Impressive, no, but I do find it interesting. Designers enjoy seeing how type design is done. And it teaches people that, in fact, fonts are made by people and not just spat out of a computer in Germany.

But I am getting sick of people poncing on about their true italics. It reminds me of an under-endowed man prattling on about his Camaro.

Somewhat related: I remember a famous type designer giving a lecture and saying something to the effect that hand-drawn sketches of a typeface are generated after the fact for marketing purposes. It may have been from one of these talks?

And I am aware of how vague that sentence sounds. Maybe someone knows what I'm talking about...

I remember a famous type designer giving a lecture and saying something to the effect…

That was Matthew Carter, but I can’t remember what the talk was.

> That was Matthew Carter, but I can’t remember what the talk was.

http://ilovetypography.com/2009/06/03/genuine-revivals-matthew-carter-on...

Here is the quote:

«He showed some preliminary sketches for the script, which he cheerfully admitted were entirely bogus, saying, ‘Almost all of the preliminary sketches you ever see for a typeface are bogus, created after the fact because a reviewer asked to see them’. So if you ever wondered how these sketches were always so neat and perfect, that’s why.»

Typophile: external memory at its finest. Thanks!

"Almost all of the preliminary sketches you ever see for a typeface are bogus, created after the fact because a reviewer asked to see them’. So if you ever wondered how these sketches were always so neat and perfect, that’s why."

I can't leave this uncommented. How about other type designers here? It's frankly not true at all in my case. I don't start a new design with anything but ideas and pencil/paper. I'm always sketching. Once an idea starts taking shape, there can be many, many re-drawings of key characters before any digitization takes place. It's the way I'm most comfortable working because I have done a lot of drawing and lettering. And most of those pages don't look either neat or perfect. Is that what people really expect, or want, to see?

If publications want to see early stage material of a typeface, it is likely that the designer is reluctant to show them, because often the early drawings, and even several iterations of proofs, can look unflatteringly rough, half-baked and even unrecognizable. Carter has said that he doesn't feel comfortable with the drawing stage and does very little drawing. It's just one way to work, and clearly it's a viable one. But I don't think a generalization can be made from that.

I think that Matthew will be giving the same talk here in New York next week, maybe someone will ask questions about that slide!

Carl, I think Matthew was being tongue-in-cheek. It's generally true for his process, from what I understand. But mostly it's a laugh line. I don't think he meant to besmirch others' process. You know that's not his style.

But yeah, typophiles should not take that comment literally.

Carter will indeed be giving the Genuine Imitations talk again in NYC next Thursday at the TDC. I'm planning to come down. James, will you be there? (Addressed to either of you ;-)

He will also be giving this talk at Design Thinkers in Toronto on November 4th.

I will be there Kent, it will be good to see you again!

"If publications want to see early stage material of a typeface, it is likely that the designer is reluctant to show them, because often the early drawings, and even several iterations of proofs, can look unflatteringly rough, half-baked and even unrecognizable."

That's exactly why the bogus ones are created for marketing purpose...

If I ever become any good at this, would someone please draw these sketches for me? I got two left paws, without Béziers and trackballs I'd be completely stuffed.

I dont know generally if people make these up afterwards, but I can assure you all that the correction sheet for Dagny is authentic.

This is often how we work at Pangea design when making typefaces. It's an easy way of documenting small problems that you want to correct.

Of course, there is also a difference between a corrections sheet and sketches. Personally I dont sketch much on paper, but Örjan on the other hand makes wonderfully drawn letters on paper. I guess it's personal.

Cheers!

Back to James's original topic, there does seem to be something of a vogue for annotated proofs (distinct from preparatory sketches) as marketing. FontFont seems to have a penchant for this, especially Spiekermann collaborations. Maybe that's an unfair impression.

If you stop and think about it, it is a funny way to market something. I mean, it might be interesting to typophiles and such; but as a general marketing strategy? I can't imagine promoting an author's latest novel by showing pages of the original manuscript with the copyeditor's markup all over it.

Oh, but then it shows the attention to detail, the labour and passion, not merely scanning or tracing something. Our type is genuine, well crafted, and so on. And now that you mention it, Kent, original manuscripts of music or poetry often add gravity to covers, posters and other marketing/promotional materials.

I can’t imagine promoting an author’s latest novel by showing pages of the original manuscript with the copyeditor’s markup all over it.

No, because novels are already perceived as crafted, laborious and creative works of artists. Fonts, on the other hand, either ‘have always been around’, or are ‘spit out by some computer program, if you just hit the right button’.

The sketch is an icon, a piece of evidence for the tedious and sophisticated process of type design – and the human mind (even better: the human hand) that has been involved in it.

While novels might not be promoted with showings of edited manuscripts, their authors are very often depicted in the act of writing, or with their tool – be it a pen or a typewriter. I’d rather see some more (informative) correction sheets than those pictures of the type designer sitting in front of a screen, working on the kerning.
F

"...especially Spiekermann collaborations"

Kent,
I think that this is truly the way he works. I remember him saying so at the New York TypeCon. It is kind of like the art directors of his (and my) generation working with designers. I don't think this method is used by type designers in general--Probably at Linotype with Zapf and Frutiger where there is really a staff. The exception is probably one type designer showing his work to another and asking for a second opinion from a friend.

ChrisL

Chris -- I don't doubt this is the way Spiekermann truly works in his collaborations. I was only pointing out that using this kind of annotated correction sheet as a marketing device seems quite common in these particular cases. I'm not necessarily criticizing this. Just noting it.

Somewhere around here I'm sure I have pages of comments and mark-up on Whitman from Jill Pichotta, my editor at Font Bureau. But I'm not inclined to use them for marketing.

Marketing works in mysterious ways—it appeals to some quite unsavoury attributes: nationalism, snobbery, greed, race–class–age–gender distinctions among others. It has little to do with the intrinsic qualities of the product, in my (jaundiced) opinion.

> I’m sure I have pages of comments and mark-up on Whitman from Jill Pichotta, my editor at Font Bureau. But I’m not inclined to use them for marketing.

Good point, Kent. However, if you show someone else’s comments you’d be saying: “Well, I am not that good, but fortunately an expert looked at my errors”. If the corrections are done by the type designer himself, I certainly perceive them as a sign of careful handcrafting.

I would be proud to have Jill Pichotta mark up my work.

ChrisL