According to Scher, the Swatch poster was a parody of the Matter poster, not a rip-off. The story about the poster and the "controversy" that followed it (only after it started appearing in design annuals) is chronicled in Scher's book, "Make It Bigger." The title of her book apparently comes from something the Swatch marketing director said to her when she was working on the poster.

Hi Rob

The convention in fine art and illustration is that when you do a piece in a known style you sign it in such a way as to acknowledge the original source i.e. Peter Saville after Fortunato Depero, Paula Scher after Herbert Matter, Franz Ferdinand after Alexandr Rodchenko.

For reasons that are not too clear, this has never been rigourously applied to the 'plastic arts' and entire reputations have been built on careful appropriation. I guess the critical thing is whether or not the new piece slavishly copies the existing style or merely references it.

Two (old) articles about this come directly to mind; 'The Age of Plunder' by Jon Savage in The Face No.33 January 1983. and 'A Dearth of Typography' by Malcolm Garrett in an early Baseline magazine (the Bodoni issue I think). Historical pastiche and parody would be other aspects of contemporary design (and advertising) practice worth looking at here.

How does your instructor define 'the retro design movement'?

I think you are slightly confusing the idea of "retro" with "homage". Lots of things are retro, simply by using stylistic cues from previous art movements. The best retro stuff is actually very contemporary and would never have been produced back in the day.

The dispute here is between homage and theft. The Paula Scher case has long caused much debate as it definitely straddles the line. Homage (and parody) usually depend on the audience getting the reference (or joke). One could argue that Scher's true audience was Swatch, and not their customers, and they probably understood what she was doing. She has even said that she had permission from Matter's widow to use the original artwork. This makes this a non-issue, in my opinion. Once she had permission from the originator (or his estate), then there's no theft.

I'm not sure if they still run this, but Print Magazine has run some columns from the encyclopaedic Steven Heller chronicling instances of curiously similar designs - very often magazine and book covers.

John Downer's Call It What It Is draws some fine distinctions between categories of "derivation", as related to type design.

When will you stop identifying with what defines you? -- Vaneigem.

See also Steven Heller and Julie Lasky's "Borrowed Design" (1993, Van Nostrand Reinhold).

Retro is the death of idealism.

peace

This webpage (in French) has good examples of Franz Ferdinand artwork along with the Rodchenko (and other) originals.

http://laboiteaimages.hautetfort.com/archive/2005/11/index.html

The exact same poster made in the eighties would be a very different statement than the if it was made in the twenties, since the context has changed so much. In the twenties it was hyper-modern, even futuristic, while in the eighties it was retro-ironic. If it had been made in the same era, it would have been a ripoff, I mean, they're practically identical.

It's like that short story by Borges ("Pierre Menard, author of the Quixote") where somebody writes an exact copy of Don Quixote, word by word, but Borges argues that it's a much better book than the original since it was written in an era where writing a book like that meant something more profound.

I would call this type of thing a "pastiche" or a "homage", and it's not like it's anything new. I mean, the idea of posing models just like God and Adam in the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, shooting a model in a Mona Lisa pose or depicting somebody like the Uncle Sam on the "I want you" poster has been done to death. It's not like they're ripping Michelangelo or Leonardo off, just using their work as a part of a statement. Context changes the message just like medium does.

And anyway, I've always found Scott Adams's statement that originality often starts out as nothing more than plagiarism coupled with a lack of the necessary skills to make an exact copy. In other words, people set out to be the new Michelangelo (or Zapf or Frutiger or whoever), and end up doing something much more valuable and original than that.

In the Scher/Matter case, Paula was using a very well known Swiss poster design to try to make Swatch associate with it and become well known as Swiss as well. It was paying homage. She knew that at least everyone in the design community would know the original and know she was spoofing it. The difference was intent. She did not intend to pass off Matter's work as her own and even paid his family to use it.
Retro is going back to an old style that we may now think of as quaint or charming and trying to follow that style. I think retro may fail when it is all about the style and the quaintness and not about the current communication issue facing the designer and client. The reference to that specific bygone era must help valiate the current communication objective to make sense. Making an ad for some hi tech product in art deco style would not help the communication, even if it were aesthetically pleasing.

