ahoi stephanie,

do you know the Letter Arts Review?
http://www.johnnealbooks.com/

regards, ute

Very interesting! I think this will be helpful.

Thanks!

An interesting news item on this subject came across the wires today...

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/entertainment/11340561.htm

Interesting how they describe the writing style created for the project a 'font'.

Cheers, Si

My calligraphy teacher -a veteran of 25 years- said something quite ironic during the first class: that the highest compliment one's calligraphy can receive is if people think it's a font. Is that hilarious or what.

hhp

Did he mean that in terms of like characters being exactly the same?
Someone should advise the Grand Forks Herald that Wales isn't in England.
Slightly more on topic http://www.typophile.com/cgibin/discus.pl?pg=prev&topic=30&page=54066

I guess it's a multi-faceted thing to say and consider. He was referring to the importance of consistency. But I see a problem with that on two levels:
-Structural: I don't know any calligrapher who thinks that all letters should be structured the same. My teacher himself adds swashes, variant forms and whatnot. And quite ironically, with OpenType especially fonts are increasingly adopting variant forms...
-Finish: This could make more sense, but I actually don't think it does either. If I want consistency, I will use a font. In this age, assuming you think calligraphy is useful (and I for one think it is), the point should be celebrating the fauve, inconsistent aspect. On the other hand I don't think one should intentionally go crazy with inconsistency. So for myself I've sort of arrived at this compromise: to try to make my letters consistent, but withouth using guides of any kind; and to not obsess about extender length for example; etc. I'm still working on getting comfortable with this though.

hhp

Having been a calligraphy instructor for over 25 years myself (amoung several other lettering arts pursuits). Consistency is the key to calligraphy. There are different kinds of consistency. Their are the classic forms of calligraphy, then there are the more modern forms of expressive calligraphy. Which type of consistency one strives for depends on what form of calligraphy you are creating.

Most people erroneously refer to calligraphic and lettering work as "fonts" for the simple reason that it is the only term they are familiar with. The average individual knows nothing about the "arcane art" of letterforms, their use, history or creation. Even the majority of professional art directors who should know better.

Clotilde Olyff:

http://www.dorpdal.com/lettered/pebble1.html

Here's what I meant:
(72Kb) http://www.themicrofoundry.com/other/Ludovico.jpg

Not very good, but not imitative of another marking system either.

hhp

Hi Hrant,

"Not very good

Don,

I wasn't criticizing the author's use of the word font - just seemed interesting that she thought her readers would understand it better than 'lettering style'. Surprised her editor didn

Underware workshops!

http://www.typeworkshop.com/

...the highest compliment one's calligraphy can receive is if people think it's a font

I would take that to refer to finish, i.e. to the measure of control and cleanness in the forms, rather than to their structural consistency. Of course, this presupposes calligraphy in which control and cleanness are desired goals, as they generally are for beginners: one should master the controlled before trying to master freedom, which is much more difficult.

Don, I actually wasn't trying to be inventive there - for a change! :-) That's my literal rendering of the hand we learned in class (called "Italic" by the instructor), with some minor variations (like the "7", which I made less frail) - but also that "alternate" binocular "g". Even that swash "A" was one of the forms prescribed in class. (The one "structural" thing I regret btw is not giving the "M" a swash on its bottom-right.)

> what inspired you to pursue calligraphy, and what do you hope to gain from it?

Well, unless you've been lurking here for a while, you might not know that I'm actually firmly opposed to chirographic* type; although I do think it can look beautiful** sometimes, I also think it is regressive all of the time. I equate it with celebrating the past at the expense of building the future; but I guess everybody needs to party sometimes.

* A nicely focused term I got from John.

** Ex Ponto is one of the very few fonts I've ever bought.

But no matter what I think of chirographic type, I'm all for learning - I'd like to be able to [better] grasp the chirographic observations people make when discussing type, something not uncommon. I'll be teaching a type design class at ArtCenter starting in May, and this makes me just that little bit more prepared. (I've also done some letterpress, and I learned a lot from that.)

Plus it's nice to be able to write well - people like that. I mail out things often, and I wouldn't mind some more flair but also discipline in the addresses and short notes that I write. To this end I plan on formulating my own "hand" - and I already know it will have a Carolingian lc "a"; and quite a sinister "g".

But I have to tell you, my first choice was Mandarin Chinese. I would have taken that class instead, except that instructor had a lisp - can you believe that?!

--

> That's both cool and sad at the same time.

Nicely expressed.

--

> I would take that to refer to finish

Yes, but it's still a bit paradoxical.

