|
|
|
|
Classifying typographies : lessons from the past.
Before we blast everything, let's have a quick look at the main current academic classifications, how they were conceived, and what their respective flaws are.
1.1 THE THIBAUDEAU CLASSIFICATION
The first serious attempt at classifying typefaces was made between 1921 and 1924 by a French typographer, Francis Thibaudeau (1860-1925). The idea behind the Thibaudeau classification was to use the serif as a distinctive point. So it featured 4 main classes :
Elzevir Roman, that have "triangular" serifs,
Didot Roman, that have simple lines as serifs,
Egyptians that have squarred serifs,
Antique that have no serifs.
First, this classification is quite simple and easy to use. But, for the same reason, it isn't very precise. Second, it clearly reflects the state of Typography at that time : the domination of serifs, and the emerging of utilitarian Typography (the rise of advertising required bolder types like the Egyptians - named after the Egyptian craze in Europe in the early 19th - and like the sans serifs).
Logically, this classification was very vague about sans serifs : they had just appeared, and were considered a bit as a transitory phenomenon (as part of the modernist/futurist/constructivist trend) !
Another major problem was that, even then, a lot of faces couldn't be classified using serifs as a criteria : Thibaudeau had to create 2 additional classes for them, the Ecritures ("Writings") and an ultimately vague one, Fantaisies ("Fancy").
The need for such heterogeneous classes clearly proved that using serif as the key parameter wasn't effective enough.
1.2 THE VOX/ATypI CLASSIFICATION
The next attempt was made half a century later, by another French typographer : Maximilien Vox. In 1954, after what was to become the first "Rencontres de Lure" annual meeting, he proposed a new classification that now bears his name, and that was later adopted by the ATypI (the International Typographic Association).
From the very beginning, it was intended to be international, and so, it used new and artificially composed names, conceived to be translatable and understandable in all western countries. A great step forward.
Its objective was to go further than Thibaudeau, by using a more precise historical approach. So, when Thibaudeau proposed 6 classes, Vox extended it to 9 classes, reflecting the evolution of tools and techniques, and gathered in 3 main groups :
1. CLASSICS:
Humanistic : the oldest latin characters, featuring serifs, and an axis slanted to the left, inspired by the XVth century Venetian manuscripts,
Garaldic : evolution of the Humanistic, impulsed by famous typographers Claude GARAmond and ALDo Manuce, that have smoother junctions, and more balanced proportions. The axis gets more vertical, as type were getting less scripted and more conceptual,
Transitional (also named Reales) : the typical type of the XVIIIth century, more rational and austere, more structured, with smaller serifs, and heavier variations of thickness,
2. MODERNS :
Didonic : Very vertical, mathematically balanced, with perfectly horizontal serifs. Their name comes from two famous typographers, DIDOt and boDONi,
Mechanistic : a new name for the Egyptians, choosed to emphasize their geometric shapes, their fat squarred serifs, and their very uniform thicknesses,
Lineal : the final giant leap of the 20th century : this class gather all types without serifs. It features 3 subdivisions : Humanist lineals (like Gill or Optima), with very serif-like variations of thickness and calligraphic-influenced shapes, Classical lineals (like Helvetica or Univers), with slight variations of thickness and very sober shapes, and Geometric lineals (like Avant Garde or Futura), with nearly no variations of thickness, and that have very round and regular shapes.
3. OTHERS :
Incised: These types are inspired by carved letters, and so have small and triangular serifs,
Script: the calligraphic types,
Manual: the calligraphic types that specifically seems to be drawn using a paint brush,
Then, Vox had the same problem than Thibaudeau : some types were remaining on the desk, and he had to create 2 more categories : Black letters and Non-latin. This 11 classes version of his classification has been adopted as a reference by the ATYpI since 1962.
This classification had some very high academic ambitions : it used a refined mix of history and style, and reflects very accurately the great steps of the evolution of Typography.
But, being so precise, its fall in some different traps:
- first, some names used are as clever as obscure for most users,
- second, it has too much categories to be handled on a day to day basis,
- third, the limits of its categories are often too vague, and it is difficult to put a specific type in a specific class : a Cheltenham, for example is either a Humanistic (for its general shape) and a Mechanistic (for its nearly squarred serifs).
Even worse, some typefaces have been slightly redrawn since their creation, and for example, the Garamond found in computers has nothing to do with the original one. So it is often complicated to use this classification to handle the currently available types !
- Last, but not least, the main groups are a bit puzzling too : Didonic are perhaps modern compared to the previous serifs, but it is hard to find them of the same kind than a fat and blunt Slab serif... Yes, Didonic where the first serifs to be more conceptual than pen-influenced, but this doesn't make them comparable to, let's say an Univers or a Frutiger !
And what about this Others third group : what is a type if it is neither classical or modern ?! And isn't there some very classic arabian writings, or some ultra-modern Script ? What about an Incised, that is quite classical-looking, fitting in the same category than a modern-looking brush script or a medieval Fraktur !
In fact, the trouble about Vox's first-level groups is that they aren't objective : being modern or classic is the result of an opinion, even on a historical point of view. In their time, Moliere was considered as a Modernist, opposed to the classisism of Racine. They both now stand alltogether in the classical section of the bookstores...
Yes, serifs (as used by Thibaudeau) weren't enough to solve every problem, but, at least it was an objective characteristic, and this explains why Thibaudeau classification is much more in use among users than Vox's...
1.3 THE NOVARESE CLASSIFICATION
In the meantime, Aldo Novarese, a famous contemporary Italian typographer, proposed another serif-based classification, which is a kind of mix of Thibaudeau and Vox, featuring 10 classes (Note : I slightly re-ordered the classes to put them into perspective, using the timeline used by Vox) :
1. Lapidaries (= Incised)
2. Ornamented serifs
3. Medievals (= Black letters)
4. Venitians (= Humanistic)
5. Bodonians (= Didones)
6. Transitionals
7. Egyptians (= mechanistic)
8. Lineals
9. Writings (= Script + Manual)
10. Fantasies
This was a very clever and simplifying attempt at getting the best of both previous classifications. And the differences between the classes being more visually obivious makes it much easier to use than Vox's.
But then, the idea of having a didactic structure (like in Vox's) was lost on the way. Added to that, there are still some mismatches, and most of all, the only wat to handle the modern evolutions of type like Suburban (either a serif and a sans serif) is to put them in the (once again !) heterogeneous category of the Fantasies. Damn'it!
1.4 THE CHRONOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION
Added to these academic classifications, there is another one, coming from the anglo-saxon world, that is also sometime used. It is generally presented as an alternative to the previous ones, but in fact, it is a very simplified version of Vox, using the chronological axis, and proposing 6 classes :
Old style (= Garaldes)
Italic
Transitional
Modern face (= Didones)
Egyptian
Sans serif
The first point is that, even if Italic was an historical evolution, it has now become a variant of any typeface, and can't be considered as a class in itself!
Then, one can notice that what remains is just a simplified version of the previous ones with different names, a kind of Vox meets Novarese, and they have dwarfs instead of childrens ! It was probably done for people handling few common faces...
As you can see, each current classification have its own points of interest, and its own flaws. None is completely satisfying, either on the operational or intellectual level. Typographic classification remains a tricky subject among typographers, and so, as the situation has considerably worsened with the explosion of digital Typography, there is undoubtedly a need for a new attempt.
Let's go to it, Sancho !
Before we start building it, our first task is to check if there are some others categories that weren't included in the previous classifications, and that shall be.
Let's try to do so...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
