Latinos Win Big in Morisawa Contest

Yes, South America has been exploding with type, *quality* type. Strange, considering the timing... And strange that of the six Latin winning designers I've only heard of two.

But where can we see images of the winning types, or even just the names?! Frustrating...

hhp

Well, you know.. the only way to revert some situations is with good creativity. The lost of work make some free time to explore in fonts. who knows... :)

Galves font is called Australis
Lo Celso font is called Borges

Hrant,

>But where can we see images of the winning types,
>or even just the names?! Frustrating

Go to Pampatype to see A. Lo Celso's "Borges", Carter's prize.

Thanks.
Borges (the name rings a bell): From the inline version and just 5 lc letters I guess it's hard to tell. It doesn't look like the type of thing Carter would choose, which leads me to think there's a lot more to it than that preview...

Would anyone hazard a guess as to what Slimbach's choice looks like?... :-/ The closest guess guets a fountain pen. A broken one.

hhp

Wonderful type! Although it would be nice to see all the type linked to in this thread in more than just alpha settings.
I downloaded all the free and sexy type from tipografia.cl. There's a real craftsman's hand at work there it seems, although the kerning and leading is something I haven't looked at yet.
Quimera is ugly in a beautiful way, (or is that the other way around) especially the darkest version.
Rayuela is superb. Lovely shapes.
How old are these guys? I'd guess that Francisco is an old hand with a young spirit, while Alejandro is a young gun with an old head on his shoulders. Does anyone else get this impression? (Irrelevant though it is.)

Hehe Martin... Francisco and Alejandro are young guys, less than 35 years old.
The whole staff of Tipografia.cl is under 30 years old!!!

Hrant, Martin and friends:

You could ask for a sample pdf of Australis, directly from Francisco, here is his email: fgalvez@puc.cl
Luck!!

Perhaps we are at the beginning of a South American's types identity. Don't you think?

¡Adelante!

hhp

>Quimera is ugly in a beautiful way, (or is that the other way around) especially the darkest version.
Rayuela is superb. Lovely shapes.

Martin, where did you see/downloaded Quimera and Rayuela? They aren't in the font catalogue at tipografia.cl...

And I have the most recent plug-ins and IE 5. Why can't I access Pampatype?
You might not believe it but I hate computers...

Claudio

You can see Quimera and Rayuela in MyFonts.com

Wow, thank you Alejandro.
Both Quimera and Rayuela are finely crafted designs.
In one of them I find some of my personal taste in research (I don't recall which).
Beautiful and impressive.
And no geometric chirld's play, here!

Ah, but chirographic child's play is just as damaging, it's simply less obviously so. There is no essential difference between Wim Crouwel and Gerrit Noordzij... :-)

hhp

> There is no essential
> difference between Wim Crouwel
> and Gerrit Noordzij... :-)

Hrant, that comparison has gone a long way, huh? ;)
Well, the similarity holds, yes, but to a certain extent only. (And I love both kinds of child's play.)

Don't mind Hrant. I gave him chirographic for Christmas, and now he has to use it in at least one sentence every day.

Rodolfo, the similarity is strong, based on this: they both want to apply their pet superficial "rules" with no regard to true functionality. Why? I guess because it's easier to come to terms with tangible shapes than human heuristics. In fact this an ailment affecting practically every single contemporary designer, each of them finding some excuse to justify their child's play (with "reader familiarity" serving double time). One could even say that this is all a result of Modernism, which had a wonderful foundation, but has been bastardized, just like so many other things: Post-Modernism, Democracy...

And yes, play is not only fun, it's also indispensable. One simply has to admit that it's essentially selfish, otherwise it's deception.

--

John, that term was a truly wonderful find. Not least because back when I used "calligraphic" the escapist hordes would divert attention from the real issues by claiming I didn't know the difference between Zapf and Noordzij. As if the difference is even very relevant: they're both a continent away from reality.

And I see that you've now started using "bouma", so I guess that was my xmas gift to you! :-)

hhp

;)

> Rodolfo, the similarity is strong, based on this

See, as I had thrown this bait to you in the first place, I'd like to disassociate myself a bit from how you're using it. Crouwel and Noordzij have a lot in common, naturally: both are Dutch and both have a magnificent body of work behind them (while their critics have yet to show the goods ;) - which doesn't mean they can't be criticized, of course ;)

The point you're expanding here - which was in fact the original one I pointed out - formation vs. reception/reading - is largely, I think, a false dichotomy that stems from a too narrow understanding of what functionality in type is. It is an angle from which one can assess Noordzij's work - and a small part of Crouwel's work - but it doesn't even begin to cover the whole picture.

