|
|
|
|
Classifying typographies : A new academic proposal.
3.1 THE FIRST LEVEL
The very first way to differenciate typographies, as they exists today, is to ask a following basic question :
Is it a set of alphabetic letters and signs ?
More precisely, and from a user point of view, the question is : is it intended to type words (with letters and signs) or to produce graphics (from graphic patterns to borders, bullets, etc.)
This leads to our first level :
- ALPHABETICS contains all the faces made of letters and signs, that are used to produce words and phrases (i.e. letters, punctuation signs and symbols),
- GRAPHICS contains all the faces made of (non-letter) drawings,
And this alphabetic-specific first level division leads to another key point : we didn't included any FOREIGN LANGUAGE class, whether at this level or any other.
Why ? Because foreign languages are gathering several different traditions, some being alphabetic and some being not. Some are using our alphabet, some are using some other ones, and some are using non-alphabetic techniques. So, creating a Foreign language or Non-latin class is ultimately confusing.
But the fact of being alphabetic or not goes far beyond the simple language matter : it has a deep influence on the evolution of these writing traditions, and subsequentely, on the genre of typographies it gave birth to. So it has to be accounted in a classification.
To be really exhaustive, the root level of any classification has to be WRITING, that can be defined as "an organized system of symbols and signs, used to materialize our thoughts".
Then, WRITING can be sub-divised in 3 sub-categories :
ALPHABETICS, an alphabet being a "system using a limited amount of signs to express graphically the elementary sounds of the language",
NON-ALPHABETICS, that gathers all the other traditions of writings, that are not using letters, but pictograms (images representing things) or ideograms (images representing concepts).
Among them are the CHINESE IDEOGRAMS and there derivative (like JAPANESE IDEOGRAMS), the picture-based writings of the pre-colombian civilizations (Mayas, Aztecs, etc.), the different EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPHS, the CUNEIFORMS of the Sumerian and Arkkadians, to name a few.
GRAPHICS (as defined above),
One last word about foreign languages : now that all the non-alphabetics have found a room, what to do with the remains of its former content, the alphabetic foreign languages ?
Logically, they shall be included in the ALPHABETICS, but this doesn't mean that the'll be sub-categories of it.
Let's take the CYRILLIC for example. This is a special alphabet, that was invented by Saint Cyril in the 9th century when he evangelized eastern Europe. It offers a specific set of letters, with lettershapes meant to represents the Holy Trinity.
Just like we said for Symbols, Cyrillic isn't a genre of Typography, but an alternative set of letters : for example, theres is a Cyrillic version of the Helvetica, and there is no conceptual reason that there shall not be a Cyrillic version of any other type. It is in fact an alternative TYPE SET, just like, Alternates, Experts or Display.
And the same logical statement also applies to the Arab, to the Runes or to any alternative alphabetic language. The fact that most Arabic typefaces are Scripts doesn't mean that there couldn't be an arabic version of Neville Brody's Blur, even on a theoretical side...
As a consequence, our position is that there shall not be any "Foreign languages" category, even within the Alphabectics limits : the alphabetic foreign languages are to be accounted as TYPE SETS. And if a foreign language has leaded to a specific style of typography, it has to become a class in itself...
Now that we got a structure that can host all kinds of writing, we'll leave to the specialists of each of the non-occidental ones the task of digging more in these directions.
From now on, and to keep this classification handy, we'll concentrate on our main concern, the Alphabetics, and we won't mentions the others any more.
3.2 THE SECOND LEVEL
The next level is quite obvious, and either historically and technically bounded.
First, Graphics can be sub-divised into :
the Dingbats : "Drawings used as graphic enhancements for texts", (like squares, arrows, etc.), that are generic enough to be stylistically independent of the typeface used for the text they illustrate,
the Graphic tools : "Graphic elements that, combined using text inputs, produces graphics".
Note : As we've seen before, Symbols are not a category in itself, nor than a subdivision of Dingbats. They are a Type Set variant presumably available for any Alphabetics.
On the Alphabetics side, the user now shall asks himself another simple question :
"Is my type a Writing or a Typing ?"
In fact, the great quantum leap in Typography was the invention of printing, and the invention of mechanized writing, with its movable metallic casts. Before, letters were drawn ; after, they were printed. This had a huge influence on them : while each letter drawn by hand is different (even slightly), mechanical typefaces are drawn once, and re-produced. A decent classification shall account for that. So the second level is separated in two categories : MANUALS and NON-MANUALS as below.
