I would say that we are in a middle of a post modern typographic trend. Seems that everyone is doing their own characters based on the topic.

I.e. check out the swedish super skilled girls behind Hjärta Smärta at http://www.woo.se/. They have done some very skilled and cool things that at least I concider post modern.
Then try to find a typeface called Found type, don't remeber who donnit but another swede (jenny mörtsell) have done a similar thing http://www.jennysportfolio.com
A third swedish girl, hey whats up with our girls!, did a very cool typeface for her graduation project. She actually had the first ones as mentors I belive. You can see an 'a' here: http://www.andyland.se/product.asp?product=125&sub=16&page=1

When it comes to the more theoretical parts maybe you should have a look at Åbäkes work? http://a.b.a.k.e.free.fr
Not so much there, but they have a very clear agenda and produces some very distinct work that often incorporates po-mo typo.

Hope I didn't missunderstand what you where looking for.

Well since some years from the 60s (or mid-80s) are passed, I guess you have to define your term of Postmodernity —— Post Modern type, to me, is a very noisy and crowded indoor space.
Shall Postmodernism reject boundaries between high and low forms of art, reject rigid genre distinctions, emphasizing pastiche, parody, bricolage, irony, and playfulness ?
Shall Postmodern art (and thought) favor reflexivity and self-consciousness, fragmentation and discontinuity (e.g. in narrative structures), ambiguity, simultaneity, and an emphasis on the destructured, decentered, dehumanized subject ?

I am really really doubt that there is or has been such a thing as postmodern type. The closest thing to postmodern type might have been the FUSE experiments but really I don't think even that was post modern. Some people think some of Johnathan Barnbrook's type is postmodern. I don't think so.

But It sounds to me like you want your homework done for you and I can't get behind that. You are not asking an informed question. You just want to be served.

To the teacher who assigned this topic: Are you serious?

Ah, forgot about kind people of Post Typography :
http://www.posttypography.com/alphabet/

Try reading through No More Rules: Postmodernism and Graphic Design by Rick Poynor. Once you figure out where postmodernism kicks in figuring out what typefaces fit in is pretty simple. At least it is until you get to stuff from the last couple of years, which are too new to be declared postmodern by historians :)

...reject rigid genre distinctions, emphasizing pastiche, parody, bricolage...

To me any poorly executed digitization of an twentieth-century revival of a historical typeface comes to mind. But then I'm not sure where to draw the line between where things are postmodern by design, or postmodern because of the environment in which they were created.

Thanks for all of the information everyone. I can't tell you how much I appreciate it. You guys are the best!

martinlofqvist, I'll definitely take a look at those sites. jpad, thanks so much for pointing me in the direction of that book. I had looked everywhere for information on Post Modern type and nothing was coming up. I had even asked another one of my design professors and they gave me a weird look.

Eben Sorkin, while I appreciate your help, I did not like the way you insinuated I wanted my homework done for me. I am a second year design student and I thought that after exhausting all of my personal textbooks, the small selection of type books at my school's library, and the internet that I could get some assistance here. No where in my question did I ask for anyone to do my assignment; I asked for direction. I thought this place would be an open, friendly place to learn about typography from people other than my professors.

Poliphilus, created by Harry Lawrence in 1923, from shots of a 1495 book.
A relatively new medium, photography, was used to mechanically appropriate the genius of a type founder working in a far older technology. A postmodern, curation-as-art methodology, with the reproduced artefact becoming a hollow simulacrum of its original self. Type revival as recontextualization.

I am sorry if I offened you. You are right I went too far.

The thing I have against this kind of assignment is that if your teacher had been able to show you what postmodern means then you would not have to take it from a book or a person that a typeface ( or song or book ) is postmodern - it would be something you could detect for yourself. And if you saw a false claim you could detect that too. But you haven't been given the idea of what Post Modern is. It's sort of unfair in a way. Or tough.

Think about it this way: Can you look at a typeface an decide for yourself if it looks Venetian, Aldine or Egypitine to you? If you study type history a little it can become pretty easy.

Look here & you will be able to:

http://typophile.com/courses/type101

However I am arguing that postmodern is not detectable in the same way. Not at all. It's not like apples & oranges it's like apples and civilizations. It is a whole different thing.

What you can already say without understanding postmodern ideas very well is 'this font seems to be the result of a sort of postmodern sentiment'. Or you could say 'here is a font using pastiche - so is that pomo?'

Thats the sort of thing which will get you further. But It isn't what you were asked to do. And won't ansswer you question very well even if it's a start.

weird looks

The reason you may have goten that look could be:

a) they don't think it exists
b) the don't think it should exist
c) they are looking for a most specific kind of question like the kind I gave eamples of above.
d) It doesn't exist
e) They might wish your other teacher would give reasonable assignments

I am not they guy to explain Pomo to you. Still, since I insulted you I will do my best to give you my take on it. I will warn you that you should take it with some salt & look around for a better explanation. And maybe read some Derida.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida

To do it I will comment on some previous posts:

Type revival as recontextualization.

This isn't really pomo. Not Caslon is a a pomo-ish title. The designer may have been influenced by pomo sentiments. But I don't know that the font is pomo.

http://www.emigre.com/EFfeature.php?di=111.

I say that because I think pastiche is not enough in itself to label a typeface as 'Pomo'. There would have to be intent.

curation-as-art methodology

Curation is not type.

But then I’m not sure where to draw the line between where things are postmodern by design, or postmodern because of the environment in which they were created.

Here the distiction should be made between the aesthetics or qualities that resulted from post modern ideas and impulses and the ideas and impulses themselves. Design cannot be Pomo but the content/narrative in a design ( magazine, greeting card, whatever) can be aesthetically reinforced by Design. This can be done by employing pastiche, rejection of genre distictions, etc.

So far I have just ben negating things. There should be a postive example as well.

I think Pomo is a little bit like Murder vs. Manslaughter. If there is intent it's Murder/Pomo. If there isn't it's maybe Pastiche or Parody or Ambiguous - but it's not Pomo. Sorry my 'postive' example is murder.

