Kris Sowersby's "Welcome to the Infill Font Foundry"

Dave Crossland

https://klim.co.nz/blog/welcome-to-the-infill-font-foundry is an excellent long-read blog post

Twitter sent me the link via this suggestion from Underware to ATypI:

https://twitter.com/underware/status/750286468426428417

https://twitter.com/underware/status/750287119017443328

Michael Jarboe

VanderLans frames our contemporary efforts as simply filling in the gaps, and during his impressive 30 year career these gaps have suddenly narrowed—the typographic equivalent of ice caps melting or overcrowding. I simply don’t see his narrow gaps. I see wide open fields of possibility, and I see my peers and colleagues in the type industry working hard and making new, interesting type.

This sums up my feelings as well after reading the Fontstand Emigre article.

joeclark

Naked URLs are not the way to present links.

Dave Crossland

http://typographica.org/on-typography/rejecting-infill-ism-and-waterfalls-of-mediocrity/ is an earlier reaction to the FontStand interview

John Hudson

VanderLans frames our contemporary efforts as simply filling in the gaps, and during his impressive 30 year career these gaps have suddenly narrowed—the typographic equivalent of ice caps melting or overcrowding. I simply don’t see his narrow gaps. I see wide open fields of possibility, and I see my peers and colleagues in the type industry working hard and making new, interesting type.

This seems very much a matter of perspective, and not necessarily of perspectives that are inflexible. It is entirely possible for two intelligent and thoughtful observers to look at the same typeface and for one to focus on it's novel characteristics and the other on what it substantially has in common with a lot of other typefaces. Indeed, it is entirely possible for a single intelligent and thoughtful observer to focus in the morning on what is novel and interesting and in the afternoon on what is derivative and overdone. I might sometimes be that very observer, if you will accept my claim to being intelligent and thoughtful playful.

I would need to go back and re-read Rudy's comments in full, but I don't recall him suggesting either than 'infill-ism' was the only thing going or that it was the inevitable outcome of narrowing gaps between the spaces filled with existing designs. Kris has done a good job of arguing why 'infill-ism' isnt inevitable, but I think it would be a mistake to assume that this is an all-or-nothing issue, that there is either universally and exclusively a process of filling in the gaps or only very creative people working hard to make new and interesting typefaces. It seems to me that there is quite a lot of both going on.

Part of Kris' piece considers the degree to which what Rudy complains of today is or is not different from what Emigre itself was doing with releases like Mrs Eaves and Filosofia. This doesn't seem to me a very interesting question, because what most radically distinguishes the type scene in 2016 from that in 1996 isn't what people are doing but how many people are doing it.

I quipped on Twitter, shortly after the initial reactions to Rudy's interview,

I think we've been in infill mode since about 1600. It's just speeded up a lot in the last ten years.

and I wasn't joking. I wanted to suggest what I am saying here: that this is a matter of perspective. I chose the year 1600 carefully, because it is about the high point of the popularity of what later came to be called civilité text types, which I think represent the last time —at least in the countries that early abandoned blackletter typography — that type design and typography tried to follow new styles of text that were being introduced by professional scribes. After that, text typography is entirely dominated by the roman plus italic combination, and the biggest stylistic variation amounts to whether these have little feet or not. Again, it is a matter of perspective, but from one perspective we've spent 400 years filling in the possible variations on these two styles. This seems to me inarguable, regardless of whether one thinks the remaining number of possible variations — specifically, commercially viable variations — are rapidly diminishing or still represent a very broad field in which much new and interesting work can be done.

Here are a few, anecdotal instances that lead me to think that much really depends on the area or genre of design at which one is looking, and how one is choosing to look:

1. I was intrigued by the response to Microsoft's Segoe UI and branding types when they were first made public. There were some people who insisted that this was nothing more than a clone of Frutiger, and other people who considered that it was sufficiently different to be excused its similarities. What intrigued me was that colleagues whom I considered intelligent and ethically upstanding came down on different sides of that debate. I began to think about Frutiger as an exemplar of a particular sub-genre of sans serif that was, by its nature, quite limited in scope for variation. Once that sub-genre includes Frutiger and Myriad, there isn't a lot of room left for novel expression; throw in Stone Sans, and the category is essentially filled. This is obviously not to say that there is no possibility of distinctive features — such that intelligent observers focused on those details might conclude that Segoe UI is sufficiently new —, but that any new entry in that sub-genre is going to invite criticism or denunciation for what it substantially has in common with those earlier entrants. Ethically, the question of whether the makers of Segoe intentionally copied Frutiger is obviously important, but the controversy and the debate would result and be the same regardless: it is a result of the nature of that particular sub-genre, of how narrow is the gap left in it by existing designs.

