I post this, but it is a bit out of topic.

I don't think there is really a dichotomy here.

I doubt whether we do need more than a handful of functional typefaces (for book typography, at least). But the fact is, we have more than a handful. Precisely because no one typeface stands head and shoulders above the others on any functional grounds (many work pretty well), we will continue to have a choice.

In these circumstances, to insist on using just one typeface for everything is itself a choice.

Among the many choices a designer makes, choice of typeface may well be relatively unimportant. But there is no reason in principle why a designer may not use a variety of different typefaces and use them all with sensitivity and care. Admittedly, excessive promiscuity may be a bad idea (because it often takes a while to get the "hang" of a particular typeface); but within reason choice may be good. If it helps the designer to keep fresh and enthusiastic, that may be good too.

How then to choose? For a whole range of reasons. Some technical (lots of information, little space; narrow columns; need oldstyle figures or not; need bold or not; need small caps or not); some personal (I like this type, not that). I see no reason why allusiveness and resonance to subject or period should not form part of these considerations, if you want them to.

If there are no such resonances then, at worst, those who believe there are will be selecting usable type for the wrong reasons. They are deluding themselves in supposing that their careful allusiveness adds anything, but it is a harmless delusion. Rot only sets in if it leads to the choice of faces which are functionally poor; but I see no reason to suppose, given the range of acceptable faces available, why that should happen.

Alessandro, that's a sweet calligrame. I don't mind those at all. Not exactly le plus cool, but still!

�

Paul,
obviously I agree. I'm no typographic monk (although Johannes Itten did sport a mean robe).
My intent was more of a Hold your horses! when it comes to the kind of studied approach to typography shown in the thread I linked in my first post.
Seen in that context I hope you understand my point of view.

�

Ultimately, I agree that a legible, functional typeface is of the utmost importance, over all subtler considerations. However, it's hardly an argument to stop making new faces, redundant or not, nor an argument to stop paying attention to finer details when circumstances allow. But that's another discussion.

As for crazy content, I believe I've posted about this novel on Typophile before, but I'll bring it up again: Mark Z. Danielewski's House of Leaves is, in my direct experience, a great example of a variety of typefaces (most of which are quite common and non-crazy) used in a crazy way, along with one more expressive (read as: distressed) typeface used for content generated by a character who is literally going crazy.

The effects are not necessary for communication, but really add a lot. I recommend checking it out in a bookstore if you have the opportunity. The more standard book typesetting leaves something to be desired, but the layout acrobatics required to deal with the literally and intentionally labrynthian narrative are impressive in their own right. It's a good example of fine book typography taking a back seat to just about every other consideration while not damaging the experience too dramatically as a result. The reading experience is so broken up by physical and narrative jumps that it becomes quite minor, in fact (not much extended, continous reading).

It's hard to explain what I mean without the book on hand, but it's a very interesting special case in book typography.

In the realm of display type, few would doubt that "expression" is valuable in a font, which means we can never have enough of them. In the text realm there is indeed reason to doubt the usefulness of more than a handful of fonts, because immersive reading precludes conscious aesthetic impressions. In fact it might seem that the only good reason to make a new text fonts is to solve emerging technical issues.

But when you take into account that the subconscious is also open to being "impressed" (albeit in a very different way than the consciousness), you realize that it's really mostly a matter of subtlety, not exclusion, of features. This is why everything has to be toned down in a text font: first it has to "go below the radar" of the consciousness, for it to have any hope of marking its effect in immersive reading.

In the subsoncious, more "primal" things matter. For example, sharp corners say something and soft coners say something else, no matter that the reader can't verbalize -or even realize- the difference. This is what makes text design such a black art.

So choosing Garamond for a SciFi novel isn't bad because it will ruin readability (it won't), it's bad because it wastes the opportunity to gently amplify the content. Quality is in the details.

hhp

Quality is indeed in the details. But my conclusion is the opposite;
that's exactly why you shouldn't fall for the temptation and fiddle (gently amplify) with the ingredients, dark art or not.

Actually, I'm not sure I intellectually grasp your theory,
so maybe a few visual examples would clear up the difficulties?