> one should master the controlled before trying to master freedom

I think there are pros and cons to both strategies, and some irreversible repercussions. Like it might in fact be [even] harder to master freedom once you've mastered control... There's something to be said for jumping right in, something there's no other way to attain. In fact that's another reason I dumped the Mandarin class: it didn't feel right; I'd really much prefer learning it on the streets of Shanghai or something. It seem to me there's something essentially wrong with formal education of natural language. But often it's all we have.

hhp

"I wasn't criticizing the author's use of the word font"

No poblem Hrant, I didn't think you were. On the other hand, I do lamenting the fact that most graphic art "professionals" don't know the difference. Even if she had an editor, most editors wouldn't know the difference either.

It's true, one of the most popular segments of type design today seems to be creating fonts that can be used to fake writing done by hand. Myself, I make a distinction between "calligraphic fonts" and informal "handwriting/hand-printed" fonts. Myself, I applaud the professional designs of fonts like Zapfino (pretty, but limited in its uses) and Bickham Script (well done, but not representative of George Bickham's work).

As an artist, I find it hard to get excited about most "handwriting/hand-printed" fonts. Probably because I can produce these whenever I want for myself (though I know this isn't the case for everyone so they have a place too). But another reason I'm not fond of this genre of font design is probably because I think you're right. The direct mail industry, no doubt, drives the "handwriting/hand-printed" craze. principally used to dupe people into thinking they've received something with a personal touch (for a change). I find such disingenuous creations to have a dark spirit

I think if one wants to 'jump right in' to informal calligraphy (as distinct from formal calligraphy of the kind that usually begins by learning a particular hand), it is best to avoid letterforms entirely for the first while, and simply explore the range of marks that can be made with the writing implements. I have a book by a German calligrapher that demonstrates this teaching technique: his students begin with abstract mark making. Calligraphic ideas of balance, harmony, stress, etc. are all clearly in evidence, but divorced from letterforms. Only in the second phase of the teaching do student progress to working with actual letters.

Well put!

dm

Don, "I wasn't criticizing the author's use of the word font" was Simon, not me.

--

> I have a book by a German calligrapher

The Gurtler book? That's a great one - if a bit expensive! For the record though: Gurtler is a lot more than a calligrapher; he made (or collaborated in making) Unica for one thing, as well as Egyptian 505 (the only Egyptian I like).

I think the learning of "elemental" shapes first is interesting and relevant, but that's beside the issue -and danger- of formalism that preoccupies me.

hhp

"Holly Dickens seems to be someone that has mastered out of control. Or=20=

in other words, she seems to be totally in control. There is also=20 Michael Clark=85John Stevens [etc]. A list like this could spiral out of=20=

control very quickly."

Indeed it could, so I won't take the thread in this direction. This is=20=

the sort of work I've done for over 20 years. John Stevens has been one=20=

of my lettering arts heros for years.

dm

Hey Stephanie, I attended an exhibition called 'Sensacional!' at the AIGA in NYC some time ago, it was awesome. It showcased some wonderful mexican wrestling posters that where printed on these huge man made presses.
What was so fascinating was that the letters where cut out from uncommon materials like linoleum tiles, carpeting, old rugs, cardboard, cloth, ect; basically, anything that would hold ink. The letters were then pasted onto pieces of wood and ready for printing.
What was so cool though was that the letters where made from different materials which yielded different printing results. Some letters, for instance, had fuzzy edges because they were cut from rugs, and others had different patterns on them due to the patterns that where on the tile. All these differences coud be found on the same poster, very cool. I visited a Barnes and Noble and they had the book for sale, you can check it out, or maybe search the net for any info on the exhibit.

IM

I wasn't thinking of the Gurtler book(Experiments with Letterform and Calligraphy), which I agree is very good and which presents a similar approach. The book I was remembering is Symbols, Signs and Letters by Martin Andersch.

Hrant, I've just begun taking up calligraphy, to see what effects it will have on my letter drawing. For the past two years or so, I had been relatively anti-calligraphic, so to speak. I preferred to draw out shapes and outlines with a pencil or pen

> my constructed letterforms don't come out the
> way I wish they would. This makes me think that
> there must be something to this calligraphy

This is a classical mental path, but it looks only to the well-publicized schools of thought in type design. There is another way - although it's quite hard to elaborate on - I'm working on it. I'm happy with my own "constructed" forms - because they're not constructed (in the way you probably mean it). That said, I'm not ecstatic about my forms - there certainly is a lot of room for improvement, but it's a room that can't be filled by chirography - that would be running back inside.

hhp

Holly Dickens seems to be someone that has mastered out of control. Or in other words, she seems to be totally in control. http://www.hollydickens.com/

There is also Michael Clark. He is a crazy man. A lot of fun to seem him work. http://www.ideabook.com/typeasar.htm

John Stevens http://www.johnstevensdesign.com/

A list like this could spiral out of control very quickly.