full and final essay
Word count: 5,511 including headings and references - rounded down to 5,500
Included Images:
(Figure 1) Tri Le.
(2019) Calligraphy Lessons: Blackletter (part 1), YouTube.com
(Figure 2) Plogged
(2019) Trailblazers International logo,
Dribble.com
(Figure
3) Uswitch (2017). New Nokia 3310 Vs old Nokia
3310: what's the difference?. Uswitch.com
(Figure
4) Sub Rosa (2016). The 'Memoire' Typeface Changes Like a Memory
as You Use It. wired.com - https://www.wired.com/2016/01/the-memoire-typeface-changes-like-a-memory-as-you-use-it/
(Figure 5) Lou Alsop
(2019). Email Interview conducted by Sol Chadwick
(Figure
6) Dieter Steffmann (2010).
whatfontis.com https://www.whatfontis.com/Old-London-Alternate.font
(Figure 7) Velvetyne (2019). Oceane Juvin’s Typefesse. Velvetyne.fr
www.velvetyne.fr/fonts/typefesse/
Has form become paramount to
function for applications of typography within the fashion industry?
When Louis Sullivan famously
proclaimed, ‘form ever follows function’, (Lippincott's, 1896) later
misquoted and simplified to “form follows function”, he was talking within the
context of early modernist architecture, yet the phrase has echoed throughout
the full spectrum of design even to this day. Perhaps function does hold
greater prevalence within the architectural field due to the, quite literal,
gravity of that specific area of design, however Frank Lloyd Wright who worked for Sullivan
extended the infamous quote to ‘form and function are one’ (Wright,
1954). Sixty plus years later and design within the fields of typography and
fashion, is still perceivably coming from a function-lead standpoint, but how
might our attitudes towards the balance or even the definitions of the terms
themselves be changing?
This text
will attempt to break down the two pillars of contemporary design and give
historical discourse as a means of performing this delicate task. If one pillar
is form and one is function in this metaphorical house, then what are the
foundations? And what legacy does the building have? The second element of
structural interplay within our hypothetical construction are two pillars of
design discipline typography and fashion. Although not regularly discussed
together these two crafts have a strong interplay with the design principles of
form and function and are both increasingly linked within the postmodernist
era. A practitioner from either discipline can theoretically design
cross-industry due to the close link between the structure of type and that of
the human body. Design as a whole is more fluid than ever before due to the
access to different crafts and tools presented by the information age.
Designers no longer need to hone their skillset to one profession but can treat
their approach to form and function as a fluid and holistic vessel.
Form
To simplify the seemingly
vague notion of typographic “form” we can split it down into two fundamental
factors, silhouette and structure. Bruno Munari sums up the importance of
silhouette by saying ‘The lines and the blank spaces between one letter and the
next all contribute to giving the word its overall shape” then discussing the
power of easily recognisable silhouettes created by major brands, going on to summarise
‘These we seize at a glance, without having to spell out each letter or
syllable’ (Munari and Creagh, 2008). The
combination of characters presented in, for example, the Dior logo, give
instant and powerful recognition at a glance due to their regular appearance in
our consumerist culture. This not only influences our comprehension of form but
also provides an idea that form can blur the lines between semantics and
semiotics when considering written discourse. In the modern world of branding
bombardment, there is a case to be made for the concept that we no longer “read”
any global brands logo syllable by syllable but instead the forms presented to
us trigger a semiotic memory response that saves us the hassle.
Structure governs the
internal configuration of a letterform. This concerns space and layout of a
variety of internal forms eventually viewed in a holistic manner. For example,
structure can encompass characteristic forms such as stems, bowls and serifs,
often governed by an overarching grid layout (Bigelow,
1989). Systems of typographic structure build patterns of comprehension,
which help us establish continuity amongst a typeface establishing a distinct
visual code between typographic genres. For example, isometric grids are used
within traditional blackletter, owed to the roughly 45° angle of the pen nib
(figure 1). Stylistically this structure is disparate from the asymmetric
systems, employing modules, observed within International Style (figure 2).
‘The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
It is more correct to say that the whole is something else than the sum of its parts,
because summing is a meaningless procedure, whereas the whole-part relationship
is meaningful.’ (Koffka, 1935)
Gestalt theory explains
how we can perceive numerous variables within typographic form holistically as
a singular new entity. The theory encompasses both aspects of silhouette and
structural elements, but three main principles are particularly applicable to
typography:
Proximity
demonstrates that elements depicted closest together are seen as groups, so the
space between objects with the closest proximity can be filled in as part of
the holistic form. This is applicable to both detached elements within a
character and the letters of a word.
Similarity governs that forms sharing
similar characteristics will be grouped by the eye creating another plane of
perception.
Finally, closure describes the innate human ability to close forms that are not
physically attached but imply that they could be along a particular plane of
vision. This principle can be lined to grid lines and structures as we can
often fill in a form along the lines of its subliminal grid (Waller, 1987).