Put in less bloody terms; Pomo implies and requires either an audience that receives the intent of an author/maker, a viewer that constructs a narative on his/her own, or just an author with intent. Immediately the wole thing is complex and gets ever more complex. It's that complexity that creates a sense that ambiguity ( as opposed to modern objectivity ) is inherently inevitable.

Also, identification of something as Pomo automatically sets up narative and a triagulation of the labeler, the object in question, and the maker or author - even if the maker is labeler.

So; no narrative - no Pomo.

Stories have narratives. Films may have them. Art can (or not).

But Type does not.

A promotion of type could be postmodern. But they type cannot be. It's too simple a thing.

Here is one last example: Iron or even Iron compounds are not an organism. But Iron or Iron compounds can be in an organism. Pomo is complex like an organism. Type is simple like Iron compounds. You wouldn't ask if a compund of Iron had Ape-like qualities would you? But You need Iron to make Apes.

Again, sorry if I irked you. Hopefully this is of some help.

BTW: the post modern thing to do now would be to ask your teacher why he/she gave you this assignment and what the intent of it was. And then to deconstruct that intent, to spectulate on the way in which the assignment related to the history of the teacher's life, and to indicate the subjective value the assignment had for you while acknowleging that your opinion is not well informed enough, while also admitting that the narritive you are constructing cannot help but be constructed - however unobjective it may be.

Cut-and-paste is a technique which lends itself to postmodernism. Two iconic post-modern faces of the grunge/deconstruction era are Dead History and Fudoni. Both are pointed mash-ups, even named to draw attention to their critical raison d'être.

Eben, thanks for the apology and the help. I had a feeling Post Modern was going to be a little complicated. I agree that I hate this sort of assignment, too, but I’m stuck doing them. I think she feels the need to pile on more work.

During my course, we had studied the usual type classifications like Old Style, Transitional, etc., but never once did my professor mention Post Modern as a classification in any of our lectures. This was part of a very, very long essay for the end of the semester, supposedly hitting on all of the important things we had gone over. But it was never covered in any form so it was a bit…odd.

The analogies helped a lot. I was looking through one of the books recommended to me on here and I saw that it had all sorts of typefaces in it—from all different classifications, making it impossible to pin down one specific typeface, year, characteristic, etc. Your explanation made it clearer.

Hahah…you have me half-tempted to ask my professor why she gave us the assignment, deconstruct it, and write her a note. She’ll probably just glare at me.

Let her glare. Maybe you can save a whole class! ;-)

Anyway. I am glad to be of help.

I do want to be clear that I am absolutely sympathetic to an educator wanting to touch on this topic in some way - especially if they want or need to appear current at the institution where they are teaching. But I would suggest that she talk about the influence of Pomo thinking, attitudes and culture on graphic design and type rather than refer vaguely to Pomo itself which is a bit of an endless pit if you approach it with any seriousness at all.
Pomo visual tropes* are plentiful; so stringing together examples of Pomo influence is not hard.

* ( a visual trope is a familiar and repeated symbol, meme, theme, motif, style, character or thing permeating visual culture. 'Trope' is a word adapted from literary criticism and pretty indespensable for really talking about Pomo.)

lends itself to postmodernism

Or I might say 'lends itself to post modern flavor of expression'; but yes.

On the other hand cut & paste also let itself to Dada art on the one hand and to Decoupage a form of decoration on the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoupage

Cutting & pasting or other forms of obviously artificial juxtoposion in Pomo oriented works is there to point out the presence, manipulation, provisionality, and artificiality of narrative.

See also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

This topic has merit, but personally I have trouble getting over the discomfort of associating the hooliganism of the 90s with PoMo. I see so much amazing potential in PoMo type, but so very little of what most people claim is PoMo type is actually worth mentioning, much less admiring.

hhp

By all means ask your teacher why she gave the assignment - or whatever else you want to ask her. Point being that teachers are not omniscient quasi-deities, but resources and guides to be engaged. (This seems very obvious to me now, but unfortunately took me a long time to realize.)

Also, you may not like the assignment or think she's piling on work, but just in this thread I've learned a lot and the discussion is fascinating. Try embracing the assignment and making it your own, instead of trying to figure out exactly what a teacher wants. You will probably learn more and remember it longer. Good luck and post a little summary of what you learned if you have the time.

Oh, and watch Helvetica. I just saw it last night and it's great.
=)

> teachers are not omniscient quasi-deities

In fact the best teacher is an eternal student.

hhp

I'd say Wyeth Hansen's Didon't is postmodern:
http://www.wyethhansen.com/files/type_3.html

In school I drew a face that was a hybrid of Futura and Clarendon. It's working name was Futarendon. This was before celebrity couple portmanteaus were quite so popular, and I ended up calling it Ferdinand: http://www.isaactobin.com/typefaces.html

This topic has merit, but personally I have trouble getting over the discomfort of associating the hooliganism of the 90s with PoMo. I see so much amazing potential in PoMo type, but so very little of what most people claim is PoMo type is actually worth mentioning, much less admiring.

So write something on the subject. PoMo gets distilled down to 90s rebellion and Emigre fonts because so much was written about that era—get more stuff out there for people to read and think about.

LettError's "Twin" typeface morphs under the influence of a datastream, such as meterological info--wind direction/speed or temperature.

> So write something on the subject.

You mean something coherent and formal...
Man, what a drag. :-)

hhp

The problem with the assignment was that she didn't mention Pomo once in class and then when I had went to the books I found nothing. I even went to talk with upperclassmen and they had the same issue with the question she had asked. The help that's been given here has been so fantastic and I really can’t thank you all enough. ☺ Pomo's pretty confusing and the deeper you get into I think the more confusing it gets, but I kept going back to that murder v. manslaughter analogy--it stuck probably because it was bloody.

Problem with my professor is she’s very intimidating and isn’t afraid to tear your design to pieces. She’s made a few of the people in my class actually cry. I guess she just takes some getting used to; she’s only got our best interests at heart.

isaactobin-Your typeface is wicked awesome! I love the look of it. One of these days I’ll get figure out how to design my own typeface.

>Oh, and watch Helvetica. I just saw it last night and it’s great.

I saw it at Massart a few weeks ago and thought the movie was really interesting. I didn't realize that it was EVERYWHERE. As a bonus, Helvetica's the typeface I have to do a poster and essay on. The movie came at a perfect time.

