Script Typeface Classification
Just like there are different kinds of sans (humanist, geometric, neo-grotesque) and serifs (Garalde, Didone, etc.) are there different kinds of scripts? I know the answer is yes, but I would like to hear what some broad categories would be labeled as (“Brush”, “Calligraphic”, etc.) as, clearly, there are worlds in between something like Mistral and Snell Roundhand.
Maybe a classification already exists?
26.Jun.2008 2.01pm
Non flowing scripts & flowing scripts:
Brush, upright, sloping, quill pen, felt pen
26.Jun.2008 2.15pm
Connected, Non-connected
Casual, Formal
26.Jun.2008 2.15pm
OH. OK. Copperplate could be a script style.
26.Jun.2008 2.19pm
I should have added... “Please provide examples, time permitting”.
David, Brush (mistral?) and upright (French Script?) I can figure out, what about the rest?
26.Jun.2008 2.28pm
flowing or connected: Kaufmann (felt pen); Palace (quill)
Decorative script: Vivaldi; maybe Park Avenue
26.Jun.2008 3.24pm
Copperplate
Casual, connecting
Casual, non-connecting
26.Jun.2008 3.48pm
@Tiffany: I really don’t like the casual/formal designation. Such a designation is subject to both time and personal taste. For example, the casual sign scripts of the 1950s are now being ironically used in ways that probably are not casual, and one-formal spencerian/copperplate/etc. scripts have become popular with various aspects of the music industry, which tends to be quite casual. Typeface classification systems should be above such subjectivity, so I feel that classification based on letterform construction is a better idea.
26.Jun.2008 4.00pm
Good point, James. What do you suggest then?
26.Jun.2008 4.33pm
Like Tiffany, I like to use tool + connecting + casual/formal.
Script categorization will always be subjective.
26.Jun.2008 4.46pm
I don’t think of casual vs. formal as being so much a matter of how its used. Formal scripts are typically designed more uniformly and casual scripts tend more towards natural writing styles. No doubt you can use them in various casual or formal settings, but to me there is a distinction although that distinction can be vague in some cases.
It is harder to classify scripts, I think, because there is such broader range of possibilities to deal with.
27.Jun.2008 12.07am
Have a look at Mike Yanega’s Script Font Identification Guide.
Stephen said: I like to use tool + connecting + casual/formal.
Me too. Sometimes it’s possible to add a certain (regional/temporal) style for good measure. For example, this recent Type ID request is clearly an ‘American Cursive’, with its characteristic letterforms for ‘A’, ‘M’, ‘S’, ‘r’, ‘p’, ‘1’ …
F