�

>The trick is to use that one typeface as sensitive and sensible as possible, not choose between hundreds and hundreds. That's skill.

No it's not, it's playing it safe. "Sensitive and sensible" produces conservative professionalism. It requires more typographic skill to work with a new face and discover/invent the setting that is right for the job and not intrusive (i.e. "expressive"). But it's so much easier to rely on the pedigree and familiarity of old warhorses like Garamond.

I just bought "Inferno", a surfer-dude rewrite of Dante's Inferno, set in Centaur, which really didn't match the scrappy illustrations. Like many of the classic faces, art directors use it to indiscriminately add literary gravitas -- it's "quality" packaging that makes the buyer/reader think they're getting value for money.

Garamond, Bembo, and all the other overused fine old book faces: So many writers all speaking with the same voice -- orthodox, conventional, like a newscaster. I'm sick and tired of the monotonous drone.

No it�s not, it�s playing it safe.
OK, Hold your horses.
Why should typography be anything but safe? So that you can express something?

I�m sick and tired of the monotonous drone.
I'm sorry to hear that. But will the reader care what you feel like?

�

Here's a cool example of subtly expressive typography:
http://www.daidala.com/intlife.html

> Why should typography be anything but safe?

Because culture is about progress.

hhp

Here's a cool example of subtly expressive typography..

I don't consider that 'expressive': a change in typeface is used as a navigational tool to provide information about narrative point of view. It is no more expressive than a change between roman and italic to indicate a foreign word. When someone speaks of 'expressive typography', I take this to mean typography that is somehow emotive, that draws on conventional cultural or subcultural associations to suggest a particular mood. Changing from a renaissance typeface to a romantic typeface (romantic in the art historical sense, not the emotive sense) does not seem to me particularly expressive.

There is relatively little typography of the kind shown in the example for the simple reason that most authors use language to establish narrative point of view, not naff typographic tricks.

> a change in typeface is used as a navigational tool

No. If you read the thoughts of the author (who directed the font choices) on this, you'd realize that it has nothing to with navigation, but everything to do with expression - albeit at the subsoncious level.

> most authors use language

Yup. But not this one! :-)

It is indeed exceptional - and to me highly commendable - otherwise you must be of the position that text faces simply can't convey anything, and any new text faces are only needed to solve technical issues (or fill a huge void, like in some non-Latin scripts).

There is another world out there beyond naive, conscious Modernism - but it's "subvisble", like in Biology or Physics: there are bacteria, quarks, etc. that decide our lives, even though you can't really see them. Serifs for example have huge subvisible relevance.

hhp

> http://www.daidala.com/intlife.html
I actually thought it looked quite good. Couldn't be bothered to read it though.
But to get away with something like that you have to either
a collaborate really close with the author, or
b be the author.

Regarding progress; OK. Point taken. But it's a slow moving revolution considering that few improvements have been made since Van den Keere and dare I say Granjons days.


�

As an example of crazy typefaces to enhance the text�Here is a poster I did about 10 years ago. The text is a mixture of quotes that I picked to colide with my own poem at the bottom.

ChrisL

> you have to either
> a collaborate really close with the author, or
> b be the author.

Yup. Another case where being really good at a lot of things (as opposed to extremely good at one thing) is an advatantage. I think polymaths (like Da Vinci), not specialists have the greatest chance of advancing culture.

> few improvements have been made since Van
> den Keere and dare I say Granjons days.

Agreed. But I'm an optimist.
From the ashes of the hooliganism of the 90s shall rise a new school of type design, one unafraid to look into depths it could never fully control.

hhp

Hrant

(yawn) culture is about progress
���������������

PROGRESS

Would you not agree that "fine typography" is "progress?"

Seamless logic suggests "beautiful" and "content sensitive typography" can easily be achieved by using a single typeface. All you need is an "immense amount of respect" for the principals of good typography.

Sadly, in this day and age my friends�that would be "progress."

Morris Printing in British Columbia, famous as the best "book house" in Canada used in its entire career a single typeface�Baskerville.

