Typophile - academic training in type design - Comments

Though my own formal

Norbert Florendo — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:54:05 -0800

Though my own formal education up through graduating high school was heavily academic (literature, mathematics, physics, the sciences) the high school I went to specialized in pre-college majors in the technical professions: electrical and mechanical engineering, aeronautical engineering, etc.

For my junior and senior years, I was in the Industrial Design program where we learned about development of products from conception through distribution, including drafting, product modeling, prototyping, manufacturing processes, packaging, and finally illustration and advertising.

Not all work was done with books or on the boards as our high school was fully equipted with trade shops which gave us hands-on experience with metal shop (we learned to make our own tools), patternmaking/foundry (reading blueprints we created wood prototypes then cast them in metal), and letterpress printshop.

For me (how one learns is based on the individual) the combination of academic, conceptual development and production training was formative to how I think and what I do.
Sadly, I don’t think many high schools can offer such programs anymore.

Though college continued with some academics and production training, the majority was devoted to preparing the mind and eye for higher level conceptualizing, problem solving and creative thinking (not just art, but for all creative approaches).

A core group of my college instructors never showed us their own work or how they approached problems. They just kept pushing us to push the envelop, to stop being rote thinkers and step through doors that previously seemed locked.

So I guess the core questions is this:
- Do I want to learn a craft then do that for the rest of my life, or do I want to learn something that affects the way I do things for the rest of my life?

> I have no other formal

hrant — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:10:35 -0800

> I have no other formal training in the arts whatsoever.

Consider yourself lucky.

> I would think one class would be enough

No way.

> it all boils down to determination.

Not all. There’s also the matter of talent.

> People learn in different ways

Very true.

> it is only with experience in making letterforms
> that you begin to think about them in original ways.

No way.

> The type designer and calligrapher can (but not always) work like poets

God forbid.

—

Always remember that formal education is a two-sided coin.
The best way to get into it is with a large backpack of doubt.

hhp

Thank you Sebastien! And

dezcom — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:47:11 -0800

Thank you Sebastien! And best of luck in your endeavor.

ChrisL

If I get it right, Frank

sebsan — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:42:56 -0800

If I get it right, Frank Blokland was saying on Typeradio that Chess seems like an objective game, —Chess n. A board game for two players, each beginning with 16 pieces of six kinds that are moved according to individual rules, with the objective of checkmating the opposing king.— However, no one not even a computer can guess more then 25 moves ahead (or was it less?), beyond that point it’s pure subjectivity. Although it is crucial to know the rules of chess to play it, these won’t turn you into a good player. Even if it’s hard to hear the rules alone don’t tell you how to win, it is in addition to your talent and hard work that you will checkmate everytime.

I have the firm intention to apply to TypeMedia this year and if I get in I will use this as my moto:

Getting an education is NOT the same as getting an injection. You should not go to a school or apprentice situation and assume you will be infused with knowledge and skill. You can go to the Doctor and get an injection of antibiotic to cure an infection with little participation other than offering our arm. Schools should not be seen as a large hypodermic device injecting students with a profession. The lion’s share of responsibility lies with the student both during the school experience and after graduation. School plants a seed which the student must nurture fully before he/she can harvest the fruits of their labors.

In other words, You Get What You Work For.

—ChrisL

Thanks Chris for these wise words, they give me goose bumps.

“Because graphic design is

dezcom — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:42:34 -0800

“Because graphic design is now being taught with fewer academic subjects in the humanities and sciences, graduates are gradually falling lower in the corporate food chain.”

I don’t know if “taught with fewer academic subjects” is true in every design school (certainly not at my old alma mater CMU) but I would certainly agree that “graduates are gradually falling lower in the corporate food chain”. This may be more due to the feeling that design is about learning software these days rather than learning communication and design problem solving (so brains are not needed). Just look at the crap that passes as logo design these days!
I also blame the Marketing “BSers” for emphasizing the focus testing but using poor excuses for design to test. I guess the thinking is you can sell anything to a client if you have “data” even if it is lame data so why pay higher design fees when you can hire a kid who just learned Illustrator in a box! The sad part is that real honest testing and marketing could help improve quality but it would of course cost the marketing firm more to do it.

