The music videos of today are an odd bunch. When you watch a rap video for example, all you see is well-endowed women in overly provocative outfits. Rappers mouths are filled with gold teeth and their bling is bright. I'm pretty sure that the last thing on their mind is showing typokinetic graphics in their videos.

And what about the other videos like rock or emo? These usually showcase some kind of dramatic narrative about love or loss and blah blah blah. There is pretty much no type whatsoever incorporated into these videos. And why, do you ask? Because IT'S NOT THAT IMPORTANT.

Think about when typokinetic videos were introduced: the '60s. This was a time when music was experimental and certain bands and groups were tying to break away from the norm in order to create new sounds. Perhaps typography was incorporated into Bob Dylan's song "Subturranean Homesick Blues" because it went along with the feeling of that particular musical era. It was experimental and it sounds like it worked in that respect. It seems like it was a unique way to interpret the lyrics.

Perhaps typokinetic videos aren't utilized in todays music because music artists and industries have other priorities in mind. We are a very consumer driven society. Music videos can be viewed as a vehicle to sell an album. Typokinetic videos seem like they would be creative. Creative in a sense that the words are being used to represent lyrics or a stream-of-consciousness thinking. But really, music videos these days (on MTV) aren't really about being creative.

There was one quotation in particular that really bothered me. Peter Hall says, "We'll look back at these early days of the music video genre and recognize that a few pioneearing typokinetic gems lurked amid the trash." Is he trying to say that only the videos that use typography are pioneering? I disagree. There are plenty of great videos that don't use typography and are still pioneering. For example: AHA's "Take on Me." Need I say more?

“As a fitting metaphor for the distilled quality of things digital, the focus in e-mail is on the abridged, the acronym, the quick read.”

When it comes down to email and the internet in general we are going at a quick speed. It is there for simplicity so that we may move a little bit faster through our day. Sadly the brb, lol, and ttfn are becoming part of out everyday language. Like Helfand says gone are the days of good handwriting, the letter is lost. I think of this as a very sad fact. That we are so busy in our everyday lives that we can not sit down and write someone a letter. Now I don’t do this on a regular basis but I do try to do it. Remember the days when you went to the mail box and got excited because you had gotten a letter from someone. It hasn’t been that long. I think it is sad that we email each other thank you’s and invites.
Email has become a fast way to communicate. And it goes along with the fast paced lives we live in. But it is ugly! The short sayings for things lack any human contact because we are to lazy to type them out, not to mention the constant use of them cause frequent misspellings in once simple words. And the font choices are horrendous. And isn’t it funny that when I receive and email from my mom when it is important it is capitalized or italicized. She does it to get my attention, yet it is so impersonal. The internet has not only made us step away from the beauty of design for a fast read, but the feeling that comes with it. Letters, when they are hand done show emotion, feeling, and tell something about a person. Emails they tell you if someone decided to change a font or if grandma wanted to email you in comic sans because it was her favorite font. There is nothing to it. The Electric design is for fast reading. I know that it is necessary in our lives, but can’t we get feeling or emotion out of it? Not just bright, bad colors and hyperlinks when we are trying to connect with someone on the internet. Or is it to late and we don’t care to even connect with an actual person?

electronic typography; a real and current issue I agree. The author here seems to be considering the idea of a compromise of our beloved letterforms in relationship to the digital era of spoken word. I feel that her concerns, although well developed, are misplaced. For artists and philosphers pure in the world of typographic consideration such as Jacques Derrida, the advent of technological advancement must be a threatening idea. However, my thinking is that our society might consider the world of electronic type, written language, & spoken word are separate but equal. We use and manipulate each form in certain ways according to the audience and purpose. There are still as many relevant uses for the written language as there are for spoken word, as there are for a digitized mixture of the two. Recently, I have been exploring the use of animation software to be manipulated in the on-line classroom. Truly, typography and speech are the (two) backbone(s) for such programming. Now I realize that typographic techniques are not the basis for control in such a media however the basic concept still exists that the typographic language is necessary. And more importantly, although these technologies exist, people are still using and are in need of type as static imagry. I can imagine there might have been some (very little but still some) concern as letterforms were becoming more on the forefront of communication that personal interaction would be slightly compromised. Maybe this is just a blip in our constant evolution of language.

On a separate note, the author mentions something about "...reconciling the relationship between words spoken and words seen..." This might be the key to not having to compromise our letterforms. Let's break down the barrier just a little bit more, and maybe spoken/written (powers combined) will generate enough ownership to users that digital media might back down, just enough anyway. "When written words can speak for themselves," isn't that what a reconcilation would sound like? Alright so maybe that's just type taking over, but why not? How can language similarly effect typography? I guess I just thought that was how.

