I’m using the elegantly named “Vox-ATypl classification” of fonts, here – the names of different styles sometimes vary, as does the classification of individual fonts. So this must be part of the explanation we are looking for: real “humanist” types are a bit too dark, squat and archaic to our tastes, and the Didones, while very elegant and dainty, give you a headache because mainly the vertical lines stand out, which can make text look a bit like a lengthy barcode. So whereas “humanist” types typically (no pun intended) have little variation in line width and are hence relatively “dark” (referring to the overall impression of the page – it has nothing to do with the colour of the letter), Didone typefaces move abruptly from thick to thin strokes. The evolution of classical fonts (humanist – old style – transitional –Didone) is marked by (among other things) a move towards greater contrast between thin and thick strokes. Centaur), and the “Didone” or “modern” types (such as Bodoni or Didot – the two names that blend to give this group of typefaces its odd-looking moniker). Both these groups of fonts seem to sit comfortably between the “humanist” types that were modelled on formal renaissance handwriting (e.g. Alternatively, you may find yourself facing a slightly younger “transitional” font like Baskerville (named after the man who elaborated and updated Caslon’s letters in 1757). 1725), Garamond (1540s), or even, harking back to the age of incunabula (books printed before 1501), Bembo, based on a font cut as early as 1495, or Jenson, going back – staggeringly – as far as 1470. Open up any recently published book, and you may well encounter an old style or “Garalde” font such as Caslon (c.
And yet, when it comes to books – we simply do not use them. You will not even find it difficult to ascribe certain characteristics to a type you encounter – some are “serious” and “classical”, others are “modern”, “inviting” or even (an attribution with dubious implications) “funny”.įurthermore, if you would ask a group of people to compare two fonts, a serif and and a sans serif font – let’s say Baskerville and Gill Sans – and you would ask them to decide which of the two is more “modern”, it is very likely that you will get the correct answer: sans serif fonts are – and look, and “feel” – much more modern than serif fonts: they simply do away with the unnecessary, ornamental part of a letter (which is pretty much what a serif is, after all), so that they look more like Picasso than Rubens, more Bauhaus than Sistine Chapel, more Hemingway than Shakespeare.
Not an active interest, perhaps, but fonts matter to you: you will “like” some typefaces more than others, and, given the choice between two versions of the same text, set in a different type, you will probably find it relatively easy to decide which you find more appealing. If you enjoy reading – and let’s assume you do otherwise, what you are doing now makes no sense at all – you have an interest in fonts.
0 kommentar(er)
