What's so wrong with the chirographic approach?

[Maurice Meilleur]

Chris, TEFF's Ruse is Gerrit Noordzij's.

[istitch]

type basics: calligraphy

[redge]

As far as I can see, the criticisms of current type on this site are never accompanied by concrete examples of improvements. The criticisms, at their best, seem to be accompanied by hypotheses that may or may not be born out by research, research that may or may not happen, and by imagined type faces that nobody has brought into existence.

David Hamuel has asked for a concrete demonstration of some of what has been said in this thread. That sounds like a completely reasonable request. Yet his post is being ignored.

I am new to this, but I am not completely stupid. There is a major disconnect between the criticisms and concrete demonstration of those criticisms, let alone a demonstration of improvements.

Without commenting on anyone else, it seems to me that Nick Shinn writes in plain English and says things that seem to make a great deal of sense.

I'd really like to know whether the critics are saying that they can produce better results, now, or whether they are saying that they need to do research to determine whether they can or can't produce better results. I do realise that this question arguably goes beyond this particular thread, and butts up against another current thread, but it seems to me that the question is common to both.

Anyway, I have to leave off now in order to watch the Edmonton Oilers go 3-0 against Annaheim :)

[crossgrove]

I agree that calligraphy is limited in its applicability to type, but it also has value in getting designers comfortable with making letters at all. I've seen plenty of novice designs that reveal not only a vague grasp on letterforms, but a nearly crippling inability to draw, to produce marks of any kind.

For those who hope to design typefaces, I think anyone who has done some calligraphy, drawing, life drawing, cartooning, graffiti, drafting, or other hand work has a distinct advantage. If nothing else, hand skills get people used to representing ideas visually. Without the hand skills, it's apparently quite a struggle.

Calligraphy deals not only with making marks and shapes but also letter proportion, overshoot, consistency of stroke, and spacing. Of all those hand skills, calligraphy offers the most advantages to a hopeful type designer.

[hrant]

David, redge: FF Legato.
http://typographi.com/000969.php

More soon. Much, hopefully.

hhp

[redge]

Surely the thread about blackletters in Mexico says plenty about calligraphy, and its vibrancy. Participants in this site were falling all over themselves with admiration for the project that was the subject of that thread. Was that a temporary, or misguided, infatuation?

Not to mention graffitti artists, Basquiat being an obvious example, if only because his work hangs in major galleries and his life has been immortalized in a feature film made by a fellow artist.

[George Horton]

No type ever designed for text has glyphs that are just the product of a moving front, so chirography in type is a matter of degree. Furthermore, as Nick's admirable c shows, divergence between exterior and interior axes is not just possible but natural in type pretty faithful to the broad nib. As long as the designer understands which is the means and which the end, there's not a problem. If he doesn't, the danger is that he restricts himself unnecessarily to just a subset of the possibilities for black-white tension, and uncritically accepts other properties given glyphs by the broad nib, like line weight at certain angles, as a package. I also agree with Hrant that the idea of a skeleton inside the glyph isn't useful.

Redge, I think you'll come to find that you appreciate different qualities in text and display. It's normal to acquire an interest and independent taste in display type first, which may or may not drift towards or expand to include text type. This isn't just an intellectual thing either, one's immediate aesthetic responses change. Neither is it a matter of a binary switch: I now find good type most attractive when set a good deal smaller than I did eight months ago. And I don't want to sound patronising: I'm also new to all this, and am horrified at earlier versions of my typo-critical self that are still fresh in the memory. Presumably this iterating self-disgust will continue for some time yet :-). PS: my opinion of W&P is pretty much Tolstoy's own: he was a hard-nosed moralist as well as a great artist, and he freely (and by the end almost wholly) gave up aesthetic virtues for ethical ones, even denying that W&P was a novel at all. AK was the book that was meant to be (and was, limitlessly) beautiful.

[redge]

George,

I've got news for you.

I am principally interested in text rather than display and I have no idea why you would think that the reverse would be "natural". In my case, what's natural is that I'm working on a book, not posters. This is what is known as real life.

I do not know what "binary switch" means, except that it is not what I consider to be English.

When a person says that he does not mean to sound patronising, it is a certain sign that he is about to sound precisely that.

Finally, I don't understand why you want to get into a debate about Tolstoy and, if I understand your post in another thread, about the relative merits of Tolstoy and Nabokov. I wasn't looking for, and am still not looking for, that debate.

For one thing, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. For another, I would rather talk about Nabokov's Dozen, or Pnin, etc. With someone whose working assumption is that I may have an IQ over 50.

Edmonton just scored two quick goals in succession. It's 3-0 over Annaheim.

[redge]

George,

I've got news for you.