ChrisL

...where do you draw the line.

I draw the line by drawing the line.

In the past I've traced over older types, as the basis of new designs, but I've moved on. I don't think tracing is necessarily plagiarism or theft, but there's only so much copying an artist or designer can do before losing their voice, and if you want to be unique, you work from scratch. That applies to individuals and eras; a certain amount of retro is cool, but it's unfortunate that the most popular typeface of the 2000s dates from the 1950s.

There was a time when designs from older times and older technologies needed to be redone in current technology to be usable. This is fine, valuable, and admirable. Most of this has been done by now but there are probably a few more out there that should be redrawn for digital use and skilled typographic design historians to do it. Type design that is to represent our current time is something else. There is no need to redraw what has been done for that purpose. We do not need to model our work after previous times to make it valid. We just need to sit in-front of our tools of choice (be them paper or digital) and design what comes out of our heads instead of what already came out of our ancestors heads. We make marks and then make judgments about them again and again until we are either satisfied with the result or spent from the effort. Doing something reflecting what already exists gives us a sense of familiarity and a known set of rules to make our judgments easier to approve of. Remember that the people we admire from the past we admire for their innovation, not their duplication skills. Taking a stare at a blank screen or piece of paper may seem off-putting at first but the challenge is a reward in itself. That is not to say that whatever we do will be looked upon by future generations as something to emulate. We just need to do our own designs today for their own sake and let the generations to come think what they will of it--just as we did those who came before us.
So as Nick said, "draw the line" your own line.

ChrisL

I should add that the work of many retro font designers is highly interpretive -- especially when inspired from lettering, rather than type -- precisely because they are drawing their own line. House Industries, Nick's Fonts, Font Diner -- the irony is that new, unusual typefaces from those foundries are "retro" while genuinely old typefaces such as Helvetica (1957) or Frutiger (1968) are considered "modern".

I thought Frutiger was 1976?

ChrisL

PS: Not that my memory can be trusted :-)

>I thought Frutiger was 1976?

Charles de Gaulle opened in 1974 - so for two years passengers wandered around like lost sheep ;-)

1. I think the line between old and new is rather broad and fuzzy in type design, particularly the design of text types. Erik Spiekermann said that a text face can only vary about 5% from the past and still work well as a text face. I don't know where he got that number, but I think the basic point is valid. This means that almost all new types to a greater or lesser extent draw on the past.

2. I do believe in the validity of "Classics" in type design and in every other field I can think of. That is, there are some things of great excellence from the past that are worth preserving and using in the present. But in the case of type, you can't do the equivalent of putting a copy of Shakespeare on your shelf, or a great 18th century table on your living room floor. Loss of old materials and changes in technology mean that the Classic type design has to be interpreted. And this means even a deliberate revival has many decisions about what to preserve and what to change. And generally the older the type the more decisions that need to be made. Thus in interpreting the designer is creating something to some extent new and with the eye and hand of that designer in it.

Also there is an extent to which most would not want to revive in old type, such as the splotchy inks and uneven height to paper of early printing. And there are issues of spacing. So the reviver is faced with what to keep and what to change. When the design is closer to a particular original it is a 'revival'. When it is farther it is not. But where to draw the line is not easy to say. Is Electra a revival? No. Is Caledonia? Well, not so easy to say.

I think new text face designs are just great, but I believe there is also a legitimate place for classics, and hence revivals that are deliberately reminiscent of the originals.

We need new plays, but every generation also benefits from revivals of Shakespeare--presented live, today.

Not just Shakespeare revivals but new interpretations of the same themes, e.g. West Side Story.

And back to Franz Ferdinand - their cover is definitely an homage, not a rip-off. If you look at their other covers

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-3713412-0612115?url=search-alia...

you'll see they are going for a distinctive look to their cover designs.

