Dropbox Paper

Week 3 Discussion Question/Comment

Crystal Goblet Vs. Drowning the Crystal Goblet

In what instance is the Crystal Goblet’s idea of invisible presentation a good fit, and when is the opposite idea of presentation that adds to the substance a better method?

Butterick suggests that the goblet analogy is not a proper description of the relationship between typography and words and that helium inside a balloon would be a more proper fit because the balloon gives “shape and visibility to something that otherwise can’t be seen.” Do you agree with this idea that typography shapes the text or do you think that Warde’s idea of invisibility is more fitting?

I found myself agreeing with Butterick more so than Warde’s views on typography. Warde states that typography is not considered a work of art by typographers. She states that printing is still a living and active form of communication and language proves typography cannot be an art. However, Butterick argues that the typeface and style we pick goes hand in hand with the overall concept or idea designers are presenting. I agree with Warde in the sense that typography is a form of communication. However, I think a form of communication and art can go hand in hand. Like Butterick states, I think it further strengthens the idea we are presenting and adds interesting elements when there is a merge between communication and art.

The idea that typography should be isolated and kept separate from the arts because of the function it serves in our everyday lives is a statement that opens the floodgates around the idea of what art is, and what art is made from. To reframe this mindset on a larger scale, we could look at color and its many uses. Nature is full of color, but so are cities and shopping centers. Color is something all of us encounter all day long (not unlike typography) that has both aesthetic and functional purposes. A t-shirt can be red, but so can a stop sign or a fire hydrant. So how can we use color in art when its already serving a purpose somewhere else? Easily. Because things have many forms and many functions. The beauty of art is that it’s in the eye of the beholder, which means that typography can serve as something beautiful as well as functional. I don’t agree with the idea that typography is meant to be invisible, because I think that, in one way or another, everything is designed to be seen.

Warde Beatrice wrote that ‘modernist’ in the sense in which she is talking throughout the whole reading she kept emphasizing on how a particular object should look like and what must it do. in Matthew Butterick’s writing he mainly talked about the metaphor of typography being the visual component of a written word as it had no visual characteristics. As he continues to end the article about the fusion between text and typography along with the idea of ‘invisibility’ and how it essentially makes typography important. After reading the two, how do you interpret the role of typography in today’s very digital world? To an extent is all good typography modernist?

I think that the role of typography depends on the context of its use. When typography is used in large bodies of text such as textbooks, it is used mainly for legibility purposes. Warde’s argument limits typography to this purpose only, hence her view that typography should ‘be invisible.’ However, I think typography can also be used in more artistic and stylistic ways, too – to make patterns, as an interesting visual tool in editorial designs, in branding, etc. Therefore, I agree more with Butternick’s view that typography should be a visual component – not invisible – and that it has something meaningful to offer in and of itself.

Typography exists everywhere, and within each context the text needs to achieve different things, so it is impossible to decide if this metaphor is true or if it is irrelevant and outdated like Butterick said. In what cases should the typography should fade into the background and let the text stand out, and when should the typography be used enhance the text?

Like all aspects of design, I think typography is subjective to what it is being used for. Both authors agree on the fact that “typography shouldn’t diminish the meaning,” but Warde has stronger opinions on how the subject matter should be top priority while stylization is secondary. Depending on the medium - poster, book, web page, etc. and all of the internal factors of those like size, paper texture, color choice, etc. all play a role in determining both the importance and effectiveness of the text. With that, I don’t believe typography should ever be invisible to the reader or designer, simply because it wouldn’t be design without intention.

In Matthew Butterick's response, he says "typography is the visual component of the written word" which I agree with. When working with text decisions are made for 'visibility' like when styled for an album cover. I drew a parallel with an article I was reading "Rhetoric Of The Image" by Roland Barthes where he delves into the linguistic message and how type and image work together. In the excerpt, he also brings up the power of typography, how with just words one can draw conclusions and make connections. Type replies- in a more or less direct manner to any questions. The subjectivity of typography obviously comes into play whenever used which we can see in the differences between Warde and Butterick. If I didn't agree with Butterick why would I be here?

Both articles discuss the importance of typography in their own strong opinions. Beatrice Warde stresses her opinion on the glass in relation to typography, and how the clear color of it relates to book pages. Butterick’s article is stating that “Rather than wine in a goblet, a more apt parallel might be helium in a balloon: the balloon gives shape and visibility to something that otherwise cannot be seen.” Butterick is strongly opposed to Warde’s opinion and wrote, “the highest calling of presentation is to get out of substance’s way.” Is that true?

Warde states that “type well used is invisible as type, just as the perfect talking is the unnoticed vehicle for the transmission of words, ideas.” She talks about bad type gets in the way of the mental picture to be conveyed through warping of design or excess of ‘colour’. However Butterick argues that typography is the visual component of the word, and rather than using the example of wine in a goblet, he brings up the parallel of helium in a balloon giving shape and visibility to something that otherwise cannot be seen. I agree with Butterick’s argument more in that typography styled can also add meaning and emphasize the text further.

I think the arguments brought up regarding typography and its place in the art world is really fascinating. I think the Beatrice Warde essay brings up a great point about we are typing and what the copy is, specifically for printed material. It’s funny reading this and learning it was written in 1932, because while that was a long time ago, reading it felt so “2020”. Matthew Butterick says, “the written word is a fusion of text and typography, substance and presentation. In that regard, typography might be more like seasoning in a casserole: it doesn’t change the nutritional value, but it definitely makes the dish more flavorful and enjoyable.” This really articulates what good typography does, especially when the text is strong (which is initially what I think Warde is arguing.)

I don’t think I’ve really thought about typography in the way Beatrice Warde does, especially when she talks about how book typography and invisible typography is the gateway to visual images that we wouldn’t receive from stories with out text. Matthew Butterick says something similar in his article, that without typography words have no visual characteristics. I think I haven’t really payed attention to this effect just because like hoe Warde describes it..it becomes invisble and I am least conscious of that window.

I don’t agree with Beatrice Warde’s thoughts on type at all, because she sets rules for type that she persuades the audience to strictly go by. This concept leaves little room for creative thinking and freedom. Although, I found it very interesting how she described type as a gateway to graphics illustration. Her ideas about type are very similar to Matthew Butterick’s where he states that basically type should not be considered an object. I disagree with this because in my opinion the most interesting type compositions treat the lettering as objects.