Cassie

This is nonsense. A study of printing history and the history of technology would serve you better in your understanding of typeface relationships. You seem to assume somehow that all these typefaces exist in a peaceable kingdom. They hardly knew each other. I'd say Bringhurst is partly the blame for this kind of crap.

Gerald

The Bieler Press
http://BielerPress.blogspot.com

Typefaces don't have intrinsic personalities -- unless you can come up with some respectable graphology, which is not something that's much respected.
A lot of them would end up with split personalities, especially blackletter, hanging out on Christmas cards and gangsta tattoos.
Nonetheless, types are cyphers, and we all have our special meanings and associations which we attach to them, so you can work with that.

Sorry if I was unclear. I'm not trying to assign each typeface a specific, limiting personality, but rather see possible, strong personalities in the typefaces and expose them. It's more of an exercise for fun than for serious explorations of the relationships of the typefaces and different movements in type. As you suggested, Nick, it has more to do with the special meanings and associations that I attach to them than assigning a definite character to each one.

I been doing more work on the whole concept of the project today and have decided to go in a different direction. The political thing was not working, it was just too forced.

>You seem to assume somehow that all these typefaces exist in a peaceable kingdom.

I think that's why the metaphor of a political system did seem like it would work. While they all do coexist, not all can peacefully work together. But again, I'm changing direction, so it's a mute point.

Again, sorry for the misunderstanding, I should've been more clear as to my objectives. It was just kind of a "what if?", just a trivial look at the possible characters (no pun intended) that make up our visual language. Thanks for the input, though!

I think I see what you're getting at. And I have an idea.

It seems to me that typefaces are actors, and the texts they are used in are their roles. And just as certain actors are better suited for certain roles, so are certain typefaces better suited for certain projects. You wouldn't cast Harrison Ford in a musical, for example, just as you would not use Impact on a wedding invitation.

Therein comes your analogy: Sometimes you get directors (designers) putting the wrong actors (typefaces) in the wrong roles, and it shows. Similarly, you get actors who want to defy their traditional roles for fear of becoming -- dare I say it? -- typecast, so they take on something different. Sometimes it works (Leslie Nielsen doing comedy after a career of playing tough guys), but usually it doesn't.

Think about it. Times New Roman, for seemingly forever, performing newspaper copy -- important, dignified work, yet not very exciting ... compare to a Shakespearean actor who does The Merchant of Venice and King Lear so well. Or Cooper, always has a fun role, but never very many lines. (Is Comic Sans the bad comedian who thinks he's funny but everyone just groans instead?)

Give it a whirl.

Wow, Michael, thank you. I'm so happy you, too, thought of that. That's actually the new direction (alluded to in my post above) that I'm going in. I just wanted to develop it further before mentioning it here, since my lack of development in my first post caused a bit of confusion. I think I'm going to present the different typefaces as members of an acting company, or actors that will be performing in a specific theatre during the upcoming year. That will provide the opportunity for me (as "director") to explain why I'm including the typefaces that I am, too—it's not that I feel those are the best, or most notable typefaces (although some may be), but each has its own reason for inclusion in this project.

About personalities, though. Although I agree with the fact that typefaces definitely do not have "intrinsic personalities," I think it is worth noting that we all see some sort of personality in type. Why do we make the choices we do, when chosing a typeface? Why is one more appropriate than another? It all comes down to the feelings one evokes more clearly than another. Johnston is "friendlier" than, say, Helvetica. Mrs Eaves is more "feminine" than, for example, Eurostile. Obviously, that is not the only thing that makes one typeface a better choice than the next, nor is it the only way to explain it, but it is definitely one thing (of many) I think of when making type decisions.