But musically... anyone else think of Frankie Goes to Hollywood?

"so for two years passengers wandered around like lost sheep"

They still do in the Dallas/Ft Worth airport--well maybe more like lost cattle :-)

ChrisL

>well maybe more like lost cattle :-)

A good wayfinding system would help 'steer' them in the right direction. ;-)

as long as it didn't horn in on their right to wander aimlessly.

ChrisL

I thought Frutiger was 1976?

I got the date 1968 from the Frutiger page at Lintoype.com.
The definitive version of a work is always a source of debate for scholars, but I tend to think that the design is most expressive of when the author created it, more so than when it was published or updated.

Loss of old materials and changes in technology mean that the Classic type design has to be interpreted.

1. That's a circular argument, Bill. It only remains classic by being reinterpreted.

2. I don't believe the "technology change" argument to be valid with phototype in the offset era, unless someone wants to reinterpret a Diatronic face with all the ticks and traps, before setting, or after with the corruption of repeated imaging (eg Blur). Helvetica Bold today is no different, in print display usage, than it was in 1969.

>Not just Shakespeare revivals but new interpretations of the same themes, e.g. West Side Story.

Right on target. The analogy to plays--especially realized in performance--seems to hold up pretty well!

"especially realized in performance"

It depends on how you interpret performance. If you liken performing a play to using a type in a layout, there are many new performances daily. West Side Story is a great example of extension with a very new realization. Performing the Romeo and Juliet as originally written is just a performance in modern time.

ChrisL

>1. That’s a circular argument, Bill. It only remains classic by being reinterpreted.

No, it's not circular. The revival of Caslon in 1844--the first revival--was of the actual types, though admittedly with better inks. It was then *recognized* as a classic. And people actually look at the old types as printed, and that inspires them--something like reading the original play and giving a new performance. The point is, they could have just done a new typeface,but they chose to revive one they felt was classic, using the new technology--pantographic punch cutting, linotype, monotype, photo, digital.

Because admiration for the original design inspires the revivals, my argument not circular. The revivals do help to keep memory of the original alive, but they don't define the classic status. For example, people have been dissatisfied with early digital revivals for example of Baskerville and Electra, because they admired the letter press versions. It is the admiration of the originals as classics that makes people revive them.

Furthermore, you seem to be conceding that 'classic' is a valid category, whereas before--at least as I have read you--you seemed to hold that good old types are never to be preferred to good new modern types. The analogy in plays would be to say that we should only perform modern plays and never perform Shakespeare. To perform Shakespeare would always be a 'cop out' and an inferior product. But there have been in fact great revivals--both in plays and types.

>Performing the Romeo and Juliet as originally written is just a performance in modern time.

Your qualifer 'just' seems to minimize the creative effort involved. Every performance of Romeo and Juliet, even of the same text (and Shakespeare is usually cut) is an interpretation by the director and the actors (and the set and costume designers, any music, etc.) And this interpretation of Shakespeare is a serious creative effort, about which many books have been written. If you compare different films of Romeo and Juliet or of Hamlet--and these with performances you have seen--I think it becomes pretty obvious that it ain't so easy to do revivals, and some are great and some are flops.

Same with type, I think.

Performing the Romeo and Juliet as originally written

Interesting analogy considering Shakespeare derived most of his plays from earlier works.

Operas are often previous works, books, stories, plays, converted to the "new medium" of opera. Then you get the film version, then the DVD :-)

ChrisL

>considering Shakespeare derived most of his plays from earlier works.

Another good point on the importance of the past, of tradition. Philosopher of art R.G. Collingwood pointed out that in the most creative historical periods artists borrowed freely not only from the past but also from one another: the Renaissance, Elizabethian England.

