I know some of them used the ’spacers’ to built up letters and other square forms to print. With ’spacers’ I mean the blocks normally used to tighten a printing forme on the press. Look at the work of De Stijl for example.
I’m not sure how those are called in English, since it’s not my native tongue. :)

When you say ’Constructivists’ do you mean the Russians or do you mean the folks who were influenced by them like Bauhaus & De Stijl etc.

Maybe also helpful:

http://typophile.com/node/18503

Also, have you looked at the precusrsor to Constructivist stuff : Futurism? Futurism had an Italian as well as a Russian branch. They are clearly related in some key ways.

When you say ’Constructivists’ do you mean the Russians...

I am specifically asking about the Russian Constructivists.

AFAIK, fonts were not produced during the era of heroic communism (too bourgeois).

That’s what I figured. Aside from the work of the Stenbergs I have not found any consistency in the lettering, so the lack of any manufactured fonts explains it.

AFAIK, fonts were not produced during the era of heroic communism (too bourgeois).
In the famous Constructivist posters, book covers and magazines, they used exisiting fonts for small scale typography, and lettered the larger stuff themselves — as was common practice elsewhere during the teens, 20s and 30s. Remember, that photolettering (typositor) had not been introduced even in the West then, and the best “pre-made” type for headlines was wood, and a bit rough anyway. So if you wanted nice big lettering, you made original artwork, and that was true whether you were working in the capitalist West and wanted some neo-Renaissance thang, or were a Soviet radical.

Speaking of De Stijl, Jan Middendorp’s book Dutch Type mentions that this movement’s alphabets were created as handlettering, too — Middendorp mentions the work of Vilmos Huszár and Bart van der Leck, as well as Theo van Doesburg (pages 78–80, “De Stijl, Constructivism and the New Typography”).

As far as I know El Lissitzky was famous for graphic design and “typography” but maybe this included only collage on posters, drawing, lettering on the image, book design etc.
Maybe you should check within Vkhutemas, the school.

In 1923 El Lissitzky designed For the voice, a collection of Majakovskij’s poems, just with type and spacing materials available in the small print shop where it was produced. Here you can see a picture (unfortunately small) of the fac-simile edition issued in 2003 by the italian publishing house Ignazio Maria Gallino Editore.

I once noticed some variations in the lettering (and I do believe it is lettering, not type) produced by Alexander Rodchenko and was surprised to notice how much variation was there. In the same line of text the width of a given character varied by as much as 20 percent (based on my non-scientific assessment).

My own conclusion: type was a rich part of the posters, but a secondary detail, kind of like movie stars’ teeth in the 1970s. =)

I’ve since thought that making a Rodchenko font that is true to his hand would be tough to pull off. How do you, with today’s reproduction fidelity, stay true to his variation and warmth of his lettering. I think it would look too mechanical or canned.

I realize the irony of that last statment... How can you go wrong making a Constructivist layout (or typeface) too mechanical... that was part of the point.

(I also realize that in this thread, I just may be talking to myself at this point. =)

Joe, “Program of the First Working Group of Constructivists” (1921) by Alexander Rodchenko and Varvara Stepanova is in Looking Closer 3: Classic Writings on Graphic Design

Joe, nevertheless, your comment raises the question of what Rodchenko’s lettering/type would look like if he had today’s tools at his disposal. (I know, I know — it might be pointless to speculate on “what if...” questions.)

Pointless in the sense that you can’t reall know - of course. Pointless in sense that it is uninteresting - no way. Keep on going Joe! We don’t hear from you often enough and it sounded like there was a spark there!

Nick: What’s in that book?

It’s about synthesizing the ideological and the practical.
The ideology being scientific communism based on the theory of dialectical materialism.

A three-part theory is outlined: Tectonics, Faktura, and Construction.

**

Also in the book are essays by Lissitsky and Moholy-Nagy.

Thanks!

Actually, the whole book is a brilliant collection of essays.
I couldn’t find a review of it on Typophile.

Maybe I can help with that soon....

Pointless in sense that it is uninteresting - no way.

Oh, I agree 100%, Eben. I was just hedging again — I have to quit doing that! :-D

Dude, your icon gives me a crick in the neck ;-)

[perhaps you could animate it to rotate 180 every so often...]

Heh heh... Damned if I have one, damned if I don’t have one, eh? :-P

That photo is the way the film was shot, and I ain’t changing it. ;-)
Besides, if I start rotating it, it’ll set a new precedent for animated icons.

Cheers,
R.

(Edit: alternate film link.)

Not that you should care - but I jeep wanting them to be the heads on cards facing each other. Like a king and queen or something... But don’t listen to me : Dowhatchalike.

Hey, that could be a new icon for me: a mash-up of King and Queen cards. ;-D