New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
The good type designer
Posted by parker in
22 Oct 2004 — 3:50pm
22 Oct 2004 — 3:50pm
Is it true/right to say that "the good type designer realises that, for a good new fount to be successful, it has to be so good that only a few recognise it's novelty - Stanley Morrison.
User login
Support our Sponsors
22 Oct 2004 — 9:36pm
I'm confused as to what I'm supposed to disagree with... :-)
I think that statement -like so many other things Morison has said- contains a kernel of truth, but is not robustly true enough to be thrown out like that without qualification. For one thing, it can only apply to text fonts. And even in the realm of text fonts, I would distinguish between a reader going "Oh, what a cool font!" (which you certainly don't want) versus a reader feeling a subconscious tingle of excitement at encountering something new, something that amplifies the content in the subtlest way.
No font is ever totally transparent, basically because that's not possible of something that's made by a human for other humans. The difference between text and display, between craft versus art, however is the intent of the maker: creating something useful that contains a part of him "naturally" almost of in spite of himself; or formally celebrating his personal expression.
hhp
23 Oct 2004 — 11:43pm
"The good type designer realises that, for a good new fount to be successful, it has to be so good that s/he is entirely happy with it."
How 'bout that?
24 Oct 2004 — 6:19am
> How 'bout that?
Sounds great and romantic, but type designers can't live in a bubble of their own creations. A good type designer realises that other people will use their work and that they (the other people) must be happy with it.
24 Oct 2004 — 8:10am
What tools can type designers use (aside from analysing historical sales trends or copying what others are doing) to gauge how well their fonts would satisfy the needs/wants of the graphic design community?
Well, I can't think of anything that makes alot of business sense, except for looking for and accepting commissions. When a typeface is designed to fill a certain need/want (say, a new typeface for the Munich Underground, or a printing firm's annual report, or a newspaper who wants to print their stock listings in smaller type) then we can be sure that there really is an audience, or use, for a design. But most typefaces are not designed with something this specific in mind.
24 Oct 2004 — 1:28pm
I guess that was a loaded response. But the original statement has that slippery little word 'successful.' Coupled with the vague 'fount,' we have a tricky proposition that raised two questions: "what is a fount?" and "what is successful?"
So I answered based on the liquid nature of the original statement. It does sound great and romantic, you are absolutely right. I can't answer for others, but I can answer for me. A thing well made makes me very happy indeed, even happier when I have made it myself. A thing well made fulfils both form & function, and thus those who use it wil be happy too. (How very karmic!).
As Dan said, unless one is lucky enough to have the appropriate tools for gauging "how well their fonts would satisfy the needs/wants of the graphic design community" then it is back to the bubble! They can be as happy as Larry with a typeface I have made, but if I am not happy with it then there is something amiss.
I am in no way denying the fact that typefaces are tools to be used by our brothers and sisters in design. Sometimes they don't use our tools very well at all, sometimes very badly indeed. When this happens then there is only one thing that makes the whole thing worthwhile: "am I happy with my new fount?"
kris.
24 Oct 2004 — 5:34pm
> type designers can't live in a bubble of their own creations.
Not only that, but: "A good font is never finished."
> What tools can type designers use (aside from
> analysing historical sales trends or copying
> what others are doing) to gauge how well
> their fonts would satisfy the needs/wants
> of the graphic design community?
That reminds me of the Almod
24 Oct 2004 — 6:53pm
Kris, I do agree with what you are saying. And I secretly agree that if something makes me happy the clients can all go to hell for all I care. (Of course, I didn't just say that out loud).
But as designers (of type, of graphic, of web, whatever) I feel that there is certain need to "satisfy" a, um, need that is usually not ours. We can leave that to artists.
But yes, foremost, what we do must make us happy. Happy designers make clients happy. Sometimes.
24 Oct 2004 — 7:16pm
Armin, "But as designers (of type, of graphic, of web, whatever) I feel that there is certain need to "satisfy" a, um, need that is usually not ours."
Dead-on there, mate! The inherit paradox of the client, do 'we' exist without 'them'? (Art vs Design and all that jazz.)