My shop,http://lanstontype.com/BuickIvy.html world famous for its typography, "book printer for Prince Charles and Lady Di", used Caslon Oldstyle
http://lanstontype.com/CaslonGiampa.html or
http://lanstontype.com/WineGlass.html That was our "house face". I am sure most of you have never heard the expression, "house face". I am sure that "expression" is soon to disappear into the belching smog oozing from current smoke screens generated by the "self appointed prophets" of digital typography.

"Hobby horsemen" that pretend to be hooded gladiators.

So by contrast I present a true "gladiator of typography". A horseman of another age, one that actually knew how to ride.

Aldus Manutius successfully used, not only 1 typeface, but only 1 pt size. Far better work than those who "wave the black flags of progress".

http://www.italnet.nd.edu/Dante/text/1502.venice.aldus.html

Conservatism in typography is so rare that it is certainly the "most daring" and certainly the most "radical today". Conservative typography radiates like a search light over a crystal palace amidst the flag waving men mounted bareback upon sewer rats in their charge of the "dark brigade"

I hope sewer rats are not offended by the comparison. They are rather cute.

There are legitimate reasons to use different typefaces. Historical considerations out trump the "need to be cyborgians". Cliche sound bites is a contest of 'let's race to the bottom".

When choosing a typeface for a book I advise you might not find it in with your "mood lipstick".

Just putting it out there.

www.davidrestoration.org/splash_ENG.htm
Italy's famous David. About the restoration process.
Interesting stuff.

>Why should typography be anything but safe?

Actually, I said that the typographer was "playing it safe" by using well-known typefaces. I believe that clients, and readers, deserve a little more effort from typographers than to merely go through the usual motions, with the usual typefaces. Otherwise why bother with a designer/typographer, why not just use a default template?

Alessandro, is this the David that nobody will actually see? I remember seeing "it" at the Uffizi, but then finding out it was merely an "official" copy, and that the real one is not viewable by the public.

hhp

No. If you read the thoughts of the author (who directed the font choices) on this, you'd realize that it has nothing to with navigation, but everything to do with expression - albeit at the subsoncious level.

Therein lies the fatal flaw -- to use your favourite phrase -- in such a programme. Like abstract expressionism in painting, the intent of the author or artist to express something in his mind falls at the gateway of another's mind. The fact that the author states that the typography is expressive doesn't make it expressive. If it were genuinely expressive, it wouldn't need to be explained. This is why I prefer the term evocative to expressive, because expression implies a thought that is being expressed from one person, presumably to another, while evocation seeks only to trigger associations that the reader/viewer already has. Language remains the only halfway reliable means of expression between two or more minds.

> Language remains the only halfway reliable means

No way, Jos�.
But I'll remind you you said that the next time you defend chirographic type. :->

hhp

Nick,

Actually, I said that the typographer was "playing it safe" by using well-known typefaces.

Any typographer is "playing it safe" using any good typeface, well known or otherwise.

And I say, "good on them".

And

Otherwise why bother with a designer/typographer, why not just use a default template?

Too many reasons to enumerate. More often than not, it is the typographers' decision to use a particular typeface. This decision making is not the "singular fountain of emotion" that goes into a finely designed book. Type designers are not the "Lady on the Pedestal" we would like ourselves to be. Typeface choice is hopefully a passing joy rather than a well remembered failure.

Most certainly, an "unsafe typeface, well known or otherwise", is a cocktail for disaster which is why classical book faces are considered the liferafts of the wise.

Also, need I add�sound advice for the novice.

Remember, printing is expensive.

������������������

Aldus didn't use classical typefaces, though. Griffo's "Adino" was something completely new in printing. But his typeface ended up being so useful, that it has now become a style. And Aldus' mark even represented progress (a steady progress.)

The italic though of course was based on handwriting, but Griffo seemed to be more interested in how it saved space - technical progress. But typographic progress shouldn't be constrained to technical progress, and in Aldus' case, it even became cultural progress.

