The more I think about Modernism the less I like it, so I was going to refrain from saying anything, but since it's been totally quiet I guess controversy might at least serve as a good catalyst. But I will try to keep it concise.

First I should state that my typographic specialty is type design. Not that I'm an expert at it but in the realm of composition I really suck - please take that into account.

To me Modernism is a facet of what's most wrong in the West: the naive and arrogant lust for Control. The Romans started it, monotheism helped, the Enlightenment cemented it and now we're at a point where Analysis has overpowered humanity, formalism has trumped communication; the unmeasurable is treated as a weed that needs to be ignored, controlled.

In the realm of type it's telling that you can't make a good text font based on the grid, or even modules; but you can make a great display face; and that dichotomy is a great clue: Modernism is concerned with superficial conscious appreciation; it ignores the hidden, nebulous half of human reality, the one that makes life worth living. Modernism causes all kinds of bad design, like encouraging people to make the vertical proportions in multi-ligual type families the same, or keeping the otherwise genial Legato firmly trapped in the realm of constructivism. All this does not make the PoMo hooliganism of the 90s OK. But it does mean that Modernism is totally inadequate of itself for creating things that truly satisfy humans. The most it can be is an expression of transitory cultural values.

So please don't revive it.

hhp

1. Do you feel that this revival is happening in other areas of design e.g. graphic design and typography? If so, what do you think this revival consists of and why is it happening?

Graphic Design styles tend to make pendulum-like swings. After the democratic, deconstrutionist early 1990s, "modernism" stormed back into the foreground during the late 1990s, and into the present day. Jeffery Keedy has written interesting essays about this in virtually each of all of the recent Emigre issues (since it switched to the Princeton Architectural Press paperback format).

2. Do you think there is a social, economical, political, functional or aesthetical need for the revival of the modernist, functionalist or internationalist ideology in the world today? Why and/or why not? Do we need another fresh start?

I think that it is caused by social, political, and economical factors. The world economy is not in as good shape as it was in the late 1990s, or at least, large groups of people seem to be pessimistic about it rather than optimistic. I think that some of the return to Swiss/Internation Style graphics might be a longing for some sort of economic normalness, i.e., not a bad one where people (including graphic designers) loose their jobs or can't find new work. Lastly, not just the United States but also some European countries are becoming more politically conservative (although conservative has a different definition in almost every country), and that might be a factor. I don't know how conservative politicians and business leaders feel about expressive typography, but my gut tells me that they probably prefer the "cleanliness" of the modern style

Obviously -- and as has been noted by numerous people including Robin Kinross, who wrote the book, literally, on modern typography --, Hrant uses the term Modernism an a way that is both idiosyncratic and makes an answer to Ragnar's question impossible. If Modernism constitutes the whole of western civilisation from the Romans onwards, what sense is there in talking about a revival? If modernism is understood, as it usually is, as a movement -- or collection of related movements -- in 20th century art, architecture, design and music, with some earlier philosophical origins and precursors in the late Renaissance and Enlightnment, then the question makes more sense.

Personally, I don't think there is a revival of modernism in the sense of a revival of the ideas/ideals/ideology of modernism. There are, however, revivals of modernism as a style in a generally expansive and largely unideological post-post-modernism in which anything goes. This is most evident in architecture that employs modernist materials and construction techniques, but does so as part of a more varied cityscape, in which this 'soft modernism' takes its place among other styles. In this context, elements of modernist design or construction may even be repurposed as decoration. Of course, 'modernism as style' is itself contrary to the critical spirit of the best of modernism, and could be seen as the final triumph of post-modernism: the absorbtion of modernist aesthetics into the marketplace of stylism.

Indeed, the very idea that modernism = ideology and uniformity is a stereotype promoted by post-modernists, which is accepted without question in much contemporary discussion of modernism, especially in North America. This is unfortunate. Although there clearly is an ideological streak within modernism -- a function as much of the socio-political culture of its times as much as anything else --, its best practitioners have always employed a critical approach to design, and this should be considered independently of the results as artifacts sharing a similar style. The method is often more interesting than the product; indeed, one can say that the greatest achievements of modernism were not in the design of things but in the design of new ways of making and doing things: new ways of arranging spatial relationships, new construction techniques, new technologies of manufacture and reproduction. Post-modernism's critique of the products of modernism and the straw man of ideology reveal its own obsessions: materialism, stylism, effect, and not a little ideology of its own.

