New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
It's been a while since I first read the "Elements of Typographic Style". I recall that I found odd to associate the initials m, d, p to the typefaces throughout history, while Bringhurst was introducing them to me. And then I understood the term fo(u)nt : the source of the drawing, of the contour, the expression of a specific letter shape. However, we are only looking at physical part of it. It's true that typography has changed and that our computer screens are a "rough and bad quality paper", as Spiekermann answered a question of mine. But when we are thinking of typography these days, and quite for some time already the project, the faculty, the questions and problems related to drawing shapes of the letters leave its fount, and live beyond it. What I mean is that we need to distinguish the duality of typeface design. It's true that today we only speak in digital terms, but the quantic mechanics of typography remain the "leaded" ones.
It's hard for me to treat font and typeface as synonyms, because it removes the project and the art of the shapes and transform it into bezier curves and points. What about the personality? What about the character and carism? When we talk about Univers..., do we see the accomplishment of the purpose, or do we see a box of tiny volumes of lead?
What do you think about this? Shall we call it typeface, or font?