The first conscious
applications of psychological theory such as Gestalt are found amongst the
modernist era, with the efficiency of typography as a communicative medium
paramount.
Jan Tschichold claimed, ‘modern
man must read quickly and exactly’, whilst harbouring a preference for san
serif forms that were a radical step away from their structuralist and more
decorative predecessors Bodoni and Didot. This new breed of structuralism used
Gestalt as a vessel for ‘defamiliarization’ a theory in which the world is
described as being ‘invisible until we are forced to see it differently’
incorporating ‘pure forms’ such as perfect geometries (Lupton and Miller, 2006).
Gestalt theories as a
subcategory of holism can then, not only, be applied to individual cases of
design but to the entirety of certain schools of modernism such as the Bauhaus
movement of cross-disciplinary design. Bauhaus is a particularly interesting point
within the form vs function debate. Although the ethos of the school is
function first, Tschichold describes it as the first time in history that
typographic form was recognised as ‘not independent but growing out of function’
instead of ‘artistic imagination’ as previously within the pre-modernist era (Tschichold and McLean, 2006). Tschichold was
also quoted as saying ‘We must ask ourselves…whether the result is pleasing,
whether we have achieved a balance. Provided the work is all right technically,
there is no other criterion for typographical design.’ (Tschichold, 1967). He provides a very measured definition to form and
describes it as a holistic system made up of a variety of stylistic components
including the influence of function.
An alternative definition
of form is provided by the subsequent movement of deconstructionism.
Deconstructionism was first coined by French Philosopher Jaques Derrida as a
subsection of ‘post-structuralism’ (Derrida, 1967). The basic premise was that deconstructionism
rejected previously held views on metaphysics, deconstructing philosophical
tradition and calling for many unconventional ideas and principles (Hoteit, 2015). The theories movement, from
the philosophical conjecture to the world of design, also derived through
Derrida as he collaborated with architect Peter Eisenman in the 1980s. Based on
the principle that architecture is a language of communication and therefore
deconstructive techniques are applicable, the pair explored asymmetry within
geometries, fragmenting traditionally Russian Constructivist forms (Stouhi, 2018).
But what does
deconstructivism have to do with typography and fashion design? Many notable
practitioners have adopted the movements disdain for conformity and constructionist
rules as a means of visual protest against traditional values. Some of the most
well-documented applications of deconstructive typography, within the fashion
industry, are designed by Neville Brody.
Brody produced
commercially viable, deconstructivist typography from the 1980s onwards. He worked alongside
his design practice, Research Studios, often taking on clients suited to
deconstructionism’s rejection of classical aesthetics, ensuring that the genre
wasn’t just a ‘trend’ and demonstrating that his work is appropriate and varied
(Creative Bloq, 2005). His 2003 visual identity for the annual French fashion
show, ‘Who’s Next’ employs fragmentation of a contrasting lightweight and extra
bold neo-grotesque typeface with the removal of some of the letters internal
negative spaces, allowing for a ‘contemporary punk-aesthetic twist’ to an
otherwise very practical aesthetic (Fawcett-Tang
and Jury, 2007).
Contrasting grid structure
for typographic layout and deconstructive typographic forms gives Brodys work a
measured sense of chaos that fits perfectly for many fashion-based movements.
The approach dictates the rhythm at which the eye progresses over the page,
helping the technique, somewhat paradoxically, to sit between the
destruction of function (form) and functional outcomes as the reader pieces
together the information at the typographers desired.
Another Neville Brody
fashion-related project followed in 2009 with custom type and editorial for
Homme+ magazine. Employing a similar interpretation of Derrida’s principles, Brody’s non-conformist style
was apt for an issue covering the similarly controversial and industry defying collective the 1980’s Buffalo movement (Etherington, 2009). The custom-made Buffalo
typeface once again reflects the juxtaposition of order and chaos with:
‘some
strict rules about how the radius of its curves increase as the weight gets
thinner, resulting in some beautiful and unexpected shapes at the lightest end, (and) some
bold, chunky street-wise character at the heaviest end’
as described by Neville
Brody in an interview with Print Magazine (Heller, 2018). Brody’s work provides an example of typically form tropes being
prioritised over function to communicate a visual message. Therefore, form can
be described as the deconstruction of function, making deconstructivism a key
reference point when considering the relationship between the two polar
categories.
Whereas Brody’s medium is
primarily analogue, with hand deconstructed forms designed for print
applications, today deconstructivism, and typographic form in general, can take
on new and exciting forms.
This is due to the impact of the pixel. A new
structure underpins typographic form, from the simplistic bitmap typefaces of
the 90s (figure 3) to today’s generative typography that reacts to its
environment.
