My emotional “favorite” is Gill.

But when you add “demonstrates the best understanding
of the field and has excellent process?” I’d say M Carter.

BTW, have you seen Frutiger’s Devanagari?

hhp

This is an impossible question. By “impossible” I mean how can you possibly choose only one?

Hmm. I guess Matthew Carter is an excellent choice.

Does this person have to be living?

Adrian Frutiger has demonstrated great understanding, but never made a great book face. On the other hand, Gill had no extraordinary understanding of text type but made Joanna. One designer who knew what he was doing and also managed to create at least one inspired book face was Dwiggins, whose Electra synthesizes so many of the tendencies in 20thC type design: Updike’s and Morison’s love of the best transitional printing, chirographic humanism, the modernist search for a type for the age and the newly general recognition of the uses of irregularity.

Yes I’ve seen Devanagari. Its a really nice Western take on an Eastern culture. Although I know better Indian typefaces.

No, the person doesn’t have to be living. Just in this Century.

> knew what he was doing

I tend to think WAD benefited from his genial instincts more than true
understanding. For one thing he used to think extenders are superfluous!
But yes, Electra is one of most favorite faces.

> Its a really nice Western take on an Eastern culture.

But apparently not good enough for the client, who rejected it.
What good non-Latin faces has Frutiger made?

hhp

“One” doesn’t give a good picture, because different were strong in different ways. A top five to ten will be better. Also for late 20th century—the digital age, we are probably too close to it to judge reasonably. One era is 1890-1985, from the Benton pantographic punch cutter.

Morris Fuller Benton has to be among that top list, because he more than anyone created the type business for that period, and was one of the best craftsmen. So too Goudy and Zapf, creators of the most original, excellent typefaces. My late Uncle Ben Lieberman used to categorize these as ‘personal’ designers, because they put a strong individual personality into their work. Benton represents the opposite style, of being a craftsman subservient to the design. Frutiger also has to be on the list because of doing the most influential new design, his Frutiger sans. I don’t know who exactly did a lot of those faces from Monotype and Linotype, so their drawing offices would have to be also on the list. Tschichold I think would have to be on the list also not so much because of Sabon, but because of being the most influential thinker on how to use type—both in his modernist and traditionalist phases. Hence he influenced also how people thought about type design.

Obviously Matthew Carter—the contemporary designer most like Benton in his wide range and flawless craftsmanship—is going to be on everyone’s list for the latter part of the century, but I would just leave out anyone younger than Zapf and Frutiger, as their contributions are too recent for perspective.

I also adore Dwiggins’ faces, but I don’t think he was so influential. He is more influential now, I think, than ever.

Not familiar with any other non-western by Frutiger. If anyone knows please provide pics/links.

Excellent remark William.

Hrant, one does not have to have designed successful typefaces for multiple scripts to be a master of type design, or one’s choice for “favorite ” of any particular century.

Rudolf Koch gets my vote. He certainly made it into Walter Tracy’s top 5 for the 20th century, if that backs me up any ;-)

Actually, my favorite type designer tends to be the whoever’s work I happen to be pouring over at the moment. Like Tiffany says, its impossible to pick just one… who is your favorite singer of the 20th century?

I don’t know where the cutoff for “master” might be, but I think the successful design of multiple scripts (especially including those for which one lacks nativity) is certainly an exceptionally good indicator of merit in a type designer.* It’s a superb test of one’s powers of abstraction and ability to go deeper than the mere rote articulation of canned formal relationships. For example, that “3” shape in Frutiger’s Devanagari is a clear sign that there’s something seriously wrong; as Peter Lofting has remarked about that font: “You cannot chop up the curly bits.”

* Which is why I think Granjon was far superior to Garamont.

hhp

And to me Jan van Krimpen would be high
up there were it not for his vapid Greeks.

hhp

George: Adrian Frutiger has demonstrated great understanding, but never made a great book face.

I actually think Meridien is pretty darned good and sadly underused. There was a brief moment a few years ago, when I read three new books in succession that were set in Meridien, but it seems to have been a freak occurence and not indicative of wider use. Meridien requires careful printing and appropriate paper, but then so do many other types, including Dwiggin’s Electra.

I’ve looked again at Meridien, and though it is a very good type, I’m uncomfortable with the discontinuity between the structural utilitarianism of the counters and x-height and the zippy, free-wheeling finish. The personality seems both painted on and too strident for any deeply considered text.

I think you might both be right. :-)
To me Meridien is an amazing, resplendent design, definitely a text
face, but due to its vertical proportions, not strictly a book face.

hhp

I am considering Avenir as a book face even though it isn’t. The letter spacing on it is simply gorgeous and very verstaile throughout many point sizes. Futura? What Futura?

Hermann Zapf uber alles.