"It's hard enough to be clever, you don't have to be original."
— Attributed to David Bowie (singer/songwriter)

The revival of Caslon in 1844—the first revival—was of the actual types,

My understanding is that the Caslons had kept the old matrices (not the type) for sentimental reasons, and recast fresh type. Either way, it's not the kind of revival you're talking about, where a change in technology requires reinterpretation and redesign. In fact, Miller & Richards' Old Style of 1844 (Phemister's "Franklin Old Style") -- sort of Caslon modernized, cleaned up with vertical stress --prompted by the Caslon recasting, may be considered such, motivated by the perceived shortcomings, ie roughness, of the Caslon types to Victorian eyes.

This was not the first revival, as blackletter had been oft revived over the years, particularly finding use in newspaper mastheads since the 1712 English newspaper tax.

Because admiration for the original design inspires the revivals, my argument not circular.

A designer admiring something old doesn't make it a classic. You would have us believe that anything which is revived or kept alive is a de facto classic. Monticello, for instance, is old, and has long been available from Linotype, but is more curiosity than classic. Then there are quite a few instances of genuine classics for which nobody has decided new technological reinterpretatons were needed. Where is the digital Elzevir (French Old Style, that is, which was an early 19th century French face revived in the 1880s, and popular in the US from then until the 1930s, not the DTL version), for instance, or the digital Franklin Old Style?

you seemed to hold that good old types are never to be preferred to good new modern types.

There's always room for a good new Caslon :-)

I have a question that I believe relates to this topic. If someone designed a typeface that used characters from an existing face -- for example letter shapes cut out of circles -- would that be infringing on copyrights or creating something new?

Would or should something like that offend the original typeface designer?

Another case that I think would fall into the same category but I am unclear on would be if someone created a distressed version of an existing typeface...?

Duncan

Legally this would depend on the font's EULA. In the case above (Myriad?) the Adobe EULA says you can't modify the font to do this (their font FAQ says you can for private use). Same goes for distortion. Adobe won a legal victory over a vendor that was distorting (scaling) their fonts and reselling them.

Offending the type designer is a separate issue - some type designers are easily offended (try setting one of Nick's fonts in orange) and some are not. You only know what would be offensive to a particular designer by asking them.

some type designers are easily offended

LOL!!!!
Holy Shazolly, THAT is a scream!

ChrisL

Gives a whole new meaning to the type designer's call: there goes one of mine ;-)

>A designer admiring something old doesn’t make it a classic.

One type designer, no. But many type designers for over a hundred years, and readers who respond positively to it, yes. That makes it a classic. Not me or any single person saying so. Designers, manufacturers, and readers together have made Baskerville, Bodoni, Caslon, and Garamond classics.

Yeah, that's cute, but the best condom font has to be Cocon.
I forget which country the packages are from, but I saw the sample in the FF15 exhibit.

I like to ask myself... is the person who's idea I'm using dead? And if not, do I think I can get away with it? =P

Seriously, if I were to undertake anything like the Franz Ferdinand "homage" to Rodchenko, I'd have to ask myself if I were adding anything to the conversation. Or am I just benefitting from an aesthetic/style from another time?

Thanks Jonsel, for putting the context behind retro vs. homage.

>is the person who’s idea I’m using dead? And if not, do I think I can get away with it?

I believe that for the US the stats are one in five murders remain unsolved. As most criminals are not that bright - I'd give your odds 50/50.

Cheers, Si

On many of the given examples the original images and graphics have actually become icons which are used by their value in an original semantic exercise by the designer, I don't think most of them are actually homages.

Héctor

One thing to consider about "retro": Most of what is called "retro" would not be mistaken for an authentic period design. There is almost always some modern sensibility to it that becomes more apparent with time. Looking back at "retro" designs from the seventies, when they were doing what they thought was Art Deco, to our modern eyes it usually looks more "seventies" than anything else.

What happens when everybody is retroing prior retros of prior retros? Somebody has to do something new once in a while just for a change of pace! :-)

ChrisL

Gee, Chris, you mean actually be original? The only problem with that is it takes a long time for people to actually figure out that it's "worth" "something" -- however one wants to define "worth" and "something."

Don't forget, when "Star Trek" (TOS) came out in 1966, it was pretty much a bust. Our "instant gratification" society these days isn't even willing to give a show (even a good one, if any do indeed exist on American television) much of a chance.