Typographic form no longer
has to be consistent from one character application to the next. Deconstruction
of form can thrive in a digital age, because silhouette and structure are no
longer confined to the one-time kinetic gestures of the human or machine input
but instead can seemingly have their own autonomy. An example of this is
presented by (figure 4) Memoir is a mutating generative typeface that’s serif
silhouette degrades over time, softening as a metaphor for fading of memories (Stinson, 2016). However, as Eric Gill pointed
out in his famous ‘Essay on Typography’
‘Humane Typography will often be (...) uncouth; but while a
certain uncouthness does not seriously matter in humane works, uncouthness has
no excuse whatever in the productions of the machine. So, while in an
industrialist society it is technically easy to print any kind of thing, in a
humane society only one kind of thing is easy to print, but there is every
scope for variety and experiment in the work itself.’
The point he’s making is
that the withdrawal of the hand should not limit freedom of form. Overly
computerised typography can lead to the production of function heavy faces that
no longer have a sense of humanism, but generative type offers a new way for
form to flourish in a vein the industry has never seen before. With the input
of artificial intelligence, we could be discussing typographic form as not only
a human construct but something that can be replicated by intelligent machinery
upon its own volition. The following quote by John M. Culkin perfectly sums up
the relationship between designer and their medium and how both designer and
tool contribute to final form in a two-way process.
‘Life imitates
art. We shape our tools and thereafter they shape us. These extensions of our
senses begin to interact with our senses. These media become a massage.’ (Culkin, 1967)
The afore mentioned
movement of deconstructionism is also very applicable to the discipline of fashion
design. Sharing a similar trajectory with a sharp rise to commercial viability
in the 1990s. Where regimented and functional tailored forms had previously
dominated, deconstructionism threatened to expose the internal craftsmanship
behind the “finished” outcome.
Martin Margiela was one of
the pioneering figures in the movement’s commercialisation. He pulled back the metaphorical curtain
to expose the ‘secrets’ behind structural craft (Barnard and Gill, 1998) Much like his typographic
contemporaries, Margiela threatened our preconceived notion of function and
practicality, subverting fusty traditions to create forms that either exposed the
wearer or the manufacturing process. Bill Cunningham was the first fashion
commentator to describe Margiela’s work as deconstructivism when speaking of
his second collection
‘the
structure of the design appears under attack, displacing seams, tormenting the
surface with incisions’ and likening the designers use of structure to ‘architectural
techniques’ (Cunningham, 1989)
These words give an idea of the cultural impact of
Margiela’s work, it’s almost as though the designer is at war with the literal,
and metaphorical fabric of the industry. His work also supports the hypothesis
that form is, or at least can, derive from the deconstruction of function.
An
alternative stylistic genre found within the fashion industry can be attributed
to Margiela’s Belgian compatriot Raf Simons. The antithesis of
Margiela’s passion for deconstruction, Simons presented a different flavour within
his collections, favouring a combination of minimalist and purist forms,
adorned in vibrant colour pallets with firm reference to youth culture and
contemporary art. However, he has famously proclaimed
‘It is quite wrong to say I'm a minimalist’,
reacting to the fact that he gets ‘stamped all the time: conceptual designer,
minimal designer… but I don't have to be the avant-garde kid now: I'm not 25,
I'm 45.’ (Fisher, 2013)
Simons has a different
relationship with form, as he is not degrading traditional function like his
deconstructive contemporaries, but instead perpetuates a purer approach. This takes us back towards Louis
Sullivan hypothesis of ‘form ever follows function’, an outlook that can also be
compared to the likes of Bauhaus and European Modernism (Fury, 2017). Presenting this more practical relationship, with form, as an
embellishment of function, could stem from Simons’ background in furniture
design (Annetta, 2019). Wrapped up with a powerful sense of nostalgia, his
unique blend of style leads demonstrates that form can be undertaken from a
pragmatic standpoint.
One designer that shares Raf Simons cross-discipline approach and
link the two fields of typography and fashion design is Louise Alsop. Alsop
attained her fashion bachelors in 2013 and received Fashion East funding for
her own, self-named, label in 2015 (Londonfashionweek.co.uk,
n.d.). However, her subsequent output has been primarily typography and
print-based media for the likes of Liam Hodges and Sort Magazine, showing that
the two disciplines are intrinsically linked.
Alsop takes up a
distinctively postmodern perspective when approaching her practice stating:
‘I don't want to be
influenced by something that’s already happening. I want to be pushing
boundaries, so my influences are mainly from outside the worlds or graphics and
fashion’ (figure 5).
Postmodernist design differs from the
deliberate subversion tactics employed by modernists, as contemporary designers
strive for innovation through unconventional means. A result of this
cross-disciplinary mentality allows designers to have a very different
relationship with form and function. For example, Alsop says:
‘Creating prints and graphics was (...) one of the first things I
did when designing a collection, to get a better sense of the vibe. When
freelancing for others the garments are already designed most of the time so I
just try and use the garment as a starting point and see how far we can go!’.