Interestingly, one could say that Noordzij's types are certainly 'chirographic' (thanks, John!) but - with the possible exception of Ruit, and, in a different sense, Burgundica and Kadmos -, I wouldn't call them 'calligraphic'. Now, going back to the thread's origin, I'd say that Rayuela, very well-crafted as it is, is perhaps a bit too much on the calligraphic side - for my taste, of course. Quimera is very interesting in its 'post-modern', sort of disjointed way.

regards

> too much on the calligraphic
> side - for my taste, of course.

But individual taste is exactly what a text font should *not* be about, at least not mostly. There has to be an argument about the aspects of chirography that hurt readability. Like the fact that it promotes overly-long descenders (like in Ruse). We could and should also discuss how chirography could help readability (particularly in comparison to purely geometric forms), but even the staunchest partisans of chirography don't bother going down that path. And even the most fanatical believers in Great Holy Familiarity don't bother to understand how familiarity might actually work in the human mind. It's all pretext.

There is certainly much more to typography -and even functionality- than just readability. But the way readability is so completely and conveniently ignored makes me think that extremely few people really want to "cover the whole picture" anyway. They generally want to reinforce their existing stance, by any means necessary, including escapism from good ol'fashioned analysis. I guess there's too much to loose. That's why I feel so lucky to be an auto-didact.

I myself am simply covering an angle that:
1. is very important.
2. turns me on.
3. is largely ignored.

I'm trying to be a craftsman. Too many others are only pretending. You could say I want to express my capacity for functionality, too many others want to express their formal image-making, their *artistry* (even if they might not be aesthetes), which I find too selfish, the typical self-centered plague of this age.

hhp

I don't know what "chirographic" should mean and I consider senseless to talk about "calligraphy" as well when, after all, a text typeface is ultimately constructed, or drawn, not written.

But Rayuela is amazing (the chocolate version blows me away!), and have also a look at the beautiful Fedra Serif by Peter Bilak (which sent me a christmas card with it) for something different but equally drawn with love and care.

Post-modern is another "I don't know what to use" term and Quimera is interesting but too much connected to Antique Olive in my humble opinion.

>There is certainly much more to typography -and even functionality- than just readability. But the way readability is so completely and conveniently ignored makes me think that extremely few people really want to "cover the whole picture" anyway.

I totally agree on this, Hrant.
Even my weirest alphabet (except for Fear Unknown) have always been designed, albeit odd or difficult, with an attention to readability and traditional typographic rules.
Being trained or untrained does not make much difference, as long as you care to produce something which is both useful/beautiful and relevant in some way (culturally, ethnically, ideologically, religiously, etc.)

Playing is not a damage in itself. Look at what Brode Vosloo (

Sacred Nipple

Ah, both typefaces are free at

Sacred Nipple

I did a mess with tags. Please Stephen don't kill me!

> I don't know what "chirographic"
> should mean and I consider senseless
> to talk about "calligraphy" as well
> when, after all, a text typeface is
> ultimately constructed, or drawn, not
> written.

Do you accept the idea that Zapfino, albeit "constructed", is a "calligraphic" face? If you do, you can understand what is meant by calligraphic in relation to a typeface. Of course Zapfino is at the extreme limit of the range. Your point about construction is good, I've been thinking about it (in relation to faces which aren't necessarily based on someone's script but nevertheless have a calligraphic feel). It has more to do, I think, with the overall rhythm of the composition than with any individual design detail. "Chirographic" is, as I gather, a term that was introduced by John Hudson, and eagerly grabbed by Hrant :) , that would apply to typefaces that acknowledge the influence of the hand - writing - but not particularly of calligraphy - embellished writing. (They may correct me if it's not exactly that.)

BTW, that was not a criticism of Rayuela - I agree it is amazing. I was speaking more of my personal taste for a somewhat more subdued typographic rhythm than of the face's qualities (yes, Hrant, personal taste has a place in text faces still - more on that later ;).

> Post-modern is another "I don't know
> what to use" term and Quimera is
> interesting but too much connected to
> Antique Olive in my humble opinion.

It wouldn't be too strange if I didn't know which term to use ;) but in this case "post-modern" - fuzzy term, I know - was a way to avoid a longish digression on Quimera's construction. But you said it all yourself with your observation about Antique Olive.

Felice anno nuovo! ;)

Hrant has taken to referring to a fairly broad range of typefaces as chirographic, as a result of a discussion about Gerrit Noordzij's Letterletter, and because people kept telling him off for using the term calligraphic for everything. I generally don't use the term in reference to typefaces, because I originally introduced it during the Noordzij discussion to make a distinction between chirography (writing by hand) and typography (writing with prefabricated letters, according to the Noordzijan description). Noordzij refers to 'writing' as an activity that includes typography (much to Hrant's annoyance), and I found it useful to have a parallel term for handwriting to use alongside typography under this wide umbrella.