However, isn't using the same "reliable" type comparable to looking at the same style of paintings over and over? Should we be content to keep seeing the same exhibit century after century? While most of us I think would agree to use as few typefaces as possible in a single book, for a whole country to use a handful of typefaces is something different and more extreme.

At the same time, with all of my ranting for progress, I have to say this.. I have been using Sabon lately in semi-lengthy amounts of childrens' book reading, for more than one book. Mainly because of its legibility, but also because I want to stay away from ligatures and the short f's look great next to the i's without using ligatures. The more I use it, the harder I think it's going to be for me to break away from it...not because of stubborness, but because I feel like I am learning how to really use it, and I appreciate something different each time..Which might seem anti-progress, since I've been looking at the same painting for the last few books.. ha. At the same time, I'm always looking out for something that might convey my message better.. either through functionality or...By the way, are there any other types of progress that I'm missing out? Communication, cultural.. functional/technical... ?

So perhaps, progress is just as important in the designer as it is in the typeface. (Ah.. okay. So I think, then, Fredrik, that you are saying "more so".) ? And if a designer's progress is more important to the reader than typographic progress.. the two should work more closely together than the current process of: type designer makes it in one country and designer buys it and uses it in another. I personally think the relationships need to be tighter, but designing brochures is faster than designing a typeface, so the two will probably never meet up perfectly. But it's so important for designers to have a good knowledge of type. I think I have more favorite type designers than I have graphic designers.. hmm..

I'm seeing both sides, but there's a side effect to not caring if a typeface sheds light onto a text. It's the whole.. not caring. Good design comes in part from having layers of meaning. The page proportions, paper selection, cover design, choice of typeface, etc. can affect the atmosphere of the book and help tell the story. Why would you want to pass up this opportunity? (Besides time and money!)

The italic though of course was based on handwriting, but Griffo seemed to be more interested in how it saved space - technical progress.

This is an oft repeated myth, debunked by Harry Carter and more thoroughly, by way of detailed measurements of the type, by Peter Burnhill in his fascinating new book Type spaces. Burnhill notes:

Morison (1926) says of Griffo's italic and its use in the composition of the octavo classics series: 'It's chief merit is that of making up extremely economically, a supreme quality in such a series as that for which Aldus employed it.' Against this, Carter (1969) writes: 'If Aldus hoped, as it is commonly said that he did, but he never said, that cursive letterforms would save space, he must have been disappointed by the results: a Roman type on the same body gets in just as much.'

Mr. Hrant H Papazian:
> is this the David that nobody will actually see?
If there is, it might be visible, I apoligize,
I have never been at the Uffizi, but I will.
I have been in Florence, and there is one copy in a square.

Mr. John Hudson:
> This is why I prefer the term evocative to expressive,
That`s cool. "Write the story. Take out all the good lines,
and see if it still works."
> while evocation seeks only to trigger associations
> that the reader/viewer already has.
It is the essence of teaching. This your sentence I read in
"De Magistro" by Saint Augustine, a stunning dialogue
between Augustine and his 14 old son, Adeodato.

COME ON, choosing a typeface is not like sex -- reckless and safe are not the only options.

>COME ON, choosing a typeface is not like sex --

Sure it is: you can never be certain you are doing it exactly right. :0)

>Sure it is: you can never be certain you are doing it exactly right. :0)

Well, if you think like that, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In both situations.

Mr. Nick Shinn, I enjoy those sentences too
Would you address your thought more to having sex,
experiencing someone`s other skin, or making a baby?

* a Roman type on the same body gets in just as much *

Funny. But surely they did measure it. At that point, if they found that it did take up the same amount of space, they must have continued based on style. (?) Will try to get ahold of the book.. thanks for the debunk!

Another clue that economy was not the central issue is that the margins were huge!

BTW, the role of narrowness in economy is not so simple.

hhp

Mr. Hrant Papazian, I like that point;
Do you think that margins have to be considered
part of the legibility project of a font?
I have been told, the first time I observed readability problems,
that area can be understand as "area di rispetto."

Just call me hhp. Or I won't give you that surprise at Thessaloniki.