(figure 5)
The ability to work from
either perspective demonstrates that you do not necessarily need a clear idea
of the final outcome in your head when embarking on a project that includes two
or more disciplines of design. The silhouette and structure of a garment
doesn’t have to govern the typographic silhouette and structure and vice-versa.
This approach implies that the function of a wearable garment can be based on
typographic form, therefore although function is still a concern it doesn’t
have to be the primary consideration.
However, when questioned on
the importance of legibility within typographic applications Alsop stated:
‘There has been a shift which has seen less legible type's printed
on garments, but I think it’s just a trend right now... To me the words or text
used on clothing have meaning, to me, that’s why they're being put on a
garment. The garment is saying something that the wearer wants to say or
embody. Over the years we've worn garments with text or slogans, which enable
us to express something about ourselves and the things we love. To give us
identity. So, for me, typography has to be legible and I think this stands the
test of time.’ (figure 5)
She demonstrates the
importance of legibility and readability in a traditional sense within fashion
applied typography. Perhaps unsurprisingly rounding off the interview with the
opinion that form follows function within both fashion and typographic design
and stating
‘I design to be worn, lived in, and loved. I'm
not an artist’ (figure 5).
Expressing the opinion that timeless
typography is legible offers an interesting perspective as of course our ideas
of what legibility and readability are is changing all the time. Typefaces,
such as traditional, gothic blackletters, would have been perceived as highly
legible when popular between the 12th and 17th century. This is due to the
differential between the hand-drawn characters (Dowding, 1962). However, today
certain blackletter forms such as the lowercase “v” in blackletter face ‘Old
London’ would probably be mistaken for a “b” by an untrained eye (figure 6). This
suggests that our understanding of legibility must to some extent be
progressive as technologies, techniques and trends evolve.
A key concept to understand is that form is not a vague
notion of beauty, it is an honest portrayal of an object without any obligation
to represent the aesthetically pleasing or interesting. Comprising the
intrinsic stylistic elements of silhouette and structure. To comprehend
typographic form, we subconsciously apply principals of holism or Gestalt to
make an assessment of what its purpose may be. We take this information loop
for granted because its mostly disregarded within seconds. There’s little doubt
that in a postmodernist world there is more forms for us to reckon with on a
daily basis because so many applications of form have the desired function of
consuming our attention. Functional design became such a tired medium, wrapped
up in tradition and historical discourse that in the 20th and 21st
century, so far, both typographic and fashion designers have, at times literally,
cut up functionality and reconstituted it to form new narratives. Form is
adaptive in its nature, a contrast to the its counterpoint function. Defined by
its innate fluidity to functions concrete structure. It is a universal language
that goes beyond segmented disciplines of design and allows contemporary
designers to express their desired aesthetic without limitations.
Function
Logically function is the counterpoint of form, even if the debate
isn’t as simple as that. Although the evident interplay between the two values
has already been discussed, they remain the two balancing factors that design
requires to be effective.
Legibility
and readability give the parameters for typographic function in much the same
way that we can split down form into silhouette and structure. Ambrose and
Harris state ‘the two forms are used synonymously but legibility refers to the
ability to distinguish between one letterform and another through the physical
characteristics inherent in a typeface’ whereas readability refers to the basis
of function, ‘a typefaces ability to be read’ (Ambrose and Harris, 2006). The first consideration for
both of these variables is context and audience, effective communication must be easily understood by its audience.
Marshall McLuhan described
how ‘new electronic independence’ would continue to make our modern world a
semi-paradoxical space called ‘the global village’
(McLuhan, 1962). The increased interconnectivity between world
citizens creates a community that is both easily accessible and familiar, yet
also detached and alienating. It’s as though
we are living in a small community populated by people from all over the world.
Of course, McLuhan made this statement before the invention of the internet so
had no idea to what extent it may come true.
The
global village explains McLuhan’s outlook on the overarching field of
globalization. The effects of heightened interconnectivity on typography have
been vast, as now an individual is far more immersed in typographic practice
than ever before. One major benefit of this is that
typefaces can be increasingly culturally appropriate. A range of
sources are at the fingertips of typographers everywhere, for semiotic styles
on the other side of the world, making graphic design a borderless, truly
global industry. However, one potential drawback is the limited scope for
expression presented by an increasing shift to a universal typographic
style.
Despite
the typographic genre, “international typographic style” existing since the
modernist movement, universal style amongst high fashion branding specifically
is a relatively recent revolution. It is typically
characterised by ‘Cleanliness. Readability. Objectivity.’ This meticulous
approach used grids and often uni-width stokes to create pure forms, for global
recognition, and represents the first major attempt to create a global
typographic consensus (Budrick, 2019). In turn, rejecting the individual,
cultural typographic tropes of the past. Due however to the
comparatively small capitalisation of the genre and traditionalist values of
the industry, universal style, never really penetrated high fashion branding
throughout the 20th century. This changed nearly 100 years after International
style rose to prominence in the 2010s, marking a remarkably uniform change to
some of the most recognisable faces in haute couture.