[OTOH, at least now there's DVD for those of us who need a fix of the older shows that were flashes-in-the-pan. Now, where is my collection of Season 1 of "Wild Wild West"?]

Linda

http://www.brilliantbutcancelled.com/

i miss my "sons & daughters"

Linda, I guess that means I either have to design a "Reality" typeface or do a retro of Trajan :-)

ChrisL

.

Paul, I'm a little stranged-out by a website lamenting flash-in-the-pan stuff that has ads for the new shows, aren't you? ;-)

Chris -- Given that even "Survivor" (as the first of the recent crop of "reality" shows) uses a retro typeface, I think you better stick with a remixed Trajan! (rofl)

humming "Everything Old is New Again" off into the sunset....

Your font is both good and original; but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good.

With appologies to the rather stuck-up Samuel Johnson.

dezcom:

"What happens when everybody is retroing prior retros of prior retros?..."

Then you are trapped in the newest retro movement, emulating the 1990's.

Choz Cunningham
!Exclamachine Type Foundry
http://www.exclamachine.com

or just retroing 2005?

:-)

ChrisL

It's a lot, lot harder to do original work than it is to do revivals and retro, and people are not as receptive as they were 10 years ago. Just check out MyFonts best sellers, which are scripts, mostly retro, and mid-20th century sans serif faces, which I would also classify as retro. After all, in the postmodern era, modernism is retro.

Definitely much harder, with a revival, retro-inspired, rip off, homage, pastiche, or what ever you want to call it; you know that the previously treaded ground is firm and clear. There's a market acceptance before you even start.

I think that the layperson's too-common perception of type as a functional object demands a constant refinement of the "utility fonts" which means that a constant portion of work goes into redoing the same thing over and over in the industry, as they update to new technology. This is where type is a mere tool, not an artistic media. It seems hardly worth contemplation, and is what sells big is not an indicator of the future or the present, unless you are speculating on a foundry's stocks.

In the music industry, vinyl was "upgraded" to tape, then CD, then to portable media files. This has caused the re-releasing of MANY albums, sometimes remastered, repackaged, expanded, or altered slightly. This has happened more at certain times, obviously, but was never an indicator of the direction of or trends in popular music. Even inside the trade, most people usually don't know or care about the details of the remastering or the people who did it.

So, when looking at the future of type, why do even the people who don't have an interest in retro's and revivals pay such close attention? That's history, not the here and now.

Choz Cunningham
!Exclamachine Type Foundry
http://www.exclamachine.com

>layperson’s too-common perception of type as a functional object

>This is where type is a mere tool, not an artistic media.

Type *is* a functional object. Its function is to convey in writing the words that the writer wants to convey to the reader. That this functionality comes first I have repeatedly read and heard is the view of many top professional type designers.

Artistry is a dimension of type design, but should always--well almost always--meet the test of functioning well in its primary purpose: to be read.

functionality comes first

And you should be able to sit on a chair, but that is a pretty basic requirement.
Alphabetic functionality may be the primary purpose, but in type that cannot happen without the artistic or cultural dimension at the same time.

In fact, the basic functionality of type design is so damn obvious, rather like comfort in a pair of shoes (to use the hhp analogy), that it is really not an issue for competent practitioners, only for theorists and post-facto rationalizations. The question is, what kind of bullshit should we use to hype our goods?

We should emphasize the artistry, functionality is understood.

In fact, this is what Jeremy Tankard does in his specimen for Wayfarer. The formal requirements of adapting a Granby kind of face to signage are dealt with perfunctorily (adjust x-height and horizontal scaling), and he then goes on to discuss the merits of the original, less standardized details of the early 20th century English grotesques, versus the slicker neo-grotesques of the Swiss school.

At one time, the Helvetic grotesque was considered more "functional", but JT opts for "an informal rhtythm and vitality, which help create interesting word patterns." Note that he talks about interesting word patterns, not "more readability". But aren't they the same thing? -- except that readability is a pseudo-scientific construct, as if you could measure the hummability of a tune.

