Re: typeface to go with photographs of various kinds

Judy, you Go Girl!

I generally pick whichever font is on top. . . and if that doesn't look
right I pick the next one down. . . or the next one down from that one.
. . and so forth, until I get one that *I like*. I mean, the font is
exactly not the point.

As for faces, I generally pick whichever one is on top. . . and if that
doesn't look right I pick the next one down. . . or the next one down
from that one. . . . I mean, there are so many faces to choose from,
right? Some have prominent ears. Some have cowlicks. Some are
blinking, and some are licking their lips. Some are sans ears or
cowlicks or eyes or lips-- I dunno. I particularly like the ones
without well defined chins. There just seem to be more fascinating
faces than fonts to choose from.

I have no idea (and I mean this, I don't know beans) about the world's
current default typeface. . . . but I'm pretty sure it's not in my font
list, whatever it is. I refuse to pay the price.

I can tell you that Zapf Chancery and I went to high school together.
Nobody liked him back then, either. He was voted Most Likely To Not
Matter. He was that type of guy, you know?

Hey, does anybody remember the original question?

Best regards,
John
__________________________
John Campbell
PhotoGecko Studios & Gallery
1413 South First Street
Austin, Tx 78704

(512) 797-9375

www.photogecko.com

On Jul 27, 2004, at 10:45 PM, Judy Seigel wrote:

> Jonathan,
>
> Your argument is quite compelling, but the idea that there are faces I
> *should* and *shouldn't* use is not one I'm prepared to accept on its
> face. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about any of the ones you
> name to argue about them, in fact most of them I don't know at all !
> (Except I do know Zapf Chancery -- YUCK !)
>
> HOWEVER, to me it's like saying there are some colors or color
> combinations that I shouldn't use and others that are approved, which
> is ALSO a matter of style. Maybe crude, corny or camp looks better --
> and less a la mode. We used to draw with our left hand to make it look
> clumsy.
>
> I also remember when a sans serif face was the latest greatest. Today
> I tried to read a rather interesting art magazine out of England that
> had text, TEXT mind you, in a white sans serif face on a tan ground.
> No one on god's green earth could read that... too bad,it looked
> interesting. (I remember my mother in the 1930s coming home after a
> fight with the designers at Conde Nast, still steaming because they
> thought it was so cool to put text in reverse -- but that at least was
> on black.
>
> But I'm free associating, please excuse -- and I'm partly making your
> case by saying there are some things you really really shouldn't do,
> -- but that's if you want to be read.
>
> You are saying there are some faces you shouldn't use because they're
> inelegant, crude, or not "good." And I'm saying that could still be
> the look I want. Like clumsy printing, or decayed letters, or... who
> was the painter who used to burn holes in the shape of letters in his
> canvas ?
>
> Of course (my mother also told me) designers don't actually READ the
> pages they're laying out. And in the case of photographers adding
> text, I'd bet they have it already so firmly in mind, they can't tell
> if it's readable or not.
>
> You say, "But choosing the world's current default typeface in a
> visual arts context > declares to me, "I don't care." At this juncture
> in history that will always> be the first and overwhelming message
> about such a choice. "
>
> And I say, not at all, it can also say I'm doing a riff on populism,
> cliche, irony, whatever, and I don't feel the need to follow the
> current "correct" style. !!!!! In fact (as I've said in another
> context), by the time a style is accepted enough to be correct, it's
> already passe'.
>
> best,
>
> Judy
>
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Jonathan Taylor wrote:
>
>> on 7/27/04 12:28 AM, Judy Seigel at jseigel@panix.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Jonathan Taylor wrote:
>>>> ....Times is a special
>>>> case; it's a competent design that IMHO should be obliterated and
>>>> removed
>>>> from all possibility of future use. Times was designed to be used
>>>> in small
>>>> sizes (9 & 10 pt) on low-quality bleed-prone newsprint. Outside of
>>>> that
>>>> context, it's bland and characterless.....
>>>
>>> Times is boring and unbeautiful, but useful, sometimes necessary,
>>> which
>>> may be why it survives.
>>>
>>> When space was tight (as it usually was), I often tried the same
>>> copy in
>>> different faces. Times was generally the most legible in the
>>> smallest
>>> space -- letting me add leading, which, IME, does more for reading
>>> ease than elegant letter shapes. Adobe Garamond is similarly space
>>> saving (and prettier) --- but possibly too fine, depending on print
>>> medium.
>>>
>>> Offset printing has enough dot gain to save it, even when it looks
>>> faint
>>> in the laser proof.
>>>
>>> Judy
>>
>> But choosing the world's current default typeface in a visual arts
>> context
>> declares to me, "I don't care." At this juncture in history that will
>> always
>> be the first and overwhelming message about such a choice. In a
>> visual arts
>> context I find that unacceptable. My statement about obliterating
>> Times was
>> of course over blown. I should have added the qualifier, "in a visual
>> arts
>> context." :-)
>>
>> Certainly Times is a useful typeface, but there are _many_ other
>> faces that
>> could meet your requirements: Bell, Linotype Centennial, Excelsior,
>> and
>> Times Europa to name a few. Also, Minion and Garamond have nice
>> condensed
>> versions.
>>
>> Of course, most people probably don't own many of the fonts I listed.
>> I
>> guess that's really my underlying point. In a visual arts context I
>> think it
>> behooves the artist to go beyond the default-- which may well mean
>> buying a
>> new typeface.
>>
>> And sometimes we all get stuck using what we have. In that case
>> leading,
>> kerning, and line composition do become crucial. You make the best of
>> what
>> you've got, but for text that accompanies a show shouldn't we do
>> better?
>>
>> jt
>>
>
>
Received on Tue Jul 27 22:48:10 2004