2. A few months ago, there was a very public spat, notably conducted on Twitter, regarding the close release of two display types inspired by the topographic manipulations of M.C. Escher (during the course of this spat a third, earlier type based on the same inspiration was also acknowledged). The actual differences between these designs — the ways in which the idea was applied to individual letters and other glyphs — seem to me more substantial than the differences between many other typefaces that are considered sufficiently different (and certainly more substantial than the differences between Segoe and Frutiger). As the spat wore on, it seemed that much of the argument related not to the similarity of the designs but the similarity of the idea, and not least the closeness of the release date. This suggests that there are always likely to be considerations external to the individual designs that will shape the perspective on whether something is new and interesting or derivative and 'Hey, I did that just last week!' I suspect we will see more such spats in future.

3. About six years ago, I began designing a sans serif type family, mostly to explore some ideas I had about what constitutes legibility in sans text vs sans display settings. One of the reasons I've not finished and released this is that I'm not convinced there is anything substantially new to be expressed in the genre. Yeah, the whole genre of sans serif type. This too, obviously, is a matter of perspective.

Maurice Meilleur

I'm glad for Kris's essay, and I'm glad for the conversation it (and Stephen's recent contribution on his site) has started, but it's important to note

(1) that Fred Smeijers and Rudy Vanderlans hold related, but not the same, positions on the question of 'infill'. Kris seems to suggest the opposite, though he talks explicitly far more about Rudy's position than Fred's. Rudy is talking about innovation as formal originality today compared to the heyday of indie type design. As Fred noted in the interview that appeared in Eye 90, he is more concerned with questions of whether designs are released before they are fully resolved, and designs that are tweaks or close adaptations of any existing designs, not (only?) with designers doing nothing but finding corners overlooked by the masters of past generations. In fact, I don't think you can call the problems Fred is concerned with 'infill', especially not when you consider the mechanisms he thinks are behind them.

Which brings us to the second thing,

(2) that it matters who you're talking about, and what you think is responsible for the problems you've identified. It's possible for Kris to be right, if he's talking about solo designers (like himself) and small indie shops; and for Fred to be right, if he's talking about large shops and the people trying to run with them, and the dynamic of creativity, production, and distribution that they create and participate in.

You could argue (as Fred has, to me in conversation, and I think I'm presenting his opinion fairly) that the smaller the margins, the more participants in the market who hope to make significant income from their work, the more networked they all are, and at a certain degree of technological 'slickness' (as he put it in his interview), the greater the tendency to design (even if unconsciously) in self-conscious, hyper-socially-aware, risk-averse ways. Innovations, such as they arrive and prove themselves popular, can spread quickly, quite without anyone intending to copy anyone else's work. And this is not a new dynamic—it's been happening, as John notes, for about as long as we've had type. You could even argue that larger creators wind up depending on smaller, more innovative ones to come up with new ideas they wind up exploiting in their own releases.

Even if you disagree with Fred's position, it's a different one than Rudy's, and forces us to address important related questions.

Chris Lozos

I'm not convinced there is anything substantially new to be expressed in the genre. Yeah, the whole genre of sans serif type.

Perhaps you do not see anything new in a sans in recent years that you feel is worthy, John, but that does not mean the pursuit needs to be abandoned by other people.  It may just be that it will come about in the coming time ahead.  Others may feel the same about Roman book faces as you do about Sans?

John Hudson

Chris, as I said, it is a perspective, and these will vary. I may eventually finish that sans, because every once in a while I find myself in need of it in some way in which 'I made it myself' matters.

Chris Lozos

I find that I look at all the Sans out there and say to myself, "That is not quite what I am looking for."  In fact, that is why I started designing type, I was in search of a Sans that did what I wanted.  Given that I have not released it yet may indicate that I am not getting close yet ;-)

James Puckett

VanderLans’ comment did exactly what it was intended to: draw attention and allow Emigre to continue feigning relevance in 2016. An epic troll.

Ray Larabie

In-fill is a real thing. I've consciously made in-fill typefaces. I've had clients specifically commission in-fill. Like my DDT typeface. The client liked Microgramma but said it was too square and too hard to read. They liked Univers but wanted it to be more square. So I made in-fill. But I don't think that's the majority of current typeface releases. Here's how we got to this rut of samey-same typeface development. It has nothing to do with in-fill and it's not a lack of creativity. The reason we're in this rut is that we have an environment that punishes the development of new ideas and rewards adhesion to old ideas.

