I think until now we actually have three breaking points in the modern evolution of the Cyrillic Script. First the reformations done by Peter the Great in the early 18th century. Second the political decision in the USSR to make upright Cyrillic lowercase letters as Small Capitals and to differentiate the Cyrillic Script from the Latin Script (wich is of course not official). And the third is Maxim Zhukov as a typographic co-ordinator to the United Nations and type consulter of Microsoft, pushing the Russian design decision in the digital western world. But anyway Cyrillic Script is still evolving nowadays and it is exciting to see what happens with this two design solutions.
Going back to your original question whether using upright italic shapes in Cyrillic has become ‘quite acceptable’ – As much as many of my Bulgarian colleagues like to claim that the cursive, upright italic shapes are not just Bulgarian, it would be very difficult to get away with that in a ‘serious’ typeface in Russia.
Sure, if you search hard, you will always be able to find examples of ‘mixing and matching’, both historical and contemporary. But if you are thinking of doing that, I suggest you do it consistently, not just ‘mix and match’ but have it as a concept in the whole typeface. It is definitely not the same as having a double-storey ‘a’ combined with a single-storey ‘g’ for example.
You might also find this article I wrote on the Fontsmith blog useful in explaining a bit more about the Bulgarian shapes.
Second the political decision in the USSR to make upright Cyrillic lowercase letters as Small Capitals and to differentiate the Cyrillic Script from the Latin Script (wich is of course not official).
Do you have any sources that confirm that? I know that they catalogued and standardized the fonts used in Soviet foundries, but I have never heard of that decision.
No its not very Bulgarian its very Cyrillic. Just take a closer look at the Cyrillic handwriting and the development of the Cyrillic Script until the reform of Peter the Great.
I am familiar with both. The fact remains that these forms are not the norm in upright text faces anywhere but Bulgaria. Yes, they exist in a broader Cyrillic context, but they are not the normal forms.
Maxim's experimental Helvetica Cyrillic from the 1960s is very much of its time. This is Helvetica World, made for Linotype in the late 1990s, on which Maxim advised:
> Maxim's experimental Helvetica Cyrillic from the 1960s is very much of its time. This is Helvetica World, made for Linotype in the late 1990s, on which Maxim advised:
Sounds like Cyrillic needs experimentation to be more of our time. Funny how the Soviets might have been better at that, at least when it came to type.
It seems to me that a Cyrillic version of Helvetica should be able to function in all the ways and places that the Latin Helvetica does. That precludes using it as an exercise in experimentation, since those uses have idiomatic norms in Russian and other Cyrillic script languages just as they do in Latin script languages. Work on Helvetica World began with examination of earlier Soviet grotesques, to understand those idioms, and how they would translate to the specifics of Helvetica.
I'm not saying that one shouldn't experiment. I'm saying that there are projects in which it is appropriate, and projects in which it would be self-indulgent and inappropriate to the kind of typography the design is meant to serve.
It may also be worth noting that the illustration of Maxim's 1963 Helvetica comes from a wonderful book on the work of Moscow lettering artists. Like a number of other examples in the book, this is a typeface that was never manufactured. Experimentation in such circumstances is cheap: it never has to undergo the rigours of making something that can be used and facing uncertain adoption in a market. There's a lot to be said for such experimentation, and one of the things I love about that book is the optimism it presents with regard to what might be possible, which ironically flourished in the Brezhnev period when so little was actually possible.
In his open letter to Vladimir Yefimov, Maxim quoted Mayakovsky: 'I love our designs’ grandeur', noting the tendency in the Soviet period to judge the success of a design by its intention rather than its achievement. We risk doing the same thing if we elevate experimentation as an end in itself.
I do agree that the Zhukovs Helvetica 1963 might be an experiment, like a lot of examples of that time done in Russia and Bulgaria.