As Hrant wrote, " Designers of any kind should have the humility and intelligence to Just Ask. The lack of request for feedback is arguably the single most serious thing wrong with typical design practice."
Without this, we (type designers) are essentially designing, lighted by the warm monitor glow, in our dark bubbles!
Perhaps you could run a thread on speakup about 'what type do designers actually need.' It would be a start, I guess. And interesting.
26 Oct 2004 — 3:48am
26 Oct 2004 — 8:44am
I hate type.
http://lanstontype.com/LanstonPriceList.html
http://lanstontype.com/GiampaIntroduction.html
26 Oct 2004 — 9:23am
We certainly talk a lot about type over at Speak Up.
More in tune to what you guys are looking for are these two:
http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/002050.html
http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/001972.html
26 Oct 2004 — 10:24am
>The feelings might be mutual ;)
26 Oct 2004 — 2:47pm
Funny how fonts like Garamond, Caslon, Bodoni, etc., were designed, used for centuries, and loved without any market research. Maybe Kris is right, do your damndest to make a great font as you envision it and let the market make its own decision.
ChrisL
26 Oct 2004 — 3:15pm
> .... without any market research.
Maybe, but certainly with "natural selection", which is something unfortunately unavailable during the design process! (Unless you believe in reincarnation, I guess.)
hhp
26 Oct 2004 — 3:36pm
>I would say that both Times and Helvetica both underwent some sort of market research before they were produced, though. Certainly an R&D stage that was heavily "influenced" by competitor faces
26 Oct 2004 — 3:37pm
>Maybe, but certainly with "natural selection", <
That is what I meant by, "and let the market make its own decision." That is the natural selection which will take place.
As font designers with small resources, all we can afford to do is bounce our work off our colleagues (like here at Typophile) and friends. We can also use the fonts in our publication designs and see how clients feel about them. This is not scientific but it will have to do. The problem is, to test a font, you have to make a font. Having done that, you might as well put it on the market. If it sells, you recoup some of the expense you put into design. If not, then you have learned something and saved yourself the cost of market research.
We could help each other out by sharing the feedback we get on our own work here on typophile. There may be something generalizable out of it for everyone.
Personally, I would design fonts anyway because I want to and find it a rewarding enough learning experience in itself. Would I like to sell them and make money too? Sure! Will I die broken-hearted if I don't? No. After 6 decades on this earth, I know fame and fortune are not as important as family and true friendship.
ChrisL
26 Oct 2004 — 4:53pm
By defining a good type designer in relation to a certain kind of print genre (traditional, book, text), Morison put the cart before the horse. He had an agenda, of course, which was to promote an upper-crust notion of typography, with himself as the uber-guru. The Type Czar.
However, then (1927) as now, there was also a market for novel commercial founts.
For instance, at that time, Morris Benton took a style of "Moderne" display lettering used in signage, and turned it into a typeface--Broadway--which was quite patently a typeface of great novelty, to all and sundry. Benton is undisputedly a good type designer, and Broadway, if for no other reason than having stood the test of time, is a good typeface. Ergo Morison was wrong.
26 Oct 2004 — 5:17pm
Nick,
It is good to hear from you again! I was worried that you had become ill or had some accident.
Welcome back!
ChrisL
27 Oct 2004 — 9:30am
Get well soon.
hhp
27 Oct 2004 — 9:48am
>oh I don't recall today ... any of those philosophers in blackletter
Well, many philosphers did have their books printed in blackletter, especially the German ones. Immanuel Kant, for instance. Luther's works were all published during his lifetime in blackletter, exclusively, I think. In fact it was this decision that made Fraktur the quasi-official style of the German language for 400 years. Luther's Bible (i.e., the official Bible of the German Lutheran Church) was printed solely with Fraktur until the 1960s.
27 Oct 2004 — 10:18am
To concur with Tiffany,
Yes, first humanists tried to found appropriate letter style to fit new thinking around, those from greek philosophers. As they found manuscripts in Libraries, wrote in sort of carolingian/oncials, they imagined, by mistake that the greeks used that kind of writing style. So, they followed and in fact, it gave to us, hopefully, what we call humanistic handwriting. Then, later, first printers, followed that and draw first "Romans" and italics.
