a Experimental Typography and the Need for Experiment
z
Legibility
a
a
What makes the difference between experimental typography and any other type of advanced typography? Much of the so-called experimental typography is just another form exercise within the framework of a certain modern trend; only some of these experiments are fundamental and create a basic discussion in typography. For the sake of welllines. understanding it should be wise to draw some dividing The real experiments in typography started only at futurthe beginning of the twentieth century; they came with ism, dadaism and constructivism. At this time the idea of integration of form and context was expressed in a very clear way. It was when writers and poets tried to ‘shape’ their texts in order to express themselves more clearly. Among the earliest (already around 1897), Stéphane Mallarmé, in his book ‘Une Coup de Dés’, started to break-up the regular typographical sentences in shorter groups of words in order to bring space into the page. The new typographic movement did not start on its own; around 1910 the whole cultural scene changed through a series of important movements in the field of the arts. Typography, the form of the printed word, is one of the most important functional vehicles for ideas, and therefore is always a clear reflection of the general cultural pattern. Before the twentieth century however, typography never became an independent form of art in itself, and we may possibly say that what we started to call ‘experimental typography’ is typography without the primary function of makingtypography a text readable. Experimental typography and functional nents of each other. are up to a certain point, oppoExperimental typography is not only reflecting a cultural pattern, but gives primarily a self-reflection. As soon as we carry out experiments in order to improve a certain typographical solution, that means as soon as we do research, we cannot speak of experimental typography; experimental typography never results in a solution for a certain Thus, forproblem. good understanding, we have toof divide experimental typography from experiments research in typography; the first leads the way to completely uncontrollable and unknown results, and the second is always carried out to achieve a better solution for a given problem. Therefore experimental typography is never a true carrier of written ideas in the original meaning of the word typography, but is a form of art, a pure means of expression. typography what we callExperimental now ‘concrete poetry’. is closely related to If we look at the work of painters, poets and designers in the first period of the great art revolutions, around 1910– 1920, we can clearly divide the experimental typography from primary functional experiments. For example the works of Apollinaire, Marinetti, Tzara, Schwitters Van Doesburg, mainly futurists and dadaists, belongand to the first interpretation, and the works of El Lissitzky, Rodtchenko, and later Piet Zwart, Jan Tschichold and Herbert Bayer, belong to the second interpretation. These two, basically different directions in typography do exists until today. A major part of concrete poetry is still pure experimental typography, just for example the ‘Experimenta Typographica’ of Wil Sandberg, some of the visual works of John cage and Diter Rot and, to a certain extent, also the ‘scripts’ of Hannah Darboven. On the other hand, a much larger group of designers carry out typographical experiments in order to improve typographical solutions. Most striking, for example, have been the experiments of Karl Gerstner who introduced anamorphose in typography and who wrote some very elementary literature, of Brian Coe who eliminated parts of letters in order to become a clear view on legibility problems, and Van den Bergh who introduced ‘capital-twin-typography’ with the help of coloured spectacles in order to save space and paper. Possibly also the alphabet from Epps and Evans for machine recognition and my own experiment with a new alphabet for CRT reproduction may be notified. More recent are the works of Wolfgang Weingart and of the editor of this book, Helmut Schmid; both however work almost in between my two interpretations. Their work is partly functional problem solving and partly it is closely to self-expression. Of course it is sometimes very difficult to distinct experimental typography from functional experiments; this is quite normal because of the visual nature of this field. There is a natural vice-versa influence between what is visualized and what is be to be discovered. We sometimes discover something very elementary through the most individual expression, while very funda-
mental visual research could lead to an unexpected grade of exp sion. It is quite normal that the same individual is active on both s of the line. At this point I would like to draw the attention to the fact that des are seldom, or never, aware of the findings of research. By shee intuition designers often reach conclusions that are just as valid a results of certain types of scientific research. On the other hand th designer, with his awareness and appreciation for the contempo cultural atmosphere, is inclined to use overstatement to emphasiz findings. In my opinion this is the case with many of the influential pieces o typographic design. Often the original idea of design that is aim at improving legibility and comprehensibility, is overshadowed b expressive overstatement. But if this element of exaggeration had not existed, the piece would not have drawn so much attention, would notit have fulfilled its pioneering It isfor a vicious circle.an Anyhow is clear that there is always role. a need experiment
a
search, just as there is always a need for overstatement, exagge and self-expression; both needs are of great help for future deve ment. However, for the sake of clarity and optimal understanding
a
a
z
B
z pp