.

You’re welcome, Nick. ;)

Another thought on Fleischmann’s idiosyncrasies.
They do stand out, because the idea is spottily applied, not evenly distributed throughout the typeface. But is that such a crime?

He was ahead of his time — by the mid 19th century, there were many decorated faces that had strange details, but applied throughout.
Admittedly, this is not everyone’s cup of tea: Oz Cooper was really down on it, thinking it was rather precious to take one feature and pound away at it — he preferrred variety in details.
Even today there are some faces which manage to integrate a great deal of peculiarity within the general theme — Quadraat for instance — it’s much easier in an old-style serifed face.

Idiosyncrasy is no big deal. How about Tarzana or Eplica, with their cap E that looks like a flipped 3?
That kind of thing may be unacceptable in the publication market that the Schwartz, Carter, and H&FJ “Fleischmann’s” are targetted at (am I right on that?), but it is nonetheless legitimate.

If I were doing a Fleischmann revival, I would probably take the “quaint” details and spin them out a bit further throughout the face.

> But is that such a crime?

More than that, I put forth that it was entirely careful and intentional. Not “spottily applied”. And not some stylistic frivolity. That doesn’t seem to make sense for somebody living then, a punchcutter in that position, somebody with such amazing technical skills (like in optical compensation).

Yes, he was ahead of his time, but not in an eccentric way.
I think he was ahead of our time!

> How about Tarzana or Eplica, with ...

I don’t think the sort of strangeness in his #65 can be seen anywhere else.
To me it seems a lot deeper than anything we’ve ever seen.

hhp

I think the original question that William put out there was for input from folks that have actually used these typefaces. Personally this would be of some real use to me.

We could debate ad nauseum about whether or not these revivals (again - some of these weren’t meant to be true revivals) go far enough in exploring his ideas and not just his forms, what his intent was, etc.

I had been looking at licensing either Mercury or Farnham. It would be nice to hear from some people that have used these faces on real-world projects. Is anyone out there?

I’ve been away from the computer for a while, and now return to this thread. Wow.

Hrant, the scene of you visibly driving away a valuable contributor
to Typophile with your insults made me forget my own manners. My
criticizing you harshly to a third party as if you weren’t here was
rude of me, and I apologize for that.

>We’re insulted by different things; you’re not more human than I am.

Hrant, we’re all human here. We are all hurt by insults. I have
suffered, along with almost everyone else on Typophile, your
continual insults over the past two years. If my rude post above is
cruel – and it was and I apologize for it – then aren’t the hundreds
of yours as well? Please have a little compassion for Typophiles and
show some “decency” in your speech.

Probably I especially rouse your ire because I directly criticize you
for your rudeness. Well, I won’t anymore. This is my last post on
this subject, and I will stick to innocent subjects like type and
politics!

>As for William, to me he primarily represents a lot of the things
wrong with the West, things that are causing my people grief (and not
just 90 years ago).

Hrant, I am just a human being like you. Categorizing people (me
included) as a ‘representative’ of some general evil, like
Fascism and rape, is a way of dehumanizing them, and excusing the
cruelty to follow, in this case your verbal abuse.

Folks, just so there is no misunderstanding: On Typophile and
elsewhere throughout my life I have defended democracy, individual
liberty and tolerance. I hate Fascism and rape and have never said a
word in their defense.

Returning to topic.

I find interesting that both the type designers of these “revivals”
and Yves, who reviewed them, are much more interested in modern type
inspired by old models, rather than a strict revival, such as DTL
Fleishmann.

Thanks to John and Maxim for their interesting comments on Fenway.
The Fontbureau site does have examples of the use of Farnham, but as
Chris says, it would be great to hear from some who have used it.

I’ve (alas again) had to cringe my way through half of the posts here, so if you don’t mind I’ll address the questions I find most relevant in the introduction of my next Bald Condensed, like I usually do. Expect it somewhere next week. Sorry Tina. ;-)

Thanks Yves. that’s ok ( i can wait). but start a new thread :)

...and... Hrant thanks for the sample.

So:
What’s with that lc “o”?

hhp

As a latecomer to this forum I have to ask: what were Fleischmann’s ideas on readability? Was he explicit about them? Did he articulate any in writing?

If Fleischmann’s ideas are in his things (cf. William Carlos Williams: ’no ideas but in things’) can we presume to know them with any certainty? Which sets of his things embody them most fully?

In relation to Yves’ review and Jonathan Hoefler’s reflections on his own process, I find it interesting and instructive to observe how the Fleischmann corpus spawns different but recognizably descendant offspring—descent with modification—responding skillfully and intelligently to different, equally vital, ecological pressures, some personal preferential; some niche, marketing, or demographics based; some cognitive-scientifically constructed.

Peter Enneson

Fleischmann left us with nothing explicit (that I know of).

> can we presume to know them with any certainty?

What’s “any”?
More interesting is “enough”.

Different people have different tresholds for crossing over from assumption to action. Some people might limit themselves to thinking “huh, isn’t that curious”, while others will say “well, if this is what he was thinking, and he was da man, let me try it too”. Especially if one has had his own thoughts along those lines. Admittedly, there’s the danger of reading too much into it, seeing what one wants to see. But really, can that actually hurt anything here? I mean, it’s not like Fleischmann’s descendants will complain.

> Which sets of his things embody them most fully?

Good question. I think it’s most useful to look at the fringes; at the stuff that’s hard to explain (but done with full cognizance). Specifically in this case, the #65. The strangeness in the #65 can’t really be a “mistake”, can it? And if it isn’t, what is it? We must try to explain. And I’ve only managed to think of one possible explanation: divergence to improve readability. I wish people with more talent and skills than me would see that too, and revive that aspect of Fleischmann. But it’s hard to sell.

hhp

lol bump