My take:

A (good) graphic designer should be well versed in typography, as well as the other skills required to be consider a (good) designer. A typographer might be only versed in typography, and work strictly with type setting and page layout. The lines between typographer and designer are becoming more and more blurry with the onsluaght of the digital erra.

(It's a rough definition, but a defination at least)

... and what about a "typesetter"? ;-)

Well, the nasty snoot in me would say that the difference is that a graphic
designer, to really fit in, must have a strong disregard for good typography.

hhp

Hahah, Hrant, I was just waiting for such a comment.

I would like to think that I, as a designer, would have a very strong REGARD for typography -- as well as design.

Here is my mantra at the firm: Without typography, graphic design is merely fine art.

Without typography, graphic design is merely fine art.

Oooh, I want to quote that.

Please do.

Kyle,

"Without typography, graphic design is merely fine art".

I really like that comment too. Says it all really :-)

I like the 'merely' part. I've made the argument in class before, that there can be no graphic design, that is , no true communication, without type.

Nice. And the "merely" does rule. But could we possibly dump the "fine" Kyle?

hhp

Hmm. I can think of lots of examples of graphic design that doesn't use type, although it usually does.

To me, the difference between graphic design and fine art is one of purpose, not form.

True. But often a lack of typography -or more accurately/tellingly
of good typography- goes hand-in-hand with a lust for expression
over communication.

hhp

So, you would consider a highway sign showing a picture of a leaping deer to be fine art?

More like a work of fiction.
Has anybody ever actually seen that happen these days?!

hhp

As a matter of fact, where I drive, I sometimes see deer run across the road. Once, I saw one get hit when I was driving up north. For various reasons, it's actually becoming more common in Minnesota.

But it doesn't matter. The main thing is that the signs are intended to communicate a message (watch out for deer crossing the road) and you don't necessarily need type to do that.

You're right of course. Kyle's expression suffers from the same thing that any single phrase does: it can only say so much in such a short space, simplifying to the extreme, leaving out all the context and exceptions; at best it can offer a small if hopefully useful truth - but I do think it does that.

As for the deer signs, it sounds like where you live
they're actually needed, but around here all they
are is a cruel joke on expectant kids.

hhp

So I was waiting to see who would be the first to tackle that topic. Congratulations, Mark, you get the cookie. Of course I realize that this type of blanket statement can only hold so much truth with such a large context. Iconography is very much graphic design, and it mostly does lack typography. The same could be said for my area of expertise, trademark design -- more specifically designing 'symbols' as trademarks. Although in trademarks we usually have to leverage typography to elevate the symbol to a place where it can exist without it. Example: Playboy Bunny

I also grew up in a heavily wooded area and the existance of deer x-ing signs were much needed. I have acutally been in a car that hit a deer -- and let me tell you -- it is like hitting a truck.

That said, as a rule of thumb, typography exists as the cornerstone for graphic design. But, as we all know there are many facets to graphic design.

Revised Quote:

Without typography, graphic design is merely art.™

Graphic Design is more aptly called visual communication design. The point is visual problem solving of the client's communication issue. To me, anyone who uses art skills to arrange things to look nice on a page is not a designer, they are a "Layout Artist". Anyone who just is doing work to please themselves and not solve a clients problem, is just a prima donna Bull S**t artist. Typography, illustration, photography, communication strategy, symbol development, etc. are skills required by graphic designers. There is no certification in the field so anyone with a computer and CS Suite can call themselves a graphic designer (or a typographer). The proof is in the pudding. Hrant over-generalizes by unfairly putting his "Artiste" label on all designers. There certainly are some out there that deserve that label but there are many who don't. This is true of many professions of course. Design is completely unregulated and good designers take the heat for what the bad ones have done. Regulation would not help any either so the buyer must beware. In the mean time, instead of beating up on designers whom you don't even know, perhaps just looking at portfolios, interviews, and recommendations will help sort the wheat from the chaff.
ChrisL

"instead of beating up on designers whom you don’t even know,"

Who was beating up on designers? Certainly not I.

I don't think it says it all. Are you saying then that the "Apple" logo -- a pictographic design -- is merely fine art? and what's the "merely" part?
It's a catchphrase, but not really a good description of graphics, design, typography OR fine art.

