An “accurate assessment” depends on your outlook: yours appears to be far rosier than mine, so if it works for you…

hi thanks for the comment.
i dont feel that if i say that we are some sort of futura or bauhaus type now, we are on a better position than maybe 10 years ago. Those are also rather synthetic types from my point of view...but they are also clear and i feel there IS some more clarity now than 50 years ago, not only in design but in general..

Is there something wrong with today’s type designers, that you don’t think our work is capable of representing our age?

Futura was designed as “the typeface of our time” in the 1920s, as an antidote to the historicism then prevalent in the graphic arts.

Presently, too, we have a lot of historicism, namely a nostalgia for “mid century modern”.

However, if you judge the tenor of the times by the work of contemporary type designers, rather than the types that are popular with graphic designers (which includes many old faces such as Helvetica and Futura), I think you will find that some of us are creating work that addresses today’s issues, rather than those faced by Paul Renner, and such work is more likely to be “Type for our Age”.

Here is a pioneering recognition by a cultural institution of contemporary (with a slight lag for respectability) type design within the canon of art and design in general:
http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2011/01/24/digital-fonts-23-new-f...

There's certainly a dearth of ideology in type design these days. Maybe it has to do with the economy, since trying to affect cultural change is not good for the wallet.

hhp

Klavika?

I think the typeface of the age we are currently living in is obviously Times Roman.

It is certainly true that Stone Sans, for example, is a typeface of the present moment. But I don't think we've yet caught up with Futura, let alone Optima - these are still typefaces that, although "dated" in the sense that we can point to the past time when they were designed, still look out of place - and futuristic! - when used for ordinary typographic purposes.

So the original poster has a legitimate question as to whether or not now is yet the time for Bifur or Futura - but the answer, I think, is no!

The ages of typography move slowly; we have gone from the Age of Caslon to the Age of Scotch Roman (and Phemister's Oldstyle) to the Age of Century Expanded (and Linotype's Number Eleven, and Caledonia, and Baskerville) to the Age of Times Roman.

If you're looking for a sans serif, perhaps Gotham would be a more appropriate choice than Futura. It's a relatively new font that was inspired by fonts like Futura, and was heavily used by the Obama campaign. I also see a lot of corporate use.

You also might try checking lists of the best-selling fonts from 2011, although the fonts that actually receive the most use are often the old standbys rather than what's hot at the moment.

> i feel like 2012 is more about colors and having 'fun'

Design trends are partially influenced by the technology available to graphic designers. I see far less black-and-white because 1) on the internet color doesn't cost more than b&w, and 2) the increased use of digital printing. Also you see color transparency effects everywhere because InDesign makes it easy. In the old days of QuarkXPress (and the early days of InDesign) creating transparency effects was more iffy. You also see more 3D effects with type because it's easier to produce these days, more motion graphics, etc.

The real type of this age is Verdana and Georgia. They were among the first typefaces specifically designed for the computer screen, and they are the vernacular of the Internet.

Yes, that’s the kind of thing I had in mind when I said “address today’s issues”.

Speaking of Futura, it is considered iconic of its era, yet during the most famous years of the Modernist movement, Modernism was a cultural sideshow. During the 1920s, the dominant style of design was historicist, and the most used types were such as Kennerley, and, still, the plain early 19th century Roman we now call Scotch. (I’m not quite sure where the Art & Crafts/proto-modernist Cheltenham fits in.)

There are at least three ways a type can represent its age:

1. Address contemporary issues
2. Popular in the dominant style: revival/older design
3. Popular in the dominant style: contemporary interpretation

For today:

1. Verdana
2. Helvetica
3. Gotham

Of course, one has to decide how long an age is…

Better late than never – thank you for all your amazing input. For a reason I can not recall at the moment, I didn't come back to this post to see if anyone had answered (and there were only three days apart? .. something went wrong).
Its really good information here, thank you, i am keeping this.

Kind regards.

(btw, I went for Gotham.. this came out of the idea: https://www.behance.net/gallery/12328475/Gothams-faces )

They're beautiful pictures, but I don't really get it. Would the pictures have turned out any different if you had chosen Futura?

By the way, you misspelled 'ordinary'.

Hey there,
yes, i suppose so. The idea was to give "the font a face". Fonts have their own character, and just like with us people, we tend to express our character through clothing, or body language. So i was thinking, how would Gotham pose in front of a camera, what would it wear..what kind of "face" would it have..petite, round, long..etc. Gotham is rather "normal"..so i kept the pictures with less drama (although i was inspired by fashion photography). I would love to make a serie one day. Maybe I should go with Futura the next, it was my fav. font for a long time. Thanks for your comment!

I would be curious to see a whole series indeed. Right now I think the choice of typeface serves as a nice basis for photography, but it's not like without a doubt these photos say Gotham. It's perhaps representative of a certain time and culture, but I don't think you could represent all typefaces this way. The photos of Futura would probably look more German and perhaps Bauhaus-inspired, but the time is about the same. When you've done Gotham and Futura, what would a third typeface that draws inspiration from the same sources look like? What about typefaces like Erbar, Nobel and Tempo? What about Verlag and Neutraface? Would it suffice to make a visual story out of its sources or should the time and requirements it was actually designed in/for be part of it as well?

Some typefaces look subtly different so it may be a lot more challenging to translate that to photography. On the other hand, with photography you can visualize a back story which is a lot harder to do with just a typeface. Because the typeface is hard to translate into a visual story, I'm curious what the restrictions are exactly. What would/could a type catalog without type look like?

Aah, i love feedback.
You are right, this is just the basis of something that CAN grow larger, having the sufficient time and sources. In photography it is often said, that the tools you need to make something possible, are the ones that you already have. Its a nice sentiment, but you can't work on natural light all the time, a blunt model and an empty room. You can't tell a whole story with only a white background. Then again, that might be the challenge.

"Would it suffice to make a visual story out of its sources or should the time and requirements it was actually designed in/for be part of it as well?" -- I had only 3 days to get in the studio, get into studio lighting and 1-2 hours with each model. I had objects around as a plan B with which I wanted to portray the time Gotham was build for.. but you can't do it any justice in a rush. Again, I second your "this is only a basis" comment.

"I'm curious what the restrictions are exactly. What would/could a type catalog without type look like?" -- I might just dig into this more carefully and with a clearer view (and not thinking about university deadlines). I think it is important to make such a thing because we can understand something better when we are able to relate to it meaning, as graphic designers we could find the right type for something if it would be a lot more tangible to our nature.