Student Requests/Braces for Feedback

mattstein's picture

I've been lurking around this forum reading some really great/helpful conversations about type and I'm nervously putting my experiment on the chopping block. I'm a senior graphic design student on the verge of graduation and I tried to take on designing a typeface for my senior project. I'd really appreciate any feedback (minor or drastic, friendly or angry) on this, particularly what is lacking or could really strengthen or unify it. My goal was to create a face that referred to the foundational calligraphic hand I've been learning while looking more solid and geometric in form as opposed to hand-drawn calligraphy.

Thanks in advance for ANY comments.

AttachmentSize
Neverfinished.pdf294.46 KB
BlandishV1.pdf357.4 KB
cerulean's picture

It's lovely, but there are some dubious stroke weights. The heavy diagonal of the K is the most out of place. There are others that just seem to be accidents, like the slightly thinner vertical of the t. Over all, I like your shape choices, except for the x... you should probably just do the x over.

fontplayer's picture

I don't have the eye for critique that others do, especially in details, but I know that this definitely falls in the charming category.

mattstein's picture

Thanks, both of you, for taking the time to comment. I'm currently preparing this for a final (not finished, but something to show for a crit in class) and I'm making sure that stroke weights are more consistent, that my cap heights are right on, and trying to make the M and N look like they weren't afterthoughts.

Thanks again, and I'll post an update hopefully packed with more charm and some much-needed consistency.

paul d hunt's picture

this is a bit weird. it's almost like 3 typefaces thrown together. you have your plain letters: M,N,O,Q,V,W,X,Y; your slightly decorative letters: A,C,E,F,H,L,T,U; and the over-the-top designed letters: B,D,G,K,P,R,S. Some divergence is no problem, but here i think you have too much. Try to harmonize the letters to a certain standard of decoration with a handful being a bit more decorative. just my 2 cents.

cerulean's picture

I don't agree that they're all that divergent, but I do think the top of the G should look like the top of the C.

mattstein's picture

I added a new PDF of where I'm currently at with my type experiment. I appreciate the feedback and will most likely keep playing with it as well as starting a new set based on a lot of the knowledge I acquired with this experiment. I just graduated and will be moving across the country though, so type will have to wait a bit while I find a place to live and a job. I'm still open to comments and I appreciate those already made.

ebensorkin's picture

Here is my 2 cents:

I think the ear on the g should be stronger & more whimsical looking. I might try the lower foot of the k to start with. The G bothers me. It doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the face. Perhaps if it wasn't so closed. There is no reason it HAS to look quite so much like the cap C really. The cap C could be a bit more open too come to that. The Q's tail seems weak to me. The cap K might take up more room. In terms of overall effect, I think a bit more contrast all around using the lovely foot of the k & the leg or the cap R as guides would make the face come alive. I think this face could be tasty - but it needs more verve - more juiciness. One that is in place you can always make a thinner version. As things stand this face is a little too much of a wallflower. It has potential though. I hope you keep working it.

Syndicate content Syndicate content