But the purpose was not to prove if Helvetica or the Cyrillic Script is able to function in all the ways and places that the Latin Helvetica/ Latin Script does. Those experiments had the goal to answer the question of the possible evolvement of the Cyrillic Script in the historical period of time, which Peter the Great simply over-jumped. And on that basis to improve the decisions made by Peter the Great, who by God was a lousy typographer.
We definitely cant talk about lettering by this experiments. Indeed a lot of the typefaces done it the 60´s and 70´s were never be produced because of the technical circumstances of that time. But on the other hand nowadays we have a number of fonts including the so called "Bulgarian Cyrillic" which proved they functionality on the market, and are definitely no more on an experimental level. Indeed there are lot of discussions, which design decision is more legible or had the better letter shapes, but thats another topic
Sorry I don't mind to be disrespectful but how many Fonts has Maxim Zhukov released on the market to define the "norm" in the Cyrillic Script? Or is the norm defined by the quantity of fonts existing on the market?
Blackletter was also the norm for a large period of time in Germany but nowadays not.
I think a norm should be a recognized rule and for the Cyrillic Script that is obviously not the case.
There was a question about the Ф in the discussion and I think the example of Linotype Helvetica which John Hudson posted is quite good.
In my opinion the Ф jumps completely out of the rest of the capital letters because of its proportions.
Sorry I don't mind to be disrespectful but how many Fonts has Maxim Zhukov released on the market to define the "norm" in the Cyrillic Script? Or is the norm defined by the quantity of fonts existing on the market?
At the very least Carver sought Zhukov's advice when designing Georgia and it remains one of the best Cyrillic typefaces designed by a foreigner. If we defined the norm by the fonts existing on the market then I would be the first to advocate abandoning Cyrillics altogether, because it's terrible in so many typefaces sold today.
A typographic 'norm' is simply what one most sees being used: it is shared conventions across multiple typefaces and the ways in which they are used that persist despite all the other ways in which those typefaces vary.
So, for instance, in Latin serif text type, the double-storey a and g are the norm. This is not to say that there are not exceptions, or that those exceptions are invalid or not functional, but insofar as they are exceptions to the norm they do not serve the same function. Hence, referring back to earlier comments in this thread, such exceptional types are presented as 'infant', because they do not share the conventions of the norm.
> It seems to me that a Cyrillic version of Helvetica should be able to function in all the ways and places that the Latin Helvetica does. That precludes using it as an exercise in experimentation
Fair enough. What we need then is a speculative (better than "experimental") Latin Helvetica derivation that supports that old Cyrillic extension's ambitions.
> Experimentation in such circumstances is cheap
It's never been cheaper than now.
> noting the tendency in the Soviet period to judge the success of a design by its intention rather than its achievement. We risk doing the same thing if we elevate experimentation as an end in itself.
Intent is indeed key, and the risk is prioritizing comfort and material success. Without speculation culture stagnates.
> Peter the Great .... was a lousy typographer.
Yes. Because anybody who feels inferiority to another culture harms progress.
It would be hard to over state Maxim's influence on the direction of post-Soviet Cyrillic type, through his long engagement with ParaType, consulting for many non-Russian designers, organisation of major competitions, writing, etc.. Even the people who think he has had too great an influence acknowledge this.
But the purpose was not to prove if Helvetica or the Cyrillic Script is able to function in all the ways and places that the Latin Helvetica/ Latin Script does. Those experiments had the goal to answer the question of the possible evolvement of the Cyrillic Script in the historical period of time, which Peter the Great simply over-jumped. And on that basis to improve the decisions made by Peter the Great, who by God was a lousy typographer.
I doubt if Maxim would characterise his 1960s Helvetica project in this way. He has described it as 'amateurish', but is also very clear that the intention was to create a Cyrillic version of Neue Haas Grotesk, which he and his collaborator Kurbatov saw as 'the type of our times'. He wanted a Cyrillic equivalent of NHG/Helvetica. As is totally clear from Maxim's open letter to Yefimov, he desperately wanted functional types that he could use, and to which he was denied access during the Soviet times.
