Andreas Seidel noted brilliantly in the recent Fascist Typefaces thread that the Nazis were more or less equal opportunity typeface abusers. In other words, all sorts of types (sans serifs, slab serifs, serifs, well-designed blackletters, poorly-designed blackletters

When I was looking for information on the

>the stripped ahistorical minimalism

On the contrary, there is much overlap between Nazi neoclassicism and modernism, witness the architecture of Albert Speer: big and plain.


Following the Hitler as Creative Director meme, and noting the relatively brief historical trajectory of National Socialism, it's reasonable to assume that the direction follows an expoitation (and distortion, of course) of cultural trends. Coolhunter Hitler. There is no absolute bond between the folky-blackletter-German idea of Kultur, and Nazi political power. As the wind turns, so does the creative director.

Orwell noted that hypocrisy was a meaningless crittique of those who rule through Doublethink: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." This is why the Nazis "about face" over the use of blackletter was possible, and why all arguments that attempt to tie particular forms to particular ideologies are flawed.

Forrest, thanks for the firsthand account.

> came across as a bit snide or triumphalist.

Indeed.
A superset of Heller's flawed stance on the Swastika, blacketter, and anything that the Nazis happened to touch is his blind partisanship of the West, and condemnation of anything that tries to fight the tyrannies of the ascendant JudeoChristian establishment. By distracting us from the fascism of our present age, he's basically an agent for the powers that be.

In a past issue of Print he had a short piece about alleged similarities between the UN logo and the old Soviet crest. And we know what the US and Israel think of the UN... In that piece Heller uses classic local news innuendo, as well as phrases like "evil Soviets" with a straight face. Disgusting.

--

> The real extraction of blackletter
> from public life came after 1945

And most significantly to us today, the contemporary vilification of fraktur comes from those who have the most to gain from perpetuating the remembrance of Nazi attrocities, the most to gain from brandishing something to hate. That would be OK if they were still the underdogs, but that's no longer the case.

--

> all arguments that attempt to tie particular
> forms to particular ideologies are flawed.

Eternally, yes, that's not possible. But treating forms are shapes devoid of cultural context is just as naive.

hhp

>And most significantly to us today, the contemporary vilification of fraktur comes from those who have the most to gain from perpetuating the remembrance of Nazi attrocities, the most to gain from brandishing something to hate.

I'm sorry, Hrant, but I can't agree with this. I'm not aware of any organized political, social, business, or industrial movement attempting to keep fraktur out of the public sphere. In my experience, what keeps it out of sight and out of mind has been personal, individual gut reactions.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy. I'm saying that some people -yes, individuals- with certain political agendas use whatever is in their field (in Heller's case, a symbol, a typestyle) as tools to further those agendas. Some people do it as a "reflex" of sorts, others do it concertedly - but the result is that the "abused tool" suffers, through no fault of its own, and hence people who'd like to use that tool for good (like you and me) suffer too.

Fraktur is a doberman, that has simply switched abusive masters.

hhp

> On the contrary, there is much overlap between Nazi neoclassicism and modernism, witness the architecture of Albert Speer: big and plain.

I would never claim that any artistic development happens in a vacuum; I was discussing the modernists' aspirations more than reality.

Speer's work reminds me of those 18th century designs for monumental mausoleums. Stasis and heaviness are built into the architecture so strongly that I really wonder how he expected people to live with his designs over the long term. Even Nazis, who presumably thought that sort of thing was cool.

> Coolhunter Hitler. There is no absolute bond between the folky-blackletter-German idea of Kultur, and Nazi political power. As the wind turns, so does the creative director.

Good phrase, and accurate too. All I'm saying is based on the evidence I've seen, blackletter held onto its role in articulating the visual identity of Nazism to the public of the Reich for what seems to be the duration of their rule, regardless of Hitler's edicts. Given time, I'm sure Hitler would have moved them on to something else, but he didn't have that kind of time.

> I'm saying that some people -yes, individuals- with certain political agendas use whatever is in their field (in Heller's case, a symbol, a typestyle) as tools to further those agendas.

I really think it's unfair to pile all this baggage onto Steven Heller. There's a certain broadness to his moral judgments and a kind of blithe "America #1!" attitude in how he discusses the Soviets, but it's not like he's some kind of SECRET ZIONIST VINDICATOR. He's just a Jewish New York art director who likes being a Jewish New York art director, which makes it entirely logical and not really axe-grinding that he has problems with totalitarian regimes, anti-Semitism, and Stalinism. I mean, accusing the art director of the New York Times as being a tool of the establishment is not picking a very tough fight.

Picking on blackletter as a visual symbol of Nazism is a bit of a facile (and unfair) judgment, but as Dan keeps saying, in the grand scheme of things, it's really not Heller who's keeping blackletter down.

Did you read his version of the Lebanese War in his review of the book "Beirut Memories" in Print magazine? As an Armenian (from anywhere, not necessarily Lebanon), convenient, hypocritical historical revisionism is particularly revulsive to me. I'm not saying he's doing mountains of harm, I just worry that too people believe him too much.

hhp

> In a past issue of Print he had a short piece about alleged similarities between the UN logo and the old Soviet crest.

It is ironic that the design of the

Did Heller make any comment on why the typographic form of the Swastika symbol was not in the volksschrift tradition?

He really wasn't addressing things to that level of detail. It was more a popular survey of design elements of totalitarian cultures, and Nazi Germany was only one of four cultures he covered.