In trying to keep this one shorter than the past few, with some complaints in length (George). Type is timeless. No doubt in my mind. We still use it will every intention as we use speech, and I think we even push it through its electronic form. No offense Jessica, Everything's Gonna Be Alright.

In all honesty I feel that the grid is another one of those typographic boundaries developed by the bold, systematic designers. I used to embrace the grid as a tool ( and don't get me wrong, it really is) but now I feel more to the notion that it inhibits my personal creativity. For example, our most recent project, in trying to develop a unique form of the common magazine I felt trapped by the restrictions of having a continuous grid forming the framework for the entire piece. Only until I abandoned the grid concept was I able to jump outside my comfort zone and develop my magazine in a direction that was truly unique to me. I have studied grid concepts and developed enough work based upon that grid toknow how it works and what it's purpose is. Come to find out, despite what most typographers, designers and such will tell you... I don't think it is entirely necessary 100% of the time.
In one form of design which I feel constantly requires a grid-like system is information design. Even if I don't love the grid idea, I love information design. I don't feel systamatized by the grid in information design simply because it is a more subjective form of design. It requires you, as the designer, to react as your audience would. It becomes necessary to organize information, not only to form a successful solution, but also because the message your audience recives is dependant upon how, and when they receive the information. Large quantities of text can bore the common reader, so being able ot organize your information can capitalize your design.
The grid to any designer is absolutely necessary. Once you are able to understand the purpose of the grid in both elemental and typographic form, you can then develop to be a better designer even without using a grid-system.

In terms of creating design, there is always an importance in setting up a grid system for yourself. This elicits uniformity and alignment. A grid system is most useful for page layouts. Things can now be displayed in a logical way and can be unknowingly easy on the eyes. Design that is set up with a grid system is more easily viewable. But why do we always have to utilize this "system." It's not like there are specific rules involved with setting up the grid. So why must we labor over it? What would design be like if we were to just... discard it?

When I open up a magazine, upon first sight I do not notice the underlying grid system that the designer has set up for the reader. The average person would NEVER notice. But upon closer inspection I can find it. I can tell how the designer set up the document: there are a certain amount of columns and the text is usually aligned at the same position throughout the page, i.e. visual uniformity. But do I only notice this because I am a designer? Do I notice because I have been "trained" to notice?

Now: back to the average reader. Do they really appreciate it? If there were no grid system, would that person really care? OR would they even notice? I'm going to say the latter. People are so used to opening up a magazine and quickly flipping through the pages, thus all of that highly considered graphic material is somewhat lost to them. The average Joe doesn't really consider: text color, typographic choices, subhead content, or body text alignment... to them it's just the "stuff" that makes up the magazine. Because of this, I feel like the grid system isn't really that important to readers.

But I cannot imagine what layouts would be like if it weren't for the grid. If I didn't set up some of my work with a grid system, I'd be trying to "wing it" anyway. I would want things to line up without even knowing why. But the fact is that I do try to set up a grid: it serves a real purpose although the average person doesn't really notice it anyway. But if a layout were set up without a grid system, it would probably look really odd to the reader. Imagine if text were running off the page, or if body text were set up to be wall-to-wall with its outligning text box. This would certainly create visual chaos and therefore would be much more hard to read.

The fact is that we need the grid system in design. It seems as if there are no rules when setting up a grid system, however there is a purpose: to present information in a clear and logical way. Without this, the nature of magazines and layout would change.

Grid and Design Philosophy

I think that it is strange that I never really planned grids, they tend to happen. But when I do need to create one I seem to struggle with it. I have found that they are places that we don’t even realize they are, for example coupons. You are probably think coupons, really? Well you have to have standards set or people would put the UPC wherever they wanted, and make them to small. Grids are a set of standards. I think I notice that I am making them most when I create business cards. Each company has their own design but they all have grids. They are small but they are there. I think I use my guides as my grid. I don’t set out to create one, but in the process of making sure that things line up where I want them and to be sure spacing is correct I use a guide. You need to make sure things line up, that there is some kind of sense to your design.
Now I know that this also brings up the issue of how creative or artistic is that? Well it is all on how you use the grid that is already in place, or how you create it. Grids help us to read better. But if you are trying to make an artistic statement and you can explain why then you don’t need to have one, then that is fine. I do think that grids are always nessesary. But they help to organize the mess of commotion we have in out lives. So I do admit I don’t like using them, but not for a good reason. I need to learn how to make them, and use them more often in my design in a purposeful and meaningful way. The only person stopping me is me. And I can’t speak for everyone, but I would think if people don’t like them or understand them they haven’t learned enough about them.