You could impress your teacher by explaining the two ways that Helvetica sucks: it's overused; and it's spaced too tight. Spiekermann alludes to the latter -in his own special way- in the movie when he says that if you're thick in the middle you shouldn't wear tight shirts. Speaking of shirts, you could wear this during your class(es): http://typophile.com/node/33285

hhp

Problem with my professor is she’s very intimidating and isn’t afraid to tear your design to pieces. She’s made a few of the people in my class actually cry. I guess she just takes some getting used to; she’s only got our best interests at heart.

I wish my school had teachers like that. I actually got flak from a teacher for making other students cry during classes.

Since Hrant has demured the task of writing something coherent & formal ( and I did too actually...) I asked a friendf of mine whose views of these things I respect and this is what he wrote to me:

" Well...here's the short version of "postmodern" literary theory, as I understand it. Others might suggest otherwise:

1. Postmodernism, before the 1950s, was primarily a mode of description for certain kinds of appropriative forms.
2. At some point, in the 1960s and 1970s, it works its way into both literarure and literary criticism as a self-aware attitude. From my point of view, it is more substantial in literature as an "artistic" development--Borges, Calvino, Barth. Novelists like Barth theorize it into things like "The literature of exhaustion". In philosophy, there are related-but-quite different developments, like "The Social Construction of Reality", etc.
3. In the 1960s and 1970s, poststructuralist literary theory (Derrida, etc) makes its way through the intelligentsia. This is a separate development from postmodernism,. as it is a specific reaction to french structuralist theory. It is "relativizing", but doesn't particularly relate to developments in the arts, or their modes--there is a certain kind of intellectual sympathy/interaction. From the point of view of postmodern theorists, I suppose, it might itself be considered a kind of development of postmodernism, if you are a postmodern theorist..
4. In the late 1970s, postmodern philosophy becomes a broader, more articulated idea. Lyotard writes "The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge". Rorty writes "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature". Postmodernism is articulated into a more general description of contemporary thought and knowledge--suspicion of metanarrative, etc.
5. In the 1980s, "postmodern" and "poststructuralism" become catchwords for undergrads everywhere, like ourselves, and often become conflated or generalized into relativized relationships to knowledge.
6. Eventually, it becomes a kind of cultural catchword--Republicans mistake it for "relativism". Everything self-conscious in the arts becomes "postmodern". People get fed up and stop using the term.

You are probably right that a font is not "Postmodern" in the same way that a Calvino novel is postmodern, and also right that that might have been one of the most interesting moments in postmodernism, or the most useful phase. As far as architecture goes, you may also be right, since a piece of architecture is fundamentally a kind of aesthetic object as well as a functional one that has things fonts do not--like a physical context. If you build a modern building in an old neighborhood with certain kinds of self-conscious allusion to the older forms of architecture surrounding it, that may be postmodernism. But a font might be more like a construction material--or not exactly, but it in itself is mostly a form/object which can be put into different contexts.

I think the bigger question has to do with, as you say, technique, which of course is not "postmodern"--dada is a good example--for that matter, 18th c novels, etc. That's the problem with step 5, in the 1980s. I wish people would use the phrase "self-conscious" or "self-allusive" when they just mean self-conscious, instead of invoking a confusing intellectual lineage every time. This is especially a problem since its original uses are real developments in intellectual history. Also, often people really mean "modernist", which as you say used all of those techniques and more--no one is more self-conscious/pastiche-using than Dadaists, Surrealists, Theater of the Absurd-ists, Woolf, Joyce, Godard, etc. etc. One might say that postmodernism was a kind of shift in ideology that stripped modernism of its idealist/elitist project, but is still basically modernist in technique. In a way, what people mean by postmodernism is a kind of popularization of modernist technique.

Oh well..."

Enjoy! Or Not.

You could impress your teacher by explaining the two ways that Helvetica sucks: it’s overused; and it’s spaced too tight.

You might want to pass on that advice; any teacher worth his or her salt would probably point out that ubiquity does not imply lack of quality, and that spacing preferences are relative which is why tracking can be applied via text styles.

> ubiquity does not imply lack of quality

In terms of "inherent" quality the opposite is generally true. But in terms of contextual quality, when a font is used for everything from soup to sex to septic tanks it becomes too diluted to use for anything effectively. Contrary to what some people claim, it's not that it becomes neutral, it's that it becomes confused, hence unreliable. Think of Trajan, poor Trajan.

> spacing preferences are relative

Not when it comes to reading.
When it comes to delivering good notan a font's various attributes have to be in balance. Helvetica's vertical proportions, color and spacing are each optimal for different types of settings. It. Is. Badly. Made.

> tracking can be applied

Tracking ruins the spacing of "boundary condition" glyphs,
most famously the right side of the "r". Tracking is for brutes.

--

But there is a good reason to pass on my advice: chances are your teacher, being a graphic designer and not a type designer, really has no idea how (or even that) Helvetica sucks, and might react badly.

hhp

Robert Bringhurst has a certain notion of the postmodern in mind, in his Elements of Typographic Style: "frequent parody of Neoclassical, Romantic or Baroque form; rationalist or variable axis; sharply modelled serifs and terminals; moderate aperture" (p. 15). Check his book's index for examples (Photina, Quadraat, Nofret come to mind).

Broadly construed, anything 'PostScript' is, in a sense, 'postmodern' (see Bruce Mau, Life Style). More specifically: post-Fontographer...?

The following web page page cites examples of what could properly be called 'postmodern' faces: http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/the-digital-past-when-typefaces-were-exp...

ffetish

Brilliant.

Gerald

Hi, Jackie, coming in late to this thread... I'm with Eben when he says it's not like apples and oranges.

A good, short read on the differences between modern vs. postmodern design can be found in The Bauhaus Ideal, Then and Now, by William Smock.

...she’s very intimidating and isn’t afraid to tear your design to pieces.

When I was in school, I was told that teachers do this so that you don't get too attached to your design... Also so that you can learn to handle rejection -- just wait until a client tells you s/he doesn't like your proposal. :-)

Last but not least... The book Design Writing Research, by Ellen Lupton and J. Abbott Miller, has a great essay, "Laws of the Letter," in which they apply poststructuralist analysis to the history of typeface designs... I think you will find some useful concepts there. Also, Ellen Lupton adapted and rewrote that essay for her more recent Thinking with Type, in case you can't locate the older book.