John Hudson

> a text typeface is ultimately constructed, or drawn, not written.

You'd be surprised how many people fight that reality with all their mettle. Why? Various reasons. All bad.

> I originally introduced ["chirography"] during the Noordzij discussion

It was before. I remember seeing the term somewhere in your upcoming Vancouver conference materials. At first I thought it was too pedantic, but then I realized it has the power of freshness, allowing me (and others) to climb out of the terminological quicksand. A wonderful Xmas gift indeed - thank you.

Anyway, this is all in the context of type, where some fonts have attributes inherited from other media (such as letters that look like trees). Chirography is basically a structural/formative/creational issue*. It says for example that the bowls of the "bdpq" should all behave the same way. Calligraphic type is a subset of chirographic type, where not just the structures but the finish betrays the hand/pen. It's funny that Noordzij thinks so little of Zapf's work - they're both so close with respect to where they should be.

* Which is why it's too close to Art.

> much to Hrant's annoyance

Don't worry about annoying me.
Worry about holding back culture.

hhp

>Do you accept the idea that Zapfino, albeit "constructed", is a "calligraphic" face?

Rodolfo, sorry, but if you read carefully my post I've written «I consider senseless to talk about "calligraphy" as well when, after all, a TEXT typeface is ultimately constructed, or drawn, not written».

Now, Zapfino is not a text typeface. At best it could be seen a text typeface if you use it to typeset correspondance.

And sorry if I may have sounded harsh but I prefer to avoid generic (and abused) terms like "modern" and "post-modern".
Greek epigraphy is also modern if we compare it to hieroglyphs, and if we call, let's say, Arbitrary "post-modern", how should we call what the current design scene offers? Post-post-modern?
It was just a personal remark.

Have a wondeful and peaceful new year, too!

I continue to find just simpler, while talking of text-aimed typefaces, to say they have a calligraphic influence.
This is nothing bad, as long as it doesn't limit their applicability.

According to John Downer, his beautiful Triplex Italic is a more and more stylized study on our italian corsiva cancelleresca (cursive chancery) and I can see his point while I look at the amazing treatises by Arrighi and my beloved Tagliente.

However Downer stylized in an extremely radical way, so it works well in textsetting (and let's not forget that Emigre commissioned it to pair the italic with the existing Triplex families by Zuzana Licko).

I found odd finding Triplex Italic chosen by Gary Bringhurst in his "Elements" book, because, although I recognize the incredible work and effort of Triplex (and love it) I find it pertaining to a slightly different cathegory than the other faces, less stylized, more neoclassical, albeit reworked. But Bringhurst classifies as typography only what was usually perceived this way, i.e. typefaces for book/magazine setting and well drawn scripts, dismissing the fact that nowadays any kind of lettering could take the form of a usable typeface, and it's up to the user of an evolving audience to be careful in selecting his/her faces based upon the work he/she's doing or the mood he/she wish to convey.

Happy New Year!

I don't believe I used the term chirography in any of the Vancouver conference materials, but now that Hrant has jogged my memory I certainly remember using it in my lecture on Greek cursive type at ATypI in Rome. Again, I was using the term specifically to refer to the actually handwritten exemplars on which the cursive types were based, and not to refer to the types themselves. To me, the real benefit of this term is that it allows one to make parallel reference to handwriting without invoking calligraphy.

> Rodolfo, sorry, but if you read carefully
> my post I've written «I consider senseless
> to talk about "calligraphy" as well when,
> after all, a TEXT typeface is ultimately
> constructed, or drawn, not written».

Yes, indeed. That's why I wrote "faces which aren't necessarily based on someone's script but nevertheless have a calligraphic feel". Assume text typefaces here.

> I prefer to avoid generic (and abused)
> terms like "modern" and "post-modern".

Well, do as you wish. As for myself, I'd rather keep using them - or abusing them ;) - whenever I feel they help me to convey the general "mood" briefly.

--

> Chirography is basically a
> structural/formative/creational
> issue*. It says for example that
> the bowls of the "bdpq" should
> all behave the same way.

But Hrant, couldn't one reason that it is the mechanized economy of typography - be it through the use of counterpunches, or by copying & pasting a bézier - that "says" that the bowls of bdpq should behave the same way? You may argue against modularity as you will, but how is chirography the "culprit" here? ;)

--

Time to go, people, see you all next year.

> This is nothing bad

Oh yes, very often it is bad, because it imposes the superficial "rules" of chirography, resulting in attributes that harm readability. Interestingly enough, a calligraphic finish -as opposed to a chirographic structure- can actually serve to lend a "comforting" organic air, which has a [limited] benefit. My Paphos* will in fact use this phenomenon as a ruse - except I'm not ready to do it properly yet - give me a few more years, Rodolfo, I started late, and I'm swimming against the current. :-)

* Far right of this page.

