>Although I'm not at all a fan of "revivalism",
>I have to applaud your dedication, sensitivity
>and hard work - best of luck to you.
It's always nice to think that someone else thinks that one's dedicated,
sensitive and hard-working. Many thanks!
Revivalism: I prefer to think of it as continuity. In an article I
contributed to Matrix 19 about Lowell Bodger, who uses nineteenth-century
sanserif types to produce his distinct, personal, typography, I quoted the
English designer Norman Potter, who said 'every material available is
strictly contemporary'. I think the same's true in a way of Caslon Old Face:
yes, it can be used in an antiquarian way, to reset historical documents,
but can also be used by up-to-the-minute designers (Phil Baines in the UK is
one shining example) to produce work that no-one would call revivalist.
Personally, I find it really exciting to think that we can produce work that
belongs to our own time, using the same simple materials that our
predecessors were using: paper, ink, and type.
One of the reasons for making Founder's Caslon (http://www.hwcaslon.com for
those who havn't seen it) was that I personally felt cut off from the
continuity of the typographic tradition. Caslon had been used as a
touch-stone by typographers for 250 years, and yet was no longer available
on the computer in anything like an authentic form. The digital
reconstruction was my way of bringing back a simple, really basic
typographic tool which earlier designers had been able to take for granted
from about 1720 up to about 1980. And so I find huge pleasure in using it --
it's quite demanding, especially if you decide to use the different designs
at their correct design sizes, but it's great when the result gives greater
articulation to a piece of text. And there's also the feeling that one's
working towards the high pinnacles of achievement that one sees in (say)
William Bowyer's use of Caslon in the eighteenth century, Charles
Whittingham's in the nineteenth, or D. B. Updike's in the twentieth.