Archives for May 2019

Typography necessarily comes after writing because typography is a medium in which the substance, the writing, presents itself to reality. Vice versa, writing cannot come without typography as no substance can actualize itself without the form in which it realizes itself.

I find this relationship between typography and writing universal as the discourse of the form and the substance is. Similar relations can be found anywhere. The most profound analysis on this discourse comes from the psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud and the study of commodities of Karl Marx. First, the psychoanalytic view of the dream presents perhaps the first proper analysis of this relationship: dream is the form in which the substance, i.e, the latent dream-thought — the subconscious thoughts consisting of our desires and wills actualize themselves. The same kind of analysis can be found in Marx’s analysis on commodities. The capital and the goods we normally accept one-dimensionally are in fact a form in which the actual substance that is the human labor (and land in some analysis) actualizes itself in the capitalist world. Such discourse can be easily interpreted as a paranoiac view of the reality. Paranoia is a condition in which one doubts that what one sees and experience is a facade of something ‘bigger’ and more meaningful, i.e., something essential. That, however, is when this discourse diverges from that of a metaphysics. In Platonic metaphysics, what we experience in reality is a mere ‘shadow’ or a form in which the ‘essence’ of the experience actualizes itself in the real world. Necessarily, the form, as a shadow, is a perverted and distorted materialization of the pure essence of the object. In that perspective, the hidden kernel of the experience, the ‘essence’ believed to be existing in the realm of idea becomes the object of analysis and the end in itself that arouses the fascination. However, as Slavoj Zizek points out, the central focus of the discourse of the form and the subject is not at the essence itself. The fascination of the hidden kernel resorts to a fetishistic fascination. In fact, the hidden kernel are, most often, things not ‘essential’ or most meaningful. For instance, the subconscious thoughts that actualize themselves in a dream are usually not something more meaningful or important than our conscious thoughts. If I dreamt of eating popcorn, it probably represents the subconscious desire of popcorn I had when I was hungry at 2 a.m.. The same is with the commodities. The hidden kernel of the commodities as a human labor is intuitional and, was deduced by many scholars that predates Marx. The focus, then, is why and how the substance, i.e., the hidden kernel, presents itself as the form in which we experience in reality. Why and how has the thought of my subconscious wills and desire presented themselves in my dream-thoughts? Why and how has the human labor actualized itself as a capital and a commodity?

Same questions are worthy of analysis with the subject of typography. The questions we ask when making decisions on how to constitute certain typographic style grounds itself in those philosophical inquiries. Most viscerally, choosing which typographic style to use for certain type of texts based on the characteristics of the text can be thought of in the same context. The question is: How should the substance which is the writing present itself to reality? Is Comic Sans a proper form in which the substance of a resignation letter can be actualized in reality? Is Times New Roman a proper form in which the substance of anything but newspaper columns present itself in reality? Then what is the best way in which the substance can take on the form which will bring about the most appropriate human experience?

On deeper level, inquiry on the substance itself, the writing, should be thought of. What does the act of writing and the presence of written words mean? Typography, i.e., the presentation of thoughts in written words is not the only method that thoughts can actualize themselves. Notably, the act of speaking is another. In fact, historically, speaking was thought of as more direct and less distorted form of presentation of thoughts. Words and language is a Signifier of the hidden kernel, the substance, the thought. The Signified exist in our thoughts and the act of speaking spontaneously transforms such into a real object with a form through the Signifier that is the spoken words. In that sense, the written words are Signifiers of the Signifiers; the act of writing is signifying what was already signified. However, Jacques Derrida proved against this notion of the written words as something hierarchically lowered than the spoken words. He argued that we cannot ‘self-identify’ with the spoken words as much as we cannot with the written words and that there is no natural attachment to the act of speaking more so than the act of writing. In this sense, writing and speaking exist in parallel as ways of actualizing the substance, i.e., the thought, in reality. Here, we can reflect on the comparison we made during the class between the typography and rhetoric; how we choose typography is as important as how we voice our opinions in spoken words.  

In this post, I wanted to see how I can approach a philosophic inquiry into the institution of typography. I think it shows that many questions on the choices we make in typography which, at least to me, sometimes felt arbitrary and flippant, can be grounded on philosophic foundation.

