Type Means Never Having To Say You’re Sorry

From an article on designobserver.com by Jessica Helfand about how type is being used and how typography is being taught

"About a year ago, I participated in a student portfolio review involving nearly a dozen American schools, many (most?) exhibiting the classic projects that characterize all undergraduate design programs — the color studies, the poster problems, the typographic exercises — all of which teach the student about that most essential design conceit: letterforms, and how to use them.

And here, I quickly discovered that something had gone horribly wrong. One after another, bright-faced young hopefuls displayed the products of their long hours in the studio. Book after book spilled forth with content ranging from how to cook a frittata to how to understand Freud. There were personal books, commercial books, literary and poetic books, serious and silly books, childrens books, how-to books, and everything in between.

And there they were — virtually all of them — typeset in Futura.

“What made you choose this typeface?” I inquired of a lovely young woman whose senior project involved a series of book jackets for Sigmund Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams.

“I liked how modern it was,” she replied.

“Did you read the book?”

She blushed, shook her head no, and looked down at her lap.

I tried a different approach. “Do you know what year this book was published?”

Again, she shook her head, and apologized for the lapse in research. But I wasn't so interested in the apology (a common refrain, particularly among students) as I was concerned that she was about to graduate and had no fundamental knowledge of design history — a failure of the curriculum, and by conjecture, of the faculty. I explained that when Freud's book was published in 1899 (and in it’s first English edition the subsequent year) it’s impact was significant — that the whole notion of addressing the subconscious was seen as wholly unprecedented, even radical at the time. And yes, broadly speaking, such a novel concept might be considered to be “modern” — and what might that entail, typographically? I could see that an abbreviated lecture on the rise of modernism in America would be about as pointless as quoting George Santayana — or even Harry Truman — and besides, the next student was already awaiting his turn for review — but the bottom line was: why Futura?

“I just kind of liked it.”

I hear this a lot during critiques.It really bothers me. Helfand acknowledges the changes in technology have made the tools of creation available to everyone, so now people are using that power to create as they see fit. Previously, only certain individuals had access and training to create graphic work, type faces, etc... and they were the ones making the rules and guidelines. As future designers, what is our duty? What is our burden? Learn the rules, break the rules, love the rules, or make new ones? What contributions can we make to design in the future?

To continue the conversation about what is appropriate / what about the rules, check this out How To Be Ugly. This is an article about a new magazine that abuses all of Ellen Lupton's rules about stretching type