The Rule of Typography According to Crackpots - Essay Example

The rule of typography according to crackpots/exp By Critics According to Jeffery Keedy the firs learning that one should have on typography and type of design is that rules are made to be broken. The third argument he makes is that breaking of the rules is a rule of its own. In analysis, this was a misunderstanding sine the best rule of thumb is that there should be no ignorance on rules (Bierut, 2007). Rules should be followed and never be ignored. In his argument, he brought out examples of rule breaking taking old rules in task and added new ones of his own that he thought should be critically considered. In his arguments, design that was developed, the rigid categories that were applied in the past do not make much sense in the current digital era. This can be criticized since the current developments are as a result of what had been implemented in the traditional technology (Bierut, 2007). Gender theory There has been argument that all new technologies that have currently been brought or are developed incorporate the old ones. This is an argument according to Marshall McLuhan. The technologies that have been used in calligraphy, lettering and type has expanded has expanded the conceptual and aesthetic possibilities of letterform. According to the theory of design that was developed, the rigid categories that were applied in the past do not make much sense in the current digital era (Bierut, 2007). The categories or text and display should not be taken too literally in a multimedia and interactive environment where type is also read on television, computers, clothing, even tattoo. The Purpose of Typography Good taste and perfect typography have been considered to be suprapersonal. Currently, there is always mistakenly rejection of good taste as being old fashioned because of the ordinary man due to personality. Personality promotes the dictation of own peculiar style rather than submitting to any objective criterion of taste. This was an argument according to Jan Tschicholds (Bierut, 2007). In typographic circles it is common to refer to traditional values as though they were permanently fixed and definitely not open to interpretation. This is the source of the misguided fear of new developments in type design. The fear is that new technology, with its democratization of design, is the beginning of the end of traditional typographic standards (Gomez & Goodman, 2009). In fact, just the opposite is true, for though typographic standards are being challenged by more designers and applications than ever before; this challenge can only reaffirm what works and modify what is outdated. This theory tends to explain the application of traditional aspect with assumption that traditional designs and interpretation are not used in the current concepts (Gomez & Goodman, 2009). Software and desktop computer has been used currently in design by designers and non-specialists to use their own fonts. Through this intervention, there is expectation of amateurism and letter forms that are ill conceived (Heller & Talarico, 2011). There is expectation of new ideas that are to advance the aspects that were used traditionally. The issue of traditional being used in current situations is hence not applicable. Major creative breakthroughs often come from outside a discipline, because those that are experts all approach the discipline with a similar obedient point of view. The most important contribution of computer technology, like the printing press before it, lies in its democratization of information. The contribution that the technology has brought is confirmed by experts that they are those that have developed from the old technology and concepts and are seen to be positive. Piet Zwart argued that most typographers relied on elaborate type to be communicative. Through the arguments there was no expression that was made against design type as long as there was expression of architectonic in composition. However, there is irony that is brought out in the arguments. Among other communicative modes typography is equally important. There is little or no difference between the former design specialism for typography photography. The typography is more than the letter forms. It is integrated and multimodal with other forms of semiotic like the movement, texture, color and 3 Dimensionality. For instance in the figure below, the word fall in love is written in grey. The difference in color expresses that idea of love by means of color instead of typography. Additionally, the figure below uses a texture and three dimensionality which was embroidered by the mother of the designer. The image celebrates the values of conventional hand crafted objects and goes against the computer generated logos and slick which are very common today. Consequently, the distinct feature for the typography is the way the letters are formed. They tends to differ in thickness and in size and also in shape. The weight distribution also goes against the distinct feature of typography, in which it is normally the upright stem for the letter rather than making the middle line to descend which is featured to be thick. In majority of physical experience majority of the irregularities arises from their unwillingness to apply the neat writing rights that are taught in schools. One illustration for this is shown in the figure below. Design as invention Rudy VanderLans argues that current designers should not be viewed to be incompatible with the ego that typographers have. Much of the pleasure in designing a typeface is seeing what people do with it. If one is lucky, the uses of the person’s typeface will transcend his expectations; if the person is not so fortunate, your type will sink into forgetfulness (Heller & Talarico, 2011). Typefaces have a life of their own and only time will determine their fate. Through this argument, there is fact that typeface do not change as technology where one leads to the other but depends on the type of typeface that one develops and how it is received by the people (Zwart, 2014). According to Massimo Vignelli, the proliferation of typefaces and type of manipulations shows the new level of visual pollution which is a threat to cultures in the current computer era. This explains the fact behind moving of interface due to the current forms of communications that exist (Zwart, 2014). In all the arguments, it is brought out that there should be no restriction of things as they should all be permitted as long as the contexts are rigorous. The arguments also brings out that all that is permitted should be of equal value as the value depends on the view that the people have on it. According to Jeffery Keedy, there is no typeface considered to be bad but the typography is what can be considered to be bad (VanderLans, Licko, Gent & Keedy, 2003). In his view, he thinks that typographers are always fast to criticize, but it is occasional to get them acknowledge that it is a typeface that makes typographies that they develop look good. Good typographers are able to make good use of nearly anything. References Bierut, M. (2007). Looking closer 2. New York: Allworth Press. Gomez, E., & Goodman, A. (2009). New design. Gloucester, Mass.: Rockport. Heller, S., & Talarico, L. (2011). Typography sketchbooks. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. VanderLans, R., Licko, Z., Gent, J., & Keedy, J. (2003). Emigre. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Zwart, P. (2003). Piet Zwart. The Hague: Haags Gemeentemuseum. Zwart, P. (2014). Piet Zwart. Haarlem: Bubb Kuyper. Read More