It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
* To be more precise: More fonts, no. New typefaces, yes.
James Puckett said:
there’s a fun trend now in wildly original neo-art nouveau typefaces.
Oliver Weiss (Walden Font Co.) said:
Instead, I prefer to mop up the great stuff that got dropped by successive technological revolutions in type setting, and put it back on the shelf.
Yes. No.* Yes.* To be more precise: More fonts, no. New typefaces, yes.
Craig Eliason said:
These two designers say we still need more:Peter BiľakKris Sowersby(or at least they did 10 and 5 years ago when those pieces were written)Of course, pushing people who have careers invested in making new fonts to concede that new fonts are unnecessary is probably not going to go far.Rony Ginosar has done some interesting work with speculative user interfaces that try to remove the too-many-options problem (though in this case geared more to choosing an instance from a variable font rather than choosing a font from many). Maybe the problem is better framed not as "we need fewer fonts" but rather "we need a more sensible way of finding the font we want."
Johannes Neumeier said:
I particularly like how this is @Mariana Mazgut 's first post on TypeDrawers, welcome to the board! Also, humans have been remixing tools forever since the first time someone whacked a coconut with a rock, so... yea. In fact, I think it is inherently human that we shall have a need for new things, always curious to develop, always experimenting with the existing to create new, on a very abstract level we just can't help it.
This post is not
intended to offend the type designers of this forum but to answer the subject
“Overload by typefaces”
I’m an amateur
typographer using professional tools and happy to share the pros’ opinions on
in font design and using font designing software since 30 years
I design fonts
for fun, not as a pro, free for the personal user. I know some of you don’t
To answer the
subject of this post:
1. I’m not interested in fonts mimicking the ones we use
day-by day, mainly because they’re provided by our usual software (MS Word, for
instance). There is already a huge provision of those ones.
2. Some of these are nothing else than copied and finely-worked
existing fonts, sometimes with a little curled twist in the serif or a refined
junction of the stems (big work but not very useful, except if MS or Apple buys
you the font).
3. No matter, many of them are totally unnecessary,
except if it’s your choice. About this, I read some reactions to the new fonts
imposed on the new Mac OSes. Many users found them (and the changing) totally useless.
4. IMHO, we have enough of these system fonts and “revised”
5. If there is a future for type designers, it’s in
original well-designed fonts. And like somebody said on this post, including
other characters than basic Latin ones. Imagination, artistry, please, and no
more (well-hidden or not) copies !
6. I liked very much Oliver Weiss’s remarks about his
“lack of talent” (I shouldn’t say that!) and his Art Nouveau revivals. I made
such revivals too and I completely agree. Even for my lack of talent!
7. And Nick Shinn’s posts on new technology.
To be specific as to how new technology can create emergent possibilities, consider the pseudo-random effect.First, about 20 years ago, Robert Slimbach, while working at Adobe, was able to utilize his knowledge of the “joining rules” of classical calligraphy, to take an already digitized typeface, Caflisch Script, to the next level, by instituting a new OpenType feature dedicated to that purpose, Contextual Alternates.He realized that the substitution coding of OpenType (and the large number of characters in the format) could be structured to provide a much closer facsimile of calligraphy, and it would be possible, as Adobe made layout applications (InDesign, notably) to implement the effect as a “font plus feature support” entity.
Do you have any insights about the genesis of Multiple Master fonts, in particular Carl Crossgrove’s Reliq, with its “agitation” axis?
Mark Simonson said:
19th century? I think you could trace it back to Gutenberg. I'm reminded of that Goudy quote...
Mark Simonson said:
Compared to books, the universe of fonts is much smaller, but the same kinds of strategies apply.