Critique on Hebrew design wanted
Comments
-
Ori Ben-Dor said:… is there a difference between midi letters and small caps? …‘Midi’ glyphs are middlecase letters, a class of its own between uppercase and lowercase. Small capitals are another class of there own, shaped like capitals but in terms of size a minimum larger than lowercase x-height, yet much smaller than middlecase glyphs.
… It would look too much like a 19th-century siddur (Jewish prayer book) for a typical Israeli Jewish designer to use it for anything other than an actual siddur, I think. Even when you consider something like classical poetry, where I can easily see your Latin being used for, it's much harder for me to see your Hebrew being used for.
An interesting point. But I wonder: surely there is more ‘classical’ literatur in Hebrew than the main biblical and liturgical treatises; which choice of type style would be seen as appropriate by a present-day publisher or reader? It was recommended to relate this design somehow to the early Italien types, which have some classical appeal (?) and which decision would well match the Bembonian heritage which is eminent for Andron. I was never too fond of the Frank-Rühl style, for me a sort of ‘hebrew Bodoni’ style, very contrastive, rather stiff, much rationalized. I find older manuscript hands much more interesting (and beautiful) but, again, this is a beginner’s view.
0 -
Koren is a good example of classical Hebrew injected with a little geometricness and discipline. I'm not suggesting any major changes, it's all about the treatment of the details. For instance, if the legs of such letters as resh and vav were made up of straight lines, it could add some geometricness and discipline without revolutionizing the overall look and feel.0
-
There is a famous quotation usually attributed to George Bernard Shaw that goes, “England and America are two countries separated by a common language.” So it is with Hebrew typography in Israel and the rest of the world. The absence of geometric exaggeration in non-Israeli Hebrew types decried by Ori Ben-Dor typifies that split. What he misses, though, is that users of Hebrew outside of Israel (where 65-75% of the world Jewish population live) are concerned almost entirely with religious texts of Bible and liturgy and their related studies. They have little or no use for Israeli types that are directed toward daily commerce: advertising, broadcasting, and even modern literature and journalism. As Modern Hebrew, the language of Israel, has no use for the dual system of diacritics required in Bible and liturgy, its typography was freed from the classical constraints of proportion that were required to accommodate them. They went their own way.
In a 2015 Gallup poll, 65% of Israeli Jews identify themselves as “not religious” or as “convinced atheists.” I have learned from my Israeli friends involved with type design, few of them are able to read the diacritics or even know their names. The history of Hebrew type design is largely European, a fact that was uncomfortable to the founders of the State of Israel, who imagined that there would be “new types for the new Jew”—and in time there were, though the European designs that were current in the early 20th century (such as Frank-Ruehl) were still ubiquitous, and are still seen today, especially in the religious communities. When the technology of type design was democratized in the 1980s, there was no particular interest in the revival of classical types, as there was in Europe and the U.S. Instead, influential Israeli designers, such as Tzvi Narkiss, who began designing type in the late 1950s, looked to ancient and early medieval forms, especially those that were part of the local archeological record—and then turned toward making their geometry more regular and toward their modernization as sans serif forms. From this work grew a number of formal visual tropes that have influenced Israeli type design ever since. This was so influential that younger designers, such as Ori Ben-Dor, can only see classical type designs as something outside the accepted norm. In Israel, there is no type with the stature of, say, Garamond or Caslon. When, in 2013, I first showed the Le Bé types I made with Matthew Carter, an Israeli type aficionado made a little video about them, referring to them as “avant-garde.” Yet to me (and others), Guillaume Le Bé (1525-1598) was the Garamond (or Granjon) of Hebrew type design.
To Jews outside of Israel, who account for between 65-71% of the world Jewish population, Israeli type design can look strange. Perhaps the Israeli fonts most frequently seen in the U.S. and England are those by Eliyahu Koren, mentioned by Ori, which appear in the prayerbooks used by 5% of the American Jewish population. But even then, it is often criticized as appearing “foreign.” Personally, I find Hebrew types that emphasize geometry to be incompatible with diacritics—not only because of the proportional issues, but largely
because of the additional noise.
We will have to agree to disagree!
2 -
@Scott-Martin Kosofsky, what am I missing? I'm not arguing with you.
I'm just offering the Israeli perspective. In my initial post I said "[i]f you want it to appeal to Israelis as a general-purpose text typeface," and if that's indeed the case, my points are valid, I think.
