This topic was imported from the Typophile platform

Are we in need for new digital fonts that communicate to the culture of today? Or are we in need of revisiting the organization of typography as a craft, concentrating more on the universal truths and style we already obtain?

Do we need more music?

Shouldn’t you do your homework for yourself?

http://www.typotheque.com/articles/we_dont_need_new_fonts

hhp

I have done my homework! Im just looking for some extra insight to boost my thesis. But thanks for your kind response. Just because a question is posted does not automatically mean we are taking the easy route

Thanks hrant for the link

https://typography.guru/forums/topic/86173-forwarding
https://typography.guru/forums/topic/94732-forwarding

This is a false dichotomy (which can happen when you flesh out the inane “Don’t we already have enough fonts?” into academese).

The purpose of design is to resolve conflicting parameters.
You can have it all, or else settle for second best—revivals, retreads and clones.

If you think there are universal truths and style, you’re not thinking like a creative.

It's true that new typefaces are harmless, and like new popular songs, someone might like any given new typeface.

But while that means the creative endeavor of producing new typefaces should not be suppressed, the question of whether or not we need new typefaces can be thought of in another sense: by how much should the creation of new typefaces be encouraged? Just how urgently do we need more of them?

I think that if we look at the word "need" from that point of view, while most new typefaces will, even if they're worthwhile and well-done, vanish into obscurity, there will still be the occasional typeface that does fill a void.

One obvious example is the much-overused and much-criticized typeface Papyrus, which I've noted fills a void as an inoffensive typeface which suggests something foreign and exotic but in a way that is not likely to draw criticism for cultural insensitivity, the way simulation faces are likely to do.

With the advent of the electronic digital computer, display faces based on, or inspired by the MICR numerals, hideous and inappropriate as they might seem, were still "new" typefaces that could not possibly have been waiting there to be used in a 1923 font catalog.

And then there are the creative successes that don't meet a "need", as such, but are original enough to demand attention. Bifur, Lydian, Optima and Peignot come to mind. So does Times Roman, although now there's the controversy about Starling.

Papyrus isn't guilty of anything. It's a font.
But people who choose Papyrus are quite
often guilty of at least a couple of offenses.

hhp