We've all just plunked any new type into a "post-modern" group. I guess what I'm saying is it's just not Black and white anymore with a few types crossing the border of different styles, it's a whole lotta mix and matchin'.

As Bringhurst said: it's a parody of neoclassical, Romantic or Baroque form.

To me mixing cannot produce a true new category. And "parody" is an insult to the true promise of PoMo. As for Bringhurst, he's good at a lot of things, but seeing future possibilities is not one of them; and that's why his classification system is so deathly static.

hhp

it’s just not Black and white anymore

None of it ever was. And in fact when I posted my friend's long analysis I was interested in showing that pomo has in fact meant many things over time. You can pick from a series of definitions of you want. How is that for shades of grey?

Joseph, the other thing your post suggests is that type has existed in neat catagories up until recently. This is also a mistake. To be sure you can talk about how 'aldine' a type is or not but it isn't a border. It's hazy too. Less than pomo for sure but hazy none the less.

But the real point I wanted to make was that Pomo isn't really that descriptive a term for type. It isn't that useful. It's closer to spin - or hype. A description that gets closer to what is going on like 'parody' or 'pastitche' or whatever is actually helpful. Saying 'Pomo' about type is as much or more an assertion about the state of the maker mind as it is about the type. Pomo is scattershot & weak as a descriptor.

I am willing to climb down a bit and admit that saying pomo about type is might be okay if you are a graphic designer or a memeber of the public. I am sure there are contexts in which that is going to be a useful way of describing work. I would prefer it is they said type that supports a Pomo direction or something but it isn't worth the arguement. Talking about type isn't easy and they should be given some slack.

On the other hand, if I have a class I want my teacher to teach something that can use intellectually or practically. That is why I say that for somebody involved in type as a type designer or a teacher; using Pomo as a serious description amounts in intellectual sloth or laziness.

Nice pity post Hrant!

"using Pomo as a serious description amounts in intellectual sloth or laziness."

Well, I wouldn't level that charge at Robert Bringhurst. Here are a few pithy extracts from pp135-36 of v2.5 of his book:

ELEGIAC POSTMODERNISM:

"Postmodern letterforms ... frequently recycle and revise Neoclassical, Romantic and other premodern forms. At their best, they do so with an engaging lightness of touch and a fine sense of humor. Postmodern art is for the most part highly self-conscious, but devoutly unserious...."

GEOMETRIC POSTMODERNISM:

"Some postmodern faces are highly geometric. Like their predecessors the Geometric Modernist faces, they are usually slab-serifed or unserifed, but often they exist in both varieties at once or are hybrids of the two. They are rarely, it seems, based on the pure and simple line and circle, but almost always on more mannered, often asymmetric forms. And like other Postmodern types, they are rich with nostalgia for something pre-modern. Many of these faces are indebted to older industrial letterforms, including typewriter faces and the ubiquitous factory folk-art of North American highway signs. They recycle not Romantic and Neoclassical but Realist ideas...."

"Postmodern art, like Neoclassical art, is above all an art of the surface: an art of reflections rather than visions. It has thrived in the depthless world of high-speed offset printing and digital design, where modernism starves. But the world of the scribes, in which the craft of type design is rooted, was a depthless world too. It was the world of the Gothic painters, in which everything is present in one plane...."

And this from Bruce Mau's fabulous catalogue of "Postmodern" culture (although I doubt that he uses the "P" word):

"There is no longer any distinction between text and non-text, image and non-image. The entire surface is now described in one language. Everything is now image. With [PostScript] Adobe ushered in an entirely new aesthetic and a new model of 'thinking the page' that will change the way typography itself is conceived." (Life Style, p. 65)

So, perhaps looking at the technologies of so-called 'postmodernity' (Macintosh, PostScript, Fontographer, Internet, etc.) would allow the cultivation of a valid meaning for the term 'postmodern type'.

Inevitably, letterforms are always going to refer to something other than themselves (i.e., alphabets). Experiment: try and decipher John Cage's '62 Mesostics for Merce Cunningham,' scattered throughout his book _M_. (Find specimens here: http://www.ubu.com/historical/cage/index.html). Is Cage's use of Letraset in these musical compositions still 'typography'? This would be another way of approaching the question of 'postmodern type'.

Bringhurst & 'Postmodern letterforms'

At the time when that was written saying postpodern was very fashionable and there was a great deal of confusion about how best to describe what was happening and how to judge it. It was also imperitive that what was happening be addresed in some way. I think if you read what he wrote there he was trying to make a bridge for his readers and what he was building to had to have been hazy in his own esitmation. No wonder hand waving was employed! What other choice did he have? Also, the making of type & the use of type were coming back together which was a case PoMo style classification breaking. So I am not willing to condemn him for having put it that way - especially in that historical context. But I do think with 20/20 hindsight there are now better, more complex, more accurate & more useful constructions that can & should be employed. Also, if you read his "The Solid Form Of Language" you will see that this hand waving is atypical. In general his work is far more specific and grounded. And finally, there is no point in worshiping at the shrine of Bringhurst no matter how much you respect him - which I do in a big big way. So don't think you can cow me into backing down by invoking Bringhurst.

There is no longer any distinction between text and non-text, image and non-image.

On the surface of it ( & in the era of Google) this is silly. Text is king because it is searchable. And even the power of the Image is enhanced with the use of tags. Maybe because the quote you have there is short I am not getting what he is after. And this sentence in particular seems to me crafted to sell books via excitement rather than as an excercise in creating greater clarity. I think Bruce is as much an entertainer as he is a theoretician. I am not slaging off him for that, but I am saying look at the source & be critical of it. And again while Bruce Mau is a lot of fun, and thoughful & provocative - much as I respect him, I don't think he has a corner on truth.

So, perhaps looking at the technologies of so-called ‘postmodernity’ (Macintosh, PostScript, Fontographer, Internet, etc.) would allow the cultivation of a valid meaning for the term ‘postmodern type’.