It's up to @Andreas Stötzner to choose to which audience he wants to cater.
1 -
A most intriguing story. – In the western Latin world one could easily, just to imagine an example, use a Bembo or Garamond face for some advertising series, hence for a task of the present day. It would be perceived as something traditionalist, maybe stylish or classy, but still relevant for the days we live in. Even blackletter typefaces, which even more so evoke connotations of ‘old’ and ‘traditional’ may be deployed for a present-day design. But apparently, in the Hebrew world that is different. As obvious as it is that for the lettering on a Tel Aviv police car or a grocery shop a choice of a Frank-Rühl or Le Bé style would seem inappropriate and a noticeable modern feel gets preferred, I wonder to which extent the awareness of the calligraphic and typographic traditions may play some part in the current Israel design scene. There are many rather free-style, playful and calligraphic Hebrew fonts nowadays, so there must be some sort of link to that script’s heritage, even beyond the conventional bible fashions, I suppose. On the other hand, I can also imagine that to opt for the ‘old’ or the ‘modern’ style is a means of self-assurance of the traditional-religious and modern-atheist society groups respectively.However, my little project for which I started this discussion, is not intended to take sides in such scenarios. It is mainly for usage in the environment of classical studies – in whichever country – and since the historical Hebrew text heritage is relevant here in the first place I think the rather ‘historicist’ approach I choose seems right to me. But which parts of the history? one may ask. A good question.
0 -
Speaking of Garamond, I think it is worth noting the variety of approaches to interpretation of those renaissance forms in modern revivals, from the heavily regularised to the faithfully irregular, even in the work of a single designer, e.g. Robert Slimbach’s Adobe Garamond vs Garamond Premier Pro. I wouldn’t consider those designs interchangeable, but can conceive of uses in which one would be appropriate and the other not, even though both clearly reference the same historical source material.
I think something like Adobe Garamond is what Ori is referring to when he talks about ‘a little geometricness and discipline’ being applied to an historical model.
Hmm. Now I am thinking about a Hebrew variable font with a ‘strictness’ axis.2 -
You have understood this correctly, Andreas. I believe your general direction has been the correct one. You are, after all, trying to match a Hebrew to a strictly Aldine design. You could turn more closely to early Venetian Hebrews, like those cut by Griffo, but you’re not very far from that.
As I mentioned above, Hebrew missed out on the period of the major historical revivals, as events in Europe in the 1930s-40s put a halt to their development. American Hebrew types of the early 20th century focused almost exclusively on Yiddish, catering to what was then a vast Yiddish press (before 1920, New York City alone had five Yiddish daily newspapers). In the new State of Israel, which was declared in 1948, reviving early Hebrew types—all of them European in origin—did not suit the cultural and political agenda. There was an eagerness to leave that behind, and so new styles were born. It wasn’t just a matter of styles and history, but also—and more importantly—a different general aesthetic. The new Hebrew types made in Israel tended to be more muscular and angular, sometimes looking to ancient inscriptions (and to the Bauhaus!) for inspiration—and more brash than any of their immediate predecessors.
Where this gets hazy is in text types intended for long-form reading—and here some ironies prevailed. Not many of the new Israeli designs made the cut for text. Frank-Ruehl, designed in Germany and first made by one German foundry and then another, was somehow given a pass, described in early Zionist literature as being “free of Diasporic influence.” (Really?) Be that as it may, types for reading require a certain “chastity,” and it was for that reason that, in Europe and the U.S., we turned to historical forms for guidance. But truth be told, Israeli (and early Zionist) priorities weren’t so different. In fact, the dominant text type in Israeli newspapers and government documents was Frank-Ruehl. Two fonts that were considered worthy substitutes were Hadassah (Henri Friedlaender) and David (Ismar David), both designed in the West, albeit by designers with close connections to Israel. In the late 1980s, the Israeli newspaper Maariv, switched its text type from Frank-Ruehl to the Israeli-designed Narkis, an action that provoked such negative reactions that they reverted back to Frank-Ruehl.
Ori Ben-Dor: I’m not arguing; well, maybe a little
. I’m simply questioning the relevance of your view to Andres’s project. And in light of what I wrote above, I find it hard to believe that a font that is in many ways similar to Frank-Ruehl would not be readable in Israel.And John H: I look forward to you development of this new VF feature!