A typeface that looks similar to Akzidenz, we call a grotesque. Similar to Futura? It's a geo-sans. You can release a sort-of-Akzidenz or a sort of sort-of-Futura and nobody's gonna bitch. They might be bored but it won't be controversial. But make something similar to Microgramma? That's a Microgramma clone. A knock-off, tribute, rip-off etc. Eight years ago Museo was released and it was a huge hit. It wasn't the first typeface with a creative serif configuration but it had a pleasant, harmonic configuration that really worked. I don't think you could change the configuration to improve it. If someone, right now released a typeface with a different treatment but the same serif configuration, it would probably be considered a Museo rip-off. It's a potentially progressive serif configuration trend that we're not supposed to follow.

I know, I know... I always do music industry analogies so heeeere we go again. When Missy Elliott's Under Construction was released in 2002, it affected so much music that came out after it. Some of you know what I'm getting at. Those sparse anti-four-on-the-floor Timbaland beats with drawn out silences. And real elephants! At the time, it sounded like something from another planet. You can still hear its effect on pop music today. When other musicians heard it, they used some of the ideas and built upon them to create a new style. They weren't afraid of being accused of making Under Construction knockoffs. Instead they interpreted the ideas and music moved forward. When we see groundbreaking typefaces, we can be impressed but thanks to the knock-off police environment, we avoid coming even remotely close to it. That environment prevents new ideas from being built upon. Remember the Avenir/Frutiger knockoff controversy? For a while you couldn't open up sans-serif apertures without being called an Avenir ripoff. Is it a genre yet?

Maybe designers should come up with their own original ideas? Sure. But if similar new ideas are forbidden territory, you can't build upon good ideas to make better ideas. You need to craft your ideas very carefully. Can't put a cross on the O or people will think it's an Exocet ripoff.  If you make a semi-serif, you have to configure those serifs in a certain way so people won't think you knocked off Museo. What if the ideal configuration for your design is that same as Museo's? Nope. Better avoid it. Maybe just make regular serifs to be safe. The only safe trends that can be followed are retro revivals. Nobody can accuse your all caps weathered sans of being a rip-off of someone else's all caps weathered sans since they're both based on a similar old timey pastiche.

A shortage of creativity or in-fill crush isn't how we got to this point. It's an entire industry devoted to encouraging old ideas and discouraging new ones.

Chris Lozos

Perhaps our clients are a tad nervous about typefaces that are to far from the ones they have been taught to be comfortable with.  Maybe they want someone anointed to first bless on-high anything before they use it.  Example: if a superstar graphic designer uses a typeface, it is considered anointed.  "Let's see what Michael Bierut used recently."  This has less to do with the design and more to do with "looking Like" the big guys.  [I am sure Michael does not do this.  He is confident in his own ability to chose wisely]
So what to do?  I don't like the notion of being tied to either an old workhorse lookalike or an attempt to guess what a design star would prefer.  I feel better just designing what feels right to me.  I don't even look at new type anymore because I don't want to be influenced.

Simon Cozens

I think another analogy is the Japanese creative arts. The underlying philosophy is that creative perfection was reached in the distant past, and you learn the craft by copying the exemplars (kata) of the masters. Only when you have mastered the past are you allowed to put your own spin on what you have learnt. It leads to a fundamentally conservative design milieu.

Anyway, I am absolutely calling my next font "Infill Sans".

Chris Lozos

If only the past master had achieved the correct form, we would have stopped at Gutenberg. A great deal of good work has come along since then.

Miles Newlyn

modern music, 'it all sounds the same to me'.

Nick Shinn

There is a lot of style in script and distressed typefaces, and the trends have been evolving since these genres became so popular in retail licensing. It’s not something that is given much critical respect, as the descriptive language (and its history) is lacking, perhaps. The issues around all the “expert” features, for instance.

Yªssin Bªggªr

Ray Larabie said:

I've had clients specifically commission in-fill. Like my DDT typeface. The client liked Microgramma but said it was too square and too hard to read. They liked Univers but wanted it to be more square. So I made in-fill.

If that is in-fill, then in-fill sounds like pretty normal type design (creative or even cultural) process to me. Once in a while, people stumble on revolutionary ideas, but most of the time they build upon and (re)mix older ones.
If a graphic designer needs/desires a typeface whose tone falls exactly in between two typefaces, I don't see why it shouldn't be made. It might be more useful, its tone and functionality appropriate for a wider range of situations and projects than a typeface with much more original design ideas.
Of course designers generally bury their source of inspiration in more than 2 typefaces, which makes the result look more original.

I also think there are too many hastily drawn typefaces released weekly. But I doubt that can be prevented. When it becomes easier to create products, and there is a clientele which isn't able or doesn't care to discern between quality and cheap products, there will be an increase in cheap products. Complaining won't change that and I find it pretty tiring having to hear people tell others what they should/are allowed to design. Anyway, most of it sounds essentially like marketing and positioning to me.

