That amounts to 16 typefaces, and it's not like I didn't know how to classify them, but rather the miscellaneous folder includes display typefaces of varying classifications which I could have sorted among the other folders but I like to keep them in a distinct folder because the designs are distinct. *This doesn't happen as often as you might expect, as I currently have over 2500 pictures of typefaces sorted on my computer according to my own classification system with only 93 pictures in a miscellaneous folder. A type classification system should probably stand at the base of the rest you mention. A type classification system and the rest you mention are not mutually exclusive. They're still working very well for me though and serves as a basis for all the characteristics and elements you mention. I'm very aware of the limitations of classification systems, how some typefaces don't fit within certain classifications* and how predominantly new typefaces tend to not fit nicely within classes any longer. As for when it does seem outdated, how about upgrading the type classification system? Firstly, I was making a consideration of classification about a typeface based on a historical one, so at least within this context the type classification system is not outdated. As for classification systems being outdated, I have two responses to that. I agree they are limited, but still very useful. I think you shouldn't waste time on these classifications systems, they are really limited and outdated. Valentina feels like a mix of Bodoni and Fleischmann. Essentially it just means the designer hopes somebody searching bodoni will find his font and like it. What happens with boxes is you always end up with boxes for "whatever don't fit in those other boxes".Īlso, the tags on myfonts don't mean much. They're necessary to give some initial understanding to students and beginners, but otherwise, describing typefaces by characteristics and other elements such as time of creation, epoch, country, mixes of influences… makes more sense to me – and is much more interesting – then trying to make them fit into boxes with essentially historical parameters. What difference do you see in serif style between Romain and Sang Bleu?įor me Didones represent a pointed pen contrast, which Romain clearly isn't. Am I right to consider these typefaces to be transitional?Īlso, where exactly do you draw the line, or is there simply no line? I recently stumbled upon Valentina, which I would consider a didone but it's clearly blurring those lines quite a bit.īased on the serif style, Romain is a transitional and Sang Bleu is a modern.īoth are hybrid, post-modernistic typefaces. So how would you label these typefaces? I think the flat top serifs give the designs a didone atmosphere, but they're less mechanical and lack the teardrop terminals usually associated with the didone style. On Wiescher's website his Royal Romain is labeled under "Antiqua fonts". Gert Wiescher designed a digital version called Royal Romain, which on MyFonts is tagged as Bodoni (which I don't quite see, but I suppose it could just refer to Giambattista Bodoni's work in general) and Didone. The design of both typefaces is obviously inspired by Romain du Roi, which I always thought of as a transitional typeface (though exploring the boundaries thereof as it clearly takes things further than Baskerville).
I have the feeling it's just the contrast that makes me think they're didone-like, while the model is actually transitional. Now, I have a bit of trouble with categorizing two of their typefaces: Romain and Sang Blue, which are both related. I saved pictures from typefaces from the foundry Swiss Typefaces and I always sort out the pictures I save according to category so I can find everything back on my computer.
0 kommentar(er)