ChuckGroth

Visual communication is the term I use when teaching. That's what we are -- communicators. But the artists (designers?) who painted on the caves of Lascaux 40,000 years ago were visual communicators as well, communicating hunting sites, techniques, religious aspects of the hunt, etc. Typography is a fairly recent addition to the communication biz. And it's an ASPECT of what we do, not an exclusive to compartmentalize our craft.

ChuckGroth

Any visual form of expression is invariably, art. There is good art, and bad (tasteless) art.

A typographer *is* a designer, but not all designers are typographers.

To me, this is saying quite a bit, especially after my third glass of rum and coke.

A well-set page is a page that is well-set by design. There is indeed art in the very mechanics of sound typography. Setting a nice, flowing rag is art.

So, the graphic designer who arranges type, ventures into the realm of the typographer by default, a realm in which he/she should have some appreciable level of skill. It's double duty.

Ya dig?

> Hrant over-generalizes by unfairly putting his “Artiste” label on all designers.

I've never done any such thing.

"Chris, have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no answer only, please."

hhp

I dig, all right. I have adequate definitions of my own. I was just saying that the previous definition, although it sounded nice and lofty, doesn't fit the bill for me.

"Visual communications" (and even "graphic design" to some extent) make me think of "sanitation engineering." I rather like the old term "commercial art."

“Chris, have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no answer only, please.”

Yes well no well only when she doesn't stop starting to deserve none of it any longer than before she should have not wanted to afterwards being sure not to be . . . :-)

Sorry Hrant, I misunderstood you. I just can't ever remember you saying a good word about designers.

Kyle.
I never said you did.

ChrisL

Commercial art sonunds to me something like "cheap art"... I prefer graphic designer, visual communication sounds good and accurate but maybe doesn't cover the crafty side of our profession.

Héctor

Just to add to my earlier comment:

A well-made typeface is usually designed with the demands of sound typography in mind. It is easier to set a page well with a high-quality font.

For instance, Minion was designed for extensive, columned reading. It also works well with longer measures, although some would object to its relative narrowness. But I don't.

Basically we are stuck with "left over" terminology for professions whose lines have blurred (and in some instances, become obsolete).

"Graphic Arts" pertain to items produced by or involving such reproductive methods as those of engraving, etching, lithography, photography, serigraphy, woodcut, silkscreen, etc., and/or relating to the art of printing in the broadest sense, incorporating both fine and commercial art.

"Commercial Artist" is a lost term which was meant to differentiate between "fine artists" (individuals who produced ojects of no value but to itself) and individuals who produced illustrations, designs, adverts, etc. for strictly commercial purposes.

Somehow "graphic artists" started appearing on the scene during the sixties and were a little higher in the food chain than "commercial artists" but not as revered as "Graphic Designers." (You can look at old classified ads and college program descriptions to note the genesis.)

Meanwhile, printers were always printers, and more often than not apprenticed descendants of the "guild." Typesetters, typographers, pressman, composers, makeup, proofreaders were all participants of the same trade: PRINTING.

Type designers and punchcutters WERE the professional equivalents to fine jewelry designers and diamond cutters, rarefied and highly skilled, since it typically cost foundries hundreds of thousands $ to produce and distribute a new hot metal typeface.

Once photo offset lithography and phototype came into their own, the traditional print trades got skewed (screwed?). Typesetters now worked for type houses (commercial typesetting) and typographers started working in either ad/design agencies, type houses or publishers.

Buying galleys of phototypeset copy was an expensive proposition, so generally, type was "spec-ed" by trained individuals. Since so many professionals used to be quite sophisticated in type knowlege, the trade knew Sh*t from Shinola. Everyone had their purpose under the sun.

With the technological explosion of the last twenty years the medical profession (from doctors to technicians) has become highly differentiated into fields of expetise, but somehow the "Graphic Arts" workforce had a meltdown.

Basically, business graphic programs began to corrupt the gene pool, and production teams were swept out with "Desktop Publishing."

If you don't know (and I mean TRULY KNOW) typography, then how the hell can you even fathom the beauty and complexity of type designs.

But you know what, somehow music still seems to survive and delightfully surprise from time to time. I guess we have to be content that there may be a dozen or so people out there who can truly understand what you do.

p.s.> I'm tired of definitions... I'd rather just see good work produced.