Call it art.

If I pinned the following 2 notes on a bulleton board, which would get the most takers:

1. A hand scrawled note in my very bad handwriting which says, "Every person to bring this note to 123 main Street will get $500 cash, no questions asked"

2. A highway sign green printed sheet with the words typeset in the most legible typeface on earth saying, "Timeshare Lecture at 123 main Street"

ChrisL

>except that readability is a pseudo-scientific construct

No, at least one aspect of readability has been well tested scientifically. James Montalbano's Clearview was tested in actual conditions of reading from a fast moving auto, and was shown to be readable 2 seconds earlier than the current Federal Highway face (basis for Interstate) at 60 miles an hour, if I remember rightly. Also I believe that they showed that medium weights with more open counters read more quickly than heavier weights and more closed counters, eg Helvetica Bold.

And their font has been sold on the basis of readability to the federal government and adopted by a number of US states.

I agree that both art and function are important. But your claim that it is not an issue except for "theorists and post facto rationalizations" doesn't hold up. Montalbano is a very practical guy, and he and Meeker have succeeded with it as the prime selling point.

Also Microsoft has made a huge investment in increasing readability on the screen, and commissioned faces for their Clear Type system. Whether it is an improvement has been debated here, but what can't be debated is that they put money into readability.

Call it design.

No, at least one aspect of readability has been well tested scientifically.

OK, there is a special case. But most reading is not a couple of words at 60 mph. It's bad science to extrapolate principles that work in that particular situation across the board. That's what is so bogus.

(A world where all street signage has the same bare bones functionality is a boring world of non-places. It would be better to slow down and appreciate the individual personality of differently conceived typographic spaces.)

what can’t be debated is that they put money into readability.

They put money into type design and used reading speed as the criterion of value (like Clearview) to promote the designs. That's valid, but one-dimensional. There are so much in reading and type design that cannot be measured, and that's where the art is.

Clearview is a sans serif face. Depending on how you care to extrapolate data, you can make a case for the readability of a sans over a serif then? This is the problem people can get into when they pull conclusions in a specific situation and generalize them to other different situations. The point is, what is enough readability and what is wasted? For highway safety, go for all you can get. For other things, it is like cooking. You need the proper mix of ingredients to function well. Readability is only one ingredient and the quantity needed varies with the usage.

ChrisL

In fact, there have been a number of studies done on readability, not just the one of type visible at 6o mph.

And while the font is important, so are size, colour, content, and a host of other items: most, if not all, of these have been documented.

(If I could find a hard copy of my thesis, I'd cite some of them, as that's part of what I did my Masters on.)

Linda

Clearview was tested in actual conditions of reading from a fast moving auto, and was shown to be readable 2 seconds earlier than the current Federal Highway face (basis for Interstate) at 60 miles an hour

(If I could find a hard copy of my thesis, I’d cite some of them, as that’s part of what I did my Masters on.)

I did do my thesis on this subject too, as a matter of fact. :) The term "readabilty," does not apply here. Viewing signage is a completely different situation and environment than say reading a book. Reading as an activity usually occurs in a controlled environment. In fact, people don't actually "read" signs, they "scan" signs. This is a question of "recognition" not interpretation. Reading involves absorbing information, and often does not involve quick reaction time. How often have you seen a descriptive paragraph on signage—ain't gonna happen.

People absorb signage in bits of information. This is why concepts like "word shape" are so important. "apple" looks different than "APPLE". This is why mixed case works works better than all-caps in signage.

The study you speak of was not about "readabilty," but "legibility." There's a reason high contrast serif faces aren't used for signage, and why bold sans serif faces are not used for body copy.

Chris, Terry, of course I am aware that the question of what is best for reading is a complex matter, and different designs are likely to be superior in one situation and inferior in another--size, distance from the words, etc. It is also not that well understood, in my view.