found it interesting that mcmurtrie uses the word “cult” to describe the typographic trend of expanding the usage of lowercase letters. okay, i found it interesting, and maybe an intcie bit offensive seeing as i am one to have jumped on –rather, have been blindsided by- the bandwagon of this style. i am coming to the realization that I have no legitimate defense in using the technique after reading of its origin and i also believe the trend was indefensible in its first uses. however, i am more intrigued by the evolution of lowercase usage, which seems to point toward a more sound defense. (let’s hope.)

i agree that the lowercase is the easier read, maybe that is why i feel more comfortable using them. lowercase letterforms have a certain comfortable persona, they leave a gentle feel to a typographic body.

SIMILAR TO LOWERCASE, CAPITALS ALSO HAVE A PERSONA. in recent years, with the advent of on-line instant messaging the use of the capital letter allows one to show emotion or attitude through a computer screen. our conversation is so incredibly complex that, without that physical presence the intonation, accent, and obvious punctuating characteristics of someone’s voice (not to mention body language), other means may be necessary to represent these things. for example, the phrases, “ I HATE YOU,” and, “ i hate you,” sound a lot different in your head.

i don’t think that tradition is the single cause for uppercase use. our culture has developed rules and standards set to capital letters, therefore the easy read may be what more people understand. for instance, “god” and “God.” this is a HUGE ( <--you like that?) issue, proving my point that the capital “G” is used to differentiate one god from another. “god” often refers to any god other than the one Jewish God.? capital letters, in our language serve many purposes. many people agree that English is by far the most complicated language, maybe one reason this is true is because we have purposeful laws based upon the use of distinct letterforms. capital letters represent proper nouns, proper nouns in speech are easily identifiable, therefore easy to read. example; the word “mom” in text may not distinctly refer to your “Mom” or my “Mom” as our speech enables us to project more clearly.

i won’t let mcmurtrie take the heat for bringing up the notion for the tradition argument though, it’s just- I feel the need to defend the capital because , yes, i would surely be disconcerted if it wasn’t there anymore. and maybe this means that i really am subject to the tradition. you’ll notice, in trying to use only lowercase letters for the majority of this writing, i cannot break the habit of capitalizing out of obligation or respect to the entity the word refers to. tradition or not, they are not going away because it is what people know and understand best. capitals are not convenience, they’re defensible standards of our language. the use of lowercase might negate such standards, but that might be why it is identified by stylistic techniques, not tradition. for myself, the cockroach typographic style has been, if nothing other than a style, a learning tool. it begs questions like, “why is it more comfortable?” or, “ why does it look more unified?” questions mean answers, mean learning.

p.s. how did you read these sentence?:
“… it begs questions like, “why is it more comfortable?” or, “ why does it look more unified?” questions mean answers, mean learning. “

yes, i meant for this to be two sentences, read like this; “ It begs questions like, “Why is it more comfortable?” or, “ Why does it look more unified?” Questions mean answers, mean learning. “

without capitals, the punctuation at the end of the first sentence (if i even typed it right) does not give the idea of the sentence break, therefore the sentences run into one another. there is a time for lowercase, and being able to define that moment has now become a responsibility.

it seems only appropriate that i write this blog in all lowercase. why shouldn't i? i do it all the time. in emails. in messages. etc. perhaps my lackadaisical generation is saying goodbye to proper grammar and hello to a new style of quick conversation. maybe laziness is to blame: our fast-paced lifestyles are making us foget entirely about the shift button. but is it that hard to capitalize?

the only place that you truly see this new typographic/grammatical phenomena (besides through internet communication) is in logos. macys. adidas. apple. and nike (who now features a more contemporary all lowercase logo, much unlike its older logo: NIKE). i even saw a flashy new corvette with its name in all lowercase. i was pretty impressed. lowercase logos are more inviting and less threatening. when you put something, such as a logo, in all caps it changes the meaning entirely. it becomes more "corporate" or official. such as: WAL MART. case closed.

but what if we started writing in all lowercase and completely ditched our shift button? lets just imagine a keyboard sans the shift button. how odd. what if you picked up a book and started to read it only to find no capital letters in sight. no names capitalized. no beginnings of sentences capitalized. no titles capitalized. it'd be grammatical chaos. we are so used to reading sentences with a combination of upper and lower case that if we took away uppercase, we'd be confused. we'd be confused because something just wouldn't feel right. our eyes are trained to read the combination of upper and lower case letterforms together. so why change that now?

now imagine what it might be like to read certain words, usually capitalized, that are now in all lowercase. look at the following words:

jesus
george w. bush
fbi
cia
united states of america
kentucky
aol
aids
and so on
and so on

these words look different to me. and placed within the context of a sentence, you might really be confused. some words need to be differentiated from other words or else their meanings are depreciated. now look at the following sentence:

jesus was on aol last friday night while the fbi tapped into his blog account.