David
Rudnick is quoted as saying that fashion houses are ‘removing the shadow of the
ego that they’re stepping into, by removing the presence of the great legacy
designer of the house’ (Stanley et al., 2018). An example of this is Burberry’s
move from a traditional English, engravers style serif to a Univers variant
designed by Swiss designer and late exponent of international style Adrian
Frutiger.
Therefore,
international style is back, but the context behind its reappearance has to be
taken into account when making comments on the functionality of type. Whereas
in the early 20th century it was a typically modernist rejection of the
traditional typographic culture. In 2019 it’s a post-modernist move to both
unify an ever-growing consumer market and innovate in a way that ‘hasn’t been
seen before’. Of course, when considering the international stylisation of high
fashion logotypes, the typography itself has been seen before but not
ordinarily applied to a couture context and that is the postmodernist utopia.
As
typographers further struggle to create truly original forms within ‘the global
village’ the recycling of concepts that people have forgotten, to new
generations, will only continue to prevail into an increasingly uniform,
international, graphic code. Often contributing to cryptomnesia around the
origins of “modern” typographic styles and eventually leading to metanarratives
forming around the true origin of typographic styles (Mambrol, 2016). This
concept suggests that function is paramount to form within the debate, as
typefaces are simplified for ease of readability by
the masses and a “new” international standard can be established.
International
standardisation works for global fashion juggernauts where the “maison” has
become a “manoir”, but would the application of this globalised aesthetic, work
for far smaller self-titled startups?
Gaetan Bernedes 2019 logotype for highly
regarded Central St Martins, fashion graduate Arturo Obegero, features a ‘serif
that creates a balance between elegance and modernity (...) evoking movement
and sensuality’. ‘The effortless continuous line suggests a personal signature
and reveals a timeless aesthetic’ (Obegero, 2019).
Immediately
through the language used to describe the identity, there is a clear preference
for autonomy over universal readability. Almost the antithesis of Rudnick’s
comments on Burberry removing ego and legacy, Bernades has created a logotype
that will build a firm brand identity when in synergy with the morals and
output of the house. Obegero references the 2017 rebranded global fashion
house, Balenciaga as a stylistic influence (Stanley et al., 2018). Within a
2018 interview with TEETH magazine, he states
‘structured
volumes inspired by the couture of Cristóbal Balenciaga’ that juxtapose more
skin-tight forms as being a key stylistic currency of his house (Todorova,
2018). This demonstrates the functionality of branding provided to a graduate
fashion house will be entirely different to that of a global player, regardless
of their stylistic output.
It should
be considered that our definition of readability is somewhat transient alongside
the gradual movement away from written word within contemporary technologies. Whereas
at one point written communication would have been governed by a linguistic
approach there is evidence to suggest that our ever-increasing immersion in
typography and the nuances of graphic communication would make reading more of
a sign based semiotic task. Van Leeuwan cites the influence of ‘layout’ ‘colour’
and typographic form (van Leeuwen, 2006)
In 1955 however, Beatrice Ward described a typographers role
as ‘erecting a window between the reader inside the room and that landscape
which is the author's words’ therefore he has a duty to fit ‘transparent and
invisible’ windows as opposed to ‘stained-glass window of marvellous beauty,
but a failure as a window; that is, he may use some rich superb type like text
gothic that is something to be looked at, not through’ (Warde and Lange, 1980).
This perspective represents the written word as purely a vessel of function and
linguistics giving limited scope for sign based semiotic expression.
More
recent theorists such as Theo Van Leeuwen suggest that our perception of
typography is via a multi-modal approach going beyond just letterforms and ‘integrating
with other semiotic means of expression such as colour, texture, three-dimensionality,
and movement’ (van Leeuwen, 2006). Van Leeuwen describes a modern synergy
between illustration and letterforms, whereas previously multiple famous
practitioners had suggested that typography should not visually depict its
linguistic meaning, such as the famous Vignelli quote ‘I don’t believe that
when you write dog the type should bark!’ (Vignelli, 2010). In a crowded
typographic marketplace, designers are throwing away outdated and rigid advice
from modernists such as Vignelli and creating type that is in equal measures
image and text.
Figure 7 Offers an example by Oceane Juvin. Typefesse (Type
buttock) highly illustrative forms to create a face based on
the folds of the body, asking ‘Is it the letter that defines the bodies'
shapes, or is it the other way around?’ (Juvin, 2019). This approach redefines
the way we consider function as it makes the design process open ended. The
highly lateral concept almost treats image and type as one equal quantity, to
be balanced with no clear direction as to which has to influence the other.
Also creating a tangibility, within a traditionally 2D medium, that we can
quite literally embody.
