The Modern movement is characterized by a focus on the wonders of the machine age. Furniture, architecture, sculpture, and typography were created that demonstrated harsh functionality. In working to find the ‘essence’ of their material in order to condense it down into its most functional form, the Modern movement had a profound impact on typography and design layout. “When used together, asymmetrical typography, geometric layout, and photographic illustration defined the radical new form language of Modernist design” (Chwast, p. 89). It was during the Modern movement that the rise in the social middle class in America gave birth to a growing graphic design industry in important areas such as advertising and packaging. Key artists during this period included Paul Renner and Jan Tschichold who re-wrote the rules of typography to more accurately reflect the modernist ideals in blatant recognition of the communicative qualities of the typeface itself. The characteristics most associated with Modernism can be traced through Tschichold’s self-titled typeface as compared to the more embellished forms of the Arts and Crafts movement that immediately preceded it represented by the work of William Morris.
Morris’ Golden typeface was designed to be used in his oversized books printed on a heavy irregular linen surface that was intended to approximate the rougher paper textures of the Middle Ages. He designed the text in 1890 to have the serif flourishes that gave his type its curves and flair while still remaining heavy enough to be printed appropriately within his books. “He sought to recapture the dark and solemn density of Nicolas Jenson’s pages” (Lupton, 2004).
The term ‘serif’ refers to the small flags that appear at the end of the lines that form the letters (Counterspace, 2007). In the example above, it can be seen that these serifs take on a strong triangular shape, joined to the main stroke with a series of brackets that serves both to fill in the negative space between the serif and the main body of the letterform as well as to introduce a softer, more rounded appearance. This technique thereby includes by design an effect that would have taken place anyway as the ink was applied to the uneven surface of the paper. At the same time, the main body of the letterform has a bolder stroke to it that allows it to remain dominant as well as legible upon the page. Counters, the enclosed or partially enclosed areas of blank space formed by the letters, remain open and rounded, giving the letterforms a friendly, more feminine appeal while ensuring any technical issues in the printing process do not reduce the legibility of the words. While the letterforms remain predominantly feminine in their overall characteristics, the rounded shapes, and serif features, they take on masculine importance in their heavy strokes and tight spacing that has the effect of filling the page with plenty of black ink (Shaikh, Chaparro & Fox, 2006). As a result, the type gives an impression of strength, nostalgia, and the romance of a by-gone age.
Like Morris’ design, Tschichold’s typeface was created for a specific use, but one significantly different from Morris’ nostalgic blast from the past in that it seeks to suggest a more modern, technological age. In Tschichold, the purpose of the typeface was to provide an easy-to-read font to be used with the new phototypesetting machine developed in Germany called the Uhertype (“Tschichold”, 2006). The design of this typeface, which occurred around 1928, was also similar to the design of Morris’ Golden in that it drew its inspiration from earlier forms.
An important difference between Tschichold’s typeface and the one designed by Morris is the absence of serifs. This sans-serif font presented the reader with a much cleaner impression, immediately doing away with everything that could be considered extraneous. Sharp, crisp angles and well-defined counters helped add to this overall impression of solidity, precision, and straightforward presentation. This was in keeping with the Modernist movement of machine-power and assembly-line construction. The letters march across the page in an orderly fashion, yet the bowls of the letters, presented with even brushstrokes, have an opposite effect of softening the letters. This provides the typeface with a no-nonsense, serious approach while remaining just friendly enough to remain approachable. The font differs from Morris’ designs in some other significant ways as well. The ascenders rise fully above the x-height, reaching equal status with the cap height whereas Morris’ design has many of the ascenders reaching only halfway to this point. This provides each letter with its own form of significance without allowing any to take subservient positioning. The open forms of the letters make them seem almost stretched out in comparison with Morris’ letters, allowing much more white space to insinuate within and between them, thereby opening up the page and further assisting the reading process.
While both fonts demonstrate a curious mixture of masculine and feminine qualities, delicate curves, and bold strokes, they each do so to different extents and effects. Morris’ typeface demonstrates a feminine style in its flowing lines and curved structures while Tschichold’s typeface captures the feminine in its smooth bowls and open structure. At the same time, Morris is able to suggest the masculine with his bold strokes and compact structure while Tschichold is able to capture it through his sharp angles and upright strokes. The way in which the letters are spaced, the heights to which they reach, the compactor open nature of their basic forms, the shapes of their counters, and the absence or presence of serifs all contribute to the readability and overall effect of each typeface. Even with the advent of new technology, the question of whether a serif font or a sans-serif font is more readable remains a topic of heavy debate thanks to the subtle changes that can be discerned in an instant (Ates, 2005), changes the human eye has been trained to recognize from the earliest advent of written language.
Works Cited
Ates, Farruk. “Typography: Serif vs. Sans-Serif.” KuraFire. (2005). Web.
Chwast, Seymour and Steven Heller. Graphic Style: From Victorian to Digital. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2000.
Counterspace. “Anatomy of Fonts.” Counterspace. (2007).
Lupton, Ellen. Thinking with Type: A Critical Guide for Designers, Writers, Editors & Students. Princeton: Architectural Press, 2004.
Shaikh, A. Dawn, Chaparro, Barbara S. & Fox, Doug. “Perception of Fonts: Personality Traits and Uses.” Usability News. Vol. 8, I. 1, (2006).
“Tschichold.” MyFonts. Cambridge, MA. (2006).