I should note, also, that I do not consider myself in any sense a modernist, but I grew up in a home full of modernist furniture and art, and have a healthy respect for modernism's ability to 'create things that satisfy humans' to turn Hrant's rhetoric. A more true critique of modernism is that it is difficult and demanding, and that since most people can't do it very well it is an impractical general approach. This was Tschichold's observation when he began to champion classical book design and typography: 'asymetric' typography was too difficult for most typographers and typesetters to do well, so it would be better for them to work in the easier idiom of traditional design, wherein they would be more likely to produce good work. Although Tschichold adopted an ideological tone in discussing both approaches to typography, this observation suggests a basically pragmatic mind.

Ragnar, if you want to get a good understanding of critical modernism in typography, I recommend Robin Kinross' Unjustified texts, also the volume on Designing books that he wrote with Jost Hochuli, and other Hyphen Press volumes.

I agree that my usage of the term is strange. But I do think it's important to see the big picture, even if that means settling for imperfect terminology. This is BTW difficult to do for a Modernist. :-)

> what sense is there in talking about a revival?

Well, maybe "revival" is the confused term!
I could claim for example that Post-Modernism is indeed more "eastern", and that in the past few years the West has in fact been moving "back west" again. So the "trends" are there in any case.

> I do not consider myself in any sense a modernist

Well, sorry, you are. :-)

And you think it's more "difficult and demanding"?
Quite the contrary - all you have to do is master the rules. It's an absolute goal (which is tied to Modernism's -superficial- appeal). What's difficult is to come to grips with the unknown, the unknowable; what's difficult is for the individual to relinquish control, in order to create within one's means, and the means of the craft. That's what a text face is about.

hhp

Hrant, you have already made it perfectly and embarassingly obvious to large numbers of people that you don't know anything about modernism. If you want to discuss the 'big picture' of western civilisation and contrast it to some vague and wooly notion of 'the east' -- and I find it hard not to wonder if you misrepresent what you approve as much as you misrepresent that which you dislike -- then come up with some label other than Modernism, which is confusing and makes you appear not very knowledgeable or bright. That term is already taken and has a meaning and frame of reference that is understood by millions of people. Sorry to be blunt, but when people like Robin Kinross and Jan Middendorp who are scholars of modernism in typography have publicly corrected you, it would be a good idea to pay attention. No one is likely to engage with your 'big picture' debate if they see how you misapply the term Modernism; they'll presume that you don't know what you are talking about and are making stuff up as you go along.

On what basis do you think modernist design is 'an absolute goal' and all about 'mastering the rules'? Have you read Kinross and Hochuli's volume on book design? Its principle message is that good design requires a 'critical openness of mind' and that there are no ideologically determined solutions. I'm inclined to suggest that your very unwillingness to engage with the reality of critical modernism is evidence that it is, indeed, difficult and demanding: you obviously find it much easier to deal with your idiosyncratic fantasy of Modernism and the straw men it sets up for you to knock down.

Ragnar, I think one thing that will help you in a study of modernism in typography is to have some critical detachment from the political passions that movitated it. Typographic modernists I believe had initially some kind of quasi-religious zeal about their political causes and the imagined connection of these to their typographical ideas. Whatever your degree of agreement with their politics, being able to separate their politics and typography I think will give you a fresher take on this history.

> you don't know anything about modernism.

I think you're using terminology as an escape.

But anyway, give me a better term for what I mean, and I'll use it. Just like you've done for me with "wedge serif" and "chirography" - I'm open. Not that I think "Modernism" is as clear-cut as you seem to claim though.

And for the record: there are many things I dislike about the East (like Fatalism) and many things I like about the West (like self-esteem). Most of all, I like a balance; a balance that has sadly been getting more tilted towards the West for the past two millenia.

