this
this
Invalid email address!
Invalid recipient's email address!
Send as
We don’t need new fonts…
Is there any reason to make new fonts when there are so many already available for downloading? It's time to reflect on motivation to draw new type. While there is no reason to make uninspired new fonts, still, there are typefaces which haven’t been made yet and which we do need.
It seems to be a golden age of type design—not only are there more type foundries now than ever before, not only is distribution easier and more direct, not only is type a hot topic for numerous specialised blogs and magazines, but even the general interest media are in on the conversation, (if only occasionally). New type design courses are opening regularly, churning out legions of type designers. And there are now over 150,000 fonts available for direct download.
In spite of all the attention to type and the unprecedented conditions for type designers, the vast majority of new fonts desperately lack originality. Just as in the music industry, where cover versions and remixes are often more popular than new music, font designers seemingly prefer to exploit successful models from the past rather than strive for new solutions. Scant decades ago, new typefaces underwent a rigorous review procedure to ensure that they met the publisher’s artistic and technical criteria. Today, self-publishing has eliminated such processes, and there is little critical review, little effort to add something new to the evolution of the profession. Mediocrity abounds as quality control dwindles. Dozens of blogs (as well as the print media) simply republish press releases without distinguishing between marketing and independent reviews, praising uninspired fonts and institutionalising the average. Many design awards do the same, perpetuating a false idea of what constitutes superior quality. We don’t need new fonts like this.
In my decade of experience teaching at Type & Media I have seen many students enter the course with no previous experience in type design. Over the eight months of the course they learn the structure of letterforms and the principles of construction that allow them to create well-designed typefaces, (not always terribly original, but convincing executions without obvious mistakes). Having mastered the formal execution of type, they can then move on to think about how to apply their skills. Obviously, creating type that is too closely related to existing models doesn’t justify the effort involved. Or as my Type & Media colleague Erik van Blokland says: “If an existing typeface does the job, there is no reason to make a new one.”
Many people drawing type today have solid drawing skills, but no desire to advance the field (let alone rebel against it) by creating original solutions. Can we call them type designers? I think not, at least not any more than we can call every fast, accurate typist a writer. Content is at least as important as form, the ideas we express as important as how we express them.
Still, there are typefaces which haven’t been made yet and which we need. Type that reacts to our present reality rather than being constrained by past conventions; type for non-Latin scripts that gives its users more choices; type that brings readers from previous media to new ones. It is time to think about why we design type, not just how we design it.
Add new comment
Comments (31) oldest first | newest first
So where do we draw the line?
1. "Free designs": your article cover this well.
2. Custom type: it's fully another problem, as 90% of graphic design jobs, nothing can happen without a purpose, a client needs, a function.
Which blogs and publications do you think fall short in their critical evaluations? Which design awards do you think perpetuate a false ideas of quality? Which people drawing type would you not consider to be type designers?
We need much more critical dialogue like what you're presenting here, but it is less likely to have the desired influence without examples to illustrate what you're talking about.
I agree completely, Peter. That deficit was one of the driving forces behind Typographica.org's relaunch 2 years ago. Unfortunately, we've failed so far to meet our mission, (critical review is difficult, time-intensive work), but I haven't given up hope that we can reallocate some time to the effort.
> Let's throw out these revivals and replace them with originals.
There are various reasons to create new revivals that do a better job reinterpreting classics than the revivals of digital type's early years. Existing revivals can be too anemic in design (as is the case of many text faces), lack a full family of weights and widths, etc.
Or, to put it in Erik van Blokland's terms, many digitizations of classic typefaces aren’t "doing the job".
However, I think it's dangerous to think that good design or a new design needs to have a reason or need. One person's need can be other person's luxury. If the industry was to strive only for what is needed and necessary, typography would have been just as pedantic and boring as if there were revivals everywhere.
There will always be the bad and mediocre designs along side the jewels and the pearls of quality, and it's always more evident in the present.
I would say the more concerning issues are the lack of or poor quality control, and designers who don't know how to value of their work. Both of these can be one, and i think this is a more growing and recent phenomenon. It's the one thing that makes this industry a major bummer!
—Walter Tracy, preface to “Letters of Credit”, 1986.
Same old story I suppose! Too many fonts, not enough informed analysis. The over-supply of commentators and their breathless commentary doesn't help—at all.
And type design is not the only field where this is so. The Maltese Falcon only became a great film the third time around. Lovecraft made the gothic horror of Poe and Dunsany palatable for the masses. Jimmy Page and Pete Townshend made Link Ray’s riffs relevant again, and on a greater scale, just by turning up the volume.
But I do agree with you about the lack of good criticism of type design. It often seems as though the only graphic designers who really see what is missing in type design are the ones commissioning new type, and few of them are writing about it.
“It doesn’t matter if it’s been said, it’s never been said by me.”
Source: http://www.antiquiet.com/news/2010/09/josh-homme-interview-zane-lowe/
I am not going to be listing unoriginal designs or their creators for this list is too long and as a rule I always prefer to mention the opposite. Work of people that is highly personal, inspiring, advancing: Peter Verheul, Cyrus Highsmith, Fred Smeijers, or Underware.
Same problems. Democratisation of platforms to create and distribute creative output has it's problems. Too much stuff, limited filter mechanisms, too little distance/critical reflection.
Bring back the A&R men! Urgh.
If I can craft derivative type that is both useful and commercially successful then why should I be interested in living up to your particular definition of originality? Do I have some intrinsic responsibility to entertain neophiles?
If I had Adobe Premier Pro and a camera would I be a film maker? Yes, I suppose—technically—I would, but I doubt I would sell any films or win any awards because the general consuming populace is more educated on this topic. If typographic education was more universal I'm sure these poor quality fonts would slowly disappear.
Actually, I think Vignelli would agree with that too. Some of his quotes might lead you to think otherwise, but, having talked with him, I can tell you that he doesn't fully mean much of what he says. Usually, he's just trying to provoke.
Here's a more balanced quote of his from a Design Matters interview w/ Debbie Millman:
"We're not fundamentalists [with regards to type]...If we had to do a newspaper, we'd certainly would look [at] what is available today, for instance, for better legibility, and the right impact, and the elegance that we like to convey, whatever it is. And we're open, we're not closed into anything. It just so happens that most of the type is junk."
This font is especially designed for people with dyslexia.
http://www.studiostudio.nl/project-dyslexie/
b. said smiling, "Why another song?"
—Ray Cruz
The longer I work with type, the less I find this to be true. Here's something that happens frequently: I get a PDF specimen of a well-drawn new font that promotes some innovative feature of its letterforms, e.g., its amazing new serif shape. But then I turn to the text samples and it looks like everything else that's come out in the last five years.
Meanwhile, features that are actually useful to type consumers but boring for type designers — such as weight grades — remain frustratingly rare.
In my view, what makes a font original is the thinking that goes into it, not the drawing.
I did not mean that ADL was in any way not creative, just that he can take a trditional simple font and add the subtle details to make it different. So... Yeah, sorry for the misunderstanding.