> It seems to me that a Cyrillic version of Helvetica should be able to function in all the ways and places that the Latin Helvetica does. That precludes using it as an exercise in experimentation
Fair enough. What we need then is a speculative (better than "experimental") Latin Helvetica derivation that supports that old Cyrillic extension's ambitions.
> Experimentation in such circumstances is cheap
It might be helpful to read the researches on the topic done in the 60´s. A speculation is a Hypothesis without a prove, so experiment is the right term.
For once, I agree with Hrant. What is called experimental in design isn't experimental in the scientific sense, but only in the common sense of 'trying something out'. Speculative is indeed a more accurate term, if one wants to make a distinction with a scientific experimental process. I found this distinction useful in the 1990s, the heyday of a particular kind of 'experimental' typography and type design, because such experiments are usually unfalsifiable (indeed, often have no testable hypothesis).
Can't recall which David Lodge novel this is from, but the exchange went something like this:
"A novelist, eh? And what sort of novels do you write?" "Chiefly experimental fiction." "You mean failed experimental fiction, don't you? Because when fiction succeeds, nobody calls it experimental."
Ha!, I really like this thread, maybe mainly because of exactly this.
Where is the line between innovation (for innovations sake) (speculation?) and usability/reality.
I myself like to push boundaries when doing type, quite simply because I like to do things ‘differently’ or ‘try things’ I suppose, but up until now I often tend to go a bit too far, resulting in typefaces that may be ‘interesting’ but seem unfit for real world purposes.
I’ve decided to try to be a bit more worldly or ‘real’ in making type, but it often makes me feel I have to do what many many others are doing already...
Type design used to be an industrial design discipline.
Interesting point but that can mean many things!
Wikipedia says about industrial design: Its key characteristic is that design is separated from manufacture: the
creative act of determining and defining a product's form and features
takes place in advance of the physical act of making a product, which
consists purely of repeated, often automated, replication. This distinguishes industrial design from craft-based design, where the form of the product is determined by the product's creator at the time of its creation.
I suppose this was true for type design before Fontographer and FontStudio came along. Today it seems more like a ‘craft’ to me. Is this a bad thing?
I am no reader of Cyrillic, but the /yu with an ascender looks so jarring, as I always thought of its stem as a dotless "i". In that Big City Sans the Cyrillic /el bumps into the preceding letters ugly, for instance into Cyr /es or /a. Why no ligatures there?
Comments
You can also take a closer look at the Russian скоропиь regarding the letters в, ж, з, к, ю.
http://kak.ru/vimg/article/41ee38e66a0755b1aca549e6589e948b.gif
http://typejournal.ru/media/tmp/3e5ca861-94ec-11e3-8715-14dae9b62a82.jpg
I think until now we actually have three breaking points in the modern evolution of the Cyrillic Script. First the reformations done by Peter the Great in the early 18th century. Second the political decision in the USSR to make upright Cyrillic lowercase letters as Small Capitals and to differentiate the Cyrillic Script from the Latin Script (wich is of course not official). And the third is Maxim Zhukov as a typographic co-ordinator to the United Nations and type consulter of Microsoft, pushing the Russian design decision in the digital western world.
But anyway Cyrillic Script is still evolving nowadays and it is exciting to see what happens with this two design solutions.
Double sad-face.
alex scholing
Going back to your original question whether using upright italic shapes in Cyrillic has become ‘quite acceptable’ – As much as many of my Bulgarian colleagues like to claim that the cursive, upright italic shapes are not just Bulgarian, it would be very difficult to get away with that in a ‘serious’ typeface in Russia.
Sure, if you search hard, you will always be able to find examples of ‘mixing and matching’, both historical and contemporary. But if you are thinking of doing that, I suggest you do it consistently, not just ‘mix and match’ but have it as a concept in the whole typeface. It is definitely not the same as having a double-storey ‘a’ combined with a single-storey ‘g’ for example.
You might also find this article I wrote on the Fontsmith blog useful in explaining a bit more about the Bulgarian shapes.
