Upon reading the text, I really did enjoy Spiekermann’s passion for the symbolism and evocation that well designed typography induces. What I might have to question in his writing is the need for the type to express the meaning of the word in such a literal way. This could possibly lead to bad font choices and examples of kitch commercialization. There are many horrible expressive fonts out there, and perhaps it is because of the misconception that many have that the typeface of a word must bleed the characteristics of that word, to the point of being harshly stereotypical. If incorporated well into its surroundings, the word ‘surprise’ might work just as well in Garamond than in some garish font that screams the need to be surrounded by confetti. And personally, I find that classifying a word into distinct categories of how it should be presented is a bit extreme considering how subjective the whole thing is. There is no rule etched in stone that says words must wear their heart on their sleeve in order to be successful in communication. For instance, there is much debate over the appeal of the font Helvetica. You might be able to consider to one of the most neutral fonts to date in existence. Although opinions vary from one extreme to another (David Carson and Massimo Vignelli) there is no doubt that it is one of the most widely used and praised typefaces. To say that ‘Surprise’ would be better suited in a handwritten font like mistral (as suggested in Speikerman’s text) than in, lets say, Helvetica Light is completely a matter of taste and opinion.
and it works!
No comments:
Post a Comment