OK, end of rant.

Well I would like to put my tuition dollars to use here and speak a little about Otto Neurath...

Otto Neurath invented the isotype, he created a system of Typographic Isotypes (or logo types) in an effort to provide a global visual language. So symbols, at their root should be somewhat typographic in nature (if they are good).

By the way I have also been in a car hit by a deer, the signs are definetly necessary. If I was to eliminate any signs I would get rid of speed signs! That way we could all go as fast as we want. Right?

> I just can’t ever remember you saying a good word about designers.

I guess I'm trying to give them what I think they (collectively) need: a reality check. Design as a field seems as full of itself as it is superficial. Even the FTF manifesto stuff seems off the mark; although its heart is in the right place it ignores the fact that designers simply don't have that much power (especially in a capitalistic system that controls people's wages and even channels of dissent).

On the other hand:
1) There are exceptions, as always. Like the ones who hang out at a typographic watering hole...
2) There are certainly fields that are even worse off, like journalism. But the further something is from the context of type the less sense it makes to complain about it here.

Individual designers, I have no problem complimenting (like Marian Bantjes). And as a group, if I were to say something nice, it might be that I think they have a lot of potential to really address the human visual reality, once they go deeper than the thin skin that is Style.

hhp

"p.s.> I’m tired of definitions… I’d rather just see good work produced.:

Amen.

Back to drinking -- uhh, I mean work.

Chuck,

"I don’t think it says it all. Are you saying then that the “Apple” logo — a pictographic design — is merely fine art? and what’s the “merely” part?
It’s a catchphrase, but not really a good description of graphics, design, typography OR fine art."

You didn't read ALL of my post, did you?

Hildebrant-
I read it all. I think I was referring to more to the replies that came after it. You repeat that like a mantra, and enough people will believe it... look out.
I guess my point was typographers, designers, ARTISTS --whomever -- see their own niche as the most important. When you have a hammer in your hand, the whole world looks like a nail.

I just got an email pointing to one of the latest Design: Talkboards articles -- Famous graphic designers, typographers and creatives

Also of note: New term coined -- Artworkers

> see their own niche as the most important.

Very true. But then you can think about what other people think is important, and what other people actually need, and then the relative merit of various professions becomes untangled. For example, politicians think they're important (and hold a huge amount of power) but other people don't think much of what they do.

> Artworkers

Sorry, that sounds like calling a prostitute a "Fornication Engineer". I think "artisan" can work. But for [text] type design, I prefer "craftsman/woman".

hhp

I thought Artworkers sounded pretty lame myself.

When will HR and "marketing experts" quit with inventing labels?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I was once a Creative Director, but now I'm non-imprimatur!

hhp said:

“Chris, have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no answer only, please.”

hahaha, that really is quite witty! (unless it is true)

I don't think typographers exist anymore..maybe in some places
like Switzerland.

Graphic designers are also expected to be typographers,
however the high standards of that craft, has been lost among us.

Why?

My instinct is that they don't teach it adequetely or well enough
in schools. On my own, I've had to go buy books and learn, the
intimate details of the topic -- and I still feel insecure!

As a professional, I've seen that clients don't know and don't seem
to care about good typography, and that has given designers a crutch
not to value it as well -- especially in our society where project
schedules are based on speed, speed speed -- not the white stuff.

p.s. All those fancy computer composed collages that are self-expressions, really belong in the category of digital artisan;
that is the confusion between them and real graphic designers.

Forget that the term already exists -- I think that since graphic designers basically select fonts, they should be called fontographers!

My "formal training" with type and typography proior to graduation was just "slightly" better that average. My REAL training began when I started spending time and LISTENING to skilled veterans of the trade (literally tradesmen) and the "elders" of design and typography.

The rest came from hours upon hours and days upon days of looking at poking at typefaces, typeset copy, classics of fine print, Graphis and Type Directors Club annuals, good and bad publishers, ad/design agencies, specing and fine tuning MILES of type output... and ABOVE ALL, studying the OLD type specimen books of ATF, Linotype, Berthold and Monotype.

Oh, BTW -- do graphic designers closely proof type output prior to press proofs anymore? This is an honest question.