Maybe you would like to explain what you mean & stop simply waving your hands. Conflation is not a helpful way of thinking - especially about this.

For example, re: John Cage etc: Typography and Type design are differnet things.

- Certainly he is using type so we can agree it's typography.
- Is he designing a type face? No. He is using many of them. So there is no PoMo type there. There may be a use of type that supports a PoMo intent. They are not the same thing.
- There may also be a PoMo peice using type in ways that support a pomo intent. Again, not quite the same thing.
- A typeface based on this work would also not be Pomo for the reasons I have given before.

If you are going to use the term Pomo with success get out you have to start making distinctions. With distictions comes relationships and with the investigation of relationships you could build to PoMo. And for the sake of being repetitive : A typeface on it's own does not contain a rich enough body of relationships to be PoMo in and of itself.

As soon as somebody can make an arguement that is considered and convincing I will back down. I would even like that. But so far nobody has. Also, saying that sombody called something PoMo at one point or another doesn't make it so and isn't the basis for a debate.

Hrant I llike your logo-ized way of typing PoMo so I stole it.

>> "There is no longer any distinction between
>> text and non-text, image and non-image."

Hogwash.

hhp

"So don’t think you can cow me into backing down by invoking Bringhurst."

Eben, you've taken my post completely the wrong way, since I wasn't responding to your comments but, rather, merely trying to contribute further to the forum topic. I invoked Bringhurst not for the purposes of worship or for bullying, but simply because his is one of the very few books on type that I happen to have at my disposal. Ditto Mau -- who as an 'entertainer' playing with 'surfaces', goes beyond a theory of postmodernism and into its actual practice. Within my own field of expertise (literature) postmodernism was hardly very exciting or trendy from 1992-2002, when Bringhurst wrote and revised his book (v.2.5 which I quoted from). Indeed, Ihab Hassan, a prominent literary theorist, proclaimed the 'death' of postmodernism in 1990 -- around the same time something we could (but won't)agree to call 'postmodern type' was being born.

As for making distinctions: this is precisely Bringhurst's method, differentiating postmodernism from modernism, 'elegiac' from 'geometric' postmodernism, etc. They're unstable and problematic categories, to be sure, but no more so than in other fields (literary theory for example).

Granted, postmodern typeface and postmodern typography need to be distinguished (I was evidently thinking somewhat like a rhizome in my previous post). For the record, though, Cage is in fact a de facto typographer, ever since his handwriting was digitized and fontified. In homage, P22Cage even includes a 'Silence' font - the definitive postmodernist typographical gesture? I wonder, has 'Silence' ever been used by a designer?

A couple of salient points mentioned by Bringhurst -- playfulness, hybridity, nostalgia, pastiche and recycling -- allude to theories of postmodernism developed in other fields. I think they reliably inform a working definition of postmodern type. They are starting points -- at least, that's my rationale for posting them -- from which theoretical statements might eventually be formulated. Or not, as the case may be.

"Maybe you would like to explain what you mean & stop simply waving your hands. Conflation is not a helpful way of thinking - especially about this."

Please don't get me wrong: hand-waving was hardly my intention. Since you make that criticism in relation to my comments on technology, let me cite Mau once more:

"If we look closely at the history of typography, it's principally a history of evolving typographic production techniques. The forms are in fact inseparable from the ways in which they were produced. The same will apply to PostScript. The consequences remain to be seen."

That's the context for Mau's remarks I quoted previously: the "principal innovation [of PostScript] was the invention of a 'page description language' used to describe any point on the surface, whether it was text or image." If text and image are not yet one and the same thing, they are well on the way to becoming so. That, at least, is Mau's conjecture. Technologies such as OCR and image-tagging do tend to blur the boundary somewhat.

'. . .' or ffetish.

Thanks for making your arguements clearer. Sorry if I got shrill there.

I will respond as soon as I can.

Eben: I appreciate that. You've certainly provided ample food for thought. For example, it strikes me that what Cage achieves in his graphic mesostics at the level of the page is analogous to that which a postmodern typeface would achieve at the level of the font: i.e., hybridity, pastiche, playfulness, etc. -- even (if only rarely) at the expense of legibility itself (or in the case of Cage's mesostics, grammar and syntax). Cage's mesostics exemplify a kind of 'visual poetics' which have often been associated with the initial, more creative and experimental phase of postmodern writing. The arrangement of text as visual image dominates even theoretical writings on postmodernism, such as Hassan's The Postmodern Turn. But unlike concrete poetry, etc., Cage's mesostics and other writings (Mureau, Empty Words) deliberately defy the imperative to communicate a syntactic message. I doubt whether typography could ever be so experimental as to completely disavow its conventional raison d'etre (the result would be the "Silence" font -- a blank specimen page -- or sheer noise; in any case, something other than typography as traditionally conceived).

Cage's is of course not the only literary aesthetic to qualify as 'postmodern.' Consider Thomas Pynchon's novels as a contrast. Mason & Dixon, a weighty historical novel written in parody of eighteenth-century style (although with plenty of historical anomalies) is set in a period typeface (Pynchon scholars have seized on the ebullient ampersand that adorns the book's jacket). This "putting on the costume" (and indeed, "parading") of past styles is also a feature of postmodernist literary aesthetics. Arguably, it comprises a more complex relationship than that which might be discerned in such typefaces as NotCaslon or DeadHistory. But the same principle -- reviving historical styles in order to comment on them, and our lingering attachments to them; usually critically -- seems to inform both projects.

Just a couple of random thoughts to throw into the mix.

Okay I am back.

You said:

goes beyond a theory of postmodernism and into its actual practice

So you saaaay. But what do you mean? I mean I can say I can fly to the moon. But what would convince you? Admittedly I need less proof re: Mau's practice but I would like some sort of specificity or I will be forced to say 'waving hands' again. I am not saying he isn't or doesn't but it would help if you let us know what your standards are. Don't you think so too?

Within my own field of expertise (literature) postmodernism was hardly very exciting or trendy from 1992-2002, when Bringhurst wrote and revised his book

Maybe so, but within graphic design PoMo was hitting big by the time 1992 rolled around and stopped being trendy maybe 5-7 years later. And who was Bringhurst writing for? Not a Lit or Theory audience. No, clearly a graphic design oriented audience. So I contend Bringhurst had motive. You can't really use Lit Crit as guide here. I mean, how much sense would that make?