To
understand the application of typography to wearable garments we must first
gain insight into the physical motor input that creates the type itself. Edward
Catich stated ‘Kinesthesis is a bodily sense, served by a special system of
nerves, by which patterns of muscle movements are controlled. In writing it
enables the hand to trace letters even when the eyes are shut’ (Catich, 1968).
Feeling typography as muscle memory gives a tangible humanist connection with
letterforms, as the human body almost acts as a mechanical tool. The focus on
type as a gesture, implemented through a scriptural tool, sounds like it would
only lend itself to hand scripture. Catich however went on to
elaborate that all input of mechanised type including the contemporarily
popular medium of engraving should have a sense of gesture and human
kinesthesis (F., Hout-Marchand, 2019).
Typography
has shoulders, legs, joints, feet, arms and contrast, all features eluding to
human form. These human-like features can provide explanations for the
prominence of serifs such as Didot and Bodoni within the industry and its
editorial applications. There have even been parallels drawn between the
adoption of Didone by Haut Couture magazine Vogue and the unattainably skinny
and rich body image promoted within the publication, due to the faces skeletal,
high contrast structures (Miller, Deberney and Cassandre, 2007). From a
semiotic perspective, it’s easy to see how type has derived from human or
animal forms. The building blocks of formative written communication would have
involved the trading of livestock, such as the famous example of the letter A
for an Ox’s head (Ambrose and Harris, 2006). Therefore, both fashion design and
typography can be described as extensions of the body.
Typographic
function within fashion design depends largely on the intended medium and
branch of fashion it relates to. Within “high fashion” type will often, but not
always, be used sparingly, or not at all, on garments that go down the runway.
At the other end of the typographic spectrum, there is ready to wear items and
streetwear. These articles tend to be cheaper and mass-produced, with loud and
brazen logotypes or experimentation with graphic elements and type, instead of
a focus on the cut and structure of the garment itself. Of course, high fashion
houses end up doing both with a majority of their profits coming from
accessories and ready to wear items such as T-shirts adorned with logotypes
galore.
The way we implement functionality has come a
long way since the Gutenburg press and the definition of what makes a typeface
functional is constantly shifting with the digital marketplace. Whereas
formerly the relationship would have gone hand to mechanised press to print we
now deal from hand to pixel to fabric or digital. This process change allows potential
outcomes to be near limitless and the process to be far quicker, giving freedom
of functionality. Due to this freedom and speed of creation there is a
spectrum of typography to take into account when regarding any contemporary
connotation of function. Different areas of the fashion industry rely on
different definitions of function depending almost entirely on their target
market and scale of operation. In a postmodern world there is opportunity for
both small fashion houses to adopt increasingly custom typefaces that reflect
their individuality and global houses to continue into the cooperate soup of
highly readable international style. Due to the application to the already
colourful and at times ornate world of fashion where brand identity can be
established through any number of visual signifiers. The trend seems to be for
the neutrality of Beatrice Wards ‘window
between the reader and the author's words’ or ornate typographic
forms that fight to gain a market share, there is little in between (Warde and
Lange, 1980). However, the definition of function itself is veering away from
linguistics into the less rigid world of semiotics, shaking some of its
outdated, traditional rules along the way and opening the viewers eyes to its
extremes.
Conclusion
Within the worlds of typography and
fashion design, form and function are unequivocally linked. Design without
function is no longer design but moves into the domain of art. Design without
form becomes raw, dispassionate information. But has form
become paramount to function for applications of typography within the fashion
industry? The first thing to admit is that perceptions of such a question may
be altered by our traditionally routed understanding of “function”. Throwing
away the preconception that function governs linguistic legibility is the first
step. We must accept the way in which we intake sensory information as
constantly developing as we become accustomed to certain signifiers. When you
read the name PRADA, for example, via its constituting forms, the logotype
triggers a cognitive pathway leading to instant recognition. We no long sound
out the phonetics of Pra—da because the task is superfluous (Munari and Creagh, 2008). In this sense movements back towards a universal style is
a risky move as fashion houses throw away their autonomic recognition. However,
it must be considered that typography “from” the western world is no longer
“for” the western world. Intercontinental marketplaces will continue to raise
new and challenging issues of recognition. This should allow smaller fashion
designers with more of a creative conscience to stake a market share as artisans
rarely want to be associated with global business to protect their autonomy of
their house through bespoke typographic forms that bridge between the tradition
of their craft and the modernity of their ideas. “Counter globalism” is
required to give start-up fashion houses appropriately tailored typography for
their practice, to communicate it to the target audience, people that know and
appreciate their work, for its subjective quality, not for the logo on
everyone’s t-shirts.
In a postmodernist world
where typographers are desperately trying to innovate and give the audience
forms, they have never seen before, inevitably the illusion of diminishing
function may present itself. However, the underlying requirements of the
industry will always be for functional forms, even if “functional typography”
means something completely different as communication evolves.
