« Previous | Main | Next »
Making Letters With Frank Blokland
I’ve always been skeptical of the idea that pre-modern serif type can be formed from mathematical absolutes. (Albrecht Dürer’s drawings seem more novelty than instructional.) But an exercise from Frank Blokland is changing my mind.
Incidently, the angled sketching method you see was also demonstrated by another Dutchman, Erik van Blokland, at the TypeCon2003 lettering workshop and it seemed to help some students in their drawing. I, on the other hand, was beyond all help.
Read more about the effects of calligraphic strokes on lettering from Gerrit Noordzij.
Thanks to Kai Bernau of Letterlabor for making his homework sketches available.
Posted by Typographica | December 15, 2003 | LINK|
Comments
This concept by Frank Blokland is not meant for sketching type actually. It's an aid for learning calligraphy how certain shapes relate to each other. Spetsel | Dec 16, 2003 09:05 AM
Ahh, you may be right. I can almost hear the Hrant winding up to comment on calligraphy vs. type right now... Stephen Coles | Dec 16, 2003 09:17 AM
{Well, when you invoke a daemon, you invoke a daemon. There's no small-print escape clause.} The Blokland and van Blokland exercises are sophisticated short-cuts: very useful, in the limited context*. You certainly can use modularity, but what does it bring you? Only superficial Modernist visual harmony, and at the expense of true readability. It's like a one-night-stand as opposed to a living partner. * And it doesn't matter what the intent is, the context of the person receiving the idea determines its de facto application. Ergo, somebody who likes the idea of chirographic type won't care if Blokland thinks this is limited to calligraphy; he'll just think it's a great way to make type. -- BTW, the opening phrase in that GN page is this: "The white shapes that are generated by the black shapes keep the black shapes in place." That's like saying the slave bought by the rich landowner keeps him rich. But what about the slave? This contortion of thought is an attempt to make good on the GN desire to promote notan, but you really can't have a progressive relationship based on slavery and mastery. hhp
Well, after close to 15 years of type design teaching, I found that the concept, the tool behind the Blokland page is the most suitable stuff I know to teach typeform (and its seems I'm not all so far!). - A student without knowledge of that concept will take a complete year to began to understand what is a typeface (text) and how it work. - A student with that knowledge, will take a month or less to understand what is a typeface (text) and how it work. So, all others debates have no place here I think. Its just a powerful educational tool, that's it. We can call it a shortcut if you like! Jean F Porchez | Dec 16, 2003 11:52 PM
It's not an aid for learning calligraphy, Early typeface designers (punchcutters)
I have attended Frank Blokland's classes too, Hugo. It is an aid for learning calligraphy and therefore it simulates the calligraphic stroke. Spetsel | Dec 17, 2003 02:47 AM
hi. first of all thanks to mr. coles for linking to this one-hour quick-n-dirty website of mine. let me explain what this is all about. i went to the hague applying for an exchange semester and happened to stumble into frank blokland's first year class. he very nicely and patiently explained me, and a few other new students, this sketching method. it is not to be understood as a way to design tpefaces, as you, hrant, seem to imply, but merely an exercise to understand some basic principles of letterforms, as mr porchez points out. in fact, it is only one very small bit of information in the great curriculum the royal academy in the hague has to teach typeface dessign. and just so you get no opinions of frank blokland as a person who can't draw letters by hand: the sketches are my homework*, and not his work. best, * although, at the time i did this, it was still unclear whether i would be allowed for the exchange programme, which recently, i'm proud to say, i have been accepted to. so you might just see some more exercises of this kind in the future. Kai Bernau | Dec 17, 2003 03:37 AM
> A student with that knowledge, will take a month or less Unless you happen to think that chirography is a lousy foundation for type design. Then it's a shortcut which prevents you from seeing the reality on the other side of the main road, the main road going around in circles, mind you. > Early typeface designers (punchcutters) I just wish the late ones would stop already! > understand some basic principles of letterforms What I guess I'm failing to explain is that I don't think it's a basic principle. I think it's a basic fallback. A way to more easily make mainstream* type, but also a way to prevent type from progressing. * On the other hand, the one thing we should have learned by now from Emigre -not to mention Matthew Carter- is that type doesn't have to be chirographic to be "successful". "Synthetic" type design is much harder, but culturally that much more valuable. hhp
hrant, i don't think the solid foundation of understanding how handwriting works, how typography works, and how the handwriting influenced typography, is preventing type from progressing, as you put it. was that so, then people totally ignorant of the work of the historical punchcutters or the origins of the humanist latin alphabet would be our prime type designers. which they are, as far as i know, not. i very much believe that ("real") progress in ("real") design (design as in "a method to solve a given problem") is the result of careful analysis of a present state of a thing and its adaptation to a target state that better fits the (changed) needs for that thing. now one might argue that typefaces today should suit us in more ways than only in providing perfect legibility/readability* -- representational or identificational values for example. but ignoring the 500 years of humanist latin alphabets will have no good effect on that, either, because to differentiate a design, you must of course know what already exists. hrant said: maybe i got you wrong here, but do you really think that the faces of, let's say Claude Garamond are of minor cultural value?
Spetsel: I still don't see it that way... And without the necessity of reproducing
> was that so, then people totally No, because ignorance of one thing doesn't mean understanding of another (like functionality). On the other hand, it does actually mean some degree of psychological freedom, which is why some of the most interesting and insightful explorations come from "amateurs". Those aware of history are to some extent encumbered by it, and they often draw inspiration from the free-spirited amateurs! However, as much as I think knowledge is a two-edged sword, I don't think ignorance should be encouraged - at most it should occur "naturally". What needs to be encouraged is the addressing of true user needs - I feel that chirographic designers are generally concerned more with their own self-expression: artists. And history is very useful, not least in exposing past mistakes! > ("real") progress in ("real") design You know, I agree to some extent. The problem I think is the word "real" - and I often use it in a confusing way. But what is more real, satisfying immediate material needs, or long-term cultural needs? Not really sure. But I am sure that chirography does not satisfy the latter. I can't be sure, but I think Garamond was probably progressive in his time. He is not progressive now. What is progressive now? PoMo could have been, but it never grew up. I propose that sythetic type -based on functionality- is the progress we now need. -- As for "mainstream type", I guess it's what most of your peers thinks is fine. hhp
Dear Hrant, I've seen type designers that learned It's how you process the information that And by the way, Emigre' s Rudy Vanderlans About designers or type designers being
With "freaky stuff" I mean
But it's also true
hrant,
and that is exactly what this foundational exercise is about: understanding how the functionality (in this case readability/legibility used to be achieved, and how a homogenous look of the different letterforms can be created.
i think the problem is somewhere else: a relative large percentage of the students that hear these presumably history-based type drawing and type design classes will be just fine with that and take it as given and law how to create typefaces (and i don't mean that special exercise presented on my web site). only a few will question these century-old ideas and ideals and will try to progress and adapt their ideas and concepts about type. this, apart from it being a badly paid and hard job, is why only a small part of these students will be type designers.
please don't get me wrong, i don't want to smartass or break loose a flame war. it's just my way of questioning your opinion so i better understand it and can draw more information from it. i see and value the deep seas of your knowledge and your -- you must admit -- biased, but very interesting and profound opinions, and nothing would i rather than learn more from you. could you please tell us more and show us examples of what you consider more progressive, more unencumbered-by-history. i'm really curious, and i'm still not sure to understand you fully. best,
I think Bloemsma and Bilak are very progressive. And when you listen to their opinions on type, you realize it's due to their desire to think, not just create. hhp
please note that due to a relaunch of my site, you'll now find the article at
|
Post a comment.