BTW, Italics (in the conventional sense) are not really text faces, at least not in my book (so to speak).

> parallel reference to handwriting without invoking calligraphy.

But then why not just call that "handwriting"?
Anyway, I think "chirographic type" is a very useful concept.

hhp

> how is chirography the "culprit" here?

Not the culprit, a culprit. Qualitatively chirography is just as bad as grid-worship (which is where my Noordzij/Crouwel bundling comes from).

The only thing typography really "says" is: SERVE THE USER. Allowing your infatuation with a body part or with a naive, utopian regularity to reduce the effectiveness of communication is exactly the opposite of Craft.

Text face design must flow from the reader, not one's psychological weaknesses. The fact that consideration of the reader has a heuristic foundation (as opposed to the nice tidy child's games chirographers and grid-slaves play) does not change this, it just makes any given resolution necessarily imperfect - and this is as uncomfortable as it is real.

See you on the other side,
Hrant

But then why not just call that "handwriting"?

Because handwriting, at least today, typically implies an informal, usually hurried way of writing, and chirography covers a much broader range of writing by hand including, as you noted, the subset of calligraphy.

I think the danger of talking about 'chirographic type', unless you are very careful to explain what you mean, is that it leads people, like 'calligraphic type', to focus on superficial stylistics. Particularly in the discussion of Noordzij's ideas, it is more useful to focus on the structural import of chirography. I think you understand this, Hrant, but I'm not sure that others will when you throw out the term without explaining it more carefully.

As you know, I'm broadly in agreement with you regarding the importance of understanding the reading process to designing more readable type. Where we part company is that you object to aesthetic traditions and conventions that you feel actively reduce readability, while I think the reading process is robust enough to handle all these and a lot more with remarkably little impact on reading speed or comprehension. I agree entirely that improvements in readability are possible—indeed, I agree that these may require rejecting some traditional conventions—, and there are circumstances in which readability absolutely should be the overriding criterion applied to type design and typography. But I continue to believe that our ability to read so great a diversity of letterforms with ease and comfort permits a plethora of other criteria (aesthetic, cultural, historical, fantastical) to be applied even in the design of text faces without significantly impairing readability. We do not read only to fill our minds with information as quickly as possible: we read to partake in a intellectual and creative literary culture and the varied presentation of text is part of that culture.

There may one day be a single typeface that is empirically demonstrated to be more readable than any other: to result in consistently faster reading and more accurate comprehension. I still wouldn't want to see every book and every newspaper, or even every website, set in that one typeface, nor do I think this would ever be judged necessary. Hrant regularly takes issue with the old Emigre slogan 'readers read best what they read most'; I take issue with it for a different reason: we read so many typefaces so very well, it hardly matters which we read best.

I continue to find just simpler, while talking of text-aimed typefaces, to say they have a calligraphic influence.

This is nothing bad, as long as it doesn’t limit their applicability.

Oh yes, very often it is bad, because it imposes the superficial “rules” of chirography, resulting in attributes that harm readability. Interestingly enough, a calligraphic finish, as opposed to a chirographic structure, can actually serve to lend a “comforting” organic air, which has a [limited] benefit.

Hrant, why do you reply using just bits of other people’s sentences? I’ve reported my entire sentence and, as you’ve seen it finishes saying «as long as it doesn’t limit their applicability.»

It’s pretty odd to think that if I say «this typeface has a calligraphic influence», for someone this implies an ‘imposition’ of sorts.

And why do you say «Italics (in the conventional sense) are not really text faces, at least not in my book (so to speak).»?

Everyone knows that Aldo Manuzio commissioned to his punchcutter Francesco Griffo a new typeface, which, being more condensed, allowed him to print classic authors in a new series of books in a smaller and more economical format, which reached a wider audience than what previously was achieved because of the fact that books were too expensive for common people.

This also helped extablishing definitely the ‘antiqua’ (later called roman) alongside with the ‘italic’ as the leading european text typeface, over the still used ‘blackletter’. The typeface incised by Griffo was used for the first time in 1499 in the book ‘Hypnerotomachia Poliphili’ and has arrived to our days alongside with his roman companion used previously (in 1495) in the ‘De Aetna’ bt the Cardinal Pietro Bembo.

Incidentally the typeface cut by Griffo in 1499 was based on calligraphy (the aforementioned chancery cursive) and was the first ‘italic’, from which the term derived, simply because it came from Italy.

It’s nice to read (I’m taking this data from ‘Five hundreds years of printing’ by Saul Steinberg, first published in England in 1951) that in Spain the ‘italic’ was called ‘letra grifa’.

