From: Kay H Khoo
> it is a different thing altogether to snip off
> pieces here and there from Ocean sans and call
> that a "new corporate typeface".
From: Georgia Wolf 2
> I find the idea of categorizing typefaces
> as masculine or feminine interesting.
Me too. I've found that designers/people generally fall into one
of two camps when it comes to gender association, or actually any
kind of association, or "mood", that typefaces have (we hope...).
The much bigger camp consists of those who agree that there
are such associations, but ascribe them entirely to societal
"training". The smaller -and braver- group believes that some
of the associations (gender being probably the "purest" one)
are "hard-coded" into us, by Nature. I'm firmly in group two,
but have become increasingly cautious about overextending the
possibilities. For example, I don't think you could design Envy
into a typeface. But you can very much design-in femininity for
example, and this would apply irrespective of cultural factors
(unless there has been a brainwashing effort to dissociate the
signs from the meaning).
BTW, I don't care about the politically incorrect implications
of these ideas. If Truth bothers you, please try to stay home.
> I'm starting to wonder if two typefaces, one being feminine
> and one being masculine would look best together?
Interesting idea. But maybe it can be taken too far/seriously?
I'm a big fan of contrast -which doesn't necessarily make me
a big fan of Robin Williams (either one)- and gender I think
is the single most important contrast in human life. But I'm
getting this image of this extreme combination in my head,
and it makes me cringe... :-/ As always, subtlety rules.
BTW, what does Georgia Wolf #1 think about this?