0 -
Alright, but I haven’t got it yet which Hebrew font(s) would count as classical in a moderate sense. What is used for (profane) literature books today in Israel? For text in newspapers and magazines?– Of course, if I were to make a display Hebrew, it would look fairly different.0
-
@Scott-Martin Kosofsky, it's a matter of aesthetics, not readability. Andreas's Hebrew would be readable to Israelis, no doubt. But certain aesthetic qualities, which might seem too subtle to be significant to the untrained eye, would considerably limit its use and make it a niche font in Israel.
I get why you would say that aesthetically and historically Andreas's Hebrew and Latin are a good match. But whether a certain design makes a good job at something isn't just a matter of intrinsic aesthetics (if such a thing even exists), and whether two scripts are a good match isn't just a matter of similar historical roots and aesthetic approaches. These questions are also a matter of cultural expectations. And present-day Israelis expect something different.
This might not make sense to you, but trust me on this one, I'm an Israeli type designer and I've developed sensitivity to this stuff. Most Israeli designers and typographers wouldn't use Andreas's Hebrew even when they would use his Latin. The Latin would look to them classical, in a good way, whereas the Hebrew would look old-fashioned, in a bad way, or simply shtetl-like.
If Andreas isn't interested in catering to Israelis, then that's not a problem and my view isn't relevant to his project. But if he is, it is and it is.
@Andreas Stötzner, the short answer is Frank-Rühl. It's an odd situation, where a single typeface is used for the body text of virtually all daily newspapers and books, both fiction and nonfiction, both classic and contemporary. Children's books is a notable exception (Frank-Rühl is popular there too, but it's not a monopoly like it is elsewhere). Classical poetry would usually be set in Frank-Rühl, but here and there you could also see Koren or Drugulin.
But that doesn't mean Frank-Rühl is perceived as classical. It's the equivalent of Times Roman, not Adobe Garamond. There's no Israeli-Hebrew equivalent of Adobe Garamond. There's a void there, and Israeli designers and typographer fill it with Frank-Rühl.0 -
After reading above that Israelis looking for a text typeface had Frank-Rühl, Koren, Drugulin, Hadassah, and David as choices, I went searching for information.I found this page:which informs me that Hadassah had been unavailable for several years due to a legal dispute, but one which has now been resolved.One has to be careful in searching for David, as instead of David Ismar's 1954 typeface, or the new David Hadash, one will get results for a Latin typeface by Émilie Rigaud.Koren, David, and Hadassah seem to share the same aesthetic, while Drugulin does not appear too much different from a traditional Hebrew typeface - and the same is true of Frank-Rühl.Just as there are open-source imitations of Times Roman, I see that David and Frank-Rühl have gotten the same treatment. I also found, looking at the Hebrew faces on Google Fonts, Bellefair, by our own Nick Shinn, but the calligraphic Hebrew part was contributed by Liron Lavi Turkenich.
0 -
Ori Ben-Dor said:… There’s no Israeli-Hebrew equivalent of Adobe Garamond. …That’s a pitty. I had hoped for one.But if it is so, wouldn’t it be about time to create one?0
-
Andreas Stötzner said:But if it is so, wouldn’t it be about time to create one?Leaving out the detail of it being Adobe Garamond... the idea of making a Hebrew typeface analogous to Garamond seemed to me like a daunting task. After all, the graphical elements of the Hebrew script are so completely different from those of the Latin script, what would it even mean for a typeface to be such an equivalent?Of course, however, type designers have not let such difficulties stop them, since they do have something to work with. They're not aiming for the unattainable goal of a mathematical or geometric equivalency, but rather for a social equivalency; a typeface that would be regarded and used in the same way. So they can see how existing typefaces are regarded and used in their different script communities.Even I, with no particular expertise in such matters, can see that Frank-Rühl, sometimes called the Hebrew equivalent of Times Roman, is probably better considered equivalent to a Scotch Roman - with Drugulin perhaps being more analogous to Times Roman.Those two pairings, though, don't seem to me to be informative enough to suggest what a Hebrew "Garamond" might be like.But I've been looking around, and I found Escritura, designed by Ricardo Santos, and published by Vanarchiv. The Latin included seems to be a Roman with calligraphic and Jenson influences, and the Latin and Hebrew seem to be well paired.And Hadassah, one of the Israeli typeface mainstays, is paired with a Latin of a currently fashionable kind with perhaps some Garalde influences.So I guess there are indeed inspirations for you to begin from.
