Is it novel, this idea of throwing printers, artists, designers of graphic things printed or virtual, typographers and type designers all together, mixing things up with some printing, typecutting, lots of talk and a gentle stream of libations and sustenance? It was so stimulating, inspiring, energizing and fun that I hope it becomes a ritual that’s celebrated again and again.
I quickly lost count of how many times people who had known each other only virtually or by degree finally met face to face. It happened to me more than twice, and I am relatively new to this corner of the world. I am happy to recognize that all our various tools for production and distribution and communication, useful as they are, do not warm the body or mind the way simple in-person conversation and interaction do. And of course, a nice glass of wine or a Spotted Cow certainly doesn’t hurt either.
The weekend started on Friday night with a welcome party and two presentations, then Saturday was jam-packed with four sessions around the Museum, Saturday night included a nice family-style dinner at the
Lighthouse Inn with more type talks, a panel discussion, and the screening of the movie
Typeface. Sunday was left open for more casual type talk, poster swapping and printing.
The evening presentations mainly revolved around issues of type design and its place in this time of the beginning of the 21st century. Rich Kegler opened up with a discussion on “A State of Type,” tracing his early investigations of type design as a student, the establishment of his
foundry P22, and forward to the development of the
Western New York Book Arts Center in Buffalo. In addition to creating typefaces, P22 has revived and updated for digital use short-lived typefaces or fleshed out partial type styles that iconically represented art movements or esthetics (think Arts & Crafts – Dard Hunter and Roycroft, for instance). And, as a bonus (!), P22 has some scripts worked into some of their typefaces where specific combinations of keystrokes will yield surprises for the user. Does it get any better than good design that is both functional and fun?
Juliet Shen’s discussion of her work with the Tulalip Tribe in the Pacific Northwest to create a typeface to match their dying language and oral tradition, Lushootseed, was really a thoughtful reflection on what is nearly a Sisyphean task. I am sure many of the designers in the audience could empathize with how much of any project hinges on the success of the interaction between the designer and client. But oh my. The Tulalip have social mores and a structure that are entirely self-contained and completely unlike anything Juliet had encountered before. Never mind the fact that she is not merely re-creating an existing typeface, she is creating the first-ever written set of characters for this language. No pressure. Based on the efforts to date that include a “universal” character set that encompasses the “translation” of all oral languages into writing (really just a band-aid) thus far, Juliet had nowhere to go but BETTER and she really went there. Her type design is elegantly humanist and easy to read.
Sumner Stone’s discussion was a two-parter, and I must admit I cannot recall the first part, but the second part was thought-provoking. Considering the idea that the eye wants to be able to move over type fairly easily to take in the information but that it shouldn’t move so easily that it is free to let the mind behind it wander, how can you offer it something to really read? (this is my summary) Sumner’s answer is: Instead of just one face with some ornamental characters, how about families of faces that can be used together? He has created some that allow the user plenty of ornamental characters for titles/headlines, etc., but he’s also created related text faces that blend wonderfully for the eye’s delight. This is something I ponder often. It’s a little different when you’re working with old wood type, because the mixing of typefaces within the same word (as Sumner demonstrated) is usually more jarring than I like, but when I work with metal type and in some cases wood type, how would the communication change if the faces were mixed up a bit? I think it may require a knowledge of typefaces that I don’t have yet, and of course Sumner works in digital type, so I won’t be seeing his typeface families in a Hamilton case anytime soon, unfortunately!
Matthew Carter narrated (live!) a 14 minute movie following a master typecutter whose name I did not write down, unfortunately, in Haarlem, The Netherlands, in 1965. Matthew apprenticed with him during his training in type design. Amazing. The process of carving master type requires near-perfect (if not perfect) precision. From the character carved in steel, the mold will be created (by stamping the steel carving into brass) from which each piece of metal type will be cast, and that’s what the printers used. Imagine carving 12 point (or smaller!) characters, one by one. Hoo hah. Precise work on a ridiculously small scale. I understand that Matthew is or has recorded a voice over for the movie, and it is to be released more widely at some point in the future. I’m not sure if Matthew made any summary statements about this, but for me it is a reminder that no matter the era of typeface design, there is a strong human connection to each typeface. Whether a master carver is turning out one letter a day (?) in metal or the designer is manipulating splines on the computer to get the right curve, or a typeface is being cut into wood, choices are made to design typefaces that serve the purpose of more effective communication, and more communication.
And I should note here that without Richard Zauft (at Emerson University), Matthew’s wood typeface may not have come about. He was an early (the first?) “caretaker” of the Museum, and knew that it needed to be a living museum (for which I cannot thank him enough!), and that it would also be a vital next step to revive the production of wood type.
There was a panel discussion with Juliet, Sumner, Rich and Matthew, the upshot of which is that we are living in a great time to be involved in type design and the use of type design. The work these four alone are doing exemplifies that. From creating a typeface where none existed (Juliet) and creating his first wood typeface (Matthew) to creating typefaces that have added scripts in the software to provide brilliant surprises and reviving historical faces that should never have dsappeared (Rich) and typeface families that can be used together in the same word (Sumner), there’s a lot going on here. Boggles the mind.
Saturday’s in-Museum sessions were, mainly for me at least, jumping off points for future investigation. I have some sets of type that I’d like to identify, and though it will probably not be as exciting a search as what Paul Brown (from Indiana University, that I understand has a great archive of type specimen catalogs as well, in the Lilly Library) went through with the Darius Wells type that the Museum has, it does mean I have a very good reason to visit the Newberry Library in Chicago. What can I say about the Globe Collection of cuts of old posters and ads except “Omigod.” and that I look forward to helping in any way I can with it, and learning more about it. The (newly named) Van Lanen Latin Wide is beautiful, and I cannot wait to see it in production and wide distribution (and to perhaps even own it myself! Wow!). The more people Norb Brylski can share his typecutting skills with, the more they will get passed along. Time is slipping away though!
Saturday night they screened the movie
Typeface, that has an updated ending. It’s hard to avoid the statement that with the presence of Jim Moran in the Museum (as the Archivist and Printer and Day-to-day Director) and the support of
Bill Moran (as the Artistic Director), things have really taken off in an exciting and proactive direction. So I will record it here. . . . It may be what the plan was all along, that somehow got watered down or shelved to face more immediate concerns. As it is today, every time I am so warmly welcomed to the Museum, I see improvements and enhancements and that only impels me to go back again.
Sunday’s poster swap was fun. I only really had the chromatic specimen sheet I pulled from the
Columbia College collection, but it generated swaps with some other amazing printers that I might have been too shy to talk to otherwise. And!! David Shields from U Texas at Austin (keeper of the Rob Roy Kelley type collection) was able to identify it instantly, a favorite moment of the weekend for me. A mystery solved (I will have to find longer and more complicated typeface identification adventures elsewhere!), with a great bit of insight about specimen sheets in general: They are good to print because there were really no full alphabetic sets reproduced by the typemakers, either for their records or for their catalogs. Having copies of the full sets can further scholarship and help others in the community access it as well. That sounds all-good to me. The excitement and exchange of ideas and stories through the whole weekend is just inspiring. This keeps happening: the more I delve into this world where the shapes of letters and history and ink and paper rule, the more I find I want to do. Anyone need a poster printed for them? ;)
I so look forward to next year’s Wayzgoose. I will be amazed if Jim and Bill, who assembled this year’s event so beautifully, can improve on it, but if anyone can pull off such a feat, they can.
Wood type, two passes on the press. The star is about 4 inches wide.
