John Choi

 

Admittedly, finding a case of type crime in the NYUAD campus has been no easy task. Many official signages and panels has been designed meticulously with good typography in mind. Gotham, NYU’s official type specimen is used extensively and with weights and the surrounding design elements achieving harmonious clean look. The usage of simple and clean sans serif brought about neoteric and sharp appearance while successfully accommodating  humane warmth and transparency. Most importantly, the extensive usage of well made design identity availed effective delivery of information; one of the most important features of typography.

However, when I was wandering about in the Art Center, I was captured with glee to see a informational poster committing the most heinous type crime I have witnessed yet in this campus. Worryingly enough, the poster was a instructional one, directing users of the Art Center on what to do in case of fire. There are multiple type crimes committed in this poster and none are forgivable, considering the poster is to provide essential informations in time of dire emergency. Such signages and placards are to be designed with extreme care; easiness to read and digest the most crucial directions is imperative. How beautiful and fitting the poster is of next importance. The poster I found fail in all of these aspects.

First, there is no uniformity of typography present in the poster. I suspect that four or five different style of types were used. The titular line “Fire Instructions” is written in Impact Bold Condensed with a black outline and shadows. “IF YOU DISCOVER A FIRE” and “ON HEARING THE FIRE ALARM” lines are using Impact. “Immediately activate the fire alarm” and following directions are using Impact Bold Condensed without shadow or outline this time. In the bottom half of the poster, in the middle of the direction written in Impact Bold Condensed, Arial pops up for absolutely no reason. The last direction before the red box I suppose is written in Arial Bold. The texts in the red box is written in Arial Bold but in all caps. Using different typefaces in a same work requires careful deliberation. There need to be a reason when a typeface is changed in the same work; otherwise, the piece looks messy and unpersuasive, as it does in this poster. The sudden change from using typefaces in the Impact family to those in the Arial family is not justifiable by any means. It happens mid-sentence and is kept for the remainder of the poster even when the informations presented are in the same category as other informations written in different typeface. The lack of uniformity and concern for reasons of sacrificing the uniformity are the first sin this poster commits.

Secondly, the typefaces used here are hardly appropriate for the delivery of informations present. The most heinous crime this poster commits perhaps is the usage of Impact Bold Condensed for the directions WHEN THERE IS A FIRE IN THE BUILDING. Impact Bold Condensed does catch attention with its thick strokes and blunt look but catching attention is all it can possibly do. The condensed look which resembles a tightly packed sardines in a can or the infamous rush hour L-train in New York City metro, is a cancer in terms of readability. The condensed style of the typeface is achieved by narrowing the general width of each characters and increasing the x-height, which sacrifices the length of ascenders and descenders. These measures have one function and one function only; it is good for the economy —the more letters you can cram in, the better. What it sacrifices for the efficiency of space, which can also be achieved by sea of other measures that does not come with such heavy caveat, is the readability. The tightness of the type combined with minimized ascenders and descenders results in a creation of ugly and intimidating blocks of text that not only is hard to read and comprehend but also makes anyone not want to look at them at all. Moreover, the usage of bold and condensed typeface which enlarges the width of the strokes in each characters makes the typeface more awkward when paired with other typefaces. Especially, typefaces with thin strokes and stems such as Arial, another typeface used in this poster, looks out of place when paired with condensed types.

The usage of the Arial itself should be reflected upon as well. According to Anthony Cahalan’s list of designer’s choice of typography, published in Mark Batty’s Typographic Papers Series, Arial was placed fourth in the least liked typefaces for designers (qtd. in Garfield, 2011). According to Mark Simonson, this “shameless imposter” of Helvetica’s wise usage is attributable not to its beauty but to “pervasiveness of Microsoft’s influence in the world. (Simonson, 2001)” Perhaps, the poster could have benefitted from using a typeface other than something developed as a cheap alternative of a typeface that was placed second in the same ranking.