0 -
Ori Ben-Dor said:
There's no Israeli-Hebrew equivalent of Adobe Garamond. There's a void there, and Israeli designers and typographer fill it with Frank-Rühl.John Savard said:
the idea of making a Hebrew typeface analogous to Garamond seemed to me like a daunting task. After all, the graphical elements of the Hebrew script are so completely different from those of the Latin script, what would it even mean for a typeface to be such an equivalent?Why don’t you start by asking Garamont, himself? I don’t know what Hebrew might be considered an equivalent to Adobe Garamond (which one?), but I can tell you that there are forty French Renaissance Hebrew types listed by Hendrik Vervliet in his 2010 French Renaissance Printing Types: A Conspectus. This includes one that is, for certain, by Claude Garamont and two others that might have been made by him. But foremost among these sources is Guillaume Le Bé, who made more Hebrew types—excellent types—than anyone until the current digital era. (See my first post from January 12, above.) Yet, these types have been ignored in Israel. If you find Le Bé’s types not to your taste, check out the simpler types by Garamont or Jean-Arnoul Picard. I should add that two sets of original punches for Garamont’s Hebrews survive at the Plantin-Moretus (the one that's certainly by Garamont) and at the Bibliothèque Nationale. And then there are the Italian Hebrews of that era. There are at least two sets of punches (and justified mats) for Hebrew types made for Daniel Bomberg, the Flemish publisher of Hebraic works who worked in Venice, at the Plantin-Moretus.
I attach here a page from a project I am finishing now. The Hebrew is a lighter version of my Le Bé text font, made specifically for this client, set with what I consider to be a better "Garamond": Mark van Bronkhorst’s Verdigris (the italic is after Guyot). The sans serif is Mark’s Solitaire. Does it meet with Israeli expectations? Honestly, I don’t care; my work is for a larger—and less insular—market.
1 -
By the way, though Frank-Ruehl shares a kind of default position with Times New Roman, as a design I find it more closely related to types like Bookman, which is from the same period.
0 -
Scott-Martin Kosofsky said:Why don’t you start by asking Garamont, himself?That is indeed a good starting point.I wasn't overly optimistic, though, about what I would find when I did look. After all, the Greek typefaces of that period were based on a model not currently in use, and when I checked just now, I found that Garamond's Grecs du roi were indeed of that kind.What people would want from a Garamond-like Greek would be something that looks like Porson, except with appropriate minor stylistic changes, such as one would use to get from Century Expanded or Times Roman over to Garamond. The Grecs du roi weren't that.But when I did do my initial web search, the few samples of Hebrew by Garamond I encountered seemed quite conventional (perhaps too much so to be also suitable for Israeli typography, though, another condition to be fulfilled - although I couldn't really tell) but they were too small in scale to be helpful.So I left that avenue for others to pursue more fully.
0 -
What I still wonder about is :
- the Frank-Rühl-style is considered to be too much old-school, ‘out of time’ by todays Isreali users
- the Frank-Rühl-style is used in most present-day newspapers and in book printing, because it is seen as a sort of ‘standard’
– isn’t that a bit contradictory?
0 -
Off-topic: GreekWhat people would want from a Garamond-like Greek would be something that looks like Porson...Porson is almost entirely limited in use to British and American classicists (in large part due to its use in the Loeb Classics series).
Slimbach did a pretty good job with the Garamond Premier Pro Greek, which reflects the renaissance style but without all the ligatures and variation derived from Byzantine scribal cursive.
In a similar approach, my own SBL Greek, inspired by Granjon’s types:
2 -
@Andreas Stötzner Israelis would feel that Frank-Rühl and your design represent different styles. The differences may seem subtle to an outsider, but Israelis have developed sensitivity to them. Frank-Rühl is a bit more regularized.
@Scott-Martin Kosofsky Garamont's or Le Bé's Hebrew would look way too old-fashioned to Israelis for them to use it outside of very specific contexts, even when they would happily use their Latin designs. Like it or not, that's just the way it is.
0 -
Contradictory? Of course it is, but it also reflects a certain inertia and the difficulty to achieve compromises among factions with different cultural perspectives. Considering the era in which the State of Israel was formed, Frank-Ruehl always had the advantage of ubiquity. It was the first Hebrew type to be promoted through a modern advertising campaign. In 1924, Berthold published a lavish color specimen book—the most lavish type specimen since Bodoni—of their Hebrew types, in which the star of the show was Frank-Ruehl. Monotype’s Peninim type (which I showed above) was essentially a rip-off of it and soon makers of Hebrew wood and line-cast types in the U.S. and elsewhere were making their own versions. (In a curious twist of fate, Berthold’s next lavish production, in 1934, was a book of poster types promoted as suitable to the needs of the Third Reich.)
