STEWARDS OF THE TYPOGRAPHIC LANDSCAPE: A MODEL FOR EDUCATION - PART 1 OF 3
Based on a paper presented at the AIGA FutureHistory Conference, Chicago, Illinois (October 2004), this three-part article outlines some possibilities for increasing the focus on typography in design education.

Design educational programs vary greatly. Some of this variety is
good, reflecting the diversity and energy of the profession.
Unfortunately too often this variety reflects lack of quality: lack of
substance, focus or organization. Typography - an integral component to
communication - is commonly the weakest educational link. It should be
the highest priority.
Typographic education suffers
because of the proliferation of design programs and the lack of
qualified and knowledgeable faculty to develop these programs, set
standards, and maintain a rigorous learning experience. This steady
erosion of basic typographic knowledge must stop. The issue is not "do
we teach on the computer or through insistence on hand skills," nor is
it about conservative versus experimental approaches to typographic
form and communication, nor is it about distinguishing between
interactive and traditional media. These arguments are tedious and
distracting from the real issue. These are programmatic decisions - not
indices of quality.
The issue is that the knowledge base
for fundamental typographic understanding is eroding while the need for
substantive typographic education is increasing. Typesetters (who in
the past saved many of us from our own ignorance) are an extinct class.
They have been rendered obsolete by designers who may not understand
the nuances of typography but who do, thanks to technology, control the
final form of the work. It is unconscionable to allow designers to
graduate ignorant of the foundations of typographic communication.
Unconscionable, but unfortunately quite common.
Design
students generally lack understanding of and appreciation for the
traditions of typographic form. This is not a statement of typographic
conservatism; it is a reality. There is a difference between
experimental typography and typography that is sloppy and awkward
because it was created in ignorance. Students believe design is
ephemeral - gone into the ether or the landfill after a quick perusal.
While that is often true, such a mindset does not lend itself to a
desire for mastering details of typographic function and form. As
educators we must instill that desire in our students.
Instilling
a passion for typography is not easy. Typography involves subtlety,
attention to detail, and patience - not attributes most college
students have cultivated. Our task as educators is to insist upon
mastery of a typographic knowledge base as a key step towards
professionalism.
Perhaps an analogy to other professionals
provides a starting point. In hiring a professional - a dentist, an
architect - we don't expect to know everything about what they do. But
we expect them to know what must be done. We understand that if they
have not mastered their subject, we will suffer for it. It is
reasonable and logical to expect a similar level of expertise for
typographers.
A model for typographic education can be
borrowed from landscape architecture and community planning. Good
stewardship - whether topographic or typographic - requires balance
between historic preservation, reclamation, adaptive reuse, and
planning. This model is thoughtful, flexible, and sustainable. It
provides a structural basis for a thorough and organized typographic
program that references and builds from the past while looking to the
future. It avoids a "project-based" curriculum, which too often focuses
students upon narrow solutions without facilitating their development
of vocabulary and criticism and their understanding of universal
principles.
The typographic stewardship model consists of
five sections, each targeting a specific facet of typography. The model
is not intended as a linear progression but should be integrated
throughout every level of an educational program. The route to success
is to think programmatically. Courses must reinforce each other with
content that reaffirms and assures student's understanding of key
information.
Section One: Historic Preservation
Focus: Thinking
Providing
an increased emphasis on typographic content within educational
programs and creating awareness of the rich and varied traditions of
typography.
Standards are not arbitrary. An effective
educational program establishes context, thus informing students that
standards endure because of their ability to enhance communication.
Beatrice Warde's The Crystal Goblet is an excellent initiation to
historic study. An eloquent plea for typographic clarity, it is as
pertinent today as it was when first published in 1932. The Crystal
Goblet essay, which has been republished in multiple sources, should be
required reading but if students use the internet to find it, make sure
they read the full essay rather than an abbreviated version.
Frederic
Goudy said "only an inventor knows how to borrow. We should study [the
early types] not merely to revive or imitate them because we admire
them indiscriminately, but rather so that we may piece together the
broken threads of tradition, there intact, and finally to adapt
them..."[1] Zuzanna Licko could be studied as an inventor who also
knows how to borrow. Or Matthew Carter. Or perhaps Gerard Unger, who
succinctly points out that "typography itself is a language. But a
language can create problems as far as communication is concerned."[2]
Promoting student mastery of this typographic language is the
educator's primary task.
A capable educator develops
creative and meaningful learning experiences for students. Students can
be challenged to conduct typographic research individually or in teams.
Their opinions must be supported by facts to encourage substantive
debate and discussion. Subjects will vary. Which is more critical: the
person who designs a handsome typeface or the one who uses type in a
powerful way? Which is more essential: legibility or readability, and
what is the difference between them? Which letter of the alphabet has
the most colorful history or the most intriguing basic form? Students
could stage a hypothetical meeting: if Chank Diesel, Carol Twombly,
Adrian Frutiger, and John Baskerville met to talk about typography,
what would their conversation be?
What are the watershed
moments through typographic history? The impact of "new" technology is
worth investigating: how might students compare Gutenberg's movable
type with the invention of the linotype, or with the Macintosh
computer? These discussions illustrate the additive nature of history
as it connects to current ideas. Research is as likely to lead students
to insights from 2004 as from 1904 or 1604. Students soon realize that
dramatic changes have created opportunity and turmoil through the
centuries of typographic history. They also discover many concerns
remain constant.
In Part 2, Jan Conradi discusses how
educators can help students explore the links between typographic form
and visual communication.
Notes
[1] - Frederic W. Goudy, Typologia:
Studies in Type Design & Type Making. 1940 (Republished by Berkeley
: University of California Press, 1977)
[2] - Gerard Unger, Not the Typical Type. [2003 Interview on-line]; available from http://www.artyears.com/exclusive/unger.html; Internet: accessed 16 July 2004.
About Jan Conradi
Jan Conradi teaches graphic design, typography and design history at
the State University of New York at Fredonia (Fredonia, New York,
United States) She has written numerous articles and book reviews on
topics related to design education. She is currently writing a book
about Unimark International and is also developing an introductory
textbook for graphic design.