They’re unstable and problematic categories, to be sure, but no more so than in other fields

I think it would be good if you expanded on this. Even if you think PoMo is a problematic or iffy adventure; it doesn't preclude describing what you you think is essential or descriptive or better still distictive from other ( especially related ) ways of looking at the world.

That's my core thesis here. I don't see anything in suposedly PoMo type that would not be at home in Dada or some other period that shared 'techniques'. Is there a technique that is unique to Pomo? That would be start at least.

But even if you can name one or even 100; PoMo isn't just made from one or more approved processi. It isn't just a new & improved Dada 2.0 with 2 new techniques! I am saying PoMo is different & worth talking about because it goes beyond technique, and aesthetics. Actually, Dada did too. But back to the point: Type as a vessel isn't able to carry that distictiveness- mostly because Type on it's own has no narrative. It can play a part in a narrative. But it does not contain one in the way that a Pynchon's 'Mason & Dixon' ( that bit about the ketchap was really fun wasn't it!) or Calvino's 'If on a Winter Night a Traveler' does. Or a Cage poem or Mau essay *might*.

In the case of Pynchon & Calvino you can point to the Narrative acknowledging itself as a narrative. That wasn't new exactly. 18th century lit such as Montesquieu, "Lettres persanes", or Henry Fielding's "Tom Jones", or Laurence Sterne's "Tristram Shandy"... did that too which is why Pynchon was keen on revisting the past. And he isn't the only one. Jeanette Winterson & Rushdie have been there too. Still there is something in Pynchon's book which is Postmodern not 18th century. Can you put your finger on it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metafiction

If you can; can you locate it in a typeface *itself*?

If text and image are not yet one and the same thing, they are well on the way to becoming so.

I have already shown one way in which this is not so. Mau is blurring what is actually complex & rich and - possibly postmodern. He is not getting at what happening but waving hands. It's entertaining but not enlightening. It's not that it's all becomeing one mushy image gruel. It's not a case of becoming Textimage or Imagetext. It's text in images. And images of text. And XML. And RSS. And they are all specific. Distinct and in a web of complex relationships. So it's not all becomeing the same thing at all. In fact the opposite. It's a case of more different but also related & interrelated than ever.

I think your best hope for defining some kind of type as PoMo in a really convincing way would be to draw a definition of Pomo outside it's most complex periods : Lit & Theory; and find something distictive there. I am not sayng it can't be done. Just that nobody has done it so far.

The other model you could use is to say, this period if different. This type was made during this period. It has features which are typical of type from the period. Maybe it was notorious/famous or influential. All of which amounts to: It's periodicity and noteworthiness makes it 'Pomo'. I say that's a poor definition but if you want it you can have it. I only ask that you cop to buying that definition if that's they one you are using.

The 1st model is harder. The 2nd model is easy. But in either case: confess what standards you are using.

I doubt whether typography could ever be so experimental as to completely disavow its conventional raison d’etre.

Yes, it is absolutely neccesary that the type carry significant amounts of 'past style' or it will not be recognized as type and will not work and is there fore not type. I mean you could say that all type has been postmodern from the beginning of time because it carries past styles. But that's not a useful or accurate thing to say. You agree - correct?

a feature of postmodernist literary aesthetics

Now we are getting somewhere 'a feature' is right. A feature does not rate as equivalent to an aesthetic. And moreover I have been busy saying that PoMo is essentially beyond Aeshetics too. So showing a feature is not enough. Not by a a long shot. That is to say, I am saying PoMo cannot be defined by aesthetics alone. You can disagree. But say so.

And finally

reviving historical styles in order to comment on them, and our lingering attachments to them; usually critically — seems to inform both projects.

This was your best point I think. You are saying; if I get you; "it's not the same, but it has the same spirit". That really works as long as you don't take things apart and examine the bits. I cannot find the part of NotCaslon & DeadHistory that comments. They do repurpose historical forms. And in a newish way. But repurposing has no point of view in and of itself. It is a technique without a perspective so it isn't 'critical'. Ceratinly commenting; depending on what is said; might be PoMo. The intent lies with the Authors in the case of Type because Type cannot reveal intent in the way that Art, Film, Narrative or I would even argue Architecture can.

Teach is right on with wanting specific faces, characteristics, and dates.
That way you have to look and think about what you're seeing. Having a variety of "finds" by students will make for interesting discussion.

It's possible to describe typefaces from a number of different perspectives, which is perhaps a Post-modern idea. Typespeak and Techspeak are de rigueur, but Artspeak has some relevance to post-modern designs -- however, you will have to decide how much of the irony is po-faced, piss-taking, or both.

Literally and playfully Post-modern, Artefact (1999) deconstructs the Modern (Didone) class of 19th century types to question the conventions of stress inherited from earlier, chirographically-informed types, governing the acceptability of which strokes are thin, and which thick. Rephrasing the Didone vocabulary, Artefact generates a revisionist colour of corroded notan.

That "artefact" is nice (except for the "t"). Mostly it's just removing thick parts though, and not adding any. So I would call it halfway PoMo, as if it's shying away from going all out.

BTW, that language sounds vaguely familiar... ;-)
And of course it's much newer than that release date!

hhp

Mostly it’s just removing thick parts

Yes, I stopped short of thickening horizontals. And I drew it, with adjustments for balance, rather than using cut and paste, so it's true I didn't go all out. The criticism I have always made of my own post-modern work is that I compromise it by relying so much on traditional drawing aesthetics to make it look pleasing to the eye, well, my eye anyway.

There's a mid 19th century face, can't remember the name, Italian something or other, that completely rotates stress through 90 degrees. So, was that kind of thing purely a formal exercise, or just how knowingly post-modern (Eben's criterion of intent) was it? Does it matter whether the intent is literally articulated as such by the author/designer, or is the articulation non-linguistic, in the work itself? How important is the artist's statement, or should we just leave it to critics to discern and impart intent?

much newer than that release date!

Here's how I blurbed it in on release (Shinntype Specimen Booklet #1, Nov. 1999):
"A systematic, precisely finished deconstruction of the late nineteenth century modern genre."