(odd.)







if we were to write in all lowercase for convenience purposes then what comes next? no paragraphs too? no page numbers? all of these things are heavily considered in terms of books, magazines, periodicals, etc. together they make a cohesive system for reading. we can not rid ourselves of using uppercase, our minds are too accustomed to their presence.

The Cult of Lower Case
By.Douglas C. McMurtrie

Letters either upper case or lower are beautiful. It is difficult for me to imagine not using capitals in my everyday life. They are part of our culture and how we do things. The article says that “capitals only hold their jobs through influence of tradition.” We are used to them. The question is rather could we do without them. After years of training our eye to get used to the idea of not having capitals, I would guess it would become normal like when anything is changed in our lives. No one liked the idea of cell phones or computers and we all got used to them. Now I am not saying that changing the way we write and use letters is the same thing. And I do not agree with getting rid of capitals. I do feel that they have a special place in the world, and they do there job.
“Do they or do they not contribute to our ease of reading and comprehending what we read.” Here is a great question. I think that they do. The use of the capital helps us to clearly read. Yes, there are the typical beginning of a sentence and when you are spelling a name, or place. But does anyone think about the capitals we see other than that. On a stop sign, when someone is trying to get our attention. These are ways we use type to reach people. If we saw stop, instead of STOP, we may see it as less important. Yes, “ with ascenders and decenders the small letters have more numerous points of differentiation in thier form than do capitals.” And as designers we use this to our advantage. We can run words off a page and still know what letter it is. This isn’t as simple with capitals. They may not stand on their own when they are only partially shown. They tend to look like other letters. Like the Base of a F, T,or an R, H, or A. because of the way that the legs are set, if you cut off the top you loose the letter. If I see something written in all lower case I get the feeling that it is soft, and nice. When they are in all caps they say that they are important and need to stand out. I think using the two together make our language what it is, and who we are. Just like the way someone speaks, the way that we use type is unique to us.
This article brought to my attention the fact that only the “white” races use capitals. And I think that it is amazing. There are so many languages and ways of writing. To us it is strange that you would not use capitals. But other countries do and it works for them. But like the book says, Germany uses capitals more than anyone else. So getting rid of using capitals would not work for them at all. I think that some cultures can do this, but other can not. I don’t feel that this is a good thing. I like my capitals, I like using them with lower case. Should it only be one or the other, no. They both play to big a role in our culture and society. We need them, we are used to them. They are guides, history, and the future of type. Without one, words would loose all meaning that they once had. And words are powerful.

I guess it’s inevitable... the “obscene typography machine” was bound to rear its ugly head sooner or later. With the ever growing advancement of technology there is bound to be a loss of craft. Remember the industrial revolution in graphic design? New materials were readily available at the fingertips of designers thus creating new possibilities in production. Steel, iron, and steam powered energy created new possibilities. The first ever letter presses were utilized and enabled quicker typographic reproduction. This era of technological advancement brought with it a boom of mass communication. And indirectly, a loss of craft and appreciation for typography and design.

They say that history repeats itself. You’ve heard it a hundred times. It’s corny, I know. But somewhat true. Are we repeating the industrial revolution in graphic design at this moment? Think of it this way: during the industrial revolution there were many new advancements, i.e. steel and iron. These two very important natural materials aided so much in typographic reproduction. Now fast forward about 200 years later and what do you have? the computer. PLAH. I’m starting to dread the medium as a graphic design student. But as a student in this new era of graphic design, the “deconstructivist typography” era if you will, this is probably the main outlet for design. And when used intelligently and thoughtfully, it can be used to create beautiful and highly aesthetic works in graphic design.

But what about all those other people? those people that you might see in Borders or Barnes & Noble latched on to a book with some crazy title like, “Typography for Dummies.” these are the people we designers need to steer clear of. Or better yet, maybe we should be the ones trying to educate them about the proper uses and functions of type. Yes, it is our duty as designers and lovers of the medium to tell Susie do-it-herself about the unwritten “rules” that surround typography. If not for our eyes sake, lets try to do for the sake of Frederic W. Goudy and John Baskerville (as they do somersaults in their graves).

It was only inevitable that the fate of the Industrial Revolution was a loss of craft. Mass production caused an overbearing boom in visual communication. This lead to an apathetic view of design thus creating a disinterest in the medium itself. But with the emergence of figures such as John Ruskin, society started to realize that industrialization and technology had created a separation between artist and visual medium. Thus the arts and crafts movement was born. There was a revival of handicraft and thoutfulness that went into creating not only design, but furniture design, and book design as well. And perhaps with perfect timing, figures like Goudy emerged from this movement.