(No patriotic proud, here, anyway. Just facts).

It doesn’t seem so bad that the ‘invention’ of the ‘italic’ led to a better diffusion of culture, doesn’t it?

So, please Hrant, try to be less impulsive and avoid sterile discussion which seems often not pondered at all.

And BTW there’s too much talking here ‘over the sex of angels’, so to speak.

The thing is already way too cerebral for me, so…

Bye Bye!

P.S. I think it’s pretty known that the two ‘casual companions’ mentioned took later on the name of Bembo and Poliphilus, when adapted by Monotype.

A last note.
I agree with John Hudson because I never shared the "we read best what we read most" idea, which is only partially true.

To me, the best article on legibility and readability is the one written by Gerard Unger and published in Emigre n.23, titled "Legible?"

(Emigre 23 is also one of the best Emigre issues, but this is just my opinion)

Sorry, I'm an idiot, but this is super-fun.

From Hrant's commentary on his Paphos: «The underlying reason is its reliance on irregularity to promote readability.»

Why do you think I started loving Emigre when I knew nothing, Hrant?
Because I found in the works of (mostly) Barry Deck i-r-r-e-g-u-l-a-r-i-t-y, in a market (the one of the late 1980s, early 1990s) where photosetting had lost all the attractive elements of hundres years of typography, resulting in typefaces so slick, so monotone (in width, not in color), that reduced typography to its most misery.

Caustic Biomorph isn't surely a typeface for textsetting but when I saw it (and Arbitrary) I was so stunned I couldn't believe my eyes.
Arbitrary might not just be the most readable typeface on earth (due to Barry's inexperience at the time, the punctuation is so small it tends to get lost, for example), but to me it looked like the most beautiful typeface I've had ever seen since the likes of Claude Garamond.

That's what I admire above everything in the history of writing: the internal tension of the roman inscriptions of the empire, later took on as a model by typographers and letterers, which not only produced text which was readable, but attractive as well.

So stop complaining in these your 'mindgames' and go finish your Paphos, please! I'm eager to use it!

I will not show up again...
Promised!

You guys have made a lot of interesting points - this is really becoming too good for a blog (no offense Stephen, you still da man). I'm gonna pull a Rodolfo and plead for more time...

hhp

Take a look to Australis, the morisawa gold 2002. I really love how he joint the exclamations.

http://www.tipografia.cl/proyectos/australis.htm

Thanks Ale. That is a beautiful thing.

Wow, traditional and progressive at the same time. A lot of nice things in there. And an ascending "3"! Pero los cojones que tienes, hombre...

hhp

Australis: wow!

See what I meant with variability? Look at the diverse influences. You may perceive some of them as "fancy", Hrant, but as long as you use the face for text you won't notice subtle "decoration" at all.
An in big size it's welcome!

My 1990s typefaces are odd, designed with a lack of experience, but if you look, I've always tried to experiment unusual and fresh solutions. Examples of those are:

The numbersign, percent, an unusually descending german double s and a descending eight (in Exegetic);

A "rounded" numeral 4, a "shield" o, and a t reminescent of uncial and semiuncial styles (in Reality).
The t has been also adopted in Ogilve, my last release.

Another attempt has been with the y (in both Ottomat and Reality).

The fact that my faces aren't friendly relies in how I felt in these years psychologically and is a result of my desire to diversify. Now I'm putting these tensions to work in more homogeneous designs, although for me the underlying message and the overall feeling is still prominent over mere legibility.

LoCelso modulation is particularly brilliant in the s, in the euro sign and in the dollar and cent symbols, because it merges with grace with the more traditional modulation of the prominent glyphs.

The seeds of this sensibility (opposed to the dry sameness of neo-geometric fonts without ideas) was spread by Emigre and FontShop in the late eighties, early nineties, but many other people (like Frantisek Storm) developed a super strong attitude like this independently.
Note that here I'm just speaking of a western sensibility, but in many cases younger designers from the east assimilated these things as well.

While Rayuela is skillfully and precisely drawn, Australis shows more "flaws" in the good sense of the term. Irregularity, but of the kind that makes a letter both beautiful and useful.

> as long as you use the face for text you won't notice subtle "decoration" at all.

That right kind of subtlety is the tricky part.

hhp

Storm is a master of subtle decoration and measured irregularity.

> we read so many typefaces so
> very well, it hardly matters
> which we read best.

There is a lot of validity in this, and I think a lot of designers would agree with it (although they don't/won't spell it out so well). But I guess my problem with it is that it's too "fatalistic". If you assume that almost any font you make will be sufficiently readable, what's left? There are no more "rules", only personal expression. Why does the lc "d" in Perpetua bug the chirographers so much? Does it bug you? What structure should it have, and why? Is it really worse than the overly long descenders of Ruse? My point is that the ways in which glyphs work for the user have to be taken seriously, otherwise we're just selfish artists.

