Very nice. I like it that he makes it clear that the typeface was just a experiment, not really made to be readable.

I’m not sure why he changed the basic roman forms. He explains that the objective of the typeface was to overcome the technical limitations of the low resolution output. However, the typeface could have come out more legible while still adhering to the 90° and 45° concept had he stuck to the basic forms. It seems like he was taking a chance at creating something revolutionary and experimental rather than really solving the problem.

Thanks Gary. Can’t wait for the DVD! Already pre-ordered.

BTW… where is DVD extra #1? Sorry, I missed the post

Josh, here it is. Helvetica DVD extra: Zapf on his work, Univers, Helvetica, and coffee...

Ah, thanks for that Gary. Thanks for the link Geoff.

Josh

It seems like he was taking a chance at creating something revolutionary and experimental rather than really solving the problem.

Shortly after Crouwel published the pamphlet (1967), Gerard Unger, who at the time was a student at the Rietveld Academy, published his response, entitled A Counter-proposal.

Here’s a detail from Unger’s response pamphlet (bad photo taken at the breakfast table this morning with an iphone... sorry), which uses the concepts from Crouwel’s proposal but applies them to more readable letterforms:

Unger’s manifesto from the back cover:

“I see no reason in developing an alphabet which takes a totally new form. The introduction of such an alphabet requires an adaptation of men. It would be more logical to adapt the machine.

Machines exist. They have been contructed by technicians, whose primary aim was to achieve a very fast composing machine. This was their concern.

Letters are my concern. Letters, as elements of words and sentences, are used to communicate. Such communication must be as clear as possible, whatever the shape of the letters. This is the main criterion.

An adaptation of old letterforms, to the new techniques and the old reading habits, is in my opinion the most reasonable solution. I wish to remain as close as possible to the old letterforms, owing to the fact that these have the most readability.

I reject reproduction of old letterforms by new machines. The retangular pattern creates too great a disfiguration. When a Garamond face is used, the printed result is no longer recognizable as a Garamond. By doing so, the control of quality is lost, because the end result differs too greatly from the original. Too many of the finer points are lost.

It will be necessary to invent new refinements for the old forms which can be faithfully reproduced by the new machines.”

I was thinking of the same thing when I posted earlier and watching the clip.

When he was talking he had the letter ’a’ on the table (the flipped L form), I questioned why it looked like that, even if it’s just an experiment. Something more resembling an ’a’ is obviously possible even with only 90 and 45 degree angles. Unger’s solution seems more logical in my opinion. But maybe if Crouwel had designed something that ’normal’, it might not have been in the spotlights as much or be as interesting as it was now.