Couple of years after, when the center of printing was moved to France, it happen roughly same thing. Just to recall you that at the time, Fraktur type was more common in France. But because of new thinking around, again, mostly critical essays about bible and religion, who bring soon after Luther (and many printers on fire), the printers and punchcutters wanted to use letterforms who reflect their openness on new ideas around, so, people like Augereau and Garamond cut new type, to fit better to the text.
27 Oct 2004 — 10:23am
Not also that all south, Latin countries never liked Fraktur type, they perfered generally to use Rotunda type. Its a cultural fact.
27 Oct 2004 — 10:27am
>Most eople continued to print in blackletter because they were afraid of the new roman style letters.
Tiffamy, this is just ridiculous! Just not true at all. Blackletter remained en force in Germany for many reasons, including religious devotion, interest, and tradition. "Fear" is totally implausible. I'm not saying that blackletters are better than Romans; but they weren't some sort of oppresive scare tactic. I can wait for your explanation, though. Even though I fear that you are missing something ;)
Kant wasn't a contemporary of the incunabula printers or the humanists, but rather Goethe and Schiller (late 1700s, post-Enlightenment). Almost all books, except foreign texts, were printed in fraktur in Germany at that time. Also in Scandinavia. And alot of books in Holland, too.
27 Oct 2004 — 10:30am
> Latin countries never liked Fraktur type
Maybe not before, but these days it's actually considered cool, at least in Mexico.
> Tiffamy
Hmmm, an old bouma mind-trick? You're no Jedi. ;-)
hhp
27 Oct 2004 — 10:37am
JFP is certainly correct. Large portions of Europe never had real traditions of blackletter printing. And only Northern and Central Europe ever adapted Fraktur.
The Luther connection cannot be denied. As JFP points out, especially in France, Bible-production was strictly controlled by the Catholic Church. If you printed copies of the Bible without permission
27 Oct 2004 — 11:03am
Yeah, Tiffany, the Elizabethan situation doesn't surprise me at all! You are focusing on FORM at the expense of CONTENT. Roman letters at that time were associated with ROME, or at least with Italy
27 Oct 2004 — 11:20am
>What were we "fighting" about?
Oh, I don't even know
27 Oct 2004 — 12:41pm
About Gutenberg, its common to read that he prefer to stick to Textura type rather than the Roman humanistic letters who were already all around him in written form in many manuscripts.
As he moved to new area of reading, he prefered to stick to conservative design (Textura) to let his new printing system accepted first. Its why, very quickly, when these two guys moved soon after to Italy, they naturally used the more up today style, roman type.
About the use of Roman type in Germany, you should note that Garamond lookalike was widely used in Europe in middle of the next century, and one of the first type specimen showing some Garamond and Granjon type was printed in... Frankfurt (1592) and set by a guy called Sabon?
27 Oct 2004 — 12:54pm
JFP, in regards to the original comment, do you do any 'market research' to determine your type designs? Or do you go by feel and intuition?
27 Oct 2004 — 1:12pm
its difficult to do market research as we can do, before launching "new cookies." For the simple reason, that a text typeface generally take years before to be accepted and used, specially when your distribution came from one unique point.
More now, that the market is worldwide and that the potential users can be not only graphic designers, etc; but general public, its really difficult to analyse anything.
Anyway, what we can feel is the general move on some general trend. Then, focusing on that, you have perhaps more chance to make it successful.
Also, note that successful typefaces started their life on a special use, such a newspaper, a company, etc. And for such job, analyse of the needs is requested and its what make the type powerful. It fit well yo his function and that is well understand and give power to the design in the future, when the type finally appear on the retail market. Take just (FF) Meta originally done for German Post Office in 1985... but never accepted at the time (client with no flair).
27 Oct 2004 — 1:36pm
> what we can feel is the general move on some general trend.
And a great way to do that of course is to poll graphic designers, like ask them what fonts they're using a lot, what they have their eyes on, etc. This is as easy to do as it is useful, but virtually no type designer does it. By the same token, graphic designers in turn don't generally bother with feedback. The reason for this? I think it's because there's too much of an artiste mentality.
hhp
27 Oct 2004 — 2:32pm
No, don't agree...