They say that history repeats itself. Well, then aren’t we about due for another type of arts and crafts movement? I hope so. I am beginning to think that design/typography is heading for a very ugly place. A place where ANYONE can create design. And as we all know, not everyone can be a designer. It takes a special type of person. A person with vision. A person with visual sensitivity. NOT Susie do-it-herslf.

This article really appealed to me. It's good to know that someone is on the same page with this as I am. In fact, I'll go ahead and apologize now for the ranting and raving that I may follow into in the upcoming sentences.

For the past three months I've been employed with Trader Publishing Company. We design and publish Auto Mart magazine. I would wager that the company I work for is probably one of the lead contributors in this offensive business of type distortion. I want to wretch everyday I go to work and see the phrase "make this word as big as you possibly can" in the header of a spec sheet. Without going into too much detail, the magazine I help edit and publish is the kind of BS design that you would bring into an introductory graphic design class as an example of what one would gather "bad design" might be.

To help you understand my job as a "designer" within this company I will tell you that sadly, they allow the dealerships' sales representatives to dictate the style, illustrations, photos, and (ta-da) TYPOGRAPHY of each advertisement within the magazine. As the "graphic artist" here, I have been given (literally) ZERO creative freedoms while the ignorant entry-level, soccer mom sales reps instruct me to squeeze 8 lines of 6pt. font, at 6pt leading in a 1/2" box. YEAH, right. These people aren't concerned with the beauty of a letterform, rather what all they can fit in the smallest amount of space. but WHY?! This concept is totally foreign to me; I'd like to hear the argument that their sales actually increase if they stick with this idea. So I'm sure you can imagine what goes through my mind as I pick up an ad to edit and see instructions to distort and transform the beautiful letterforms I have come to know and love, into some monstrosity of crap. For lack of a better example, the final product often reminds me of my little brother's brontosaurus drawings. Except the drawings are much more entertaining.

People have taken their "creative liberties" to an abusive level. As I was reading this article I couldn't help but wonder if there was a way of putting legal restrictions or limitations on the proportional aspects of typefaces, alright silly I know. I realize that is ridiculous but does anyone have a better solution? I would even try the whole "knowing is half the battle" stance, but it's way too obvious to me that there's no way to educate these people properly. They're trained to shove characters, not use their forms to benefit the ads. P.S. people at work are admittedly afraid of the moment I snap because I get so fed up. I'm sorry, but expanding a letter to 125% horizontally just to accommodate a fool isn't a great way to start off the day. Yikes!


My theory: there's a small war going on and although designers/typographers are struggling to keep the delicacies of our alphabetic characters intact, there is also a portion of the culture whom (through pure ignorance) neglect and destroy that certain sensitivity other try so hard to achieve... oh, in the name of advertising?!

It's our job to help these folks understand what they're doing. We're supposed to charge ourselves with that responsibility as designers. The good news is that there does seem to be an integration between design and the American advertising culture happening more now than ever, amen. BUT, if someone is willing to listen to my ideas, I know I have to take it upon myself to show them the best way to use, not only type but also image, color, etc.

•Here's some examples, I worked on these Friday... and cried.. :O)

To be a graphic designer you need to know how to draw, paint, and use the computer. We are in school to learn these things, and how to use them together to design. We learn how to look at type, and to appreciate it for more than just a letter. We see it as more. We know the difference between good and bad type. The difference between an ear, tail, what x height is, or what the base line is. But sadly as the author has said any old person who knows how to go online can buy the program to make their own type. So what makes up a piece of type means nothing to them. This is a sad fact to me. You don’t have to be trained to understand, or even learn what makes one type different from another. It wouldn’t surprise me if someone with these programs didn’t know the difference between garamond and comic sans. I have respect for creators of both. But comic sans is not a font that is good in anyway, except in very few circumstances. Buying a type program is like someone saying, “I’m going into graphic design because I like to use the computer, but I don’t like art.” You need to know the different principles and forms of art to be a designer. Just like you need to study type to create it. Just because you have a program that designs type does not mean you are a typographer, or just because you have a stethoscope doesn’t make you a doctor. All these programs are here for, is to make money. Who cares if it, as the author says “Goudy and Baskerville must be spinning in their graves.” As a sign of respect to our fathers in type, type should be respected. Not just thrown off to anyone who can use a computer. As I see it, these programs are a slap in the face to all designers, not just the ones of the past.

Group A