ChrisL

> …encouraging the

Norbert Florendo — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:15:30 -0800

> ...encouraging the students to be well-rounded designers.

Which I agree is critical to the design student, but well-rounded as individuals as well, meaning a broad range of interests not limited to the arts. So many levels of understanding is essesntial if not critical to approaching design solutions. Design is not just a visual excercise, as evidenced by the depth of dialogue contained throughout Typophile (at least while Chris L and I are not punning you to death).

I’ve made little of my education in this particular thread, but it was extremely intensive from primary school up, and as much training went into the mind as into the hand. By the time I reached college, I was saturated with academic studies, and it was time for my professors to break the shell and let things flow.

After college, it was into the workforce, where problems could be reassimilitate and solutions refreshed... with the help and further lessons by seasoned professionals. It ain’t fun if you’re not being challenged, and if you’re not being challenged, you ain’t learning.

Formal education or

Nick Shinn — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:08:16 -0800

Formal education or training, and the marketplace, are all normative.

Let me clarify that.
In my experience teaching type design (ironic position, for one self-taught), I found the challenge was to reign in the more “creative” students and get them to focus on practicality, and at the same time to fire up the more practical students to think a little more outside the box, pardon the cliche.
So both those actions, on my part, were normative, in the sense that I was encouraging the students to be well-rounded designers.

My feelings are much like

Thomas Phinney — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:42:57 -0800

My feelings are much like Carl Crossgrove’s and John Hudson’s on this. My education was like Carl’s, at RIT. If the Reading MA in Type Design had existed, and I had known of it back then, I would have gone there instead, and gotten a lot more out of it in terms of my type design abilities. That being said, a lot of the stuff I learned at RIT that I would not have gotten at Reading has been very helpful - I got a much broader education in printing and workflows.

My experience has been the opposite of Nick’s in one respect - I started out doing extremely derivative stuff, and am now doing things which are at once more original and better executed.

A lot depends on how one learns best, and how one feels about formal education, too. I think the Reading environment would have been good for me, but that doesn’t mean it would be good for everybody.

Cheers,

Thanks all for your

dux — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 03:13:16 -0800

Thanks all for your comments. We have all taken different paths, and have had different experiences along them, so it’s interesting to hear your views on this subject. I personally deliberately shunned university first time round — I wasnt a hundred percent sure what I wanted to study, and didnt want to fall off the conveyor belt like my friends. You go to school, you do your a-levels, you finish university and you start work — and you barely have a moment to think. Going straight into the world of work I’ve had time to decide exactly what I want to do, I’ve gained some perspective, and now if I were to study, I would enter it fully committed. I hate to say it but too many students enter a course without this, and it’s no surprise they end up as they do.

The type designer … can

Nick Shinn — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:40:56 -0800

The type designer ... can (but not always) work like poets, in isolation with deep focus and singular intent.

I wish. If you run your own foundry, those moments are precious and hard to come by, except perhaps late at night when you’re all alone (but that was another thread...)

The education of the

Norbert Florendo — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:23:33 -0800

The education of the designer.
The education of the graphic designer.
The education of the typographer.
The education of the type designer.
The education of the calligrapher.
The education of the lettering artist.
The education of the sign painter/sign maker.

You might think there was a core commonality in their curriculum, but if that were true how is it that they differ so greatly in their viewpoints. Is it methodology or end product that narrows their focus?
Is it the hierarchy or “pecking order” of the decision makers?

The type designer and calligrapher can (but not always) work like poets, in isolation with deep focus and singular intent.

The graphic designer, typographer (if one still exists) generally now works in a semi-office/studio agency environment and is shuttled between the client and printer. Some may still work in printshops, newspaper/periodicals, in marketing communications depts., etc. Business, business, business... and, oh yeh... marketing BS.

