>The list goes on, and I admit that one could read
too much into it. But denying the truth that humans
have low-level "hard-coding" is ludicrous (and also
happens to be one of the first things the West has
to get over ASAP). And this hard-coding is the first
thing that comes into play during communication.
Are you saying that a given typeface can have this *hard-coding* by
being built in by the designer or that a typeface can illicit these
behaviors by its appearance and how we interpret them?
>Are we back to battle and what babies go though?
I think we have to consider this notion before we can decide which
category to place a typeface in.
> I actually expected less of an attempt to justify the notion of
masculine and feminine and more of a catalog of typefaces. If 1 is
ultra masculine and 10 ultra feminine, then Franklin Gothic Black
would be 2 and Goudy Handtooled would be 7--that sort of thing.
I think this is one way but I think that the rating would be dependent
on comparing the typeface with a respective partner, for instance:
Futura and Times
5 5 equals boring
FG and Sabon
2 8 equals nice combo
Does the masculine/feminine thing really work (in type or life)?
Isn't Futura really gay? Does that make it masculine, feminine, or
I think if it is both, I'd have to give it a five.