And I'm not saying every font should have readability as its ultimate goal. But I am saying that when you design a text font, you have to know what rules you're breaking. For example, in Patria I've made some key letters wider than they "should" be (in terms of readability), but I did so to promote the character of the design. To me that's very different than saying "I'm going to make my 'e' wide because I like the way that looks, and nothing else matters."

> It’s pretty odd to think that if I say
> «this typeface has a calligraphic
> influence», for someone this implies
> an ‘imposition’ of sorts.

You're not the one imposing if you're just pointing it out. But chirography does have strong anti-readability attributes.

> why do you say «Italics (in the
> conventional sense) are not really
> text faces

Because their slant and unfamiliar extensions (like the descender on the lc "f") puts then outside of my definition of Text Face. Familiarity is important, but it's not what most people think it is.

> Gerard Unger ... "Legible?"

What does he say in it?
I really liked what he said during his recent Eye magazine interview.

> Arbitrary might not just be the
> most readable typeface on earth
> (due to Barry's inexperience

I don't think inexperience had anything to do with it.

BTW, irregularity in type cannot be applied like it is in chirography - it's a different animal.

Hrant, the Perpetua lowercase d doesn't bother me one bit, although I think it is quite likely that Gill was himself a 'selfish artist', motivated by what appealed to his fancy. Also, consider that Perpetua is derived without much modification from the letters Gill was cutting in stone, and is arguably not much more 'typographic' than, say, Ruse.

As an interesting historical anecdote, I took some photographs at St Bride's of two pages of instructions for the design of Bunyan prepared by Rene Hague. I strongly suspect that when it came to designing typefaces for text, Gill really needed someone to tell him what to do. Morison performed this role for Perpetua, Robert Gibbings for Golden Cockerel, and Hague for Bunyan.

I agree entirely that it is good to have reasons in design, other than simply liking the way things look (although one should always be open to happy accidents and unexpected results). My point is that readability is only one aspect of type design in which such reasons might be found. You suggested other kinds of reasons to be found in the design of Patria. These reasons can be given a considerable freedom because we read so well. This is not the same thing as saying 'anything goes': readability can be damaged. I just don't think it can be so easily damaged as you seem to think. As I've said to you before: readability is not a rare and difficult to achieve objective, more often it is the naturally occuring prerequisite of type design (naturally occuring within the long evolutionary success of our writing system).

Most of my colleagues seem to be thoughtful people, especially the ones who work primarily in designing text type. I actually can't think of anyone who fits your description of the type designer as selfish artist, whose only reason in design is what appeals to his aesthetic sense, but maybe I just instinctively avoid such people so have not encountered as many as you might have.

> when it came to designing typefaces
> for text, Gill really needed someone
> to tell him what to do.

That seems to be very true. And not just for text either: you'd think Gill would know about optical compensation (at least the most basic kind), considering he made such wonderful stone-cut lettering, but check out this original drawing (sorry for the moiré). The "S" doesn't even have the basic overhang! Fortunately, the Monotype boys didn't -and couldn't- let that go through like that, so they fixed it. And you should see the wonders they worked to make the smaller point sizes usable.

That said, to me Gill had the most raw talent of any type designer ever - he just needed more time to get the balance right. I rank him and Granjon at the very top, with everybody else on a lower level.

hhp

Regarding the Gill drawing, if I remember correctly this is one of a series of designs for painted storefront lettering, and not for Gill Sans. One would have to ask James Mosley to confirm this, but I seem to recall that this is what he told me when I was looking at Gill's drawings at St Bride's.

Gill in the same class as Granjon? Not a chance.

I can only say that your feeling about the italic is entirely a personal thing, Hrant. Italic was born inclined just because its source in calligraphy was inclined, that's all.
Maybe Armeniuan calligraphy isn't inclined, so you have this feeling.
On the f: it's totally subjective: to me it just helps readability and I love roman typefaces with a descending f (Semplicità, Seria from FontShop).
Seria is an example on how inclination can be removed from the Italic. Gill talks about these issues (of the latin "triform", as I call it) in his essay on typography.
But if you ignore what I've told, i.e. the functionality and role roman, italic and later small caps took on as a unitary system in printing you're just insisting to keep a subjective feeling.

The series of books Manuzio printed with the very first italic were entirely set in this new typeface and reached a wider audience. No one found problems reading them, as they never found problems reading calligraphy or their own handwriting.

