Fenland

[hrant]

This topic was imported from the Typophile platform

Fenland.

This is the most fascinating typeface I've seen since 2004.

I'd love to hear how people see it.

hhp

[Ryan Maelhorn]

Ink trap! ink trap!

I like it. Doesn't blow me away.

[charles_e]

Tankard does very nice work with sans. I also like his Shaker -- a friend is using that for the text in his photography book -- tremendous number of photos taken in Thailand

[Nick Shinn]

Awesome!
Nice to see a real type design once in a while, amidst the daily parade of styling, retreads and hacks.

[Ryan Maelhorn]

Would either of you be willing to explain why you like this?

[Nick Shinn]

I already did.

[Ryan Maelhorn]

Because it's orignal?

[R.]

It’s a decent typeface, but I don’t see any reason for enthusiasm. That’s probably me, not the face, so: Please explain what you like about it.

[5star]

I think it's awesome because the inside of the letters is not like the outside (graphic designer speak), that to me brings a lot of interesting design skill.

[John Hudson]

I'm not sure about this one, although in general I'm a huge fan of Jeremy's work and think he is consistently interesting and creative in how he thinks about letters. I understand what he is doing in Fenland, but it seems to be unevenly successful: some letters look great as a result of the system he has applied, but others seem to me awkward; some look like novel constructions of real strength while others look like distressed letters (in part, I suspect, because they end up reminiscent of postmodernist experiments of the 1990s; this is especially the case with B D E). The construction of the N obliges this to become a very wide letter: the first thing that jumped out at me about the design.

Overall, I think the lowercase is more successful than the caps, with which they don't seem to combine very naturally. I can't help feeling that the lowercase would work better alongside more 'normal' caps that don't draw so much stylistic attention to themselves. Or maybe the family would benefit from a distinction between display caps and text caps.

Lowercase v w x y seem to me awkward and, like the caps, not entirely in keeping with the rest of the lowercase. They give the appearance of needing to be strangely constructed in order to fit with the programme, instead of having a shape that balances well with the other letters. The thought I'm left with is that systematic programmes of 'norm violation'—to use Peter Enneson's phrase in a situation in which I think it is particularly useful—need to be flexible when applied to letters whose inherited construction is itself outside of the norms of the rest of the alphabet.

[R.]

But why is it awesome that he (quite skilfully) created letters that cannot be drawn with the pen? I see that this is not the most common approach to type design, but the result doesn’t convince me for a text face. The overall impression seems way too busy and lively. Or is this more readable than plain vanilla Garamond and I just fail to notice? More enlightenment still welcome.

[R.]

Thanks for explaining! I agree with you and with the others (who rarely seem to agree) that the approach is laudable, regardless of the results.

[John Hudson]

I think it is 'awesome' that people are thinking about how to create viable letterforms whose edge-to-edge relationships are other than those derived from writing tools, and are trying to do so in systematic ways that apply across entire typefaces. I don't think all the results are awesome, but I appreciate the thoughtful approach to this question in type design, and I think the results tell us important things even when, as in the case of Fenland, I don't personally think the results are wholly successful. Fenland seems to me to demonstrate the limits of systematic programmes—or at least of this systematic programme—, particularly with regard to certain letters. Among other thoughts, this is going to send me back to look at Legato to examine more closely how Evert adapted his own systematic approach to the letters comprised of diagonal strokes.

I also think it is awesome, in the full sense of the word, that Hrant and Nick agree about something.

[Ryan Maelhorn]

f is brilliant.

[Nick Cooke]

I have the printed booklet and I think that Fenland is more successful as a text face than display. It somehow has a very even colour when used small, whereas it may look a bit too willfully peculiar using large sizes. Having said that, once one gets over the shock of the new it may start to look normal. Whatever, all credit to Jeremy for pushing the boundaries and designing something thoughtfully different.

[Frode Bo Helland]

Even the shapes of a perfectly balanced text face looks awkward mirrored.

[Frode Bo Helland]

There's a system but it does not adhere (enough) to the expexted. Enough is the key here. I would think you could get away with more unexpected turns if the axis is upright.

[LexLuengas]

But why is it awesome that he (quite skilfully) created letters that cannot be drawn with the pen?

One should mention that this typeface, though it's apparent divorce from conventional structure, still has a strong chirographic affinity. The ductual logic is just reversed.

 

There are places where the designer deviates from this system, as can be seen in the circled area, at joints. Certainly, this is consciously designed to avoid black spots, and for that: "chapeau!".

