New: Origin of Type Frameworks (OTF) Course

This summer, I will be celebrating 38 years of teaching type design. Over the past decades, especially in Antwerp and The Hague, my students have been exploring type design with a strong focus on pattern formation, shifting away from the more traditional approach that typically prioritizes individual letterforms followed by iterative spacing adjustments. Instead, they begin by defining the overall rhythm and texture of the text, i.e., its pattern, and then refine individual elements, like serifs, to fit within that structure. To this foundation, they add a layer of idiomatic detail –a kind of varnish that gives the work its unique voice.

Pattern formation and the associated standardization are key components of the movable-type paradigm. As I argue in my dissertation, it all began with the intrinsic systematization found in the handwritten source models (think LeMo). These were used by the archetypal punchcutters to organize font production –essentially forming the basis for transferring letterforms to fixed-width rectangles. This structure not only streamlined the entire process from punchcutting to type casting and fynally typesetting, but also ensured consistency and reproducibility. In short, it was fundamental to both design quality and the industrial strength of the final product. Given this, it makes perfect sense to consider archetypal patterning not just for reviving historical models, but also for creating contemporary typefaces.

I tentatively consider the more traditional focus on letterforms a bit of a misconception about what type really is at its core: pattern formation. The reliance on ‘eyeballing’ stems, in my opinion, largely from this traditional approach. And because one starts with details and not with patterns, one has to fix things from the inside, instead of improving ‘aesthetic’ things from the outside. Moreover, it turns something that can be concrete, understandable, and reproducible into something unnecessarily mysterious. For example, as my students have discovered, spacing is parametrically reproducible, for example when using tools that focus on cadencing.

Of course, not everyone will agree with my approach and the text above, and that is to be expected. However, I believe it is essential that our field supports a diversity of perspectives and methodologies. It is encouraging to see that even master’s graduates of prominent type-design programs in Europe are drawn to my program. This is also already true of the new OTF Course. And even if, in the end, one prefers the more traditional approach with its emphasis on letterforms and eyeballing, engaging deeply with pattern-focused methods might well sharpen and strengthen that conviction, I reckon.