Analysis of a Typeface
Beatrice Warde states that a good typography must ask of type not 'How should it look?' but 'What must it do?' which is wrong. Ok in her context of type for books, where large amounts of text are present I believe her 'crystal goblet' logic is sound but to state that it is the only form of typography worth considering is just a very dull way of looking at the world.
My example of type is Franchise Bold- I love this type face, it shouts, it demands and it stands strongly out from the crowd, yet it also restrain itself before it becomes too overbearing. It's a transitional san serif type that appears to have begun it's life in the wood printing press, however this font is relatively new and still a baby, designed by Derek Weathersbee who states that each character was "meticulously drawn to achieve a unifomity without compromising style". It's decorative rather than functional, as all my favourite type is. Not all type should blend into the background, and certainly shouldn't be ignored.
So why is Beatrice wrong? I'll use the example of Franchise to defend my opinion. She proclaims that
"the most important thing about printing is that it conveys thought, ideas, images, from one mind to other minds."- Warde
Perhaps, but what about the tone? It's all well and good relying purely on content to deliver your message; and in the context of books and large amounts of body text this may be true, as mentioned previously, but for all other forms of type this cannot be the case. Surely type must convey something about what it's saying rather than just saying it? Isn't that simply mirroring language? In human speech when two people communicate what we say means little to nothing, it makes up about 10% of communication. The rest is made up of 50% body language and 40% tone of voice.
I can say the words 'I love you so much' but if spoken sarcastically without eye contact and a body held away from the person I'm talking to do I really love them? If spoken maliciously with a strong and defiant body then surely these words become threatening and scary rather than loving. It works both ways, if I were to say 'You're such a stupid bitch' with a smile on my face, an open body posture and a tone of voice that conveys joking the words are taken in jest and humour rather than pure insult if they were read without context.
Typefaces are called typefaces because they are the 'face' we look at whilst being spoken to and that face can change the meaning of words by distorting it's expression or setting itself in a new font.
"A public speaker is more 'audible' in that sense when he bellows. But a good speaking voice is one which is inaudible as a voice. It is the transparent goblet again!"- Warde
Well surely this comes down to context? Yes a good speaking voice may be one that is also inaudible but if I were attempting to warn people about a fire that's broken out then I think bellowing it would be more suitable than using a good clear speaking voice. This is the same with typography, if I am trying to sway your opinion on a subject I don't want my voice inaudible, I want it as loud as possible. if I'm trying to sell you something or catch your attention I want you to hear me. Let's look some examples, three examples in the ever so legible font Baskerville and three in Franchise Bold.
Which examples jump to your eyes attention first? Which examples do you read first? And which ones seem more suitable for their contexts and topics? For each, Franchise Bold is the answer. There's a reason headlines are set in typefaces similar to Franchise Bold and not in Baskerville. If we were to 'hear' these phrases the tone of voice for each font in dramatically different. I can barely hear Baskerville but I can definitely hear Franchise Bold, it's demanding I do something right now, whether that's paying attention to it, buying something from it or saving the whales.
"When you listen to a song in a language you do not understand, part of your mind actually does fall asleep, leaving your quite separate aesthetic sensibilities to enjoy themselves unimpeded by your reasoning faculties. The fine arts do that; but that is not the purpose of printing. Type well used is invisible as type, just as the perfect talking voice is the unnoticed vehicle for the transmission of words, ideas."- Warde
This is so very untrue, if we are listening to a song sung in another language then we surely are listening to how it is sang to gain our sense of context and tone. If they sing harshly and sharply, strong defined consonants and spitting on P's and T's then we know the song must be about anger, frustration. If we were to hear it in the natural and monotonous speaking tone then we would derive nothing from the song at all. We don't know the words, we have no idea how it should be sang, and we are given nothing to fill in the gaps- it becomes empty, flat and useless.
In the context of voice we look to actors, an actor would consider themselves unsuccessful if they weren't able to communicate to you their intended emotions through facial expressions and tone of voice; an inaudible, clear and empty actor is a bad one. How can you communicate to an audience if you don't use any tools of communication? The transmission of words and ideas come laced with persuasion and tone, these must be transmitted along with the words and without tone the words becomes meaningless jumbles of letters.
In conclusion type and fonts are voices, not wine glasses. They communicate to us as another person would and we rely not on what they say but how they say it, on the tone of voice they choose, the context in which they're speaking to us and the inflections used in language to keep our attention. Each typeface is another person, a different character, a different voice and it is up to the designer to find the appropriate context for a font or the appropriate font for a context.
If I am to view type as just an object then surely I want a beautiful object, I want an object that tells me something about the drink inside.
Give me the golden jewel encrusted goblet anyday, I prefer to drink my wine in style.
No comments:
Post a Comment