What bothers me is that, on the other hand, there are letters that seem not to follow any system at all (e.g. /t/, /N/), which was John's point. This is why I personally don't regard this as a very successful design, and also why I doubt Jeremy was concerned with notan (at all) as Evert was when designing Legato. What I like is what also John has already expressed best: I look at Fenland as an eye-opening way of thinking; inciting designers to assent to other kind of shapes different from those derived from the humanist hand.

[Nick Shinn]

As JT says on his site: “The modern shapes are constructed and balanced to remove the adherence to the pen-written or calligraphic model. Yet still provide an alphabet that maintains a lively pattern when set in continuous text.”
(And, “The visual uniqueness of Fenland becomes apparent when it is seen at large sizes”.)

That’s all that can be said, other than post facto rationizations.
I would imagine that he began with a vague idea of how an effect might be applied, in design and style, to the alphabet, according to the concept of divergent outlines, and then worked out what that would look like by a proceess of glyph-drawing. Trial and error, adapting each individual glyph to theme and sub-theme en masse, and redefining the themes too, in feedback loops. The hands-on practicality of a looping process that involves so much drawing would see to it that any “system” that emerged would have its inconsistencies.

But why put so much store on systemic consistency? Beyond the initial concept, type design is an agglomeration of “cheats” to counteract various optical effects.

[John Hudson]

'Systematically structured' is one of the adjectival phrases in the Fenland specimen, and perhaps the one I picked up on instinctively. Jeremy's list of 'further reading references is also instructive, citing both modernist texts and examples of prior efforts at systematic programmes in type design, notably Excoffon's Antique Olive.

It is not that I am putting so much store on systemic consistency, but that it seems to me that Jeremy has, and I think sometimes too much, to the detriment of some letters and the relationship between the upper- and lowercase alphabets.

[Nick Shinn]

Good point.
But I always take a designer’s theory and rationale with a pinch of salt (my own with several pinches).

**
It seems to me that JT’s decision to give the lower case an asymmetric ductus, while the upper case get symmetry, is systematic, in the sense that this treatment is applied consistently. It has also been used many times before, most notably in Times (C and c, but not S and s).

[William Berkson]

I'm also a fan of Tankard's work, but I don't think this one is a success. Even with such quirky shapes he is able to pull off pretty even color in the lower case. As a feat of craft that is pretty impressive. But the characters are ungainly and awkward, and as John pointed out, the caps aren't particularly coherent as a design. I just don't see how this is going to be used successfully.

[rs_donsata]

This face will find it's way to many magazines, it is very energetic. In some ways it reminds me of FF Max, Quadraat Sans and Fedra.

I think Hrant finds this typefaces fascinating by the dissonance between the outer and inner shapes of the letters.

[dezcom]

I really like the concept! Glad to see someone stick their neck out a bit and design something with guts.
I have tried some of those things and know how both exciting and maddening it can be. I will have to give it a while to simmer before I can comment because you need to realign your habitual vision a bit to be fair.
I am really rooting for Jeremy on this one!
At the moment, the counterforms seem to need to be pushed more in opposition to the norm to solidify the vision that this is a purposive departure. I am sure Jeremy will get [and has gotten] plenty of notes of caution and requests to keep closer to traditional models. I hope he ignores all of it and follows his own vision.
He mentions abandoning pen based forms as a starting point. This is a good way to try to see the pure form without diluting it with tradition. That does not mean that I think "THe Pen" is wrong or even to be avoided. It means to me that I prefer not to either reject totally or embrace totally any means. To me, it means letting go of preconditioned axioms and having a visual dialogue with the forms in front of you and letting them each speak their own form of diction. Calligraphy has its own form of diction which has hundreds of years of evolution. That does not mean it is either good or bad. It is like the difference between French and German diction. Neither one is wrong and neither one is right. Each is a working system that differing peoples have arrived upon. There is no need to stop looking for new diction as befits our current time. The generations before us did not stop, nor should we.
You go Jeremy! Take your own Pinta, Niña,and Santa Maria to the New World!

[Riccardo Sartori]

what put me off is that at book-size point sizes, it really looks just like a plain old regular sans

And that’s no small achievement! The purpose of a typeface is to make us read, not to “look closely to notice anything new or different”. What’s interesting here is the mean used to achieve this.
For extended discussions on the subject, you can look for “crystal goblet”.