I think margins are indeed very important for readability, but not at the type design level.

hhp

hhp:
So "type for a purpose" what means?
I am maybe making an abstract question here,
without the hands in the dough... just mumbling.

Nick

Your words . . .

COME ON, choosing a typeface is not like sex -- reckless and safe are not the only options.

Most certainly it is.

�. . . an "unsafe typeface, well known or otherwise", is a cocktail for disaster

Remember, printing is expensive.

���������������

Your complaint�

"Actually, I said that the typographer was "playing it safe" by using well-known typefaces."

Well Nick

Readers by and large, have no idea of whether or not the type face is "well known or not". Most could care a less. Most only know the names of system fonts. Most of which can not match the name to the face. I do not consider "system fonts safe".

I want to emphasize your mantra "well known or not" as I remember, it is one of your repetitive theme songs.

But

That the reader finds an "unsafe typeface choice" irritatingly designy is certainly more than a remote possibility. Not to mention, more than likely to be a distraction to his or her reading experience.

When picking a typeface for a book I highly recommend traditional typeface design, well known, or not. "Old or� new." The typeface must contain traditional "book face values". That advise is not only "safe", but "responsible".

Nick, next time you pick a typeface for a book, unless you are big on abortions, dare I suggest, "Sheik�" or "Trojan"�.

.

>they must have continued based on style.

Seems I read somewhere that the Aldine italics were a stylistic thing. They were based on the writing
of the Italian scribes who would copy books for scholars. Theoretically, since they [the scholars] were
used to reading books in the particular hand of the humanist scribes, Aldus used a similar typeface.

Here we go. From H Carter's A View of Early Typography (pp. 73–74) :

"The Aldine Italic was not a newly invented idiom. [...] It is like the copying hand of Niccolò Niccoli of
the priod 1420–30. Niccolò was a scholar and he copied classical texts for his own use and the use
of his friends. [...] I imagine that the script favoured by scholars for private reading seemed to him
[Aldus] appropriate for these books : it savoured of learning and it was intimate."

And from Morrison's "Politics and Script":
"It has been argued [...] that the neo-Carolingian Roman invented
and espoused by the Florentine humanists would never have been
established but for the use and support given it by Cosimo de'
Medici, who bestowed upon it a quasi-authority. It was essentially
different from that of the papal or Imperial chanceries. It is the
only example of a script being established because of the accident
that it corresponded with the taste of a merchant banker. Without
him the then novel script would never have been more than the
hobby of a society of 'literati'. In this sense the humanistic
roman may be described as a capitalist script."

hhp

The origins of Italic type:

Conventional wisdom is represented by Meggs in his History: Saves space, copied from fast, informal scribe style.

That's much too utilitarian. Here's another way of looking at it:

Poggio invented the humanist script c.1400. It has been described by Donald M. Anderson as "plodding" and "sober". This is the writing style that Jenson's definitive Roman face interprets.

During the Incunabula, in the later 1400s, the work of the Italian writing masters (eg Sanvito, Sinibaldi) had become more stylishly cursive, no doubt to distinguish itself from printed text.

The era saw a swan song for the manuscript writer, before the profession morphed into a smaller number of Writing Masters (Instructors), the best of whom published how-to manuals.

Sinibaldi designed pages that were predominantly his cursive (ie Italic), mixed with "small caps".

It is this look which Aldus captured in type.

So, the origin of the Italic type style is caused by the swan song virtuosity of the manuscript hand, itself a reaction to the plainness of the original Roman typefaces.

Lots of interplay between old and new media -- exploited by artists looking for new forms, supported by a progressive marketplace.

Gerald, what I'm saying is:
"well-known" as understood by typographers.

And "safe" as it applies to typographers, because they don't have to take the chance, and make the effort getting to know the performance traits of something they haven't used before.

This has nothing to do with whether the reader is aware of the font or the font choice, and it has nothing to do with the characteristics of what constitutes a good "book" face.

As I said before, the "responsible" typographer will provide something special for the client and reader, rather than just resorting to cliches.

Nick.

Age discrimination is unconstitutional in Canada.

