Evaluate, Identify, and Put All Into Perspective

What's great is that David is actually using an AI "expert system" to do the classification, so overhead is low and the results highly consistent (if never 100% perfect).

hhp

What's an AI "expert system"? Please explain to a real amateur in programming and related matters, I'd be really glad to know!

Hey, besides, it identified my Reality (which is one of the most inconsistent set of letters I've done, alongside with his "inspirational relative" Keedy Sans) correctly, with a minimum of informations. It really works great, and it will become really complete if we'll all submit our commercial works.
Please folks, do it!

Expert system.

hhp

Oh, thank you, Hrant.
I'd be so glad if everyone would take the time to submit entries to David. I've tried to tell chester once but besides Emigre and Thirstype there are so many important things missing.
I find extremely useful and unique the information related to the genesis of a typeface (even if it's just a list of the influences).
People are often so stupid arguing on the paternity/maternity of designs they don't realiza what's most important about a significant product is the fact that it has been done, not *who* has done it.

I've never been troubled or disturbed by the idea of "appropriation" (which for some people is an obsession).
Originality resides mostly in the way you manage to convey all your influences and arrange them in a way not tried before.
This could lead to similar products, to rip-offs, to blind alleys, to useless crap, but even to new classics.
It's up to the designer to see if his experiments are worth to be marketed, are banal, or if they overlap too closely an existing work.
Personally, if I feel something I do is too close to its source of inspiration, I contact the designer and ask his opinion.

But should the decision about being "too close" reside only in you?

hhp

>I find extremely useful and unique the information related to the
>genesis of a typeface (even if it’s just a list of the influences).

Exactly. This is what's missing from too many pages dealing with a particular typeface. Too often vendors provide no information, or so little that the potential buyer is left guessing what the influences are, and more importantly (for font consumers), the mood and feeling associated with the design. For long-established types the zeitgeist is usually long-established and firmly welded on, but an increasing number of today's buyers are new to type and may not neccessarily know these things.

Yes, James. I really hope people will contribute.
And Hrant, well, I know how much hours I worked on a face to be sure it's not a mimic of an existing one. Generally I conjure an arsenal of influences and of course I never try to repeat what already exists.
At the moment I'm spending hours to refine letters while I study the relationship between their skeletal forms and the flesh I put on them. In the end, I will never come up to anyhting really close to an existing typeface enough to be a "replicate".
Also, I'm increasingly building on previous synthesis I did with other letters of my own (like the ones in unfnished works like Neoritmo or Ideal, no matter when they will come out).

I submitted all my fonts to David for both of his sites at his request and have not regretted it. Identifont shows up fairly prominently in my site referrer logs. One thing that I think is pretty funny, though, is that on the page for my Proxima Sans, under "Similar to:" it lists only Arial. I'd put that at about "10" on the irony scale.

Yes, I'd say the "similar to" and "influenced by" info could use a lot of help. It's a good resource for font viewing when a foundry's site doesn't do a decent job, though.

I just love your logo, Mark, have I ever mentioned that?
And Mostra is done with a real italian taste. Generally I dislike these faces when done by americans. I dislike Anna, P22 Il Futurismo, many other FontHaus ones on this aesthetic., etc... But maybe you are not american...

Ah, Mark, on your Arial article: honestly, I think that both Akzidenz Grotesk (its predecessor) and Arial (its parasite, as you call it) are far better than Helvetica.
Anyway I'm too partial to Univers to say anything on this.

Northern Mexican? ;-)

Claudio, check out Unica: it's the only Grotesque I like.

hhp

Claudio-- Thanks for you comments about the logo and Mostra. I must confess I was a little apprehensive about how Mostra would be received in Italy. (I'm an American of Norwegian, Swiss, and Dutch heritage.) As for Helvetica: Although the article seems to defend it, I'm not a big fan of it. I just don't dislike it as much as Arial. I might think differently about Arial if it arose from different circumstances. I do like Akzidenz a lot, and Monotype Grotesque. Univers is almost flawless, but I've always felt it is a bit cold. Hrant-- Unica, huh? I never would have guessed.

Hrant oughtta get a cut from FontHaus everytime he mentions Unica.