One good thing in this poster perhaps is that the artist did put into consideration of using different weights following the hierarchy of information. The title of the poster, the titular line, is written with black outlines and shadows. The subtitles for the directions (“IF YOU DISCOVER A FIRE” and “ON HEARING THE FIRE ALARM”) are written in all caps compared to following directions. The descriptions for the buildings to assemble at are written in different typeface from the main directions, while the general directions in the bottom, which supposedly were decided as not necessarily conforming to the subcategories of all capped directions are presented in a red box. However, the hierarchy present here with usage of different weights and all caps is inconsistent and not helpful in the quick digestion of the informations present. The last direction in the second subcategory has no reason to be written in Arial unlike all the other directions and title’s outline and shadows only serve a decorational function and sacrifice not only the consistency of the poster but also the readability of the information. The descriptions for the location of the assembly point also commits the same sin; they are bad for the consistency and fails to effectively deliver the context of locations in terms of the direction.

For these reasons, this Fire Instructions poster I found in the Art Center fails to serve its function of delivering crucial informations effectively in an urgent situation, let alone fits with other beautiful and aesthetically pleasing signages present in this campus. If I were to redesign it, I would use typefaces such as Frutiger, a proven type for effective deliverance of informations all over the world, and make each typefaces conform to each other in terms of hierarchy, to achieve consistency and effective rendition of crucial substance.

For instance, I’d use something like this. 

 

Notes: 

Garfield, Simon. “The 8 Worst Fonts In The World”, FastCompany. 28 Oct. 2011

Simonson, Mark. “The Scourge of Arial”, Mark Simonson Studio. 21 Feb. 2001. 

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.

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)

During our class on April 1st, 2019, we learned of the new and innovative attempts to make typeface more accessible for more people. The basic idea behind typefaces such as Frutiger was to increase the legibility and help people process the information presented flawlessly and effortlessly. However, as we have learned, for those who are more dyslexic than others can have hard time perceiving the delivered information.

Dyslexia is a learning disorder which leads to difficulty reading due to issues decoding the letters and words. Those who suffer from dyslexia, when their brains process visual information, can often subconsciously switch, rotate, and mirror letters, which makes them harder to identify the characters (Fernandes). Their brains perceive two-dimensional letters as three-dimensional objects that can be manipulated in the three-dimensional space. Therefore, the letter “b” can easily be manipulated in its perception to a “d” or a “p” or a “q”.

This is partly due to the fact that, in traditional typefaces, letters are made to be as uniform as possible. If the letter “d” looks same as a “d”, a “p”, and a “q”, or if the arch of an “h” looks same as that of an “n”, the typeface can achieve a clean and harmonic look (Gray). However, when these letters share the same characteristics, it becomes easier for those with dyslexia to subconsciously manipulate the letters in their brain and confuse them.

One effort to remedy such issue and truly achieve an accessible typeface design is change in the fundamental ‘rules’ of the typeface and creating a new font that can be read easily for the dyslexics. Designer Christian Boer who was diagnosed with dyslexia at the age of six has made such effort and created a typeface Dyslexie, aimed to overcome the problems those like him can have when reading (Gray).

This font, which we also learned during the Monday lecture, includes some key features which Boer claims makes the font more accessible for those who suffer from dyslexia. First, the symmetry and uniformity of the letters are abandoned (Gray). Namely, the vertical strokes such as the stems, ascenders, and descenders are not unified. Some letters have longer strokes while others do not. Further, the x-height differs from letter to letter. Letters that look alike, such as “v”, “w”, and “y” have different heights giving them distinct identities.

The serifs are also manipulated (Gray). They can make the letters harder to read for dyslexics as they can obscure the shape of each letter, so the Dyslexie discarded almost all serifs; at the same time serifs stayed in the letters like “u” and “n” with differed length of the stroke in order to make those similar letters distinguishable.

Lastly, Boer made the capital letters bolder in order to make them more stand out compared to lowercase letters (Gray).

I was astounded by the meticulous technicalities that went into the making of this font and was inspired by the good deed involved. According to the BBC, 10% to 20% of the population have some form of dyslexia and more than 700 million children and adults in the world are at risk of lifelong literacy and social exclusion as a result of the condition (Gray). If typeface such as Dyslexie can help that large chunk of the population, we could uncover new talents and perspectives so direly needed in the world.