I am principally interested in text rather than display and I have no idea why you would think that the reverse would be "natural". In my case, what's natural is that I'm working on a book, not posters. This is what is known as real life.

I do not know what "binary switch" means, except that it is not what I consider to be English.

When a person says that he does not mean to sound patronising, it is a certain sign that he is about to sound precisely that.

Finally, I don't understand why you want to get into a debate about Tolstoy and, if I understand your post in another thread, about the relative merits of Tolstoy and Nabokov. I wasn't looking for, and am still not looking for, that debate.

For one thing, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. For another, I would rather talk about Nabokov's Dozen, or Pnin, etc. with someone whose working assumption is that I may have an IQ over 50.

Edmonton just scored two quick goals in succession. It's 3-0 over Annaheim.

[George Horton]

A switch is a change in state; "binary" means that the thing changed has two possible states.

You did not "understand [my] post in another thread". Even had I intended a debate, it was yours to drop; you preferred to muse, after misquoting me, that "the conclusions that I draw are, of course, a different matter :)". Now that's a disingenuous emoticon.

[redge]

George,

I've got news for you.

I am principally interested in text rather than display and I have no idea why you would think that the reverse would be "natural". In my case, what's natural is that I'm working on a book, not posters. This is what is known as real life.

I do not know what "binary switch" means, in the context in which you are using the phrase, except that it is not what I consider to be English.

When a person says that he does not mean to sound patronising, it is a certain sign that he is about to sound precisely that.

Finally, I don't understand why you want to get into a debate about Tolstoy and, if I understand your post in another thread, about the relative merits of Tolstoy and Nabokov. I wasn't looking for, and am still not looking for, that debate.

For one thing, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. For another, I would rather talk about Nabokov's Dozen, Pnin, Speak Memory, etc. With someone whose working assumption is that I may have an IQ over 50.

Edmonton just scored two quick goals in succession. It's 3-0 over Annaheim.

[George Horton]

You've tried to edit your post to add another Nabokov title to a would-be throwaway list! Unbelievable...

[redge]

George, cool your heels.

For some reason, perhaps because I am posting from a BlackBerry, I have triple-posted.

Sorry about that.

The difference between the posts is pretty insignificanct (I was doing a minor edit), although there was one major change. Edmonton won game three 5-4.

Given that you are a self-professed fan of Nabokov, I added the reference to Speak, Memory not to be nefarious, but because I thought that you might find it amusing.

[crossgrove]

But anyway, THIS THREAD is about the value of chirography as an approach to type design.....

[Nick Shinn]

“We don’t read the black, but the relationship between black and white.”

Hrant, I like this idea, but I would qualify it by saying that we see in many ways, so it's quite possible that we are aware of a figure, and a figure-ground relationship, simultaneously, as two different phenomena.

Something may be going on at the level of ocular micro tremor. OMT occurs at around 86 Hz, and is presumed to function to prevent image fade by constantly stiumulating the retina. However, as has been noted by Paul Kainen, it also registers patterns, by creating an interference field.
http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/kainen/topoliss.pdf
Page 8-9.

Raph's Fourier analyses (shown on Typophile last year) demonstrate that repetitive texture is a quality of typography.

Therefore, it seems reasonable that OMT would play a role in the global perception of type in mass layout, rather than through sequential reading with normal saccades.

There needs to be some explanation of why a skilled proofreader can look at a page of text and spot a typo immediately. So I hypothesize that learning to read fluently exploits OMT to perceive certain qualities of text globally, and that the rhythm or text color that typographers speak of is part of this awareness.

[Martin Silvertant]

Hrant mentioned his dislike of Noordzij's theory in another thread. To avoid a discussion in a thread not suitable for the subject I was sent here.

I must say I find this discussion rather strange. I think it's good to discuss both advantages and limitations of calligraphy but I don't think it even should be relied on completely. As such, I don't understand people's discontent with chirography.

I have to admit I sometimes do some calligraphy to find interesting letter shapes but I haven't used any of them yet. My process — so far, anyway — is completely digital. I think I don't even need to rely on chirography because we have hundreds of years of typefaces based on chirography, and typefaces based on chirography-based typefaces and so forth. It's really strange to me to disregard its value.

I thought Noordzij's theory was very enlightening and in a way it made my world of type design richer. However that doesn't mean people should rely on it, but it has given me great insight in how letters are constructed and how they behave, and furthermore gives me the liberty to consciously break type design rules.

You would also think that calligraphy couldn't possibly bring new shapes anymore, but I completely disagree with that as well. My high contrast sans grotesque 'Dagon Sans' was inspired by calligraphic principles, and I also have a several calligraphic letter forms on paper which could potentially be the basis for new typefaces. For example, I made an 'a' with an unconventional serif and weight build-up but it looks very nice. I wouldn't know if it works at all throughout a complete typeface, but I think that's the fun of chirography.