I have argued on other threads that the distinction between legibility (ease of distinguishing one letter from another) and readability is valid. And the Clearview tests were basically for legibility of a few words. But legibility is indeed one dimension of readability.

Nick, you concede that that scientific tests were revealing in this one case. But to dismiss as irrelevant what they might do in the future--and you can't know--seems to me misguided. The fact that they haven't got that far yet is no reason to dismiss them--or issues of readability--as simply irrelevant considerations. Also I think that a certain basic level of readability is easy to achieve, but superb, easy, inviting readability is to me a big challenge, and many type designs don't achieve it.

I agree that art is a big part of design, but my point is that it is only one half the story. Design is *not* simply art, but rather art in service of a practical end. I admire art, and if you want do it, that's great. Paint a painting,make a sculpture, and I'll come and marvel at it.

But I love design. A beautiful *and* beautifully functional tea pot is just wonderful to look at AND to use. And so is a typeface that makes beautiful and extremely readable words. It enhances the experience of reading and the writer's message. A key part of an excellent design is its excellent suitability to its purpose. Design is not art or craft alone but rather both art and craft done well, together.

I think to say either 'type design is art' or 'type design is craft' misses the most important point: to be superb design it has to be both.

But to dismiss as irrelevant what they might do in the future—and you can’t know—seems to me misguided.

Sure, you can isolate one variable, and measure it in a controlled environment with a carefully chosen subject group. But there are quite simply too many variables involved to EVER make reading anything but the softest of sciences. And of course, the target is always moving, as tastes change and designers create new work that modifies convention.

Scientists like to think they can come up with meaningful stuff on reading, because it appears deceptively quantifiable -- after all the alphabet is a relatively tidy system and eye movements can be scanned. But it's nowhere near that simple.

I think to say either ‘type design is art’ or ‘type design is craft’ misses the most important point: to be superb design it has to be both

So you've changed your mind about "functionality comes first"?

>But there are quite simply too many variables involved to EVER make reading anything but the softest of sciences.

Nick, everything seems impossibly complicated until it is understood by science. Then what was bewildering falls into place. For example the growth of a human from a single cell seems much too complex ever to be understood. Then came DNA. Or to take a much earlier example the wandering paths of the planets seemed incomprehensible until Copernicus, Kepler and Galilo came along.

>So you’ve changed your mind about “functionality comes first”?

Well, I would modify what I said to this extent. Sometimes art is more important and sometimes functionality. But the ideal is to hit both strongly and successfully. For display type, art can be a stronger factor, more important than readability, whereas in text faces--and I mean for extended text at small sizes--functionality has to come first.

everything seems impossibly complicated until it is understood by science.

Science can't understand everything, especially human behavior. Your example of planetary paths is somewhat softened by the recent de-listing of Pluto.

When I said that it is percieved as a functional object, I menat that some see it as only that and nothing more. Some will approach it as such, and refine the existing forms to finer and finer resolution in application to that end. Or, rather, refinements will invariable come, like verdana over arial for small text on low res moitors, because the functionality is truly better in that application.

But it is more. From the whacked out crazy type designers that might make someting silly, illegible or overly-characatured, comes new visions, inspirations and even advancements that assist the functional side.That art side is simply as real as the functional aspect. And more fun.

Choz Cunningham
!Exclamachine Type Foundry
http://www.exclamachine.com

>Science can’t understand everything, especially human behavior.

I never said that science can understand everything. There are reasons,in principle, why it cannot. However, any specific thing you name it potentially can gain deeper understanding of.

As to understanding human behavior, psychology has been moving slowly, but it has been moving. Lately there have been, for example, real insights into the chemistry of the emotions, and I have no doubt that in fifty years we will understand far more than we do now of emotional psychology. Also the cognitive psychology of reading.

Are you saying that scientific research in psychology, including the psychology of reading, should be shut down as a waste of time?

I have no doubt that in fifty years we will understand far more than we do now of emotional psychology.