In a world that it is full of meetings, get-togethers, distractions and responsibilities it is easy to get caught up in current events and forget to plan for the future. Ryder Carrol created an analog method for keeping track of various activities going on in your life. Conveniently, a bullet journal is created from scratch and thus can be created to be completely aligned with a specific person’s lifestyle. Though bullet journaling does not specifically require the creation of aesthetically pleasing spreads, many “BuJo” artists have taken it upon themselves to create breathtaking spreads.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These spreads utilize a wide variety of items, with enthusiasts becoming familiar with flat nibbed pens, real brush pens and synthetic brush pens allowing them to create aesthetically pleasing typography and decals.

Though many bujo artists have started to innovate their own font and designs, usually creating different fonts for titles and header, one of the most popular ways of writing has garnered some varied opinions. The introduction of “fake calligraphy” or “fauxligraphy” took the bullet journaling community by storm. It begins with simple cursive writing, usually with a simple fine-liner, then its outlined and given a variation in the aperture to capture the effect of a calligraphy pen and ink.

When searching up “fauxligraphy” on the internet, one would usually find multitudes of blog tutorials and images with step by step processes on how to use a seemingly calligraphy pen created font . Some calligraphers such as those in the blog “the scribble collective,” have expressed their acknowledgment that the more modern “whimsical” scripts found in most bullet journals are a far cry from more traditional calligraphy fonts such as Copper Plate and English Roundhand. Some remain angered at the gross oversimplification of the art of calligraphy and dislike the trend aesthetic bullet journaling. For the most part, however, calligraphers seem happy that it is creating new interest in a previously dying practice.

 

A “fauxligraphy” tutorial quide by Kelly Creates:

 

Digital typography is relatively new, coming in 1966 with the invention of the “Digiset” by Dr. Rudolf Hell. The Digiset was the first typesetting machine that worked with pixels or bitmap. However, despite its seemingly recent addition to the typography world, it has created a huge impact. With applications and tools like scanning, computers, glyphs, Adobe Illustrator and such, new typefaces are created daily. In 2006 alone, there were 1,800 commercial typefaces released into the market. (Coles, 2007) In the early days of digital type, there were only around 10 fonts that graphic designers could readily use and a few 50 more main fonts that were easily identifiable outside of the digital world. Each of these fonts was distinct and individual, easily identifiable and linked to critically acclaimed and admired typographers. Now it seems that the invention of aid for the creation of typefaces has lead to the creation of types from those who did not have foundational education in typography. So in a day and age that typefaces are seemingly multiplying in the thousands yearly, how is it that typefaces can remain distinct and individual? How can typographers create original typefaces?

Paul Rand, a popular, American, graphic designer, and art director in the 20th century, has strong opinions on the quality and originality of typefaces being created in the digital age. He mentions in an interview that typographers are basically “extinct” and that of the few left, because they are paid, feel that they need to create something “new.” He states that this isn’t the case, and notes that there is “nothing wrong with new” but it first and foremost must be “good.” Rand puts in beautifully, stating that a typographer does not have to “try to be original,” but simply should try to be “good.” Therefore, by being good, namely to be simple, clear, and understood will create types that as a result are original. The “sum of all of those characteristics is what leads to originality.” Rand states. This is what is wrong with many of the typefaces that are being released on the web now. They do not match the higher standard that older typefaces were required to reach and have overall lowered the quality of typefaces everywhere.

Many typographers worry about the quality of type and are striving hard to preserve it. Some websites such as Typographica scour the internet every year in an effort to select a few new fonts every year that are truly extraordinary and of high quality. Stephan Coles, one of the bloggers of the website explains this process, “If we take this fresh meat and trim the inevitable 90% that is unusable fat, we are still left with hundreds of quality new typefaces, most of which will never get ink from a design magazine or a blurb on a blog.” He highlights how difficult it is to narrow all the new fonts released in a year to a select few. As more and more people gain awareness of the importance of typography, there may be a new wave of enthusiasts looking to preserve the beauty in type.

 

Bibliography:

Coles, Stephan. “Our Favorite Typefaces of 2006.” Typographica, 2007, typographica.org/features/our-favorite-typefaces-of-2006/.

DesignHistory.org. “The Birth of Digital Type.” Early Technologies of Digital Type, 2011, www.designhistory.org/Digital_Revolution_pages/EarlyDigType.html.

FamousGraphicDesigners.org. “Paul Rand | Biography, Designs and Facts.” Famous Graphic Designers, 2018, www.famousgraphicdesigners.org/paul-rand.

Now that the end of the semester is coming up to an end, I think I’ve worked with Glyphs long enough to write a post about it. Before I took this class, I didn’t know much about what I was going to learn. Throughout the course, there were fun exercises that we did together like Adenos and creating posters using Adobe Illustrator. Now that we are almost done in terms of the content of this course, I can finally see how all the small activities that I thought were just there for fun add up to creating our own typeface using Glyphs. Personally, the whole process of designing a typeface was extremely engaging and exciting especially because it was my first time creating one, and the thought of creating my own personal typeface seemed really cool. 