About Gill: I have not the necessary historical knowledge to put him and Granjon in their respective historical perspective but Gill did surely something unique with each and every one of his typefaces (except Golden Cockerel and Jubilee, maybe). But being a Gill admirer I may be blinded in some way.
Anyway I don't do classifications in general. I appreciate what each letterer/punchcutter/designer brings each and every time in terms of innovation. So I appreciate Barry Deck and John Downer as much as Claude Garamond and Max Miedinger, that's all.

Even if I continue to prefer Akzidenz Grotesk over Helvetica, but it's a matter of details...

And go buy Emigre 23 as long as it's still at a reduced price. I assure you it's worth the money. There are entire sections dedicated to Miles, Jon Barnbrook, Jeff Keedy and Frank Heine, designed by themselves, besides a centerspread interview with P. Scott Makela and the aforementioned fantastic article by Unger.

Btw a descending f might be unfamiliar only to a person which has never seen a latin lowercase word or just plain handwriting, namely a non-occidental person which has never been in contact with occidental culture, or an alien.
Or Hrant, as it seems...

Maybe Hrant is a Martian or Venusian Armenian which is trying to conquer the earth putting here and there strange sentences, who knows? Ha Ha! (no offense I'm just joking)

> if I remember correctly this is one
> of a series of designs for painted
> storefront lettering, and not for
> Gill Sans.

I'm pretty sure it was for Gill Sans, but I'll double check.

> Gill in the same class as Granjon? Not a chance.

Well, I meant in terms of raw talent, not actual output. In terms of output, Gill is not even in the top 5 for me. But I'm convinced that if Gill had dedicated his life to type, today we'd be using his fonts more than anybody else's. But fortunately (at least for non-type-geeks) he didn't.

hhp

> I can only say that your feeling
> about the italic is entirely a
> personal thing

No, it's the other way around.
And it's really much more than a "feeling".

> Maybe Armeniuan calligraphy
> isn't inclined

!
Armenian "Roman" type is inclined! Or at least should be. We don't need italics (at least not nearly as much as Latin does) because of a wonderful little floating emphasis mark (that can be placed on any vowel), but that's really a different story.

> On the f: it's totally subjective:
> to me it just helps readability and
> I love roman typefaces with a
> descending f

No, my friend, type is never totally subjective. There are very much realities about the human reading "firmware" that make some forms more readable/legible than others. The only way it can help readability "for you" is if you read fonts with a descending "f" more than fonts without. You don't.

> Seria is an example on how inclination
> can be removed from the Italic.

No, it cannot. Seria's Italic is experimental, and it doesn't work (for emphasis). It's a pedantic exercise, typical of the chirogaphic school. The main distinguishing mark of Italic as a form of emphasis is its slant; everything else (like cursiveness) is secondary. The reason is simple: during immersive reading the brain has no time to differentiate that much subtlety, especially not in the highly blurry parafoveal reagion of the retina, which accounts for about 2/3-rds of reading. And it applies in deliberative legibility as well - try setting an emphasized English "I" in Seria Italic: nothing.

The good news is that Majoor is coming out with a second (more slanted) italic. The scan is from the current issue of tipoGrafica, a really amazing bilingual type magazine - highly recommended.

> you're just insisting to keep a subjective feeling.

My friend, you're the one insisting that what happens to please you aesthetically must be functional, while I'm basing my thoughts on the issue almost entirely on empirical findings.

There's nothing wrong with feeling a liking for something (quite the contrary), but pretending it's automatically good for you is exactly bad for you.

> No one found problems reading them

You need to look at the difference between conscious appreciation of legibility versus the very real subconscious issues of reading efficiency.

BTW:
1. I'm an Armenian who grew up in Beirut. That almost automatically means I grew up with three different writing systems. Shoot me if I think that makes me more objective about each of them.
2. I don't think Emigre #23 is worth US$25. Can you please tell me what Unger says in his article?

Hrant, I don't know.
I just look at history and see as I've always seen that a system developed over centuries of a "triple" typographic form has worked perfectly for endless amounts of individuals which weren't breaking their heads on making typefaces "functional", but simply trying to cut and design something both pleasing and readable.
And on the f: subjective or objective, it comes from handwriting.

You may go ahead until eternity but you cannot deny that letters may be either written or drawn/constructed. One way or the other. So why in the world someone should have problems to read an italic when it's just a typeface based on writing?
The fact that you can make it more readable and pleasant relies only in your ability.

All the rest does not interest me. Only when I will dig into a different alphabet/writing system I will do the necessary research to understand how it works.
At this point I think you cannot really compare writing systems and alphabets so different between them: just do the best you can for each one of them.

That Emigre issue is worth its price. At least you will agree this is a subjective matter.

I'm tired...

Ah, Hrant, if you wish I can photocopy the Unger article and send it along the CD I have to send you...

