ATypI 2026 Sharjah – who is going?

I find my own typographic work supporting a liberal order whose assumptions are so pervasive that they pass for reality itself. Alternatives become almost impossible to see, and voicing them can carry a real cost.

The British state I have worked for sends people to prison over social media posts. In 2025 alone, courts in England and Wales handed down 443 immediate prison sentences across four communications offences.

I agree with Nadine's point about judging governments by the same standard. I’d carry that principle through to the choice of speakers. Consulting Ukrainian colleagues makes sense, and the decision to use the Russian flag deserves scrutiny in its own right. (I saw the British flag there too, a flag that some perceive as an inherently racist, colonial, and white-supremacist symbol). What I question is the suggestion that accepting a Russian speaker should itself have raised a red flag. What, specifically, about the speaker’s work, institutional role or proposed talk should have concerned the board?

Consider my own record. I have given the state’s machinery of compulsory extraction a calmer face. I have helped mass news media give editorial judgements the appearance of reality. I have made concentrated financial power look like responsible stewardship and helped corporations with colonial foundations present themselves as caring. I have worked for cultural institutions that decide what deserves attention and for corporate philanthropy that turns human suffering into reputational capital.

These commissions are celebrated as professional achievements. They were also paid services to institutions that exercise power.

If ATypI were to consider institutional affiliation grounds for excluding a speaker, and were to apply it flatly and without prejudice, my record of work ought prohibit me from speaking.

“Decision matrix”

Some comments, in order to suggest the organisers to ask the right questions, without necessary to follow all ideas of a single individual posted on a Friday 6 November 2026.

It is difficult to judge individuals; an association and the organisers of a conference are not a court as it can function in a democratic country, with a defence that has rights, following an investigation that follows democratic rules. Therefore, we may have a personal opinion about this or that individual, or about his company. But this cannot be a determining factor in the refusal of participation following a Call for entry launched by the organisers.

My thoughts go to Alexei Navalny saying this: If this individual is the subject of condemnation by a court (in a democratic country, rather than from a Russian, North Korean, or Afghan, to take basic examples), the organisers should think twice. 

If this individual would have had proven dubious practises (disclosed by the serious press and cross-cut by several sources) in the exercise of our profession, concerning copyright (for example), these elements would deserve to be taken into consideration by a representative panel of the organisers.

More broadly, the recommendations of the country in which the association is located (including the recommendations of the "Foreign Affairs" website), and/or Freedom in the World indexes published by non-governmental organisations deemed reliable can push organisers to ask themselves questions. But these elements do not say whether such a person is a persecuted minority in his own country. Nor if it is so close to power and validates practises worthy of authoritarian, dictatorial regimes, absolute monarchy, using religion or not, in order to oppress part or all of its population outside the circle of power.

In our present cases, the subject of this long discussion, the sanctions against Russia have been issued since 2022 and extended each year by the democratic country (as well as many other countries) in which the association is currently based. Therefore, the precaution of organisers is to acknowledge sanctions and don’t search for excuses. They should ignore the proposals to the Call for entry made by citizens (ignoring who they are, as organisers cannot judge individuals, see first paragraphs above) who have an address in this country and who/or pay their taxes in this country.

The idea of sanctions is to bend this country, put pressure on the regime, knowing that the citizens of the country in question may suffer. In short: Putin can stop the war today, move away from Ukraine, and sanctions will be removed soon after.

I find it rather strange that Thomas presents the facts in this way, particularly when, for years, I have been advocating for and urging the ATypI board to reopen a discussion list or forum that would allow for greater participation among members. My requests were consistently ignored or dismissed, usually by invoking the well-worn argument about the legal disputes ATypI had faced in the past. Honestly, I fail to see how a closed discussion list or forum could expose the association to similar risks.

During one of the recent virtual ATypI meetings, I voiced my opposition to the decision to host the 2026 event in the United States, particularly at a time when ICE was conducting raids, targeting people of colour on the streets and subjecting them to deeply humiliating detention conditions. As a Latin American, I would not feel comfortable travelling to a country where people of my ethnic background are subjected to institutional discrimination and such treatment. I explicitly told the board members and former board members present that I found it unacceptable for human rights considerations to be entirely absent from the process of selecting conference locations. Unfortunately, the responses I received were rather hostile, and I was left with little sense that anyone considered my concerns reasonable or worthy of serious consideration.

A few weeks after this unpleasant experience, I decided to resign from the association. I no longer feel that ATypI adequately represents the interests of independent type foundries, nor do I see a genuine commitment to fostering critical engagement and meaningful participation among its members.

I could be wrong, but my impression is that, over the past few years, ATypI has increasingly existed primarily to organise a conference that also serves as a promotional platform for its sponsors, who, in return for their support, are rewarded with prominent speaking slots and exhibition spaces to advance their public relations efforts.

It seems that, following the public protest by our Ukrainian colleagues, which was subsequently joined by other voices, the ATypI board is finally acknowledging that discussing human rights may not be such an unreasonable proposition after all, and that a discussion forum is, in fact, necessary. These are encouraging steps, and I sincerely hope they represent a genuine change of direction rather than simply an exercise in damage control.

If, over the next few years, I see the association moving in a different direction and sense a genuine commitment to representing the interests of independent type designers, I would certainly consider becoming a member again.

Thomas Phinney said:

Have you not noted that a substantial part of the backlash to Korolkova being a speaker related to comments Paratype’s CEO Yakupova made in a non-public discussion? Just because a statement is nominally not public does not stop people from reporting on something said or written in a forum.

Correction: Anna Yakupova posted this comment in a public group — the admin (Artem Geller) made this group public in September 2022, and that’s how the whole story came to light.