I shudder to think of the uses big pharma will find for such knowledge, which is hubristic and delusional. Connecting certain behavior with chemical reactions in a person's body/brain is a shallow understanding of emotions, which exist in a complex social and cultural environment that is in a constant state of emergence.

If we know more now than we did fifty years ago, does that make our drugs or our typefaces any better than then? You wouldn't think so, to look at people's preferences for a certain 50-year old typeface.

Are you saying that scientific research in psychology, including the psychology of reading, should be shut down as a waste of time?

Of course not. And while they're at it, why don't they have another go at graphology :-)

But seriously, every week I read New Scientist, and there's always some article about quantum froth or, this week, retro-causality (hey, hooks up nicely with this thread!) -- which is about the future influencing past events, I mean, this stuff is wack. So what I want to hear from scientists is a theory of reading as a quantum phenomenon.

>Connecting certain behavior with chemical reactions in a person’s body/brain is a shallow understanding of emotions, which exist in a complex social and cultural environment that is in a constant state of emergence.

Groan. Straw man. Of course that is another aspect of psychology of the emotions. I only gave one example. There is progress also in understanding social interaction, but that has been slower.

>does that make our drugs or our typefaces any better than then?

Drugs, definitely. Typefaces, probably not :)

The best typefaces are not better than the best of metal faces of 1956, but the range of excellent faces for different expressions is greater--partly thanks to engineering progress: the creation of digital type.

Groan. Straw man.

Not at all. The way science understands emotions and reading is the same: it can measure individual physiology, but not the cultural dimension.

>not the cultural dimension

1. Readability I suspect is largely a matter of how the brain operates, not social factors.

2. For the emotional dimensions of type, you're forgetting about the social sciences: sociology, social psychology and anthropology. Their results may not be so impressive as the natural sciences, but they do have interesting insights. The insights on cultural trends and fads will apply to type also.

William, speaking of drugs and social factors, consider the psychiatric experiments with LSD in the 1950s. Researchers in western Canada had some success treating alcoholics by giving them a large dose, one time. However, the results were not duplicated in Toronto's Addiction Research Centre. The difference was that in Alberta the drug was administered in a cosy living room environment with supportive presence of the psychiatrist, whereas in Toronto they tried to isolate the effect of the drug by blindfolding and restraining the subject. The doses were 10 to 100 times a typical street hit of today. Yikes.

Yikes indeed! How many of those in the tests are now terminally insane?

I don't know.

However, any specific thing you name it potentially can gain deeper understanding of.

How about the existence of God? There has yet to be irrefutable proof concerning that subject. But alas, that's a whole 'nother can o' worms.

>any specific thing

By that I meant some observable phenomenon. In my view, understanding a creator God--the ultimate cause of being and of all that we experience--is probably beyond the capacity of scientific methods of explanation.

[By the way you can read a longer explanation of the limits of scientific explanation in the introduction to my first book, 'Fields of Force'. It's out of print but you can get it from abebooks used or any university library. There's a Spanish edition also.]

Whenever the social sciense are brough up in a weak comparason, I have to chime in and remind people that Physics is about 4000 years old. Psychology is about 100. The first hundred years of physics wasn't exactly real mindbowing stuff, either.

There is a science to anything. Theres just more than that to type. Readability drops a bit at 1/1000th of a point sizes, nevertheless... :)

Choz Cunningham
!Exclamachine Type Foundry
http://www.exclamachine.com

hi rob,

if you can get a hold of 'Looking Closer 2' (i think) there is a Jeffery Keedy essay that is pretty dang good called "I like vernacular...not" which might be a good read for you. It was originally published in 'Lift and Separate' from Cooper Union

The Keedy article in Looking Closer 2 is called "The Rules of Typgraphy According to Crackpots/Experts"
Is that the one you mean?

ChrisL

whoops it must be in Looking Closer (the first one). Thanks for catching the mistake dezcom.

Yes Abi, here it is on page 101 of the first book "I like the Vernacular"

ChrisL

Physics may exist for 4000 years, but they really need a brain detox as to bypass some wrong laws issued and rewrite them and discover new things at the same time.