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 |
No comments:
Post a Comment