John Hudson

There seems to be some confusion or disagreement as to what 'infill-ism' means. I understand it to be a conscious engagement with the process by which the design space between existing typefaces is gradually filled in until it becomes virtually impossible for a new design within that space to exhibit significant novelty. The process itself is, of course, always happening, even if the design spaces involved are vast and are not going to be filled any time soon. So in this regard it looks like 'pretty normal type design'. I think it is the conscious engagement aspect that constitutes the '-ism', as distinct from the inevitable process: the looking at existing designs and trying to discern the creatively and commercially exploitable space between them.

I suspect part of the impression that Rudy and some others have — that I sometimes have — that infill-ism is becoming a major trend in contemporary typeface design is because, due of the number of people involved and the number of new fonts being released every month, what was a slow process that for many decades went unnoticed, like geological erosion, is suddenly happening rapidly, and huge chunks of rock are falling into the sea even as we stand and watch.

Mark Simonson

Personally, I have always found the "narrow" range of possibilities in type design to be its most attractive and creatively stimulating aspect.

Nick Shinn

From the blog:

The problem is that these vast “waterfalls of mediocrity” are slowly being dammed by corporates like Monotype, Google and Adobe, creating the equivalent of any other minority-controlled hydro-electric power scheme channelling profits to benefit their shareholders.

We don’t need to argue over what infillism is, that was not the point of Kris’ blog, and he cogently dismisses that it even exists! 

Where once Massimo Vignelli took Emigre to task for their typeface designs, Kris says well yeah, now Rudy is the codger going on about quality, but let’s not play that generation vs. generation game again, because it’s a distraction, the real issue is monopolization. 

Dave Crossland

Frode Bo Helland said:

They still make new type and recently released two critically acclaimed faces (Cardea in 2014, and Alda in 2008)

I'm surprised you consider 2008 recent. 

Maurice Meilleur

Kris has posted a response to his essay from Rudy.

Dave Crossland

I ponder that part of the infillist mindset is that the Latin type design 'space' is fixed, and that time is linear. 

As the volume of published typefaces increases exponentially, I think relative time is slowing down.

Per this book review, Kodak estimated that "[In 2011] 380bn photographs were taken around the world – 11% of all the photographs ever taken." 

In the same way, my perception of time in type between 2016 and 2006 is much longer than between 1976 and 1986. 

The next Latin typeface is now just minutes away, instead of hours or days.

Chris Lozos

In the same way, my perception of time in type between 2016 and 2006 is much longer than between 1976 and 1986.

The benchmark for me personally was 2004 when there was a sudden influx of new type designers entering the profession.  I wonder how many typefaces were designed between 2004 and 2016 and what percentage they would be of the total designed prior to that time?

Stephen Coles

That's about right, Chris, even if it was a little more gradual than a single year. At least 2004 was a peak for new foundry launches:



Number of foundries established each year. From Ruxandra Duru’s research for the Typographica Census.

Scott-Martin Kosofsky

I'd like to see more in-fill! And what is it that I think needs filling in? More size-specific designs and better renderings of classics (a category I like to define broadly). 

Where's the creativity in that? I think there's plenty, as each of these types would involve very shrewd interpretations and reinterpretations from old media (metal type, even photo type) to new media (digital on paper, digital for the screen). I agree with Mark Simonson in believing that the narrowness of possibilities is a great creative virtue.

Here is one of my favorite examples:

Look at the original printed specimens of Bauer's Futura, then look at any and all of the digital versions. The original is a glorious piece of typefounding, each weight and size works perfectly, with rhythmic, easy-to-read spacing that accommodates both very round and vertical shapes. None of the digital forms compare favorably. It's a great opportunity for a young person to make a mark.

After that, you might want to look at (metal) Monotype Bembo, which, with all its flaws, reads very well. Why is there no new interpretation of it? Or, speaking of Aldine types, why has no one made a fresh interpretation of the Poliphilus type?

If there are some new interpretations of these, please let me know!

Chris Lozos

Interpretations may be the word to describe what "infill" is trying to be about.

Dave Crossland

Scott-Martin Kosofsky said:

Look at the original printed specimens of Bauer's Futura, then look at any and all of the digital versions. The original is a glorious piece of typefounding, each weight and size works perfectly, with rhythmic, easy-to-read spacing that accommodates both very round and vertical shapes. None of the digital forms compare favorably. It's a great opportunity for a young person to make a mark.

Such young persons will need to have express written permission from Bauer, as Bauer contacts anyone who makes typefaces with a certain combination of features that they feel makes a type design "too close" to Futura.