However, I was disappointed to find that such effort might have been futile, as of yet. According to Dr. Guinevere Eden, a director of the Center for the Study of Learning (CSL) at Georgetown University, “dyslexia-friendly fonts”, although they have gathered considerable media coverage in recent years, are not founded on any scientific research (Eden). Dyslexie which was the result of a thesis project of the then graphic design graduate student Boer, although designed with features aiming to aid dyslexics, did not find itself on a scientific basis. On the contrary, there have been three sound, peer-reviewed scientific research on the subjects, done in 2016, 2017, and 2018, that all concluded that the Dyslexie or Open Dyslexic font “have no measurable benefits or deliver any reading gains” (Eden).

While it is disappointing to see that the project started off a good intention has indeed made no actual progress towards its goal, I think it teaches us two important lessons. First, peer-reviewed researches are important (and often depressing). Second, making something so ingrained in us in its usage such as font that we do not question ways in which, in its conditions of possibility, could be improved in an extremely helpful way, actually better is extremely difficult. Nonetheless, the effort should continue and it is indeed at least comforting to see such efforts being made.

References: 

Eden, Guinevere. “Do Dyslexia-Friendly Fonts Really Work?” Understood for Learning & Attention Issues.

Fernandes, Tânia, and Isabel Leite. “Mirrors Are Hard to Break: A Critical Review and Behavioral Evidence on Mirror-Image Processing in Developmental Dyslexia.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, vol. 159, July 2017, pp. 66–82., doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2017.02.003.

 

Preparing for the midterm, I had an opportunity to delve into the aesthetics and the history of the Times New Roman. This one of the most ubiquitous typefaces drew my attention enough for me to pick it as the font of my choice to make type specimen during the class and to research it in preparation for the midterm examination, as it is the typeface of which initiated my interest in typography when I was still in high school. However, the interest with the subject was not with the affection towards the typeface; rather it was born out of rejection. Times New Roman was nothing but a boring rule forced on me, when all the teachers used to say “use standard margin, with 12 point, Times New Roman, double-spaced.” There was no reason as to why that was the standard; that was how it was to be done and the order, much like the look of the font, came with dogmatic authority. “That’s how you write an academic essay,” they said. I remember secretly using Garamond or plain Times, mainly out of spite, but also because they looked nicer to me.

I did not think much on it, but my further research on this typeface has taught me some lessons on why I might have felt that way in high school. Indeed, Times New Roman is the most basic typeface in legal or scholastic setting anywhere. It has been fixated as the standard to a degree where the usage of it has been even forced in some setting, especially with the MLA guideline suggesting—and some instructors requiring—the use of Times New Roman as the font to use. It also comes as one of the basic System Font in every devices and word processors we use.

However, some argues that the continued and wide usage of this font should be reconsidered in many instances. One example is Matthew Butterick, the author of our beloved Typography for Lawyers. He writes: “If you have a choice about using Times New Roman, please stop.”¹ The reason for his argument is that the typeface is simply being overused as a mere crux born out of familiarity and deep entrenchment. I cannot agree with him more.

Nonetheless, in its inception, Times New Roman was born out of a quest for new and innovative needs of the time. The typeface’s history begins with the British newspaper The Times, which was in need for new a new font for its printed papers in 1931. Amid the criticization that the typeface it was using was “out-of-touch with modern typographical trends,” the news agency hired the criticizer Stanley Morison to create something better.² The new typeface, designed with the help of the draftsman Victor Lardent, performed marvelously the function proper for its medium: the efficiency. The new typeface maximized the amount of letters that fit on a line and thus on a page, therefore minimizing the cost of printing.

Morison and Lardent achieved this feat using few but effective methods. First, raised the x-height of each characters. Without inherent changes in the ascender or descender height, but making the x-height elongated, each letters were able to form a narrow shape, making characters more suitable to fit more in a vertical column of the newspaper. Moreover, the kerning has been also narrowed, giving the typeface more condensed look, further making the type more ‘efficient’ for the medium. However, as can be expected, then the readability has to be sacrificed. Morison solved this problem by altering the shape of the letters; the thicker strokes of each characters, like the vertical lines in the “n,” were enlarged, thereby giving the letters a clear contrast against the backdrop of the paper.³ At the same time, the intersections of the thicker strokes were thinned, like in the vertical lines of the “n” where it meet the serif.⁴ Through such measures, Morison was able to both achieve the legibility and the economic efficiency of the typeface.