I thought the same thing about Univers until I started using it at work and studying it. Frutiger did an incredible work on it. Its forms may seem both too impersonal or even too characterized. It never ceases to impress me.
What I dislike of Helvetica is, as I have said before, it's flattening "uniformity", mostly in terms of widths, and some curves (like the tail of the R which is beautiful in Arial). Akzidenz is great compared to Helvetica anyway.

And I'm not sure about what I should include in my definition of "grotesques". I never thought of non-humanistic sans-serifs as "grotesque". The grotesque for me has a precise shape, series of traits. I like grotesques (like the Monotype or the Font Bureau digital versions) very, very much.
Here in Italy we don't use the term "sans-serif" because it's a definition done against the "serif" one. Aldo Novarese made almost institutional the term "lineari" (linears) and I prefer it a lot. It's more clear, one word and you differentiate from "serifs".
So for me, there are "grotesques" and "lineales". Each of them could be splitted into different categories.
The only "linear" with typographic sensibility I really like is Univers. But, in the end, I tend to like the condensed (and maybe expanded) versions of typeface.
Too much 1980s ITC on my diet, I guess.
Unica seems surely more text-conscious than Helvetica, but I should see it in extensive textsetting.

On a side note: I've received from Rudy the latest Emigre issue. The new format is very interesting also for evaluating how much you could use their recent releases in text. The best working to me are Filosofia and Vendetta. Eidetic is strange. It seems a bit too spaced, and the Italic is a bit distracting with the cursive forms Roddy added. It's very interesting anyway.
Cholla must be one of the less text-friendly faces I've ever seen. Probably the condensed is better, but it's really an hindrance when you should be getting into the text.

But why should we complain about Arial while we have such beauties as Comic Sans and Sand on our hard disk?
(okay I'm getting too "smart", I must go)

So Mark, do you smell most like Jarlsberg, Emental, or Gouda... or Velveeta?

Unica: I'm trying to like the Grotesque genre, I really am...

hhp

Ugh. I hope I don't smell like any of those.

I would die to smell like Manchego.

hhp

I think that's how it normally happens.

Is there an Identicheese site yet? I suppose we may have to wait for a more advanced user interface before something like that would become practical (the OUI--Olfactory User Interface).

>never thought of non-humanistic sans-serifs as “grotesque”.

That's one way of defining grotesk; discounting letter widths, grotesk shapes and structures are definitely non-humanist, as is the font detail - exit and entry strokes etc.

>a precise shape, series of traits.

This is very true. And that precise shape has been the subject of even more specific iterations according to different cultures. Hoeffler's Vernacular, I think its called, embodies the American interpretation of grotesk in the hands of sign makers, while German, British and French grotesk are all individual.

Here in Australia we don't have a national grotesk style; its a mixture of British and mainly American. Traditionally type founding has never been a local industry. During the hot metal era practically all type was imported, and sign painting methods favoured British style, falling into line with the dominance of British culture right up to WWII.

>“lineari” (linears)

I've always thought of sans as linear in the academic sense of the term, and this can be verified by characterising seriffed romans with stressing as 'painterly'. That's an exaggerative use, but if we say decorative types (eg: elaborate Blackletter initials) are painterly, you get the idea; sans serif types trace lines of (more or less) unvarying width, resembling sketches and cartoons - linear art - while seriffed letters paint a picture rich in abstract detail - serifs, ball ends and ink traps - especially if you extend the syndrome to 'word picture'.

Therefore 'linear'gets my vote, Claudio. I'll be using it as a key word whenever I release a linear font.