Only later did I discover notan...

Italian Fat Face.

hhp

Yes, I was wondering where the quote could come from. I assumed since it was not cited that it was Nick speaking in a faux authoritative italicized voice thus critiquing the underlying assumption I have made that we could or should define PoMo one way or the other. After all are there not multiple perspectives? Why take a single definition to (a modern attitude surely...) to the PoMo? Of course I don't see it that way but that's okay. Still, nice job of taking the part on Nick!

It’s possible to describe typefaces from a number of different perspectives, which is perhaps a Post-modern idea. Is that idea encoded in your sample face? If a type face seems to you to be referencing a idea is that enough? Or is this a case of litteral visual deconstruction ( a technique ) minus a PoMo intent. What is there in the font itself that would let you decide?

When reading about revivals I have often read criticism of the the idea that it's possible or even desirable to imagine what the type designer was thinking based on study of their type. So far I agree with the critique and that leads me to think there is nothing in the font itself ( leaving interviews & critiques of the font out of it ) to suggest intent. What do you say about that? How does that relate to our arguement?

have to look and think about what you’re seeing
I am all for that. I just think it's more helpful to say 'type from the post modern period in design' rather that 'PoMo type'. I know it's a subtle distinction but worth making especially in an academic context where you are meant to be looking and thinking about what you’re seeing. Also, students will have a better shot of actually finding some examples because the won't be wasting time trying to put round pegs in square holes. Or chasing an 'essence' of PoMo which would be a Romantic sort of idea I think...

my own post-modern work

You see I am absolutely willing to call that typeface part of your post modern work. Why? Because you, Nick are a referenced. There is a web relationships there that sustains the claim. The font left on it's own; seen perhaps 1000 years from now in the abscence of information about you will not be able to sustain the same claim. Calvino's "if on a winter's night" will. It's encoded in the thing itself.

Actually, One VERY quick way to solve for this problem might be to include a suitable statement in the font's Notes/copyright info section.

the post modern period

The distinction must be made between the idea as a principle and as historical movement.
That stems from the Post-modern understanding of modernism, eg "modernity's awareness of itself as modern announces merely the empty flow of time itself' (Pinkney). Or, "modernity can only define itself in terms of a temporal break with an organic past, but it is a break that has always already occurred no matter which moment one chooses as its starting point." (Kantaris).

So Italian Fat Face is not part of the Post-modern era, but may still be a post-modern type design.

For what it's worth, these would appear to be quite distinct labelling terms (if not downright misnomers):

1. postmodernism -- a self-conscious aesthetic/anti-aesthetic movement in literature and the arts

2. postmodernity -- a periodizing term the inaugural date of which varies by discipline: ca. 1945 in Hassan's account of American literature; ca. 1972 in Jencks's account of architecture. As for typography, Mau would probably settle somewhere mid-1980s, while others might prefer a date of ca. 1990 (Emigre, et al.). Note however that 'postmodernism' was occasionally used in the 1930s, and even as early as the late-19th century (see Nicholas Zurbrugg's book _The Parameters of Postmodernism_ for details).

Eben: 'postmodern ... intent' would appear to be a contradiction in terms, insofar as the example of Cage is concerned. Part and parcel of the postmodern condition would seem to be the relinquishment of an author's control over the 'meaning' of his/her text, and analogously, of a typographer's control over the use and interpretation of his/her typeface; although arguably, that disavowal of intention discloses -- yes, paradoxically -- merely another kind of intention, one that responds to the conditions of postmodernity (immanence + indeterminacy, or indetermanence, as Hassan quipped).

Speaking of Cage's preference for non-intentionality, an _I Ching_ approach to typeface design is remotely conceivable. Just as Cage decided which parameters of a composition would be determined by chance operations, so too might a type designer subject the various parameters of each letterform in the alphabet to a series of chance operations. Parameters such as 'ascender height,' 'bowl width' or 'stroke direction' could easily be modulated at random, ostensibly free of the designer's intention or aesthetic preference. That, for me, would constitute one of many examples of a 'postmodern typography.'

Nick: I appreciate the fact that an actual type designer has contributed to this topic! Jeff Keedy is practically the only other typeface designer that I know of who uses the term 'postmodern' to describe what they do. For want of a better term, perhaps?

"Part and parcel of the postmodern condition would seem to be the relinquishment of an author’s control over the ‘meaning’ of his/her text"

You are not making sense here I am afraid. A post modern intent would consist of relinquishment of an author’s idea of an exclusive relationship. This does not in any way mean that they can't have 'intent' or be aware of their own purpose/s as they contruct a frame which they know must inevitably embrace multiple interpretations/meanings.

So far I have just described a PoMo attitude to doing the work. The distiction you are not getting so far I think is between that & the embedding of some sort of trace of an awareness of relationships and perhaps of liminality in the work itself.

Re: the 1st term; I agee it is distinct. I think your definition is too short, and also too restrictive. The notion of an anti-aethetic aesthetic being 'neccesary' to PoMo isn't accurate. What going on on is that the aesthetic as a primary urge is left to one side. However, the aesthetic ( meaning pleasing ) is not forbidden in the postmodern.

Re: the 2nd term; as I pointed out ealier Historical periodicity is a poor way of defining a thing mostly because it's not very strong, specific or useful. I do agree that the phrase itself is distinct. I don't think we will find it useful to pusue because it is too vague a term.

Re: Ramdomness as a feature of PoMo; the FUSE projects and other generated type, especially the work of Letterror http://www.letterror.com/catalog/robot/index.html seem to meet your criteria already.

Any PoMo available in the OpenType format yet? :—)

Gerald

I am working on it. It seems there is a professor who wants some. Supply & demand don't you know...

Actually I think it would be interesting to hear what cultural products ( if any ) you feel make especially good or effective use of PoMo. That might be a better direction for the thread now.

I have said Italo Calvino's book 'If on a winters night a traveller', 'ffetish' has invoked the works of Cage. What do you guys think? I would add two more myself: Cabaret Voltaire, and Underworld ( music ).

Speaking of PoMo type, I have a related question to throw around in here.

