laser-lovers@uw-beaver (05/14/85)
From: Chuck Bigelow <CAB@SU-AI.ARPA> Dear Brian & Lester: The "spacing dialogue" is entertaining so far, but you could significantly expand it by including discussion of another dimension of spacing: "Good vs. Bad" spacing. This is an area where dogmatism rather than sophistry is most efficacious. In other words, the discussion should ask (and answer) the question: "What is good spacing?" rather than to equivocate with dicta like: "There are many kinds of spacing, therefore goodness or badness is relative." The best dogmatic discussion of spacing is by Jan Tschichold in his great book, TREASURY OF ALPHABETS AND LETTERING, Reinhold, New York, 1966. Tschichold is regarded by many as the greatest typographic theorist (and practitioner) of the 20th century. The other candidate for "Summus" is Stanley Morison, so now we know that were talking about some very heavy dudes, here. The TREASURY is mostly reproductions of beautiful alphabets, but it has some introductory text which is notable not only for its dogmatism but also its rectitude. He was right in 1966 and he is still right today. There are chapters such as: "Lettering as a Work of Art"; "Good and Bad Letters"; "The Use of Capitals"; "Arranging Lower Case", and other important topics. Here is one brief selection: "If one takes the trouble to investigate why today's lettering does not look as well as the most perfect of past lettering specimens, he will find that the past used a different rhythm. The lower case letters were not as crowded together as they are today. The old lettering masters followed the rule that all the basic strokes of a word should be spaced at approximately equal distance. This rule is disregarded today. This is why much lettering and even the better typefces look deficient. The old rule, however, is still valid." He then gives visual examples of good and bad spacing. He does not bother to distinguish between "geometric" (or "linear") and "typographic" scaling and spacing, since he is only concerned with TYPOGRAPHY, not with geometry, and in any case he wants only perfection and beauty. It is possible to learn something from this guy. In fact, this is probably a better introductory text than others I have listed for this net, since it discusses the bases for the good, the true, and the beautiful in typography (and perhaps other Platonic verities). --Chuck Bigelow $