Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
This talk focuses on the role of geometry in typeface design – during history and what we can learn from this today. Differing Accents Conference, Prague College, 2012
Citation preview
The Urge To Rule Constructed Letterforms from Antiquity to Tomorrow
Oliver Linke | Differing Accents Conference, Prague 2012
Please respect that all parts of this presentation subject to copyrigh law and may not be copied or reused for any further purpose without permission.For any requests on usage please contact [email protected]
Construction or no construction?
Part One:
What’s out there?
Digital »standard« outlines
Jürg Lehni / François Rappo: Font creation software »Calligrapher«, 2006
Sarah Kläy: Type design from pixel to outline, 2006
Fred Smeijers: Quadraat Italic, 2000
Fred Smeijers: Quadraat Italic, 2000
a) Sabon letterpress print (Jan Tschichold, 1965),b) First PostScript version (Linotype Library, 1985)c) Sabon Next (Jean François Porchez, 2002)
Sabon in different versions
Chris Holmes / Charles Bigelow: Chicago Outline, 1989 (Susan Kare: Pixels, 1983)
FF DIN MediumAlbert-Jan Pool, 1995
DIN Mittelschriftversion from 1980
DIN-Schriften, 1980 and 1995
Ludwig Goller: Correction sheet for DIN Mittelschrift, 1931
Eric Gill: Sketch for Gill Sans, 1933 and digital Version
Daniel Duvillé: »L’Art du tracé rationnel«, 1931
Daniel Duvillé: »L’Art du tracé rationnel«, 1931
Jan Tschichold: Announcement for »Blockschrift«, 1930
Jan Tschichold: Sanserif design for Deberny & Peignot, c. 1929
Friedrich Kiesler: poster lettering, 1924
Camillo Sitte: »The Capitals of the Renaissance«, 1882
Drawings for the »Romain du Roi«, ca. 1692
Johann Neudörffer, ca. 1549–1553
Johann Neudörffer, ca. 1549–1553
Various constructions for the Roman capitals in the 15th/16th century
Feliciano Moyllus Pacioli de Fanti Torniello Dürer Verinica. 1460 ca. 1480 1509 1514 1517 1525 1527
Albrecht Dürer, 1525
Sigismondo de Fanti, 1514
Sigismondo de Fanti, 1514
Hartmann Schedel, 1498–1507
»Libellus de arte scripturari«, 15th century (Paris, BN Ms. lat. 8686)
Bible, 2nd half 9th century (Paris, BN Ms. lat. 2290, fol. 19)
Manuscript, 2nd half 8th century (Cologne, Dombibliothek, Cod. 210)
And the Romans?
»Hekatompedon inscription«, Greek classical period, ca. 485 B. C.
Classical Greek and Phoenician
Nicolete Gray: »A History of Lettering«, 1986
»Phoenician script slopes forward with ascenders
and descenders; it looks rapid and business-like,
orderly but not beautiful.
The inscriptions of 5th century Athens are very
different: they are constructed and arranged
geo metrically, and they are beautiful.«
Part Two:
Recapitulation.In which circumstanceswere constructions helpful?
Reasons for the use of geometric / constructive methods in type design
– To give it a scientific status
Reasons for the use of geometric / constructive methods in type design
– To give it a scientific status– As an explanation for students
Reasons for the use of geometric / constructive methods in type design
– To give it a scientific status– As an explanation for students– For easy reproduction and scaling
Reasons for the use of geometric / constructive methods in type design
– To give it a scientific status– As an explanation for students– For easy reproduction and scaling– To suit a certain output device (e. g. screen)
Reasons for the use of geometric / constructive methods in type design
– To give it a scientific status– As an explanation for students– For easy reproduction and scaling– To suit a certain output device (e. g. screen)– To save time (in the working process)
Reasons for the use of geometric / constructive methods in type design
– To give it a scientific status– As an explanation for students– For easy reproduction and scaling– To suit a certain output device (e. g. screen)– To save time (in the working process)– To control rhythm (black and white spaces)
Reasons for the use of geometric / constructive methods in type design
– To give it a scientific status– As an explanation for students– For easy reproduction and scaling– To suit a certain output device (e. g. screen)– To save time (in the working process)– To control rhythm (black and white spaces)– For aesthetic demands
Reasons for the use of geometric / constructive methods in type design
– To give it a scientific status– As an explanation for students– For easy reproduction and scaling– To suit a certain output device (e. g. screen)– To save time (in the working process)– To control rhythm (black and white spaces)– For aesthetic demands– To simplify (ease recognition)
Part Three:
Construction is helpful.So what’s the problem then?
Optical illusions
Optical illusions
Optical illusions
S-Bahn signs in Germany
Karen Cheng: »Designing Type«, Suggested construction of the S
Adjustments to the construction of Cheng
Different shapes of the skeleton
Different shapes of the skeleton
Skeleton of Steve Mattesons Massif Pro (2012)
Different shapes of the skeleton
Construction will affect the soul of a typeface
freeform – constructive oldstyle – modernstyle aesthetic – theoretic human – machine made dynamic – static female – male warm – cool …
Evolution of geometry versus freeform: a perpetual oscillation
Phoenician to Greek
Greek to Roman
Roman to Carolingian
Carolingian to Gothic
Gothic to Renaissance
Northern to southern Renaissance
Oldstyle to Modern Style
Conclusions
Five things to remember
Conclusions
1Type design is always a walk between geometry and free form.
Conclusions
2Geometry can be very helpful to find a general proportional systemand to control rhythm.
Conclusions
3The amount of geometryalters the soulof your type design.
Conclusions
4Within the boundaries of rules, only variations are possible but nothing new.
Conclusions
5Evolution proceedswhen »defects« occur, that are beyond the rules.
