At 3:22 AM -0400 17/1/98, Lindsay Rollo wrote:
>I have always found the expression 'favourite font' both irritating
>and an indulgence.
>Fitness for purpose is the first criterion for selecting a typeface
>for a project, and several options may all be appropriate choices.
I have to wonder why you bother with typography at all, if it gives you so
I think many of us working professionally started out because we enjoyed
playing with letterforms and visual spaces. Then the commercial world
beckons, which is a different sort of challenge, and we have to see things
from the clients' and readers' points of view, which is usually blander and
tamer. Eventually you've boxed yourself in so much that the only typography
you can bear to read, or set, is quite dull. And then the day comes when
the guy who delivers the copier toner suggests a solution that's more
creative than anything you've done in six months.
Perhaps Lindsay Rollo didn't mean to make such an extreme point, but I
recognize the tendency to blandess in myself. There is no point (IMO) in
typography that is merely well-executed, even from a client's point of
view. If you produce work that doesn't break at least one 'rule', tear it
up and start over.
>If the reader's convenience is not your first objective, then you are
>flattering your vanity at their expense or your client's expense.
Typography is not identical to commercial design. Perhaps a natural
assumption for 90% of typography's history, but not so today.
Self-expression is a valid goal.
Neil Kandalgaonkar [log in to unmask]