Although we’ve had several sessions in class to watch short tutorials and make cheat sheets out of it, the best way I learned was when we were left to use Glyphs alone. Not that any of the exercises like making notes and posters weren’t helpful, I just thought that whatever we needed or wanted the glyphs to do, there was a new skill to learn. And I feel that ‘doing’ it rather than ‘watching’ it from video tutorials is much more effective in terms of how much I can remember to use it the next time I needed it. Now that I’m 75% expert in Glyphs, I can laugh at myself in the past for adding so many unnecessary nodes in a letter and tweaking it here and there countless times to create soft curves and lines. Working with Glyphs also helped me with Bezier curves; this really helped me with another course- Yes, Logo- when using Adobe Illustrator to create complicated logos. 

I think using Glyphs has been the best learning experience so far, because as I create a letter, I notice so many common features it shares with other letters. For example, I was working with Glyphs today to create a set of capital letters. My inspiration and reference typeface is Palatino and the set of capitals in Palatino were very different to the lowercase letters. I felt lost because I didn’t know where to start. However, as soon as I started noticing similar patterns in letters like ‘I’, ‘L’ and ‘E’, it was so much easier than I had anticipated. 

To be honest, I am extremely happy with the result of my typeface (although there are still some letters I need to work on) and I am grateful that I can walk out of the classroom with a new skill learned- creating typeface by hand and a software. I wish I could have worked more to fine-tune my typeface, which I am certain I will be doing even after the course finishes this semester. If I ever had the chance to recreate another typeface, I would try to experiment with other typefaces like Lucida and Faroe, but most definitely, I want to create a sans serif typeface. 

Overall, I am so pleased that our class can fill the whole table in the design studio with our work, drawings, test-outs, tracing papers, posters and drafts to prove our engagement towards this course. I’m also really excited to listen Quim, John and Zsombor’s presentations about their own typefaces and how they incorporated common features in their set of letters. 

For this post, I thought about what consist of typography and typography as a form in which different mediums present itself to the world, with focus on the difference between prose and poetry.

Blank spaces are one of the most important features of typography. Essentially, type design can be said as ways in which the blank spaces in the medium are occupied and left unoccupied. Aside from when creating an art piece such as a poster or a type specimen where the focus lies in depicting the beauty of the typeface itself, when creating a piece where the substance or the information are at the focal point of the typeface, the decision to manipulate the blank spaces prima facie lies with the designer, i.e., the printer. Yet, there still are few exceptions and the most prominent one have to be the case of poetry. When printing a prose, whichever the purpose of it is —either it be an essay or a news article—  composition of the work concerns the typography only. Where the lines form and break and where the contents are situated are determined from the typographic perspective with concerns of the type sizes available and line lengths suitable. However, such is not the case with poems. According to Stillman, “the line is a unit of language in a poem” and the composition of the shape of the line is wholly determined by the author, not the printer (qtd. in Pacheco). In printing prose, the author’s original manuscript and its formal aspects of it, such as where the line breaks are not respected but such cannot be the case with poetry. The form of which the substance presents itself on the medium is carefully devised by the author and is to be respected in order to properly reproduce the original work. If printing a prose is like curating a painting in a frame, printing a poetry is like curating a sculpture in a landscape. What is seen and what is unseen is predetermined by the author and manipulating it comes with the manipulation of the author’s intent and ingenuity. Bernard Newdigate prescribed that “jagged ends of the verse [of poetry] are a condition which no printer’s ingenuity can control” (Thorpe).

Lines are not the only features of poetry which forces the author’s intent to leave little room for the printer’s creativity. Other essential features such as the alignment of the texts, indentation, and the distortion of traditional grammars defines many ways poetry can differ from prose in its printable form. Especially in the postmodern era where traditional bounds of poetry are challenged, such features can be brought to extreme, making the crevice between poetry and prose bigger.

Below is one example of such poems where the interruption of typography must be subsided in the exchange of prudent presentation of the author’s decision:

 

 

Notes

Newdigate, Bernard, ‘On printing poetry’ in Thorpe, Joseph, B.H. Newdigate Scholar-printer 1869-1944 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1950)

Pacheco, HS. ‘Conventions of Typography Related to Traditional Poetry’ (Reading, The University of Reading, 2006)