Norbert--
I don't think so, at least in practice. I remember specifying type on a VDT for velox output. That's wen you really get a handle on faces, size relationships, etc. since you were working blind (the screen didn't display the face, and it wasn't until the velox was output some 15 minutes later that you saw the leading was all off or something). And hand-kerning (here I mean actually x-actoing the letters apart and reassembling them to get the letter spacing correct.
But that kind of work developed a sensitivity toward type that's hard to equal today, at least with young students who don't know any world other than typing on a mac and hitting "print."

⇒ But that kind of work developed a sensitivity toward type that’s hard to equal today

That's a theme that runs through several threads at Typophile. Some of us are trying to determine if there are any kind of exercise or activity that might help graphic arts students to develop/refine some of those critical skill sets.

We had to do it by necessity, but designers today needn't see output any greater than 72 ppi before sending to press (you know, "don't have the time, rush-rush, it's due yesterday" everyday pressures).

-------------------------------------------------
Yes, I'm old, but I'm can throw a mean X-acto!

My bottom line is, the bottom line. If I can solve a clients communication problem and turn a profit, you can lay any label you want to on me.

—Oh, BTW — do graphic designers closely proof type output prior to press proofs anymore? This is an honest question.

Do I count as a graphic designer? If so, then yes, I do. I always print to check, and always make corrections. It is impossible to tell otherwise! It may make you feel better if I tell you that I am rather young, so this bears well for the future. I also know quite a few other young 'uns who do the same. I am slowly discovering isolated pockets of typographers here in NZ that are completely into it—and damn good at it too.

Oh, BTW — do graphic designers closely proof type output prior to press proofs anymore? This is an honest question.
Did anyone see the hilarious little note that the printers of the Cabinet magazine left in the last issue?
I think it sheds some light over some of the issues discussed in this thread. Proof-reading, typesetting, the role of the printer... Basically, the printers were so tired of proof-reading and correcting the magazine files before printing - hyphens to em dashes, which to that, and so on - that they just stuck a note to the first page stating just that before adding a list of corrections that should have been made to the texts in the magazine. They thought it would serve as a wake-up call to the editors/designers of the magazine.

I was well impressed by the level of responsability and care the printer took, prompting him to take such a drastic measure.

It's a pretty good magazine though, Cabinet.

...the bottom line.
I like the bottom line.

My personal favorite, a term I think I coined, is aesthetician ™ .

Interesting question.

Both typographers and graphic designers must be able to use composition and space for any given shape, folio or bottle. I think they cross-over too often to separate them and would like to think that most people would rather be able to have all the tools necessary to answer their clients needs.

"Without typography, graphic design is merely fine art." -- I wonder if there is a little something missing from your, Kyle, initial quotable catchphrase. I, personally, refuse to think of graphic design as fine art. Fine art implies the wrong sort of thing. It implies a world lacking any sort of balance as the customer opinion only occurs after the piece is completed, because the customer is buying what the artist has created. Designers on the other hand always has -- whether we want it or not -- the clients opinion to act as a sort of guide. Artists are self-guided. We, designers, are guided by our clients' needs.

I always say, "Without typography, graphic design is merely superficial decoration." I suppose it is because decoration, for me, implies that a client is still involved.

> what is the difference between a graphic designer and typographer.

No difference. Just more definitions, philosophy.

> Without typography, graphic design is merely fine art.

With or without typography, graphic design is graphic design. Bad or good — this is another issue.

> Fine art implies the wrong sort of thing. It implies a world lacking any sort of balance as the customer opinion only occurs after the piece is completed

Not true.
Fine art is fine art. Not the same world as graphic design. Nothing to compare. Unless we want more definitions, philosophy.

That is what I just said.

How about: "Without typography, graphic design is just pictures."

(Of course, every picture is worth a thousand words.)

I like Marks' comment.

Frivolously expressing myself all day gets boring, quick, thats what I don't like about fine art. Not to mention those who 'do' fine art to try to make a living are a ... nevermind.

p.s.- Don't throw kittens at me, I itch. Horribly.

Then there's my PR Writing prof who refers to all of it, even the visuals that contain nary a letter, as "text". Does that make the photographer a typographer?
;)
But I don't suppose we want to go there -- too much airy fairy philosophy and semantics.

K