Its simply because it take some years to design new type and even more years that the new typefaces became used widely. You can't ask to a user what he will use in 5 or 10 years. But its what a type designer ask to himself all the time.
27 Oct 2004 — 3:34pm
Tiffany, I didn't know about the context.
Anyway....
Mr Porchez - I'm reading "Designing typefaces". You said: I have great difficulties designing fonts without a function or a brief..."
By function - do you mean the client (newspaper, book publisher etc )?
27 Oct 2004 — 5:41pm
Hi Chris,
I have moved to the UK for a year, and had difficulty getting set up, but I'm online again now.
***
As this thread seems to be going off all over the place, I will continue in the same vein.
Speaking of Sweynham & Pannartz, what a film script, the ultimate buddy movie. Fleeing from the burning ruins of Mainz with their printing press on a donkey cart, they cross the Alps (snow, precipice), and arrive in Italy where everyone thinks their type is weird geeky gothic shite. So they change their style (like Bruce Lee in the Big Boss) and the rest is history. With Angelina Jolie as the gypsy princess who helps them fix their broken axle.
Akira Kobayashi and myself have both done versions of the first S&P face, but not literal, more like "inspired by, but not so's you'd notice." In fact, few did notice them at all, novelty or otherwise. So I guess that would make us good type designers, according to Mr Morison.
28 Oct 2004 — 2:06am
By function - do you mean the client (newspaper, book publisher etc )?
Yes. The client and his needs. Or the subject and its needs, such as you say, newspaper or signage. But I can going deeper: You can't design the same (and perfect... indeed!?) font for all newspapers on this earth...
A particular use, very focused, make a great font.
28 Oct 2004 — 11:15am
A particular use, very focused, make a great font.
Now that would make a great poster... or maybe a t-shirt... or a manifesto.
cheers,
Dana
22 Oct 2004 — 4:14pm
It is safe to say that he was referring to book typography, or in other words, type design for books. I also think this statement is a little old and out of date. But Hrant will probably disagree with me.
27 Oct 2004 — 9:26am
I'm sick. This might not make any sense. >>> The so-called Garamond style of type was created in response to the manuscripts that they had found, they being the new humanists. They wanted to live the words they had found and so assumed that not only must the words be their new dogma but the style of the words was what would have been (to them) most appropriate to print them in. It would have made not sense to them to print the words of .... oh I don't recall today ... any of those philosophers in blackletter. <<< Maybe I shouldn't post today.
27 Oct 2004 — 10:07am
Most people continued to print in blackletter because they were afraid of the new roman style letters. It was against the rules. Don't ask me to be articulate today, it just is not going to happen. The Italians were among the first to be daring. Schweynheim and Pannartz got out of Germany, and yes I'm guessing, because they knew what they were doing was not going to be acceptable in Germany. Ack I have none of my notes.
Wasn't Kant contemporary with that time though? I was talking about the manuscripts that they, the humanists in Italy, had found. Gah! I don't remember.
27 Oct 2004 — 10:15am
Where is John Hudson to correct me and fill in the great huge gaps?
27 Oct 2004 — 10:30am
Ok I found my essay. I'm going to quote myself. This was written four years ago as part of my requirements at Reading.
+++++++++++++
27 Oct 2004 — 10:32am
It should be noted that this is from a final draft version as I cannot find the final version which was submitted so don't judge me too harshly.
27 Oct 2004 — 10:39am
Dan, I'm sick, fear was the word that popped into my head. A poor choice. But, you do realize that in England, for a time I believe during Queen Elizabeth I reign, they had to print the roman letter books abroad and ship them back to England in barrels because it was against the law.
27 Oct 2004 — 11:12am
Fight? Who's fighting. I'm coughing and wheezing but I have not fight here.
I don't disagree with you that the continued use of blackletter, in spite of the proliferation in use of the roman style, is indeed "something". It was very much integrated into some areas and not likely to be replaced as easily.
Maybe I should re-read this when my head is clear. What were we "fighting" about? I was simply responding to the idea that market research, while not in those terms, might have been in use in certain ways even as far back as the incunable time period. After all, the market wanted the books to look like the originals.