Helvetica

I really enjoyed the film Helvetica, as I found it interesting to hear the different views on typography and the type Helvetica from a variety of designers. The things that I was not aware of before I had seen this film are; the fact that when Helvetica first came out designers loved neutralism and that is why they loved the type as it was clean and neutral. I also did not know its history, e.g. that it was designed by Edward and Alfred Hoffman in the 1960s in Switzerland and that it was Stempel who mentioned that idea of first calling the typeface Helveti (which is Latin for Switzerland). They decided to change it Helvetica as Edward Hoffman did not want to call it after a country.

 Specific things surprised throughout the film such as, the amount of designers who have different views on type, some of these were; that type should be expressive and should communicate the word it is trying to show and it should give a feeling/emotion, another view was that type should have an order therefore must aligned in grids and always be readable. It was surprising to see what Helvetica meant to a variety designers and how almost every opinion which was given was different in one way or more.

Parts of the film were quite humorous, for example when one of the designers pointed out Helvetica used in every life on the streets, and it was unbelievable how many things it was used for but where unnoticed e.g. Litter on a street bin. The amount that was shown was so surprising that it made you laugh. Also the way Stefan Sagmeister described what he felt and saw when he looked at Helvetica, how when it is used in just black lettering on the front of booklet which was white it said do not read me am boring, this added humour to the film. I also agreed with his point slightly that sometimes when a typeface is used and it is too simple and is just placed in black lettering on white paper it can look boring and not interest the reader at all.

A new designer that I would like to look into more detail is Michael C. Place this is because he was honest in saying how he did not know the technical side to typography but likes to take something ordinary and make it look beautiful, and enjoys designs that give the viewer emotion and feeling when looking at the piece. He also likes the idea of Helvetica and takes pride in taking the challenge of trying to change it to make it more beautiful but still recognisable as the typeface. The pieces of his own work that he showed I thought were rather interesting, and you could clearly see that he was taking an ordinary typeface and adding something to it to make more attractive to glaze upon. Another designer I found interesting was David Carson, however he not a new designer to myself, this is because I studied him during my time doing Advanced Art. All though it was great to hear his opinion of typography and I was not aware that he did not actually study it and thought it was inspiring that he just did what he felt was right and came out a great result at the end. I like the point he made about how type should communicate a feeling or emotion and used an article he designed as an example which he done in the font Dingbats, this was because he felt that the article was badly written and was boring to read and decided it was not worth reading therefore put it a typeface which was not legible.

At the start of the film I personally felt that they about the technical side to typography and go into great detail about the anatomy of Helvetica, which Carter explains and why certain parts of it were made that way, however meaningful statements about the type are added in now and again. As the film progresses the description of typography becomes a lot more expressive and meaningful and it discusses how type communicate something e.g. the smoothness of Helvetica almost looks humanist, and how it can affect someone.

After seeing the film, the way I will approach talking about type in the future I will be describing how it communicates what the design is saying and why it was chosen for that particular use. I would also go slightly into more detail in the technical side for example about the anatomy and hierarchy of the type. The film has made me think a lot more about Helvetica but it has not changed my stance as I was already pro-Helvetica but I would still would only use it for certain things, just communicate information. Even though Helvetica has been around for years and is everywhere, so I have grown up seeing Helvetica but its name was something I was not aware of it until recently. I think I would mainly use Helvetica for a something that has to be readable for example a sign or a main body of text.

Thats a Saucy Type

Getting Around

Sans serif fonts are used in this McGill's weekly bus ticket, this makes the ticket readable and legible. The use of different weights and scales highlights the important information within the ticket and the capital letters used at the start of every word signifies a different piece of information. 

The most prominent piece on this design is the date in which the ticket expires and the zone of the bus route, this has been done because the driver needs to be able to read the date so that it is obvious to them when a new ticket must be purchased and the zone is so the price can be calculated. The type is centre alignment and the date and zone have a bold weight when the rest is regular. 

The ticket is mainly used by students and business people mostly, this is why I think different coloured boxes are down the right and left side of the ticket as to appeal to everyone, however I do think a boarder of squares should be used rather than just down two sides as to appeal to children as well. The need of this item is so there is proof that you have actually purchased a unlimited travel ticket for the week and the date is also proof of this fact. I feel there is to much information on the ticket which is not required e.g. the information on the bottom of the ticket.  

&&&

The ampersand I have chosen from the 'Coming Together' font varies in weight from bold to fine lines, the fine lines which swirl around the symbol make it quite feminine and make it look more like a humanist letter form. The use of the bold weight in the design take away the calligraphy style and make it more digital, the use if this clearly show that the symbol is, &. 
The ascender gets finer and becomes the details around the symbol as well as part of it. If the scale was decreased then it would make it look squashed and it would be very difficult to see the intricate lines but you maybe able to still make the symbol out. 
The 'ET' can be seen however not very clearly the design has to be analysed to make it out . The whole design reminds me slightly of the art nouveau movement as the delicate detail which has been added to make the symbol more pleasing to look at also, the feminine feel to the design emphasises this as well. 

Alignment Exercise

When she states "not 'How it should look?" but 'What must it do?' and to that extent all good typography is modernist". I agree with this point that the type must do something such as communicate a particular meaning or emotion, and that it must be readable however I do feel that sometimes is also how the font should look and that it should look good for a certain design as to catch the eye of a viewer/reader. 

I also agree with the idea she gives that for a book the type should almost be invisible, and just there for the purpose to be read. The example she uses is ' I have a book at home, of no visual recollection whatever as far as its typography goes; when I think of it, all I see is the Three Musketeers and their comrades swaggering up and down the streets of Paris.' I believe that a good type should be used on the cover of a book as to draw the reader in but the one used for the main body text should be used to read and the reader should be more interested in the story being told than the type which has been used to tell it. 

Modular Grid Excerise