The result of the focus on the legibility and efficiency however did not directly correlate with the type’s aesthetic capability. As the purpose of the type was clearly a economic and clean way of delivering information, decorative measures were largely omitted and were sacrificed for the functionality. The result was an economic and unobtrusive typeface, that were not visible to the readers digesting the content and were efficient in cramming as many letters as possible while not sacrificing the legibility. Perhaps, it was the perfect typeface for the medium in the capitalistic world.

 

Notes:

1. Matthew Butterick, A Brief History of Times New Roman.
2. Meredith Mann, Where Did Times New Roman Come From?, 2014.
3. Ibid. 
4. Ibid. 

During the course, we have learned about the structure of typeface and how different aesthetics can be achieved through the manipulation of various components such as the existence of serif or kernings, the space between each types.

However, for me, the question that lingered through was why such differences can achieve a certain aesthetic that can be considered ‘good.’ This question perhaps will apply to all fields of art, and depending on the medium, the criteria will range. In the art of types, however, there are seemingly clear cut criterias that determines the aesthetics and the functionality of type. One of such basis would be the legibility of the typeface. Indeed, as typography includes not only aesthetical faculty but also a teleological one, of which the end purpose is delivering of information, how legible a type is can certainly be a yardstick in deciding whether the typeface is ‘good’ or ‘bad.’

Yet, when it comes down to the technicalities, even the seemingly solid criteria of legibility seems not so stable. For instance, the legibility of a typeface might be a mere product of popularity, rather than an inherent characteristics within the typeface. Zuzana Licko, a Californian type designer, had a theory that “you read best what you read most.”¹ A heavy black letter type, for instance, was once considered more legible than a softer and less formal type, contrary to the current trend.² Such change in the archetype of legibility proves that legibility is a fluctuating concept based on ever changing eye of beholders rather than on an inherent ‘essence’ of a typeface.

This view, I believe, connects to the postmodern beliefs of faculties highlighted by the lack of inherent essence of beauty. Fascinated by the idea, I looked more into what’s considered postmodern typography.

In order to properly understand the postmodern typography, one needs to, albeit briefly, examine its predecessor: typography of modernism. “The prevailing philosophy of typography at the time was to show letters in their most pure form,” Gail Davidson, curator at the Smithsonian’s Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum noted.³ In the modernistic dogma that the ‘form follows function,’ clean and functional Sans serif, such as Helvetica epitomized the modern typography.

 

 

Postmodern typography would be born out of the rejection of the modernist idea that certain forms due to its inherent characteristics, are able to perform certain objective functions such as neutrality or legibility. “Of course the early modernists thought that they were being objective in their pairing down of the type so that it looked neutral, but in fact it wasn’t,” Davidson notes: “it was an expression of modernists”.⁴ Postmodern designer sought to deconstruct the elements that were believed to be fundamental. Strict adherence to clear cut rules and boundaries were questioned. Rather, designers began to experiment with type in a “non-spatial, non-linear process which abandoned the thoughts of a grid.” The focus was the viewer’s perception subjective and emotional, rather than rules such as readability. “Don’t mistake legibility for communication,” David Carson, a graphic designer famed for experimental typography noted.⁵

Such view is clearly visible in this work of Carson.

The sizing of types is inconsistent, letters overlap, and there is no clear rule for capitalization. However, the design fits perfectly with the subject line, which, I think nicely sums up the maxim of postmodernism: “mind over matter.” Matter is restricted by the form of which a metaphysical ‘mind’ is superimposed upon, whereas the mind, prior to taking its form, can have unlimited possibility. If modernism focused on the form and the matter in the form, postmodernism looks on the mind itself and efforts to evoke the matters in the mind, prior to the form.

Following are other works that exemplifies the notion of postmodern typography:

 

 

Notes:

1. Simon Garfield, Just My Type, p. 60
2. Ibid. 
3. Jess Righthand, Postmodernism’s New Typography (2010), Smithsonian.com
4. qtd. in Hans Kleefeld, Impressions from David Carson, Famed Designed of Letters Tattered, Toppled and Tumbled.