But immediately, one may raise the following objection : how can you create a distinction between writing and typing in a TYPE classification ?!
Of course, the answer is that the MANUAL category contains "all the types which drawing are hand-made, or made to look like they are, or inspired by handcraft", while NON-MANUALS gathers the other ones. This means that Manuals can includes any revival of writings, as long as they are alphabetic and presented in a typographic form.
And this implies a lot of changes compared to previous classifications, as we'll see on the next level.
3.3 THE THIRD LEVEL
TheMANUAL category logically includes, in an historical order :
ANCIENTS, gathering all typographies inspired by handwritten alphabets, from the birth of writing until the Roman empire,
MANUSCRIPTS a category gathering all manuscript writings from Roman Cursiva to Uncials and to Carolines,
FRAKTURS, the broken writings that appeared in Europe during the 9th century. We chose the term "FRAKTUR" instead of the classic "Black letters" because it is more precise and less misleading : the German term Fraktur comes from the latin frangere ("to break") and fractus ("broken"), and graphically refers much better to this medieval and very stylised form of writing, in which the lines of letters are broken up. It is also a better term than "Gothic", which is misleading, as it is sometime used to describe Sans serif - like in Franklin Gothic.
Besides, Fraktur are not to be confused with Gotic, that isn't a style, but a specific germanic alphabet developped by the Gots, that was used on the border of the Black Sea until the 18th century, and that mixed Greek, Latin and some Runic letters.
Technically, we could have included the Frakturs in the Manuscript category. They belong to the same tradition, and evoluted from the Carolines. But we kept them separated because they represents a true stylistic quantum leap from the previous manuscript writings, and because they evoluted far beyond the Manuscript domain.
SCRIPTS, that are the (yet) final evolution of the Manuals under the influence of the technical revolution of printing : they are the writings stylised by the typographic process.
Our next step will focus on the Non-manuals, that represents the vast majority of types used nowadays.
We said it before : using serifs as a global tool to differenciate types is not working. But, within the Non-manual sub-category, our conviction is that it remains usefull. There are 3 reasons for that :
First, it is an historical and technical fact : it clearly shows the evolution of Typography, from the pen-influenced types to the modern ones.
Second, it is also a graphic and perceptual fact : serifs undoubtely creates a different feel than the sans serifs. It is still an essential element of choice for graphic designers.
Third, it is still a key point in the modern evolution of typography, and a notable concern for nowaday typographers : the latest notable trend, the mixed types, focuses on how to deal with the limits of it.
So, we can differenciate the Non-manuals in 3 sub-categories : SERIFS, SANS SERIFS and MIXED SERIFS :
We now have a good working tool for the common uses. It shows all the main possibilities that alphabetical Typography can currently offer, with the added value to show a clear historical progression from top to bottom in the Typographic section : this is handy because, in the vast majority of situation, this evolution is also a graphic clue, a "feeling" guideline (from human to mechanical, and from ancient to modern).
3.4 THE FOURTH LEVEL
Our current architecture now offers room to include the more precise subdivisions that were too "academic" in previous classifications, because they were used at a higher level. They now become natural sub-divisions, for the more skilled users.
The MANUSCRIPT category will be splitted in 3 sub-categories : the ROMANS (that will mainly features Cursiva), the UNCIALS and the CAROLINES, as we've seen on 2.2.
In the FRAKTUR category, we can differenciate the TEXTURA, (the most ancient frakturs that are narrow and features ornamented capitals), the ROTUNDA (the later and soothed evolution that appeared in the south of Europe), the SCHWABACHER (predominant ones in Germany from about 1472 to 1530, and supposedly designed by a typeface carver from the village of Schwabach), and the MAXIMILIANS (previously misleadingly refered to as "Fraktur", and initiated By Emperor Maximilian I during the 16th century). In the OTHERS are gathered all the later fraktur typefaces, the genre being predominant in Germany until the fall of the Nazism, in 1945.
In the SCRIPT category, we can differenciate the ENGLISH SCRIPT from the other ones. Called in France the "Anglaises", these very decorative types appeared in the 19th century, and are since traditionaly used for letterheads and formal correspondence.
In the SERIFS category, we can differenciate the various genres by reorganising the Vox subdivisions, but without its Classic vs. Modern division : ELZEVIRS, GARALDICS, DIDONIC, REALE (or Transitional) and SLAB SERIFS. We're keeping the usefull historical order as it is also a "Classic/Elegant to Common/Impersonal" guideline.