Just let me know

> perfectly

A very dangerous word/idea, that.

> And on the f: subjective or objective,
> it comes from handwriting.

I'm not disputing the source. But exactly how is it good to make typographic forms that are easy to write by hand?...

> why in the world someone should have
> problems to read an italic when it's
> just a typeface based on writing?

Instinctively, I would say:
Because there is no connection between the trained writer's right hand and the average reader's reading mechanism.

But in face I have "proof" of sorts. Not emprical findings, but some very starightforward logic. But you'll have to wait for the movie.

> All the rest does not interest me.

Fine. I wouldn't -and can't- force you to be interested in anything. My request is that you don't equate what you like with what other people need.

> I think you cannot really compare
> writing systems and alphabets so
> different between them

Ah, but they share the single most important thing: they are all meant to be read!

BTW, Armenian and Latin are actually pretty close.

And please don't be tired: we're just warming up! :-)

hhp

OK, my Gill scan:
I know of two sources for it. One of them is in front of me: "Book" by Karen Brookfield, from the Dorling Kindersley "Eyewitness Books" series - admittedly a kiddie book :-/ but really wonderfully done - worth owning. The other is the recent "Type and Typography" by Phil Baines - but I don't have that handy. Brookfield says the sample is a "sketch of [Gill Sans]", and if memory serves me Baines says the same thing - but I'll check soon.

hhp

Thanks for checking on the Gill drawing, Hrant, but my memory is definitely that this is a bit more complicated than 'a sketch for Gill Sans'. Obviously they are related designs, but I'm pretty sure that the drawing reproduced was originally produced for painted lettering. Certainly, I don't think these were the drawings submitted to Monotype for Gill Sans.

>I'm not disputing the source. But exactly how is it good to make typographic forms that are easy to write by hand?...

Hrant are you delirious? Typography was just a mechanization of the gesture of writing.
And if writing at the time of Gutemberg was only in the hands of a limited number of people, which did it in a "refined", "decorated", call it as you wish, way which is calligraphy, they simply translated that in print.

The 42-line Bible typeface was just a composed system of the textura letters. The complete character set of the B42 type sported an enormous number of ligatures, just because it was trying to mimic handwriting.

Typography evolved, in different ways and in different countries, and continues to evolve. You cannot deny that our latin "triform" system worked "perfectly" (this time in quotes because nothing is perfect in this world, so now you're happy, OK?). You can't unify contrasting theories or pretend to outline a merely rational and logic solution. The excesses never survive in text typography and will always be dropped.

We're taking a direction which is very likely useless. Your "very straightforward logic" may be just blind without "empirical findings", as it's mere rationale without at least intution.

So, please stop insisting (at least with me). You're just complicating things in an excessive way while people which designed type during all these centuries produced functional and pleasing work without breaking their heads and losing themselves in a sterile research of an utopistic "logic for the future".

The end (for me, that is)

> I don't think these were the drawings submitted to Monotype for Gill Sans.

Maybe you're right.
But my point was simply that Gill didn't put any overhang on the curves (at least in that sketch), and that's important in any medium. Maybe he was going for a yet-unfamiliar modularity, and took alignment too seriously. A common mistake, and one I'm sure he would have gotten over quickly. On the other hand, maybe his drawings were "conceptual", and he expected "engineers" to fix them up for production. For one thing, he's known to have done that for the spacing of his fonts.

hhp

> I don't think these were the drawings submitted to Monotype for Gill Sans.

Maybe you're right.
But my point was simply that Gill didn't put any overhang on the curves (at least in that sketch), and that's important in any medium. Maybe he was going for a yet-unfamiliar modularity, and took alignment too seriously. A common mistake, and one I'm sure he would have gotten over quickly. On the other hand, maybe his drawings were "conceptual", and he expected "engineers" to fix them up for production. For one thing, he's known to have done that for the spacing of his fonts.

hhp

> Typography was just a mechanization of the gesture of writing

Yes, it was, because otherwise nobody would have bought the stuff. What does it need to be now?

Other designers can be satisfied with safe boundaries and mimicry. I am not.

hhp

Hey, the Morisawa link used to work, but now it's broken. Is there a replacement?

hhp

Hrant wrote (on December 19):
Borges (the name rings a bell): From the inline
version and just 5 lc letters I guess it's hard
to tell.

For those who haven't seen it yet, there's
a complete showing of Borges at Pampatype.

Also, check J.-F. Porchez's interview with
A. Lo Celso and G.M. Meave.

Is Australis for sale anywhere? I just found this and I'm in love with it... but I can't find it. Thanks to all who have any information.

Francisco Galvez is still working carefully on italics. Btw, the italics are just great!