Think this is trendy? This typeface, Etruscan No.4, was first shown by William H. Page in 1872.
Recently, we had the amazing opportunity to print at the Center for Book and Paper Arts at Columbia College in conjunction with the commissioned Printers’ Ball poster we were completing. While we were there, we met David Shields, who was doing some research at the Center. David is a great designer, wood type scholar, and chair of The University of Texas at Austin’s design department. While here, David gave a great lecture on the Rob Roy Kelly Wood Type Collection. Part of David’s scholarly activity was to set up a classification system for the Wood Type that could be accessible to the public while placing the collection into a historical context. In doing so, he has been able to piece together an impressive time line of American wood type production and its manufacturers. Many will say, what’s the big deal? For me, the big deal is that it’s a great example of how type classification is a real tool and not just a name dropping game for graphic designers. Type classification can open up an anthropological discussion that touches on many facets of cultural life and evaluates aspects of design through this lens.
While I was teaching typography, many students would challenge me, asking why this subject should be important to them. And I can’t deny that this question has it’s relevance. But when I saw this recent story about Lebron James and the scathing open letter by his former team’s owner, which was unfortunately set in the font Comic Sans, it was clear that, again, type classification could be of help for many beyond the realm of mere designers.
Type classification is controversial and ever-changing. An array of classification systems have emerged over the last 300 hundred years. It’s hard to pin point when the most typical classifications (serif, san-serif, etc) started to take shape. However, it’s clear that while the demand for printing was increasing in Western Europe, classification systems that aimed to cultivate certain type faces while condemning others (for example, Renaissance type versus Blackletter) was a reality. Some of this ever-changing classification was driven by the type foundries themselves, in order to keep control over how their typefaces were presented and sold.
However, there was another factor. No matter what new classification system was established, it had to have the capacity to absorb growth. After all, the creation of new typefaces and the development of new technology that influenced it, was a constant factor. In this dualism of necessity and nature of the beast, systematic models for type classification have yet to push through on an international level. There have been several attempts, however. In Germany in 1964, a type classification system called DIN 16518 (Deutsche Industrie Norm patent #16518) was established to regulate and categorize all typefaces used in German industry. This system failed to catch on internationally, as most people continued to use a system called ATypi-Vox established by The Association of Typographique Internationale in 1624.
For the most part, type classification systems are highly subjective. Some seek to categorize typefaces historically while other classification systems use strict formal criteria. The two popular systems mentioned above use a mixture of both criteria (historical and formal) yet fail to satisfy the needs of every typeface in use today. Currently, there is talk about the establishment of a Type-Expertise Universal Font Classification System. This model is based on an emotional search, filtering out fonts based on key words that would be established by international standards. (The thesis by Nick Sherman really opened that debate, what a great contribution!) But, as mentioned, establishing a new standard is still pending.
I assembled a downloadable overview >>> sz.handout , combining a couple of different systems taken from The Typographic Desk Reference, which embodies ATypI-Vox and mentions other related terminology and from Matrix by Hans Peter Willberg, which differentiates typefaces by form and style. No matter what new classification system evolves, it’s extremely valuable to learn the criteria of categorization. This knowledge aids in creating a keen sensitivity to judge key elements in a typeface. And if that sensitivity is established, it’s not too hard to navigate through new classification systems and again understand one’s own type habits.
References: Theodore Rosendorf, pages 99–166, The Typographic Desk Reference, Oak Knoll Press; Hans Peter Willberg, pages 78 – 79, Wegweiser der Schrift, Verlag Hermann Schmidt Mainz; Robin Kinross, page 29, Modern Typography, an Essay in Critical History, Hypen Press
