#type classification

[violetofeelya]

Script in use.

[violetofeelya]

Sans serif in use.

[violetofeelya]

Transitional serifs. 

[violetofeelya]

Old style serif in use (ft. a creepy old children’s book found in my garage).

[violetofeelya]

Slab serif fonts in use.

[leighwoosey]

Frustrated by this otherwise beautifully informative article on type classification. Despite spending 20 pages criticising the use of catch-all categories it then proposes a system lumping any unusual OpenType Display faces together as ‘Graphic’.

[clairenatwan]

Week 2: Type Classification

Practical research into the make up of a typeface. A useful exercise in observation, which gave much more detailed findings into the peculiarities of a typeface and an appreciation for subtle adjustments required in the make up of a balanced typeface which does not conform to a grid system. Futura for example, which might be classified as a geometric style sans serif, has very subtle contrast throughout, which is apparent under close scrutiny but generally this feature of the font is not registered immediately.

[fontofyou]

Daniel Berkeley Updike

This kid wasn’t messing around when it came to typeface classification.

Daniel Berkeley Updike was an American printer and typographic historian. In 1893, he founded the Merrymount Press in Providence, Rhode Island with the express purpose of doing “common work well.” Could you imagine? There used to be a time when hand-set printing was common. We were all born in the wrong era. Ultimately, his excellence in printing inspired other printers. He taught the first college course in the United States on this history of typography, and the practice of printing at Harvard University. 

In 1922, he published his sweeping scholarly achievement: Printing Types: Their History, Forms, and Use in 1922 which covers typography from before the golden age of printing, well through to the opening of the twentieth century.

In Printing Types, Updike discusses 15th century printing types in Europe with astounding depth, far more depth, in fact than could be captured within our pie chart system. Shown above is the paired down version of his typeface classification system. To see the detailed version, one would have to imagine six of these charts—one each for Germany, Italy, France, The Netherlands, Spain and England).

There would then be some differentiations in those charts. Only the Italian chart would have the Italic, which it would use over the Vernacular classification. Germany’s Gothic types would be called Textura, Fraktura and Schwabacher (say that 5 times fast).

England would remove the Classical Roman classification and Spain would lose the vernacular category. It would also have a Woodcut Capitals classification, which brings up a whole other mess–should there also be printing based classification? (Probably) And how would that work? (Ugh, we’ll save that for another post.)

In addition to detailing the most in-depth classification system, Updike discusses nearly all of the known printers of each country, which typefaces they used, and their contributions to the art of letterpress printing. Can you say workaholic? We’re glad though. He’s pretty much the 1920s James Bond of typefaces­–attempting to crack all the typographic mysteries with his never-ending knowledge. He kind of reminds us of Paul Shaw, one of our favorite professors who happens to be an extremely knowledgeable historian and talented calligrapher.

Anywhooo, back to Updike…There are several specimens of each type, and a thorough analysis for each image, making it the masterwork of pre-digital age printing and typography.