I am reworking a project from school for my portfolio about post-modernist point of view/perspectives from Massimo Vignelli, Jonathan Barnbook, Denise Gonzalez Crisp (professsor at North Carolina SU, and Lorraine Wild (of Green Dragon Office). The book is supposed to be a comparative dialog, with all essays running on the same spreads, 1 essay from each designer, with text reacting with one another depending on the current dialog.

One of my problems is (has been) choosing typefaces that represent each point of view (if i should even do that), and/or that represent the designer in general. Currently (the design I'm dumping), with the point sizes all around 8 point-ish, the book ran about 30 pages. With a systematic approach to this, the whole thing seemed to get redundant and uninteresting after a few spreads. I would like to keep that same systematic approach as I think that is a smart way to keep all the text under control and stable.

I guess I'd like to get some of your opinions on how to approach this or suggestions on how I change what this book is going to be post-redo (now that I don't have an instructor directing it!)

Any comments would be helpful. My professor got in a car accident on the brink of this project's end, and I never heard from her again! What luck! Thanks very much!

It's hard to imagine 8 point being nearly large enough.
What font is it, and what's the column measure?

hhp

…the book ran about 30 pages…

Edit the text down or just don’t do the whole thing. Unless this is some mindblowing centerpiece or a solo piece you mails out, thirty pages of running essay probably shouldn’t be in your portfolio.

Speaking of PoMo type, I have a related question to throw around in here.

I am reworking a project from school for my portfolio about post-modernist point of view/perspectives from Massimo Vignelli, Jonathan Barnbook, Denise Gonzalez Crisp (professsor at North Carolina SU, and Lorraine Wild (of Green Dragon Office). The book is supposed to be a comparative dialog, with all essays running on the same spreads, 1 essay from each designer, with text reacting with one another depending on the current dialog.

One of my problems is (has been) choosing typefaces that represent each point of view (if i should even do that), and/or that represent the designer in general. Currently (the design I'm dumping), with the point sizes all around 8 point-ish, the book ran about 30 pages. With a systematic approach to this, the whole thing seemed to get redundant and uninteresting after a few spreads. I would like to keep that same systematic approach as I think that is a smart way to keep all the text under control and stable.

I guess I'd like to get some of your opinions on how to approach this or suggestions on how I change what this book is going to be post-redo (now that I don't have an instructor directing it!)

Any comments would be helpful. My professor got in a car accident on the brink of this project's end, and I never heard from her again! What luck! Thanks very much!

Speaking of PoMo type, I have a related question to throw around in here.

I am reworking a project from school for my portfolio about post-modernist point of view/perspectives from Massimo Vignelli, Jonathan Barnbook, Denise Gonzalez Crisp (professsor at North Carolina SU, and Lorraine Wild (of Green Dragon Office). The book is supposed to be a comparative dialog, with all essays running on the same spreads, 1 essay from each designer, with text reacting with one another depending on the current dialog.

One of my problems is (has been) choosing typefaces that represent each point of view (if i should even do that), and/or that represent the designer in general. Currently (the design I'm dumping), with the point sizes all around 8 point-ish, the book ran about 30 pages. With a systematic approach to this, the whole thing seemed to get redundant and uninteresting after a few spreads. I would like to keep that same systematic approach as I think that is a smart way to keep all the text under control and stable.

I guess I'd like to get some of your opinions on how to approach this or suggestions on how I change what this book is going to be post-redo (now that I don't have an instructor directing it!)

Any comments would be helpful. My professor got in a car accident on the brink of this project's end, and I never heard from her again! What luck! Thanks very much!

Speaking of PoMo type, I have a related question to throw around in here.

I am reworking a project from school for my portfolio about post-modernist point of view/perspectives from Massimo Vignelli, Jonathan Barnbook, Denise Gonzalez Crisp (professsor at North Carolina SU, and Lorraine Wild (of Green Dragon Office). The book is supposed to be a comparative dialog, with all essays running on the same spreads, 1 essay from each designer, with text reacting with one another depending on the current dialog.

One of my problems is (has been) choosing typefaces that represent each point of view (if i should even do that), and/or that represent the designer in general. Currently (the design I'm dumping), with the point sizes all around 8 point-ish, the book ran about 30 pages. With a systematic approach to this, the whole thing seemed to get redundant and uninteresting after a few spreads. I would like to keep that same systematic approach as I think that is a smart way to keep all the text under control and stable.

I guess I'd like to get some of your opinions on how to approach this or suggestions on how I change what this book is going to be post-redo (now that I don't have an instructor directing it!)

Any comments would be helpful. My professor got in a car accident on the brink of this project's end, and I never heard from her again! What luck! Thanks very much!

I wonder if some of Cages other ideas might be of use at all. One of his most famous focuses (and one he later rejected) was his preference for composing for the silence in pieces instead of for the non-silence. This is an implicit rejection of the earlier mentioned "text and non-text,image and non-image" being the same. Most are surely familiar with the height of this approach in 4'33.

Part of the problem of defining postmodernism (or even really modernism to an extent) is that there is less unity in the representations of works. All those isms (big generalization) that fall under Mo/PoMo each had their own approach and results, but had similar thinking or catalysts for action, though looking at their works it might not seem that way (I speak more from the visual and textual arts side, I'm not as well versed in musical/aural).

Returning to Cage, applying his focus of silence to type, silence would be blank paper, or not-type. Would designing with a specific focus on negative space in type design affect it? Does his ultimate rejection of silence play a role (just like with sound, on paper it's impossible to have pure white, the paper inherently has some gray or texture or otherwise).

A couple of people have mentioned mixing of styles, hybridizations, etc. but these come off to me as much more plain Modernist than PoMo.

Now what I would do for a real PoMo or perhaps better said PoPoMo piece would be a autogen word processor that would design each letter in a classical style (that is, serif, formal looking, nothing crazy) but that would analyze the text as it was being inputed and begin to adjust font properties (by word or even by letter) accordingly, including changing serifs, weight, angle of weight, slanting it or italicizing it, adding double strikes, color of text, contrast, etc. Hey wait, that last bit there sounds almost like some nearly lost technology we already have....

«El futuro es una línea tan fina que apenas nos damos cuenta de pintarla nosotros mismos». (La Luz Oscura, por Javier Guerrero)