What Frank-Ruehl replaced was a century of types made in the “Vilna Style,” first made around 1800 by a Jewish typefounder named Lipman Mets, working on commission from the Vilna (Vilnius) publisher Romm, whose family company was a dominant force in Judaic books throughout the century. The style of the Vilna Hebrew types was very much of its time, with dramatic contrasts of thick and thin. Here is a sample of an truly excellent digital version of it, made by Sami Artur Mandelbaum, who contributes to this board. But here’s the thing: using Vilna-style type in Israel is not at all the same as an American or European designer using a Bodoni or Didot type; in Israel, the Vilna type sends a single clear message: Ultra-Orthodox.
So, just as the use of the once-ubiquitous Scotch types was giving way to revival types based on older designs, along came Frank-Ruehl, which, if not historically based, had gone in a softer, rounder direction than the Vilna types. For a while, it looked very much up to date. When the State of Israel was founded in 1948, Frank-Ruehl and its derivatives were the only types you could get that were available for every kind of typesetting. Unlike Vilna, it doesn't send a message—other than old-fashioned, perhaps.
John Hudson points to a valuable analogy: When he designed SBL Greek to be compatible with Oldstyle types, and Robert Slimbach designed a Greek to go with Garamond Premier Pro, they turned to the best 16th-century models—quite faithfully, though excising the eccentricities. I have done the same by looking to Le Bé and the 16th-century Prague Hebrew types. One could, I suppose, do as Andreas has done: start with Frank-Ruehl and work backward toward the 16th century to accompany Andron, but it is a strange path. Would anyone take a similar route with a Latin type?
Here is a 2011 interview with my friend Oded Ezer, a highly inventive and accomplished type designer in Israel. In the interview, he spoke of the irreplaceability of Frank-Ruehl. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/culture/1.5103735
Ori Ben-Dor said: Garamont's or Le Bé's Hebrew would look way too old-fashioned to Israelis for them to use it outside of very specific contexts, even when they would happily use their Latin designs. Like it or not, that's just the way it is.That's too bad! But it's also rather sad: why would anyone give up such a rich heritage?
1 -
Andreas Stötzner said:What I still wonder about is :
- the Frank-Rühl-style is considered to be too much old-school, ‘out of time’ by todays Isreali users
- the Frank-Rühl-style is used in most present-day newspapers and in book printing, because it is seen as a sort of ‘standard’
– isn’t that a bit contradictory?Yes, but I thought the reason for the apparent contradiction was addressed by discussion within this thread: a painful lack of alternatives.Scott-Martin Kosofsky said:But it's also rather sad: why would anyone give up such a rich heritage?
I'm afraid the answer is obvious: because of a wholescale rejection of the aesthetic of the contents of that heritage.The appearance of the Hebrew script in its most familiar forms lent itself to anti-Semitic caricature - and rather than reveling in what their enemies disliked, apparently Israelis have internalized the reaction.The kibbutz movement and various other aspects of Israeli society demonstrate an eagerness to refute traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes of the Jewish people. To show that Israelis can be farmers, they can be physically fit, they can engage in open-air activities... and at this point, I will stop, because it would be very easy to say things that are offensive in describing it.0 -
John Savard said:
Yes, but I thought the reason for the apparent contradiction was addressed by discussion within this thread: a painful lack of alternatives. . . . I'm afraid the answer is obvious: because of a wholesale rejection of the aesthetic of the contents of that heritage.There is no lack of alternatives, just some squeamishness about looking beyond one’s own back yard and habits. I understand the source of the prejudices and I believe strongly that they are without justification. While it is true that some Hebraic works published in 16th-century Venice were instigated by Christian Hebraists, they were in fact quite few. The vast majority of the books were intended for—and funded by—Jewish interests. All of them, with only the rarest exceptions, were made with extensive and critical Jewish participation, including those published by Daniel Bomberg, who produced the first complete Talmud; few such works could have been made otherwise. Yes, there was often the need for Christian “fronts,” and there were Church censors and other restrictions, but the books were made and distributed despite the vicissitudes. And they survive. Griffo made Hebrew type for the entirely Jewish (and much beleaguered) publishing house of the Soncino family. Le Bé worked largely for three publishers: Meir di Parenzo, who was Jewish, and Marc’Antonio Giustiniani (a nobleman) and Carlo Querini, both of whom acted as fronts for Jewish editors. You may interpret this as a tragedy, or you may see it as a triumph, as I believe it was.