I also wonder if a typeface like Legato could've been developed at all without a chirographic approach.

> Basically, it favors the black bodies of letters (by tying the two edges of the
> black, via a marking tool/metaphor) and this impedes the optimal formation of notan
That's assuming you're using your calligraphic pen in a fixed position instead of subtly rotate. Also, why would you assume a type designer wouldn't fix these parallel lines digitally?

[WPM]

I recently did Dave Crossland's Crafting Type workshop in Portland, and he presented this quote from Gerry Leonidas (dept. head of the Type Design MA at Reading): "Type design is layering forms derived from personal expression onto an underlying structure of patterns derived from convention and typographic technology."

I wouldn't want to suggest there's a rivalry where there really isn't one, but it does seem like the KABK and Reading, the two dominant typeface design programs in the world, have approaches that differ in fundamental ways, the KABK's firmly rooted in Noordzij's theory of the stroke, versus Reading's approach -- from what I've heard from past students, and from the quote above -- being more connected to the ideas of layering forms and patterns, although Noordzij's ideas certainly are taken into account. I'm doing the Type@Cooper program this summer, the condensed one with Hannes Famira and Just van Rossum, so I'm guessing this will be more like the KABK's approach since they both studied with Noordzij.

My personal take (and this is liable/likely to change, or at least evolve, in the future): the Noordzij approach seems really useful for a singular, focused approach towards gaining an ingrained hand-eye understanding of letterforms. As someone with fairly decent bezier drawing skills and computer skills in general, the sketching/calligraphy bit is the part I would really like to gain an understanding of. But I also would never want to become a fervent disciple of The Stroke and The Stroke alone -- it just seems like a good foundation. I think of it sort of like drawing classes in most design programs. You will probably never be asked to illustrate a bowl of fruit or a draped sheet in charcoal during your career, but gaining that fundamental understanding of form and graphic interpretation is key to being able to move on to more common forms of illustration.

[quadibloc]

Personally, I think that the design space between Times Roman, Corona, Baskerville, Caslon, Century Expanded, Cloister Lightface, and Caledonia needs to be more fully explored, as I think that some typefaces closer to "optimal" or at least "invisible" - wide Scotch Romans, like Number Eleven - have gotten lost or remain to be designed.

The novel and startling need to be explored too, because with a larger range of possibilities, we can find more things, but I think that even in the world of typefaces that people read without a second thought, there is room for a bit more fine-tuning to make the process of reading go even more smoothly. And that means typefaces that impose no noticeable surprises.

Even if the serifs might look very novel when placed under a powerful magnifying glass.

So putting chirography aside is low on my list of priorities.

[dezcom]

I cannot see the issue as being chirography vs. non-chirography. As humans, we have thousands of years of being to fill our visual literacy pools. There is no need to exclude anything just as their is no need to overemphasize anything at the expense of closing doors to other potentials. Where ever you study, or with whomever you study, understand that there is always more than that to see. Open doors, do not close doors. Always question your teachers--most will welcome your inquiry (those who don't may be guarded in their answers). We are all enquiring systems. We only feed our curiosity when we question. No one source is totally correct. Being totally correct may not be a virtue at any rate. Think of yourself as a growing organism that is fead by exposure to many things. You are not on a straight path to righteousness, you are on a meandering array of streams of stimuli that have no clear resting point. Keep sailing.

[typerror]

The most salient post in this thread Chris! The myopic teacher is only good to his sycophant(ic) student!

[hrant]

I just realized that I replied to Josh's post but have ignored interesting contributions that came before; I hope to rectify that soon. But for now let me keep this particular train rolling.

John, there indeed remain some unexplored corners of the Chirographic Continent, and it's entirely possible that some of those corners might contain gold; but when it seems much more promising -if also risky- to cross over to other continents, it just seems wasteful not to; our time on this earth is not unlimited. Also, to me most chirographic designers don't seem sufficiently preoccupied with discovery - they generally seem principally interested in elaboration/refinement. To me that's good for business more than it's good for culture.

BTW: https://typography.guru/forums/topic/41095-forwarding

Chris, first of all, philosophically I do agree with you. The thing is, when you say "there is no need to overemphasize anything at the expense of closing doors", looking at the output of KABK students there does seem to be a single door that's left much more open to the students than any other door; Reading isn't like that.

But beyond that, practically speaking one tries to balance exploration and production, and the latter requires you to adopt a stance, so you can actually make something. This doesn't mean the stance is Perfect, and it doesn't mean changing you mind is evil. But being a 100% relativist is guaranteed to leave you with zero usable output.

hhp

[oneweioranother]

Hrant,

What on earth do you mean by "our humanism" ???