"Good book typography" is a "good cliche" and it has (everything) to do with the characteristics of what constitutes a good "book" face. That and other considerable assumptions.

But this

And "safe" as it applies to typographers, because they don't have to take the chance, and make the effort getting to know the performance traits of something they haven't used before.

Proves my point

Learning should not be made at the expense of the client. You may have noticed that good typographers choose good typefaces, new or otherwise. Their risk is minimalized because they have learned what constitutes a good book type face. In other words, they don't need your advice.

If I were to teach a novice how to choose a typeface your attentions to "newness" would never get mention. The traditional qualities that make, "some" old types "good", are the same traditional qualities that make, "some", new types good.

A responsible advisor "could teach" what make "some" good, and "others", not "so good".

Good book faces are not a perishable product.
http://lanstontype.com/CaslonFountEight.html
And recyling is "in fashion and sometimes downright trendy".

What "risk" is there in choosing a typeface if "you know how"?

Remember, printing is expensive.

>your attentions to "newness"

Gerald, you continue to miss the point that I am not talking about any particular genre of typefaces. I do not mean by a "new" typeface one that is a trendy novelty, as you imply, going after the usual target -- but rather one that the typographer has not worked with before.

>What "risk" is there in choosing a typeface if "you know how"?

You may know how in a general sense, but if you have never touched the instrument, you don't know how it will perform in your hands. Typefaces do not behave identically, each has something unique to offer that a good typographer will discover during the design process, and use to give personality to a work.

And why so down on risk? Recognizing happy accidents is a mainstay of the creative classes.

And you Nick seem to be missing the broader point:
Arguing is pointless in this case - and that's me saying it! :-/

hhp

Nick,

Are these not your words?

No it's not, it's playing it safe. "Sensitive and sensible" produces conservative professionalism.
��������������

Are you recommending "Insensitive and insensible typography"? It would seem that you are.
������������

Your words.

And why so down on risk? Recognizing happy accidents is a mainstay of the creative classes.

"Accidents" are "not to be strived for". Are you suggesting we go "dumpster diving" in search of "happy accidents"? Good typography is anything but an accident. Furthermore relying on "happy accidents" for your creative juices is a "poverty of professionalism".

Remember, printing is expensive. Books more expensive than most.

�������������

And you say

" . . . but if you have never touched the instrument, you don't know how it will perform in your hands."

I care to differ.

>Are these not your words?

Yes, but by criticizing one extreme, I am not advocating the opposite extreme, as you imply.
I am against extremism.
The alternative to playing it safe is not reckless abandon.
There are many alternatives, begining with daring (gasp) to use a typeface you haven't tried before.
One that wasn't invented several centuries ago.

>"Accidents" are "not to be strived for".

Again, I never said they were.
Accidents happen, and recognizing the ones that are happy is part of the creative process.

Nick,

Not using a typeface I haven't tried before doesn't even make it on "my list of typographical regrets".

Demonization based on the age of a typeface is beyond civilized moral typographical parameters of discernment.

By the way� your words

"I am against extremism."

Name your "ideal" book designer, your ideal book? Tell me your secret guiding forces tht help you choose a typeface suitable for a book? Do you design books? That way I can judge for myself.

And your words

"Accidents happen, and recognizing the ones that are happy is part of the creative process."

These would be mine.

Accidents happen, and recognizing the ones that are happy is part of the process of apology.

Gambling belongs in the bingo halls, poker tables and the poor tax called lotto tickets. Trust me Nick, you are going to loose more often than you win.

>Arguing is pointless in this case - and that's me saying it! :-/

hhp<

LOL!!! Hrant, that was the best ever. :-)

Chris,

Actually Hrant has made an interesting point that could get more notice. Something more deserving of silly stars.

Another clue that economy was not the central issue is that the margins were huge!

What are your thoughts about that?

Gerald: Gerald, do you like poetry, Gerald? Do you? Gerald? I hope you do, Gerald. I wish my name was Gerald. That would be poetic.

hhp

Hrant

Another clue that economy was not the central issue is that the margins were huge!

By the way, "those aren't ink traps".