Rejecting this history and not incorporating into your background aesthetic is to “throw out the baby with the bathwater.” Graphic design is a field that, like architecture and fashion design, makes use if its past in a remarkably full way, sometimes by repurposing old work entirely. It barely exists otherwise. Several years ago I wrote an article on this idea for a book assembled and edited by Steven Heller, Teaching Graphic Design History. Here is a link to it: https://www.academia.edu/39702196/WHAT_WE_TALK_ABOUT_WHEN_WE_TALK_ABOUT_GRAPHIC_DESIGN.
The appearance of the Hebrew script in its most familiar forms lent itself to anti-Semitic caricature - and rather than reveling in what their enemies disliked, apparently Israelis have internalized the reaction.This is way over the top. If it were true, there would no longer be a Hebrew alphabet.
1 -
Hi @Scott-Martin Kosofsky, hi everyone,IMHO there are new modern readable Hebrew fonts and they are better them Frank-Huehl.Fontbit Font Foundry has some of them: https://fontbit.co.il/In another way, in Israel, there is BeitAlef, an Ultra-Orthodox font foundry: https://beitalef.com/היצירותFrank-Ruehl is the Hebrew Times New Roman, everyone has in his computer, and for almost everyone is good enough; and the basic Microsoft version is "free".
That's why Frank-Huehl is so popular to this day.1 -
I'm assuming everyone has read this
https://www.typotheque.com/articles/designing_hebrew_typeThere seem to be plenty of type designers and many foundries right now like fontef, typetogether, bold monday, etc. that are making less-historically derived hebrew types. Chaim was designed for display in the 20th century, El Lissitzky and H. Berlewi dabbled in modern display hebrew lettering as well. And that's looking back in time.
1 -
Sami Artur Mandelbaum said:Frank-Ruehl is the Hebrew Times New Roman, everyone has in his computer, and for almost everyone is good enough; and the basic Microsoft version is "free".
That's why Frank-Huehl is so popular to this day.
First, Frank-Rühl rose to dominance long before private computers (or any computers). Second, when ordinary Israelis use word processors (usually MS Word), they rarely use Frank-Rühl (if anything, David is the go-to "serif" font). Third, neither Windows nor macOS ships—or ever has—with a Frank-Rühl that looks like the ones usually used for printing books and newspapers. Times New Roman Hebrew is based on Frank-Rühl, but not very faithfully so, and isn't very popular.
Top row: the original Frank-Rühl (I think), taken from Luc Devroye's website. The Frank-Rühls used for printing books and newspapers are usually closer to this one.
Middle row: a font called FrankRuehl I've just picked from the font menu in MS Word (probably ships with macOS or MS Office).
Bottom row: Times New Roman Hebrew.
2 -
Hi @Ori Ben-Dor,Ori Ben-Dor said:. Times New Roman Hebrew is based on Frank-Rühl, but not very faithfully so, and isn't very popular.
I meant Frank-Huehl is used in Hebrew as Times New Roman in Latin alphabets.
I know the Hebrew font inside Times New Roman isn't Frank-Huehl. The Hebrew font inside Times New Roman is "New Peninim", another copy of Frank-Huehl.
Here is the 1924 Berthold Hebrew Catalogue with the original Frank-Huehl font: https://oa.letterformarchive.org/item?workID=lfa_type_0103&LFAPics=Yes&targPic=lfa_type_0103_026.jpg1 -
Thanks @Sami Artur Mandelbaum for the link!
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 43 Introductions
- 3.7K Typeface Design
- 803 Font Technology
- 1K Technique and Theory
- 622 Type Business
- 444 Type Design Critiques
- 542 Type Design Software
- 30 Punchcutting
- 136 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 83 Technique and Theory
- 53 Lettering Critiques
- 485 Typography
- 303 History of Typography
- 114 Education
- 68 Resources
- 499 Announcements
- 80 Events
- 105 Job Postings
- 148 Type Releases
- 165 Miscellaneous News
- 270 About TypeDrawers
- 53 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 116 Suggestions and Bug Reports