This re-working also presents the advantage to put back Slab serifs where they logically belongs : they no longer are a "modern" phenomenon, because the classic/modern limit has slided during the last 50 years. It is now positioned between Sans serifs (now considered as the "average" or "normal" style).
The next tricky point is about how to deal with the ROMANS CAPITALS (feat. QUADRATA and RUSTICA), and their modern reincarnations, the INCISED (i.e. Lapidaries).
Historically, Romans would logically belong to the upper part of the classification (after Ancients and before Manuscripts), while their INCISED revivals shall belong to the Non-manual domain, as they are Serifs. This create a confusing situation...
But, there is another way to deal with them, that seems more effective, either on a conceptual and on a practical point of view.
For a lot of specialists, Roman Capitals and their descendants leaded to a dead-end in the history of writing : there formalism and refinement made them very hard and painfull to reproduce by hand, and this is why Manuscript writings became predominant during 12 centuries.
But this is also what is truly fascinating about them : they were the very first occurence of what was to become Typography as we know it : the conceptualizing and refining of letterforms, the process of artistic stylization of the alphabet.
Unfortunately, they appeared centuries too early, and monks only used them scarcely, mostly for letterines. They needed a mechanized form of writing to start again their evolution. When printing developped, printers soon re-started (or re-discovered) this process, and, artistically speaking, there is a direct link between them and the very first serifs.
And this link goes beyond their inclusion as the Capitals of our bicameral alphabet : the conceptual and graphical approach developped through them was also applied to the manuscripts letters, and resulted in the lowercases.
Of course, the first book ever (the Bible of Gutemberg) was printed using a Fraktur typeface. But, on the long run, it is the style of the Roman Capitals (Serifs, general balance of thickness etc.), that deeply influenced the Manuscript lowercases, and not the opposite !
So Roman Capitals are strongly linked to the second great period of Typography, initiated with Non-Manuals. And this leads to another question : are Roman capitals really Manuals ?
On one hand, they should : they weren't mechanical, and they originated before the printing revolution. But on the other hand, they weren't really made by hand : they were carved using a tool, and contrary to the Manuscripts, there style wasn't driven by the influence of the hand, but by the search for graphical balance and elegance. Once again this prooves that they were truly the first step of Typography as a separated art form, getting free from writing.
By way of consequencies, we think it is either handy and meaningfull to gather the ROMAN CAPITALS and INCISED into one single category being the most ancient one among Non-Manuals.
This category will be refered to as INCISED, because it refers to their very graphic personality, and it will includes QUADRATA and RUSTICA, whether original or revival ones.
Note that we choosed the terms Incised, that refers to the technique used, rather than Lapidaries, that is specific to stone carvings. Stone is only one of the materials among many on which letters can be incised.
In the SANS SERIFS category, we can use the same classic and Vox-inspired subdvisions with a slight evolution of the names : HUMANIST, HELVETIC and GEOMETRIC. The novelty here is in the term HELVETIC that we propose to use instead of Vox's "Classicals". Classical can be misunderstood as a subjective comment, meaning "Old style" or "Elegant". We prefer the term "Helvetic", as reference to the most famous and influencial face of this kind, Helvetica, and a tribute to the deep influence that Swiss Typography had during the second half of the 20th century.
As you can see, the progressive structure of this classification, and the choice of the key elements to differenciate levels brings it a very handy capacity to evolute : it isn't a definitive classification, but an evolutive one. Any category can be subdivised into more precise ones, and, for example, specialists can easily insert third-level subdivisions for Uncials, or some more subdivisions within the Fraktur to differenciate the various evolutions that occured since the creation of the Maximilian Frakturs.
It also allows us to handle revived or imaginary typefaces quite easily through a simple process from the left to right. A Dark Elvish rune (which is alphabetic) is a "Alphabetic-Manual-Ancient", and the Aurabesh of Star Wars is a "Alphabetic-Non manual-Sans serif", as much as the Trade Federation cares about our opinion...
This evolution also allows us to give room for the future : Mixed Non-manuals may evolute in further subdivisions tomorrow, and this classification will easily deal with that.
Now that we've reorganized the classification into something (hopefully) logical and consistent, we see there is still something missing : how to account of the grunge phenomenon, of the combinated or iregular faces ? In one word, what can we do with the "treatments" ?
Welcome to the multi-dimensioned world of typography !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
