some classic fonts ending with [on] sound


I was thanking Barry Schwartz for his Google web font's revival of Goudy, his reply made me discover the beautiful Janson [wikipedia] and I decided, just for fun, to compare it (Monotype Janson Regular) with Jenson/Garamond/Caslon (Adobe collection):

sorted in chronological order:
Nicholas Jenson (1420-1480) - France/Italy
Claude Garamond (1480–1561) - France
Nicholas Kis (1650-1702) & Anton Janson (1620-1687) - Dutch
William Caslon (1692 —1776) - English
 
It's just fascinating to observe the development of shapes, Jenson feeling script-ic and resembling its predecessors like uncial [wikipedia] or the Carolingian minuscule [wikipedia], and on the other end Caslon feeling Futura-esque (the geometric counters (inside space) of m or b).
So many differences, yet so close to each other.

Also, fascinating the see the versions of a font between foundries. Here's the Garamond by Monotype:

so different ! Looks like a Light and zigzaggy transformation of Adobe's..

Excess and misuse of digital types for display

50 years ago, if you had a shop and needed a sign, you would not think of using typefaces found in books to use for the sign.
Nowadays, digitalization gave Marketers and sign-makers an excuse for lazyness, with the pretense of looking modern and "human", down-to-earth, simple and familiar. Too many digital Sans fonts (Sanss) never intended for Display use, are simplistically oversized and printed as such.

Ugly, Overabundant, Senseless, Excessive, Misplaced,...

As for examples of good signage, google didn't help much, even after spending 20mn on various search queries.. the point being, there is nothing wrong with using small digial Sanss for display if there is some kind of design thought about it, or if it's at least funny or interesting.

Better

Fake Interview

Why is Typography so special ? Because letters are the visual atoms of language, and language defines us. We are language machines, and anything else, the physical world included, is an unnessential accessory, a way-through, the organ/obstacle of our nature, which lies in language.

Why is the visual part of language more important than the audible part, phonems..etc ? I don't think it is. There is simply no art, studies, or ways to think about the audible side of letters. Phonetics and phonology touches into neurology, not yet into psychology or psychoanalysis. I just don't see how one can be excited about various "a" and "o" sounds, just yet.

Don't we use other senses to express ourselves? Body language isn't a well-formed language, analytically speaking. I love perfumes but they have the same problem.

Are letters that important? Isn't the content of a text so much more vital than the way the letters are drawn? I believe most people can understand the obvious principle of typography: that letter-shapes carry different mental "packages" or cultural assimilation: Stencil fonts feel strong and manly, Courier feels mechanical, Script faces feel human...etc. But it takes a lot of imagination and sensitivity to feel how the emotions of shapes can be much more than a mental accessory.

Isn't typography just about the legibility/readbility issue? Typography is the mother of Text and its pedestal and its autel and its backlight. It is the hidden and invisible power that makes content shine.

What is the Graal, the aim, the god, the dream of typography? I see a mirage, an idea, of words on the page. I believe there can be letter-shapes that transcend their content because their shapes capture the full attention of the eye, of the brain. And the meaning of words would flow in the mind, invisibly, as in a mutual endeavour of the outside/inside. I believe and dream in the resolution of the brain/mind issue. There is a light coming out of a shape that fits its content, and we are still in the infancy of creating such shapes.

Ok... let's take a step back. Design has an influence on how we think, so isn't typography a cousin of architecture, or industrial design? Yes, but objects and walls are only doors to memories, images and sensations. Letter-shapes, and only them, are also doors to the logical mind.

So typography is the supreme Art of design? Yes.

What do you think other designers would say about that? They would not like it, but I cannot convince them. Like I said, it takes a peculiar mind to see why typography rules.

Randoms

Typography is Western. The good, bad, and beautiful glyphs. Fonts are scars-faces, types as bullets of the paper gun.

   Why is history so obviously important in typography?
           Under each letter resonates the melody of the typemachine, the cracking battling rythm of the punch cutter. It's iron and stone, the recurring blink of the [instrument antique roman greek], the scribing of serifs, the manly victory cry of prehistoric battles that early pictograms evoke, the heaviness of Gutenberg's molds [find the right term] - amusingly called a portable device - dirtier from an unforgiving, traitorous ink.
               It's the blunt and white cruelty of paper.         No matter the flask, the particular arrangement one designs on a page, there is no relief for the lazy.

     {{ Circles and rounded shapes only exist for the support of pre-existing vertical stems (the first letters had straight lines [pictograms]). Bodoni's (or worst, Broadway) apparent striking roudness has large vertices inside its loops [inside the d],



thick "inside-stems", the roundess is thin, stems are thick, as if the letter was a flow of ink that got distracted and slimmer when forced in a corner, as if the letter felt pain in turning. }}


   Letters reach for the sky and heavens, letters are that alien, Shape-sister of Content who can't speak English but tries. Serifs are religious crosses, ascenders and descenders are liberation against the baseline, decorations are nothing but suspicious, (times where volupty and floweryness expressed royaly and a blessed blood are long gone). We discard Comic Sans, letters are not for kids.

Another idea: do we not use script fonts because of needs for readbility or is it because we miss the structure, necessary and familiar Cartesian texture that we need ?
Textures