Yes, to me is clearer. It's a stonger term not depending on the word serif. If we use Linears, we could have as much subcategories as needed, like Geometric Linears (Avant Garde, Futura), Humanistic Linears (Gill Sans, Stone Sans), Industrial Linears (Bell Gothic, Bell Centennial, Trade Gothic, Franklin Gothic) and so on.
I would reserve the cathegory Grotesque to... well, Grotesques, which are more elaborate and have really a "grotesque" appearance to me (which I like). Like all the Monotype, Font Bureau or Hoefler's grotesques.
I think the best way to "define" an elastic classification is to keep an eye both on the formal attributes, traditional classes defined by typographic history, as well as given source period aesthetics. I'm toying with these ideas since (circa) 1993, when I tried to classify "history in the making" while people was saying there was no more use or sense for it.
In this sense I created certain categories like "Post-Structural" (and NOT destructural, because they implied a reorganization, even a redesign in some cases), like Dead History, Protoype, Democratica, or The Royal Family, or "Interfering", under which I list faces whose features push themselves top trouble or undermine the very structure of letters, like Caustic Biomorph, Reactor, Punten, Media Pigeons, Tension, Jesus Loves Jou, Nebulae and others.
Another more interesting class is the extension of "Geometrics" (which define the radical attempts of the 1920s and 1930s avantgardes) into "Neo-Geometrics" (like most of early Zuzana Licko, Neville Brody, Pierre di Sciullo and Max Kisman faces), where the "hardcore" geometrism is not aimed at essentiality.

I never approached seriously the matter but in the future it would be really interesting to start a thread on it on Typophile.
Although I tend to find the talk on Typophile often too distracting and "cocktail party" if you understand what I mean.
I'm not surely saying we all should stay serious and silent, but here the discourses are often more fruitful and "professional".
But unfortunately typographi.ca is mostly aimed at showcased news and interesting discoveries.

What do you think?

Besides, how would you identify Rudolf Koch's Kabel?
For me it falls in the Humanistic Lineales category. Its forms are not strictly connected to calligraphy but the treatment is careful and not brutally geometric like, say, in Avant Gard, which belong to another, more recent, time (ahh, the "needs" of advertising...)

Typeface classification and schema are the proverbial elusive subject of typography. I think that justifies starting a thread, if Typographica's editors are agreeble. We've got the underpinnings of it going here already.

>I tried to classify "history in the making" while people was saying there was no more use or sense for it.

Don't listen to those people. They think the attempts of dedicated individuals to put the objects of their passion into perspective are useless because they cannot see beyond immediate boundaries. They are stuck in their own time, lack peripheral vision, cannot think laterally; if a thing looks too difficult they give up.

Detractors would deride the idea of your proposed thread as pointless, since so many designs defy categorization; Koch's Kabel and Neuland do not rest easily in an existing box, while Democratica, Dead History et al, redefine traditional types by restructuring them. But that's no reason to give up on pinning them down; instead it emphasizes the need for new categories. Discussion among experts is a great way of doing this.

'Cocktail party', yes. The air of informality at Typophile has its purpose. An ideal atmosphere for the likes of Yves Peters and David Carson, TP is personality-driven and fun, taking the serious edge off type and opening it up for lay users. That could be a good or a bad thing. Time will tell.

>here the discourses are often more fruitful and “professional”.

The 'silly factor' at Typophile doesn't light my candle. Here we have a richness of ideas and synthesis.

>typographi.ca is mostly aimed at showcased news and interesting discoveries.

On the surface it is but the significant news items stimulate serious debate. What do SC, JLT, PK, MD think - is Typographi.ca evolving with its subject? Is there room here for formal debate and dissection of type animals?

Any forum waxes and wanes, and a forum can only be what you make it. In the past Typophile has had some of the highest discussion I've seen anywhere in these 5+ years, and there's no reason a fantastic thread can't be launched today.

There are plenty of "serious" people pretty much everywhere. Start a serious discussion where you think it's needed, and you can be sure it will get participation.

The main other factor is the interface mechanics, and Typographica is certainly one of the less powerful ones - although that allows it to develop its niche very well.

hhp

Oh, Hrant, I did not mean any way Typophile is not a serious place to discuss things. I just pointed out that the wider audience (composed of graphic designers and fans as well) could be distracting if someone with really no clue drop in.
Of course, an "outside" opinion could be even more handy (from people not stricly working in type, I mean).
Let's say both Typophile and Typographica satisfy a good portion of audience and discourses, and of course they overlap.

Maybe we could try starting a thread on these things in the near future on Typographica, and then try also on Typophile. Or vice-versa.
I'd be curious to know the opinion of Joshua, Patriking, Matthew Bardram and Stephen since they are very different individuals, and their involvement in type has an amazing spectrum of difference. The more graphic-oriented is Patric, which was very good at writing, too, as I remember from the old Thirsype website.

The world is what we make it.