I'll start the forum by agreeing with Beatrice Warde's view on book typography, that the typeface should be 'invisible' and not distract the audience from the content.
Everybody interprets information independently and thus, two people might read the same text quite differently. Using the same analogy that I used yesterday, designers are like film directors. We give form to information and so, the way we interpret that information will influence how our audience sees it. Guy Ritchie, director of the latest Sherlock Holmes film, decided to break with tradition and present Holmes as a trendy action hero. The traditional costume that we associate with the character in the UK was discarded for dark glasses and coiffured hair. Our image of the character and story is being dictated by how Ritchie envisaged it in the same way that a person reading the printed page is influenced by what the designer presents. The question then arises, should the author hold all the creative cards or should the designer be credited with having valuable input as well?
Jonathan
I will strar the discussion with disagreement with Beatrice Warde and her believes that typeface should me "invisible" and not distract the audience from the content.
ReplyDeleteI strongly belive that type most of the times is the content by it's self.
I feel the need to share a adage which has stayed deep in my mind told by famous typopgrapher (unfortunately I don't remeber his/her name) " Type can be tha image and much more"
The world, traditionally, was dominant and images were used to illustrate or interpret the text. In an important historical reversal, text often becomes a supporting message used to connote and sharpen image.
Roland Barthes observed: "Formely, the image illustrated text (made it clear): today, the text loads the image burdening it with culture, a moral, an imagination"
Type is a powerful instrument to modify the meaning of an image or to imply and interpret it for as.
Agreed, there is no doubt that text does convey meaning and in the right location this can be used to great effect. For instance in advertising or magazines where the designer is trying to grab the audience's attention, the use of type that adds meaning to the text is invaluable. Take the example given in the lectures with the Ray Gun articles. In these examples, the illegibility of the type reflected the rebellious mantra of its audience and thus, the magazine would lose much of its flavour if it adhered to Warde's belief. This I can agree with, but is this the same with books, where the audience has already chosen to read the book's content. Does the designer then need to step in and add to the author's vision? In many cases I am sure that both parties would have the same viewpoint and consequently the designer's input would be very valuable, but so often this is not the case.
ReplyDeleteReturning to the film example presented before, it has been reported in news streams that Guy Ritchie planned to explore the possibility of a homosexual relationship between Holmes and Watson in a Sherlock Holmes sequel. Those who own the character rights did not believe this to be faithful to the book and thus disallowed Ritchie to follow these plot lines. In this example, the director (designer) had a different reading and idea for the text and ultimately would have altered our vision of the character.
It is one of the great beauties of type that it can speak independently to the audience and so often its beauty does both attract and distract from the text. I would be lying if I said that reading these texts (text, manifesto, screen, rhetoric) in the form of their original articles was not more enjoyable than reading the blank page. This is because the pages were illustrated with examples and text that gave life to the piece, guiding my eyes through the article. However, text remains open to interpretation and misinterpretation and this is a fact that designers should always be aware of.
This brings us back to the point of purpose. The level of 'invisibility' should depend on the context and there is ultimately an invisible scale between different usages. Advertising is potentially at one end and academic journals are at the other. I agree with the quotation you made Georgia, that 'type can be the image and much more'. This makes graphic design much more of an art and ultimately what drew me to it. However, context should not allow designers to get too artistically indulgent in trying to create stained glass. Take, for example, medical journals – is it right that designers detracts form the content in this example? Do we want doctors and researchers to come away understanding the beauty of type or be on the path of to a medical breakthrough?
Jonathan