Typophile - Cut and then curved - Comments

David: But I want terms for

John Hudson — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:15:03 -0800

David: But I want terms for three kinds of type:
1. represents a style of writing that could be written, with a single tool from a single position. (Zapf Chancery Italic)
2. represents a style of type not completely written, but made with a single tool from a few positions. (Times)
3. represents a style of type that requires multiple tools and positions, and writing is not being represented. (Eurostyle).

Is that Calligraphy, Chirography, and Construgraphy?

1. Chirographic (of which calligraphic is one subset).

2. Parachirographic (which covers the majority of historical type design; Peter Enneson’s term).

3. Non-chirographic (of which there are various subsets, e.g. geometrically constructed).

@John: OK, but “chiro-”

John Hudson — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:10:24 -0800

Yes. I was explaining the use of the term chirographic, not justifying its use in this particular case (which I hadn’t noticed). Dwiggins’ M-formula is not chirographic, either in origin or in application. Indeed, what is notable about its application is that Dwiggins applies the cut into the thicker stem transitions, whereas a chirographic cut is only really possible at the thinnest transition.

> but geometric AS

kentlew — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:24:17 -0800

> but geometric AS organic.

Exactly. I think that’s what WAD was trying to achieve with his geometrical spinach.

I think the whole M-formula “overcoming-technical-limitations-in-small-print” thing is a red herring. I think WAD did what he did because he liked the way it looked — he liked the “snap” and “action”.

— K.

Kent: “The willfully

dberlow — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:55:41 -0800

Kent: “The willfully coarse finish of Menhart and Preissig comes from a desire to infuse energy into traditional letterforms while [...] stripping them of any excess typographic baggage.”

I think the infusion of energy fonr the course finish, uploaded so much baggage, they had few places to go.;)

“The yin/yang of the geometric vs. the organic is an ages-old formal dichotomy that can be found interspersed throughout the history of visual culture”
I think the real cool thing is not geometric VS.. the organic, but geometric AS organic. That is to say, when something of organic origin, moves to being represented in a geometric construction, without becoming ying/yan-ed, so to speak.

John H.: “I certainly didn’t invent the word ’chirography’[...] But [...] as an aesthetically neutral term meaning simply hand-writing (as distinct from ’calligraphy’, which he had been using, which implies a specific class of writing as art).”

I liked this part. Because it asks one to specify language, script and style, or make no sense.

“Chirography adapts to an adjective, chirographic, that may be considered more abstract than ’handwritten’, so one can apply it more easily to describe qualities of things that are not, in fact, written by hand.”

But I want terms for three kinds of type:
1. represents a style of writing that could be written, with a single tool from a single position. (Zapf Chancery Italic)
2. represents a style of type not completely written, but made with a single tool from a few positions. (Times)
3. represents a style of type that requires multiple tools and positions, and writing is not being represented. (Eurostyle).

Is that Calligraphy, Chirography, and Construgraphy?

“(And if I spent less time on these forums, I’d get more work done.)”
Maybe, maybe not. I’m hardly one to talk, and it’s hard to tell. I have a bell that rings every 15 minutes and so i almost have to go.

“But we would not learn nearly as much.”
Yeah, you’d have to buy the fonts otherwise. ;)

As Carl points out, a funny thing about this trend is that printing is good. The M-theory’s main usefulness now is to add something, sparkle, that previous generations didn’t want at large sizes, and couldn’t get at small sizes, without writing it. . .

Cheers!

@Carl: You are surely right,

piccic — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:05:15 -0800

@Carl: You are surely right, I think there is an enormous lack of good written material considering the important steps of work in history (especially our work, especially when book design enters the industrial revolution and the split between “graphic design” and “fine typograpjhy” begins…). In Italy we have probably the worst situation. Me and Antonio are trying to map it out a little… :=)
However, I thought you were talking in general, not about that term [chirography].
Since I have been here very rarely in the past 2 years, I saw it employed mostly by Hrant, and so I asked, because I consider the reflection upon the meaning of the words a very important thing. I am always delighted when I understand a word more properly.