Also, I don't think Modernists are [necessarily] closed-minded (at least not the way I use the term). But the belief that an individual (or even a society) can control something totally (even just the way a font works) is decidedly Modernist. It is Art, not Craft, an intoxication with personal relevance. And only Modernists fail to see the limitations of this mentality. Formalism, the desire to see a qualitative difference between language and "visual communication", the obsession with terminology, the clinical compartmentalization of various aspect of Life, all these are symptoms of the desire for Control. That can't end well.

--

> separate their politics and typography

I think this is indeed a good tactic for understanding what other people have said.
But if you apply this to your own thoughts, then you're just living in a comfy escape.

hhp

Labels like Modernism are such wonderful tools to hide behind. This can come from either side of the fence

Ragnar, I've written a few of essays which touch on your topic:

"Neo-modernism"

"Punch Cuts"
In this, I argue that while the modern movement in art and graphic design occurred in the early 20th century, it happened a century earlier in type design.

"The face of uniformity"

To find these, follow the "Essays" link at www.shinntype.com

Hrant, it was easy to give you the terms 'wedge-serif' and 'chirography', because these terms already existed and clearly corresponded in their normal usage to what you were talking about. I can't offer you a term for this overarching characteristic of western civilisation that you seem to be talking about, because I'm not aware of such a term. The fact that such a term does not, to my knowledge, exist is one reason why I question whether the phenomenon itself exists. I think you are attempting a gross generalisation that is not well supported by historical evidence, and for which no terminology exists. But if you want to develop a terminology that will help explain what you mean, then it would still be best not to begin by hijacking a term that already has a common, well-understood meaning (even if, for example, Nick argues that modernism in type design begins in the 19th century rather than the 20th, our understanding of the term allows us to consider the basis on which he might think this; if you say modernism begins with the ancient Romans, you are encompassing such a large and varied history that the term becomes essentially meaningless, because it cannot be connected to specific phenomena). Unfortunately, I'm not sure if what you are trying to get at is precise enough to be labelled in any intuitive way. You are trying to identify something that begins with classical Roman (but not Greece, apparently), develops through mediaeval Christianity, is present in the Enlightenment, is expressed in modernism, and has something to do with control? I'm not sure what this could be, except perhaps a kind of legalism, which is a tendency in all sorts of other societies also (including many eastern cultures), and which, within a given society, is almost always in conflict with other tendencies.

> these terms already existed and clearly
> corresponded in their normal usage

1) "Latin serif" is the more usual term for wedge serif. "Wedge serif" is quite rare in fact - but I'm working to change that. And I remember you were incredulous that the term "Latin serif" even existed. So I don't think "clearly corresponding" and "normal" are strong benchmarks in natural language. :-)
2) I don't care if you invented them or borrowed them; the important thing to me is that it makes sense to use them. BT, that's why I brought forth "bouma" - not to satisfy my vanity, but because it was missing.

> The fact that such a term does not, to my knowledge, exist
> is one reason why I question whether the phenomenon itself exists.

Typical Westernism.
The term "notan" (in its real and useful meaning) for example doesn't exist in English (outside of some tiny circles), but it's extremely important.

All languages have holes.

> it would still be best not to begin by hijacking a term that
> already has a common, well-understood meaning

1) I don't think it has a well-understood meaning*. Some people have simply given it a reliable "internal" meaning, so they don't go crazy discussing it. BTW, thinking that words have fixed (if changing) meanings is itself a Modernist affectation. Dictionaries are not the truth, they're just one imperfect tool.
2) If I need to hijack a word to express myself, I'll do it - it's better than shutting up.

* Not even in typography - as this very thread attests to!

> the term becomes essentially meaningless

While I think it's what gives the term real meaning! Not merely an insular, clinical function. If a term can't have a "precise enough" meaning for some people that shouldn't stop people from sharing their thoughts. That would be submitting to Control.

As for the Ancient Greeks, they were the/a transition. It seems to me that they were essentially experimenting*, and were never fully convinced of all this Democracy, Absolute Virtue claptrap.

* There's another confused term that however is not useless. At least not to non-lawyers.

hhp