Now Typophiles;

What do you think that was produce today that follows some experiences like Emigre, David Carson typography, Fuse, Neville Brody typefaces, LetterError…What you think that follows those ideias — and even upgrade them? Because follow an ideia is wonderful, but improve something that was left its another thing.

I’ve “upgraded” some of my earlier experimental types to the OpenType format.
For instance, one premise of Fontesque (1994) was to be irregular, and the OpenType format expanded that quality through the possibility of creating pseudo-randomness, with fonts that respond to text.
http://ilovetypography.com/2011/04/01/engaging-contextuality/
Do experiments with contextuality create shocking forms that are perceived as ugly?
No, it’s not the kind of thing that suddenly puts creative power in the hands of outsiders, to overthrow the turgid establishment—that sort of situation doesn’t happen very often.

I think the world do not make much experimentation [random, and not random]. In some way, that experiences dont have the success that creators may want, the light that they perhaps deserve.

And…judging to 26 comments that this topic only have, people don't care much about this theme.

Sometimes I think we have FULL of commercial [not CommercialTypeFoundry] things, but seems not :)

[scan]

I have forgot this infographic work in Type Heresy book by Paul Felton.

Don't let this topic Die and go to Heaven!

All right, I fess up. I have done some "ugly" typefaces, by means of experimentation. Good lord, what a strange self-promotion! Galette, Tertre, Springsteel and Springsteel Serif come to mind, not to mention some others. I do not know though whether my kind of ugly is what you had in mind. It certainly isn't a sophisticated ugliness :)

My philosophy—Functionalist, no doubt—from an article I wrote in 2004 discussing new types such as Lingua:

… Experimental design that follows the principles of What-If? and Because-We-Can! redefines beauty. The most elegant solutions to previously unposed problems are shocking and ugly in their strangeness … As one begins to appreciate the way that new form follows new function, the beauty emerges…

If the specific function intended by the font requires ugliness to some viewers, so be it. I have a very ugly looking chuck of stainless steel wire holding my ribcage together.

My intent with this topic, is not to get a kind of philosophical examples of what I call ugly (beautiful experiences); but, by contrast, practical examples of that: Digital examples or even physical ones.

But @Nick Shinn, that philosophy have a practical example, and that is good! thanks for sharing.

What do people make of Karloff? I find its form exquisite and delicately beautiful actually. Historically it was considered ugly but I don't think an experienced type designer like Peter Bilak _can_ do an ugly typeface?

And what about typefaces that arise out of inexperience/dilettantism?

I like it it!

Who said it was ugly?
Perverse, travesty, hard to read, impossible to use, but was it really considered ugly?

I'm really tempted to edit the fix the typo in the title of this post. But it occurs to me that when you write uglyness perhaps you also mean sloppiness.

I'm really tempted to edit the title of this post. But it occurs to me that when you write uglyness perhaps you also mean sloppiness.

Perhaps it could be renamed in line with Peter Biľak's article on I Love Typography about Beauty & Ugliness in Type Design?

I like
Bilak.

hhp

I like
Bilak.

Turning brevity into an artform. I can see the t-shirt now with that in Karloff Negative.

Though rest assured I am not accusing you of being an artist.

Few things are truly ugly. Selfishness is ugliest of all. Is design ugly when it's mired in selfishness, puts self expression over substance?

Yup. Art.

hhp

"... puts self expression over substance?"

Post an example?

Is design ugly when it's mired in selfishness, puts self expression over substance?

It simply cease to be design. It becomes decoration, at most.

Is design ugly when it's mired in selfishness, puts self expression over substance?

No.

n.

When concerning great art, I really believe in the idea that the only thing that matters at all is the end product. Process does not matter. The amount of time it took to create doesn't matter. The masters the artist studied under don't matter. The technique the artist used doesn't matter. The success or failure of the artist in general doesn't matter. The mood the artist was in when they created it doesn't matter. Indeed, to some extent, even the artists intentions don't matter. What is there, at the end, that won't change, but is permanent--that is all that matters, and all that can ever really be judged.

What about originality ... I'm guessing you don't care to much for that either. Kinda like good old Shep the plagiarist...

http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm

The whole concept of what is art has been diluted to such an extant that comments like, 'whatever sells is art', 'art is in the eye of the beholder' etc., etc.. are used in utter servitude. Compare a Newman(Barnett) canvas against a Basquiat against a Pollack against a Hiroshige ...and then rethink your 'opinion'.

Just as all noise is not music ... all painting is not art.

To be sure Ryan, the process is everything.

Sorries.

n.

If something is original, why wouldn't it's originality be seen in the end product?

Only intent matters.

hhp

Only intent matters.

So as long as i intend to be making great art, I will be? Not a chance.