Source: Bigelowandholmes.typepad.com Letter Drawing For Galileo Typeface Designed For Scientific American Magazine, 1985.
Letter & Spirit (My Analysis)
This article was an intriguing but perplexing read for me. It wasn't that it wasn't clear, but I got mixed up between some words and terminologies. It taught me the distinction between font and typeface. I don't know why they meant the same thing. In this reading, a few things stood out to me, one of which was Donald Knuth's early 1980s concept of meta font. Metafont was a piece of software that allowed users to create infinite fonts based on predefined parameters. The concept entailed drawing a single letter, revealing only a small portion of what was going through the designer's mind when the artist drew the letter. However, that single drawing comes with precise instructions and specifications on creating other new characters, even with variables like weight, slant, bend, Etc. This concept clarifies why certain types of fonts have specific dimensions all around their type design.
However, I appreciate that Douglas Hofstader challenges his viewpoint, which is mathematical in nature. I've always considered the creative process to be both rule-breaking and spontaneous. As a result, reducing type design to a mathematical process has limitations. However, Geoffery Sampson strikes a balance by stating that letterforms can be conceived as closed and open systems.
I could see some history of typography evolution from the reading. We know that typography began much earlier than calendars, in the form of inscriptions and woodcuts on surfaces. These calligraphic exercises could not be determined by proportion but by the artist's creativity and desires. On the other hand, typography has evolved to impose mathematically rigorous structures and adapt them to the demands of the press and other forms of technology. This evolution makes perfect sense, given that the tools used to create typefaces included rulers, T-squares, set squares, compasses, and protractors, resulting in very distinct angles and shape forms.
In the article, I noticed a need to soften the hard geometry with gentler type designs with a more humanistic feel. Futura by Paul Renner is one of these birth fonts. The possibility of other types of type design expressions began to emerge. This is fascinating for someone like me who is fascinated by unusual typeface designs. It is acceptable to change things up. I thoroughly enjoyed reading about Stanley Morrisin's audacity in changing the fonts for The Times newspaper design. One person must be willing to do something different for new things to emerge. Even if the difference is minor, it introduces a new style, whether noticeable or not.
I also appreciated the perspective this paper provided on what new means. The birth of something 'new' does not have to be drawn from scratch; it could be an amendment or drawing inspiration from various forms. Some fonts are rejigging of other fonts, which makes them distinct in their own right as long as it reflects the designer's aesthetic impulse at the time.
As a designer, the article on the letter and the spirit inspires me because I am free to reimagine things while there are design rules and structures. That's the allure of being a designer and, by extension, an author in my production.