Therefore, form is not paramount
to function within fashion applied typography, nor is function paramount to
form. They must both be considered within the application of design in general
but especially to the two fields of design in question due to their tangible
elements of human interaction. The most apt quote that sums up the equilibrium
of these two pillars of contemporary design is still presented by the afore
mentioned Frank
Lloyd Wright ‘form and function are
one’ (Wright, 1954). Despite the contexts to which they might be applied
being more diverse than ever, a progressive typographer would need to have a
strong grasp of both variable in said context to produce effective
results.
Images (by figure):
(Figure 1) Tri Le. (2019) Calligraphy Lessons: Blackletter
(part 1), YouTube.com
(Figure 2) Plogged
(2019) Trailblazers International logo,
Dribble.com
(Figure
3) Uswitch (2017). New Nokia 3310 Vs old Nokia
3310: what's the difference?. Uswitch.com
(Figure 4) Sub Rosa
(2016), The 'Memoire' Typeface
Changes Like a Memory as You Use It, wired.com - https://www.wired.com/2016/01/the-memoire-typeface-changes-like-a-memory-as-you-use-it/
(Figure 5) Lou Alsop
(2019), Email Interview conducted by Sol Chadwick
(Figure 6) Dieter
Steffmann (2010), whatfontis.com https://www.whatfontis.com/Old-London-Alternate.font
(Figure 7) Velvetyne (2019), Oceane Juvin’s Typefesse, Velvetyne.fr
www.velvetyne.fr/fonts/typefesse/
Bibliography:
Lippincott's, J. (1896). The tall office building
artistically considered. Lippincott's Magazine.
Wright, F. (1954). The Natural House. 1st
ed. New York,: Horizon Press, p.296.
Derrida, J. (1967). De La Grammatologie. 1st
ed. Paris: Bernard-Palissy 75006.
Hoteit, A. (2015). Deconstructivism:
Translation From Philosophy to Architecture. Ph. D. Department of Architecture,
Institute of Fine Arts, Lebanese University.
Stouhi, D. (2018). What is
Deconstructivism?. [online] ArchDaily. Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/899645/what-is-deconstructivism
[Accessed 10 Nov. 2019].
Etherington, R. (2009). Arena Homme + by
Neville Brody | Dezeen. [online] Dezeen. Available at:
https://www.dezeen.com/2009/10/08/arena-homme-by-neville-brody/ [Accessed 19
Nov. 2019].
Barnard, M. and Gill, A. (1998). Fashion
Theory Volume 2 - Deconstruction Fashion: The Making of Unfinished, Decomposing
and Re-assembled Clothes. 2nd ed. London: Berg., pp.25-25.
Fisher, A. (2013). Raf Simons: 'I don't have
to be the avant-garde kid now'. [online] the Guardian. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2013/sep/19/raf-simons-christian-dior
[Accessed 20 Nov. 2019].
Fury, A. (2017). When Raf Simons Brought
Colour & Volume to Jil Sander S/S11. [online] AnOther. Available at:
https://www.anothermag.com/fashion-beauty/10359/when-raf-simons-brought-colour-volume-to-jil-sander-ss11
[Accessed 20 Nov. 2019].
McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy.
1st ed. Toronto: UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS, p.31.
Munari, B. and Creagh, P. (2008). Design as
art. 17th ed. London: Penguin, pp.65-66.
Bigelow, C. (1989). Form, Pattern & Texture
in the Typographic Image. Fine Print: The Review for the Arts of the Book.
[online] Available at: https://bigelowandholmes.typepad.com/bigelow-holmes/2015/04/form-pattern-texture-in-the-typographic-image.html
[Accessed 25 Nov. 2019].
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt
psychology. 1st ed. London: Lund Humphries, p.176.
Waller, R. (1987). The typographic
contribution to language. 1st ed. Boston Spa, Eng.: The British Library,
Document Supply Centre, p.23.
Lupton, E. and Miller, J. (2006). Design
Writting Research. [London]: [Phaidon Press], p.58.
Tschichold, J. and McLean, R. (2006). Jan
Tschichold The New Typography. 1st ed. London: University of California Press,
pp.65-66.
Tschichold, J. (1967). Asymmetric
typography. Toronto: Cooper & Beatty, p.124.
Budrick, C. (2019). Swiss Style: The
Principles, Typefaces & Designers - Print Magazine. [online] Print
Magazine. Available at: https://www.printmag.com/typography/swiss-style-principles-typefaces-designers/
[Accessed 3 Dec. 2019].
Stanley, J., Rudnick, D., Patos, R. and Estiler,
K. (2018). Why Do All New Fashion Logos Look the Same?. [online]
HYPEBEAST. Available at: https://hypebeast.com/2018/9/fashion-logo-balenciaga-celine-calvin-klein-burberry
[Accessed 3 Dec. 2019].
Dictionary.cambridge.org.
(2019). READABILITY | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary.
[online] Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/readability
[Accessed 5 Dec. 2019].
