Digested on July 22, 2005
Posted by David Earls

This week, I was meant to be talking about Adobe's decision to merge/takeover Macromedia being questioned by the US authorities. I was going to talk about how it may be good for maximising shareholder value [vomit] but may not necessarily be good for, you know, us. I was going to pick holes in the corporate system that produces the likes of Bernie Ebbers, and go right back to Dodge vs Ford. Then I was going to talk about alternative systems, like the new cooperative of Village, just freshly announced.

I was going to talk about TypeCon, naturally, and Joe Clark's investigation into what NYC's Type Week actually meant. About Dalton Maag in Switzerland (along with a snippy remark about Helvetica and German car makers), about the TDC, about Typophile's WikiBlast project, and about FontShop's new mag. Not to mention the release of Gill Sans Pro in lovely OpenType format (anyone want to donate a copy to me?) and FogLamp, a utility that lets you convert your old Fontographer files to FontLab ones.

And of course I was going to talk about the certain thing Yves and I have been working on for TypeCon, and how proud I am to have been involved in that project. More on that from Yves himself.

Instead, London is an odd place to be right now, and at the moment, matters type seem a little distant to me. But this is Typographer.org, a website for type, so I'm going to leave this week's post with a visual reminder of just how old the London Underground is, and how it will rebound and continue, and see itself and its passengers through all sorts of bad times, from war to terrorism. London really is no stranger to either, and the events of the last two weeks here are, if we look at our city's history, nothing new, and nothing that will defeat us.

To London, a smelly polluted city, perched on an island on the west coast of Europe...



And yes, I shall be ranting about Adobe next week.

Over to Yves, who wrote this little gem before leaving on one of those new fangled jetliner things to the New World's front door of New York, freshly stolen from the indigenous peoples...

TypeCon 2005 updates
From Yves in NYC and David in London.
Last updated: July 24th, 2005

Make sure to check out Typeradio.org. Yves was interviewed on Friday July 22nd by Liza Enebeis and Donald Beekman. The interview has appeared on the Podcast today, in 5 easy to handle segments.

Typeradio has also covered: Mike Parker, Matthew Carter, John Downer, Christian Schwartz, Chester from Village/Vllg, Lucas de Groot, Gerry Lionidas, Mario Feliciano, Peter Bruhn, Jurgen Siebert, Tamye Riggs, Ed Rondthaler, Ken Barber, Ina Saltz, Carol Wahler and the chaps at Typophile. If you miss any, you can catch up on the Podcasts, which seem to appear about a day or so after they're broadcast live. Or about a year, in the case of Stephen's pretzel munching while talking about Typographica.

Can't make it to TypeCon? Too poor by half? Me too! But if living vicariously via audio isn't enough, check out the Flickr TypeCon pool images and marvel at how handsome type people are. No, really...


Bald Condensed
by Yves Peters

I must say I'm a little bemused by some of the reactions my comparative review of the Fleischmann revivals generated.

Tina Parker for example said that "you need a lot of courage to say that the work by Matthew Carter is great, but not so so great" and continued in her next post with "in my opinion there was a need to talk to Matthew Carter (...) then — when you have the point of view by Matthew Carter — you can say: I need to look at it separately. or not. and why." Paul D. Hunt disagreed on the courage issue, saying "not really, you just need to have your own opinion and not be afraid to voice it." but added "you should have some good reasons to make such a statement, however."
John Hudson also makes an interesting statement: "Judged as a Fleischman revival, I think Fenway is inevitably going to compare less favourably with most of the other designs that Yves reviews. But I’m not sure that it makes sense to judge Fenway in these terms." At the risk of offending anyone (and please bear in mind I've got my tongue firmly planted in cheek here):

What a total and utter load of bollocks.

First I want to make something clear. If I were a historian or a librarian or some academic whatever, it'd indeed make perfect sense to conduct interviews with all the type designers involved and on top of that do extensive research on the historical models and various references. But I'm not. I'm just your average graphic designer who happens to know a fair bit about type and decided to start reviewing new typefaces. This means I give my very personal opinion on them and try to not to be too air-headed at it. I just look at the typefaces and test drive them if I was so fortunate to receive a review license. Then I draw on my sufficient knowledge of contemporary type and limited knowledge of type history to put certain elements into their proper context and make comparisons where appropriate.

What I try to do is approach the typefaces I review as an informed end user. Frankly, I don't think type designers would have much time left to actually design faces if everyone started calling and interviewing them prior to licensing their fonts. As far as I know, there is no need to talk to the designer if you're going to review a typeface. It would feel like I was asking them what I'm allowed to write about their fonts and what not. I don't want their point of view, I'd rather form my own. Because that's just what it is, nothing more.

Then, regarding the courage issue. So far, judging from the reactions, people think I'm fair in my reviews, judging the typefaces, never the designers involved. If I happen to review a typeface less favourably, I'm confident its designer will see that I'm only voicing my opinion. Some people will agree with my review, others won't, but it's not like I'm some career maker or breaker. So no harm done.

Lastly, in response to the comment that my approach of the review maybe didn't make that much sense, I beg to differ. There is no “proper” way to conduct a comparative review, or any other review for that matter. As it's my review I'm the one who decides how to do it. I was specifically asked to compare the typefaces in light of them being revivals of Fleischmann types — or at least “inspired by”. If any of the designers didn't want to have their designs compared to the Fleischmann models, they were free to not reveal the source of inspiration. But they all did. So if I decide to look at Fleischmann's types and start from there, that's my prerogative. It makes as much sense as I decide it does.

OK, now that that's over with, I have an announcement to make about the reviews for this edition — you won't find them online. David and I have put together a keepsake booklet for TypeCon2005, featuring exclusive pre-release reviews of 11 typefaces or families. These are signed and numbered collector's items, produced in a limited edition of 200 copies, with a cover designed and silk-screened by hand by David. I'll be lugging 8,5 kilos worth of them in my suitcase and distribute them at the conference. Try to grab a hold of me and request your copy.

We've produced this keepsake to give something back to the community. It is to say thank you for all the help that people have given us and the community in the past, for the support we have now, and for those who will follow the site into the future. So, after you've read the thingie, drop us a line and let us know what you think of this initiative.

That's it for this installment of Bald Condensed. I have to pack my suitcase now, as I have a plane to catch in 16 hours. See you all in NYC!

Digest Permalink | Atom Site Feed


The masthead is currently set in Sabon Next, by Jean François Porchez.