[quadibloc]

It's clear that Bifur is non-chirographic, and so is Calypso.

I'd say that even Helvetica, Peignot Bold, Eurostile, and Optima, for example, are not all that chirographic, despite being relatively conventional. They're neither overtly calligraphic, nor conventional serif fonts, already at one remove from calligraphy. Since they're perfectly legitimate faces, I will readily agree that type designers can escape from being tightly bound to calligraphy.

Then there are the display faces that look like MICR characters or 5 x 7 dot-matrix characters.

@hrant:
Also, to me most chirographic designers don't seem sufficiently preoccupied with discovery - they generally seem principally interested in elaboration/refinement. To me that's good for business more than it's good for culture.

Well, good for business can be good for culture; art that is valued contributes, while art that is discarded and forgotten does not.

But I really don't think we have a shortage of innovative and experimental type designs. The "high art" tradition, where the focus is on doing something that's never been done before, instead of on craftsmanship building in a small way on what one's predecessors have accomplished, is very much alive and well - and present in type design, despite the presence of craftsmanlike thinking there as well.

There's a place for both types of endeavors, and it doesn't make sense to ask those in one camp to move to another. On the other hand, if you are deploring the lack of designs aimed at mainstream purposes that make use of innovative ideas - that show that a typeface can be an effective tool to convey information without being solely steeped in tradition - then I don't disagree with the sentiment. I would just point out Optima as something I consider to be one of the few exceptions to that, to show there is some cross-fertilization between the avant-garde and the mainstream, even if it is limited and slow.

EDIT: Further thought on this issue is bringing me around to acknowledging the importance of the issue, rather than just feeling you are being impatient.

It's natural for designers who are aiming at the utility of their product to stick with what is tried and true, and it's also natural for those whose purpose is "Hey! Look at me!" not to try and design typefaces that avoid being distracting (a near-prerequisite to usefulness), but these tendencies, natural though they are, are potentially sufficiently limiting that it does make sense to urge a conscious effort to resist them on both sides of that divide.

[hrant]

Business and Culture are certainly not diametrically opposed, they're more like at 120 degrees. Any creative act is a vector in that span. And in a Democracy the larger the vector the faster it will shift towards Business.

It goes without saying that liminographic (better than "anti-chirographic") fonts are nothing new, in fact considering the medium in a way they're the rule; even when you scan & trace a font out of actual calligraphy, something shifts. My contention is that overall we remain firmly under the strong illusion of chirography. Evidence? Formal education in type design. Even at Reading it's a bit too strong.

it doesn't make sense to ask those in one camp to move to another.

I don't see it as camps - any individual is an admixture of opposing beliefs, constantly reconciling them so he can continue breathing. When I preach liminography, I'm not targeting anybody in particular; mostly it just feels like a duty to counterbalance the pervading illusion.

I really don't think we have a shortage of innovative and experimental type designs.

Actually, there is a growing undercurrent of discontent there. Ruxandra Duru's paper* is a great read in this respect, with Thomas Huot-Marchand decrying a new conservatism, and Jefferey Keedy going much further in calling this era "the new dark ages". You don't have to be a fan of every product of the 90s to miss its presence in some ways. We need many more Legatos and Fenlands.

* http://ruxandra-duru.com/web/pdf/Ruxandra_Duru_type_foundries_today.pdf

Wei, that was bad, sorry. :-)
What I meant was that our consciousness enjoys the grid, but it goes against the needs of our "deeper" human self.

hhp

[hrant]

Do note that Crafting Type is skewed heavily towards Reading, considering its instructors - and instructors do influence their students (even if they don't want to). That said, I personally think that -if you're not careful- the Noordzij approach can become a "foundation" the way cement shoes are a foundation... :-/

KABK seems to be incredibly good at getting student to quickly produce highly polished, salable fonts in a certain style. Reading doesn't do that as well, as quickly; but to me education isn't about production. When I was invited to speak to the Reading students this past June, and got to talk more deeply with their instructors concerning how they like to teach, I was very happy to see how they try so hard to let the student develop their own views, in fact at the expense of passing along theirs; the students attest to this as well. Most people simply can't produce high-quality fonts in one year without the instructors exerting an undue influence. And I personally always want to see new people in type design, not proxies of existing people.

Related - see my comment here:
http://typographica.org/typeface-reviews/quintet/

You will undoubtedly learn much from Type@Cooper. But if you take a pinch (more like a bag :-) of salt with you you'll be able to apply what you learn in much more culturally valuable ways, at least the way I see things.

BTW if all goes well I'll be teaching at the LA edition of Type@Cooper. And I'll bring the salt. :-)

hhp