The “designer/director/creative” slightly higher in the pecking order will spend more time on proposal writing, meetings and presentations than deeply intrenched in guiding the production.

The lettering artist used to work in semi-studios or busy production areas, but nowadays since it’s a much rarer skill, can work as an individual at home or in small office... alone.

The sign painter/maker generally works in a workshop-like area, garage, small industrial space and gets to drink beer with the truckers.

Something happens to you after formal education. You work!
The skills required (manual, not thinking ones) are generally taught on the job, on the fly, or as you can.

When I was teaching second year graphic designers about typography, the only ones (two actually) that progressed the fastest in terms of type sensitivity, were the ones who were already trying some kind of design work as a source of income. Those students during the course of 15 weeks never lost a chance to stay and ask for an opinion or critique of the pieces they designed at work (one of them designed flyers at a small print shop). They asked questions less during class, but more one-on-one after class.

Of the regular day students, many did well, some did not, but only the working students were passionate about learning more!

When I was in my senior year at college I was a “brilliant artiste” and it wasn’t until I worked nine-to-five that I realized how much I had to learn.

There is another aspect to design education that I hope to share (I’m writing notes on type ed) and that has more to do with the height, depth and breadth of learning and understanding one NEEDS to incorporate into their life’s education. Because graphic design is now being taught with fewer academic subjects in the humanities and sciences, graduates are gradually falling lower in the corporate food chain. The devaluation of design and designers by corporations (as well as other creative contributors) is making this world an uglier place.

I used to try to hide the

jim_rimmer — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:34 -0800

I used to try to hide the fact that I have never had any art school training, other than two seasons of night school, but quite a few years ago I tired of the effort it took to remember which art school I had lied about attending the last time I was asked about it.
This became a real strain when I was teaching graphic design! what crust, huh?

I escaped from the composing room close to 40 years ago and have managed to make a living, feed three kids and legions of cats; and we own 93% of our old house. No training involved.

Quite a few people on this forum hvae noted that they came to graphic design by dent of effort and have managed to work successfully in the field of graphic design, and why not.

It seems that hardly anyone in history had had much if any training in type design. I mentioned in another post that some come from sign writing backgrounds. Oz Cooper and Robert Foster are prime examples of men who worked a long time doing sho-card painting for department stores.

I think that anything that forces one to look closely at letters and render them in any medum over a long time is one of the best training grounds.

Don’t get me wrong; I think there is great value in a formal graphic design education and I really do wish that I had had the opportunity, but I found myself shoved into a compositor apprenticeship and there was no arguing about it. Now more than a half century later I wish that I had taken the time to thank my old dad for making the decision for me. I got to draw in the and and along the way picked up some type education.

Jim

“Yes - how degradingly

dezcom — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:20:43 -0800

“Yes - how degradingly difficult it is without experience! One wades from fall to fall, and each luminous perception proves just more mud.”

But that is precisely what experience is! You learn from those muddy experiences.

ChrisL

Yes - how degradingly

George Horton — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:33:25 -0800

Yes - how degradingly difficult it is without experience! One wades from fall to fall, and each luminous perception proves just more mud.

Let me clarify my statement

John Hudson — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:20:19 -0800

Let me clarify my statement about experience and originality. In my experience, it is only after making letterforms for some time that one begins to think about them in original ways that work. The Typophile crit forum is full of original ideas about letterforms by beginners, but few of these ideas work very well and the designs do not hold together as typefaces.

academic training in type design

dux — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 07:01:02 -0800

At one point I was interested in applying to the Reading type design MA, and received mixed opinions on the value of taking a year out to learn about type, in classroom conditions. Some type designers thought it something you could teach yourself, and others thought it highly worthwhile. Now my question isn’t with regards to the virtues of this particular course, but as to how many of you now practising received any kind of formal training. I myself have been plodding along now for a couple of years, improving in babysteps, following a type apprenticeship with dalton maag. I have no other formal training in the arts whatsoever.