@John: OK, but “chiro-” is “the hand”, while the “cut and curved” systematized in the M-theory is not simply a thing “borrowed” from calligraphy but — from what I have read in Tiffany’s PDF about Dwiggins — is beyond that, it’s a reflection upon the variability between different elemets in order to create tension and features that makes things more attractive and more functional as well (I dare saying “more wholesome”?).
Of course, as Carl Crossgrove pointed out, being conscious of what has been done and laid down, makes new work more fruitful. Why don’t you write a book on these things? [Not only Dwiggins, but also other great professionals with different approaches…]

@Eben: «But we would not learn nearly as much.»
Yes, Kent should find a good balance… :=)

I’d get more work done.

Eben Sorkin — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:12:27 -0800

I’d get more work done.

But we would not learn nearly as much.

Heh heh. Don’t get me

kentlew — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:55:02 -0800

Heh heh. Don’t get me wrong, David. I don’t mind being busy. Also, I don’t really mind being “disturbed” by you ;-) I’ll send you some stuff when I get a chance.

(And if I spent less time on these forums, I’d get more work done.)

— K.

been too busy with all that

Chris Rugen — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:33:00 -0800

been too busy with all that custom Whitman stuff ;-)

::ears perk up::

As a type consumer, it was Kent and Xavier Dupré’s type designs that made me aware of this type design convention. It also crops up in some of my favorite contemporary brush script-influenced faces. It quickly became something I sought out, when the opportunity presented itself. Not sure why, I just love the contrast and the forms it creates.

” (been too busy with all

dberlow — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:46:14 -0800

” (been too busy with all that custom Whitman stuff ;-)”
Very sorry. Will not disturb again. ;)

Cheers!

>I do not intend them as

William Berkson — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:43:54 -0800

>I do not intend them as such

Yeah, sure John :)

piccic but referring heavily

John Hudson — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:25:15 -0800

piccic but referring heavily to devices related to writing instruments does not automatically make a typeface worse, as it seems to be partially implied by the use Hrant made of the word.

Hrant loads the terms with his ideological prejudices*, but that doesn’t invalidate the usefulness of the term. For me, the term is simply descriptive of particular qualities that may be present in type design in greater or lesser degree. The argument about whether those qualities are desirable or not is another matter.

* Since ideology and prejudice are commonly taken as having negative connotations, I should point out that, in respect to Hrant’s opinions, I do not intend them as such. Hrant takes ideology seriously.

David — Yes, there’s

kentlew — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:13:55 -0800

David —

Yes, there’s more, most of it not related to the image shown. Robb should have copies on that CD from our BPL adventures a couple years back. Plus, there’s a little bit of related material from Kentucky.

No, I’ve not explored the direction shown here. I’ve tinkered with a different one, but nothing’s come of it (been too busy with all that custom Whitman stuff ;-)

— K.

On the term

William Berkson — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:12:40 -0800

On the term ’chirographic’, my impression is that Hrant turned it into a kind of swear word that he has used against stuff he doesn’t like that shows influence of the hand. The stuff that is geometric that he doesn’t like he calls subservience to ’das grid’ or something like that.

Since almost all our letter forms have an origin in hand writing, I asked Hrant what was specifically chirographic in the evil sense he has in his head. But I didn’t get any answer.

Personally, I think that the influence of the hand can be good or bad, and it’s up to the designer which way it goes.

“For which reason do you

crossgrove — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:20:33 -0800

“For which reason do you say that?”

Claudio, on Typophile for years it seems to me we have been asking, and re-answering, the question “What is chirography?”. Shouldn’t this just be a wiki node? In contrast, I think the origin, application and results of this M-theory of Dwiggins, are very important for type designers to understand, and I think the original explanation of it is best, but somehow this information is not so easy to find. So many type designers now are happily mimicking forms they see without necessarily understanding their origins or purposes. This kind of surface appreciation could allow one to see mechanical pen artifacts as interchangeable with intentional optical tricks. Especially now that so few have familiarity with any hand-written techniques, I feel it’s important to keep these ideas illuminated.

Probably so, Kent. Now if I

dezcom — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:07:26 -0800

Probably so, Kent. Now if I go back and edit it, the whole thing will be out of order.

ChrisL

Cut and then curved

Eben Sorkin — Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:05:36 -0800

I am looking for examples of typefaces that that use the curve & cut interior shapes shown here. Urbana is one.

This sample is from Malaga by Xavier Dupré

It looks a little like a calligraphic interior married to a typographic exterior to me. What do you think?