The search results for "pre-revolutionary ads" do not show anything radically different from Soviet typography.
I would also love to learn more about the Soviet effort to differentiate Cyrillic from Latin.
I am familiar with both. The fact remains that these forms are not the norm in upright text faces anywhere but Bulgaria. Yes, they exist in a broader Cyrillic context, but they are not the normal forms.
Maxim's experimental Helvetica Cyrillic from the 1960s is very much of its time. This is Helvetica World, made for Linotype in the late 1990s, on which Maxim advised:
> Maxim's experimental Helvetica Cyrillic from the 1960s is very much of its time. This is Helvetica World, made for Linotype in the late 1990s, on which Maxim advised:
Sounds like Cyrillic needs experimentation to be more of our time. Funny how the Soviets might have been better at that, at least when it came to type.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/48413419@N00/19449814173/in/album-72157656007320679/
I'm not saying that one shouldn't experiment. I'm saying that there are projects in which it is appropriate, and projects in which it would be self-indulgent and inappropriate to the kind of typography the design is meant to serve.
In his open letter to Vladimir Yefimov, Maxim quoted Mayakovsky: 'I love our designs’ grandeur', noting the tendency in the Soviet period to judge the success of a design by its intention rather than its achievement. We risk doing the same thing if we elevate experimentation as an end in itself.
So, for instance, in Latin serif text type, the double-storey a and g are the norm. This is not to say that there are not exceptions, or that those exceptions are invalid or not functional, but insofar as they are exceptions to the norm they do not serve the same function. Hence, referring back to earlier comments in this thread, such exceptional types are presented as 'infant', because they do not share the conventions of the norm.
Fair enough.
What we need then is a speculative (better than "experimental") Latin Helvetica derivation that supports that old Cyrillic extension's ambitions.
> Experimentation in such circumstances is cheap
It's never been cheaper than now.
> noting the tendency in the Soviet period to judge the success of a design by its intention rather than its achievement. We risk doing the same thing if we elevate experimentation as an end in itself.
Intent is indeed key, and the risk is prioritizing comfort and material success.
Without speculation culture stagnates.
> Peter the Great .... was a lousy typographer.
Yes. Because anybody who feels inferiority to another culture harms progress.
I doubt if Maxim would characterise his 1960s Helvetica project in this way. He has described it as 'amateurish', but is also very clear that the intention was to create a Cyrillic version of Neue Haas Grotesk, which he and his collaborator Kurbatov saw as 'the type of our times'. He wanted a Cyrillic equivalent of NHG/Helvetica. As is totally clear from Maxim's open letter to Yefimov, he desperately wanted functional types that he could use, and to which he was denied access during the Soviet times.
A speculation is a Hypothesis without a prove, so experiment is the right term.
"A novelist, eh? And what sort of novels do you write?"
"Chiefly experimental fiction."
"You mean failed experimental fiction, don't you? Because when fiction succeeds, nobody calls it experimental."
Where is the line between innovation (for innovations sake) (speculation?) and usability/reality.
I myself like to push boundaries when doing type, quite simply because I like to do things ‘differently’ or ‘try things’ I suppose, but up until now I often tend to go a bit too far, resulting in typefaces that may be ‘interesting’ but seem unfit for real world purposes.
Wikipedia says about industrial design:
Its key characteristic is that design is separated from manufacture: the creative act of determining and defining a product's form and features takes place in advance of the physical act of making a product, which consists purely of repeated, often automated, replication. This distinguishes industrial design from craft-based design, where the form of the product is determined by the product's creator at the time of its creation.
I suppose this was true for type design before Fontographer and FontStudio came along.
Today it seems more like a ‘craft’ to me. Is this a bad thing?
In that Big City Sans the Cyrillic /el bumps into the preceding letters ugly, for instance into Cyr /es or /a. Why no ligatures there?
Yes, /yu used to be a ligature of ioy, the ascenders of /yu /ka and /zhe are purely fanciful.
I think I've seen ligatures for both сл and ал in Big City Sans.