Warde, B. and Lange, G. (1980). The crystal
goblet. St. Paul [Minn.]: Bieler Press, p.3.
van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Towards a semiotics of
typography. Information Design Journal, 14(2), pp.139-155.
Vignelli, M. (2010). The Vignelli canon.
Lars Müller, p.55.
Juvin, O. (2019). Typefesse. [online]
Velvetyne.fr. Available at: https://www.velvetyne.fr/fonts/typefesse/ [Accessed
5 Dec. 2019].
Catich, E. (1968). The Origin of serif.
Davenport, Iowa: Catfish Pr, p.20.
Lo Celso, A., Berlin, F., Hout-Marchand, T.,
Hunker, H. & Chastenet, F. (2019) Toulouse Letters: Teaching
Experiments in Letter Drawing. Institute Superieur des Arts deToulouse. p.
93-97
Annetta, S. (2019). In Conversation with Raf
Simons — Design Anthology. [online] Design Anthology. Available at:
https://designanthologymag.com/story/raf-simons [Accessed 5 Dec. 2019].
Miller, A., Deberney, C. and Cassandre, A.
(2007). Eye Magazine | Feature | Through thick and thin: fashion and type.
[online] Eyemagazine.com. Available at:
http://www.eyemagazine.com/feature/article/through-thick-and-think-fashion-and-type
[Accessed 6 Dec. 2019].
Ambrose, G. and Harris, P. (2006). The
Fundamentals of Typography. 2nd ed. Lausanne: AVA Publishing, p.13.
Breese, I. (2018). Fashion Is More Than
Clothes; Fashion Is Art. [online] Medium. Available at:
https://medium.com/be-unique/fashion-is-more-than-clothes-fashion-is-art-39d19297362c
[Accessed 8 Dec. 2019].
Jacobson, M. (2019). On Asemic Writing -
Asymptote. [online] Asymptotejournal.com. Available at:
https://www.asymptotejournal.com/visual/michael-jacobson-on-asemic-writing/
[Accessed 8 Dec. 2019].
Dowding, G. (1962). An introduction to the
history of printing types. 1st ed. Clerkenwell: Wace, p.5.
Cunningham, B. (1989). IMAGES AND TEXT ON MARTIN
MARGIELA ‘The Collections’. Details, (246).
Fawcett-Tang, R. and Jury, D. (2007). New
typographic design. 1st ed. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, p.45.
Creative Bloq. (2005). Research Studios.
[online] Available at:
https://www.creativebloq.com/computer-arts/research-studios-3059899 [Accessed 9
Dec. 2019].
Heller, S. (2018). Brody's Bonn and Buffalo:
The Bs Return - Print Magazine. [online] Print Magazine. Available at:
https://www.printmag.com/daily-heller/brodys-bonn-and-buffalo-the-bs-return/
[Accessed 9 Dec. 2019].
Obegero, A. (2019). “THE NEW ARTURO OBEGERO
TYPOGRAPHY, DESIGNED BY GAËTAN BERNEDE.". [online] Instagram. Available
at: https://www.instagram.com/p/B2e9GvsoIuz/ [Accessed 9 Dec. 2019].
Todorova, D. (2018). Dancing through the
darkness: An interview with designer Arturo Obegero — Teeth Magazine. [online]
Teeth Magazine. Available at:
http://www.teethmag.net/interview-designer-arturo-obegero/ [Accessed 9 Dec.
2019].
Mambrol, N. (2016). The postmodern as “the
incredulity towards metanarratives”. [online] Literary Theory and Criticism.
Available at: https://literariness.org/2016/04/03/the-postmodern-as-the-incredulity-towards-metanarratives/
[Accessed 10 Dec. 2019].
Dictionary.cambridge.org. (2019). LEGIBILITY
| meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary. [online] Available at:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/legibility [Accessed 10
Dec. 2019].
Ambrose, G. and Harris, P. (2006). The
Fundamentals of Typography. 2nd ed. Lausanne: AVA Publishing, p.150.
Stinson, L. (2016). The 'Memoire' Typeface
Changes Like a Memory as You Use It. [online] WIRED. Available at:
https://www.wired.com/2016/01/the-memoire-typeface-changes-like-a-memory-as-you-use-it/
[Accessed 10 Dec. 2019].
Gill, E. (1936). An essay on typography. 2nd
ed. London: Sheed and Ward, p.70.
Londonfashionweek.co.uk. (n.d.). London
Fashion Week - Louise Alsop. [online] Available at:
https://londonfashionweek.co.uk/designers_profile.aspx?DesignerID=2392
[Accessed 10 Dec. 2019].
Culkin, J. (1967). A schoolman's guide to
Marshall McLuhan. The Saturday Review, [online] pp.51-53 70-72. Available
at: http://www.unz.org/Pub/SaturdayRev-1967mar18-00051 [Accessed 10 Dec. 2019].
Comments
Post a Comment