These are just a few of the ways people have classified type over the years. Gerrit Noordzij, while at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in the Hague, held that typography was essentially an extension of handwriting, teaching typography using loose categories of letters that might be written with a broad-nib or pointed-nib pen, as well as interrupted or uninterrupted strokes, with varieties of both serifs and sans falling into each category. An early system by French typographer Francis Thibaudeau, which provided the base for Vox’s later more thorough classification, includes four broad categories: Antiques (sans serifs), Égyptiennes (slab serifs), Didots and Elzévirs (faces with triangular serifs). A book designer himself, Bringhurst focuses on text typefaces and practically ignores display type. It is slightly simplified and has remained essentially unchanged since its adoption.īringhurst, in his Elements of Typographic Style - perhaps the standard in typographic textbooks today - categorizes typefaces loosely after periods of art history for example, Baroque, Rococo, Romantic, etc. The British Standards Classification of Typefaces, adopted in 1967, is also based on Vox’s original classification. Its Wikipedia article provides an excellent overview. It classifies typefaces in 11 general categories, with some subdivision. Originally put together in 1954 by Maxmilien Vox, it was adopted in 1962 by the Association Typographique Internationale (ATypI), which made a minor change at the 2010 conference (appropriately, held in Dublin) to include Gaelic as an extra category. The primary “official” classification system currently is the Vox-ATypI system. Sets film in 1920’s uses typeface from 1975. However, for the reasons given above, I believe there is value to be found in it. It’s not inflexible, and is more of an aid than a rule. Essentially, classification describes typefaces it does not define them. The impossibility of a truly complete classification system has led many people to dismiss any attempt to classify typefaces - there are simply too many variables to make anything close to a practical, comprehensive system. Most are generally believed to be subjective and incomplete, and many of them use the same terms for similar but slightly different classes. Over the past century, quite a few classification systems have been proposed. Most importantly, perhaps, this article will not only familiarize you with general type history and commonly used terminology, but also help you learn to look for and recognize important characteristics of type and the inexhaustible minutiae that make typefaces unique, as well as arm you with useful descriptors of type styles. In some cases, by finding enough disparity in the small features, very different typefaces become complementary. Type classification is also helpful in pairing typefaces for projects, sometimes based on historical proximity but also by noting similar features that unify the typefaces, such as axis or x-height. It’s not exclusively about the history of type, however. It really comes down to solid design choices.Ī good grasp of type history will help you avoid typographic anachronisms, which, although often lost on the general public, do not escape the notice of many designers, as demonstrated in Mark Simonson’s article on the 2012 Oscar winner for Best Picture, “The Artist,” and his other typographic scrutinies of popular movies and media. That being said, what you’ll read here is by no means impractical. More importantly, perhaps, there is a way in which seemingly impractical knowledge of one’s profession lends more credence to the designer. This digital version reproduces the original design by Claude Garamont closely.There’s a certain intellectual delight in knowledge, particularly knowledge about one’s field of work and study. It is a community project to create a revival of Claude Garamont’s famous humanist typefaces from the mid-16th century. EB Garamond is intended to be an excellent, classical, Garamond.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |