The Publick | INTERVIEW
02
Introduction P
etra Cerne Oven writes: Robin Kinross is a typographer, publisher, critic, and author of numerous articles in the field of visual communication and typography, published mainly in the UK, the Netherlands and the USA. He has contributed regularly to magazines such as Information Design Journal, Blueprint, Journal of Design History, and Eye. After secondary school, he studied English literature at (what was then) the North-West London Polytechnic in London, and then, from 1971, he studied Typography & Graphic
Communication at the University of Reading. He founded the publishing imprint Hyphen Press in 1980. He is not a speaker; words come out of him after long pauses. I am puzzled by the gentle voice and almost childlike curiosity which characterize his communication. He puts a bottle of water and two glasses on the table, laughing spontaneously and saying that he had seen it in ‘real interviews’ on TV.
The Publick | INTERVIEW
03
INTERVIEW WITH
ROBIN KINROSS - PETRA CERNE OVEN
Interview Why did you decide to study typography, after English literature? It’s a complicated story. In fact I’d become interested in typography earlier on, when I was still at secondary school, about 15 years old. There was a little press at school. Somehow I was drawn to this, especially setting type by hand. The love for making things always stayed in mind. Doing literature, I became unhappy and wanted to find something more practical. It wasn’t difficult to get into the Department of Typography at the University of Reading “the typography unit”. Michael Twyman,
the lecturer who had set up this Typography Unit, took anyone – well, not anyone, but he was very welcoming. How did you know about Reading? Did you hear something? I’d read a review of Michael Twyman’s book Printing 1770–1970, which had just come out, and which said there was a course that he was running.
The Publick | INTERVIEW
04
THE PUBLISHING BUG it’s an instinct rather than a disease
What was so influential at Reading? In Modern typography you write ‘many of the ideas put forward here have been everyday currency there?’ To read the history of the activity, and to take history seriously, was one thing I learnt at Reading. There’s strength still in books like Updike’s book Printing types. And also, what you see in Updike as well, the unity of theory and practice. Updike was a working printer; yet he was a historian. The two went hand in hand. For me that is the best thing at Reading. So how do you actually describe yourself? Graphic designer or typographer or publisher? I used to say ‘typographer’, in the days when you had to say what you were in your passport. I also did a lot of writing, and now I do a lot of editing – which means, reading other people’s writing, and working with texts and working with another designer. So I think now I’m an editor. I’m pleased with the idea of a ‘publisher’; it has some of the same good qualities as ‘typographer’. It’s not so much visual production as word production. I know, but I have to ask you – because of the first book, What is a designer? Yes it happened with that book. There’s something I do continually: if I see a newspaper article that I think will interest someone else, I cut it out and give it to them. Or I make two photocopies, and give one to that friend and the other to someone else. ‘Do so!’ Indeed. Norman wrote back saying ‘well, actually I’m just think of doing that’. We wrote a few letters first, then one or two phone calls. By this time I’d decided that I really wanted to work with him as an editor on this book. We weren’t sure who would publish it. We went together to Studio Vista, the first publisher, and said ‘either you reprint this book, or give us permission to do it’. It was clear that they weren’t in any position to do it. So then it was up to us to do what we wanted. That was when I became a publisher. What about the content? I’m thinking of your idea that modern typography started 250 years after Gutenberg. That was quite a new approach? Yes, but I can think of some quite important precedents. I wrote with Kenneth Frampton’s suggestions in my mind, and his Modern architecture was a good model. And at the back of
Frampton’s book is the theory of Jürgen Habermas about ‘the continuing project of modernity’ (he published it first in a lecture of 1980), which I quoted at the start of my book, as a kind of hypothesis, which I would test. The book is out of print. If you re-publish it, will you change things, or do you think it is still? No, no! It’s a difficult matter though. I do intend to revise it and publish it again. I think it will get longer. One of my clear wishes is to write more about other cultures in Europe One of the things I felt I was discovering was the fact that different cultures have interesting periods in typography. Now I begin to think that I should have a look at the Far Eastern cultures. Maybe I should make the effort to look at what’s been happening in Japan. My first thought had been: that’s another script, and it’s a completely separate world; it’s far too difficult for me to know anything about Chinese or Japanese typography. Even Russian and Greek typography I excluded for these reasons. Maybe I should become a bit more adventurous. You have mentioned Marie Neurath. You wrote your MPhil thesis on Isotype, and you knew her as well. Can you say something about Isotype: what it is, and what is its importance? Where it comes from is Vienna in 1925 and this strange figure of Otto Neurath. He’s one of those people who doesn’t really fit in anywhere. He was involved with projects of encyclopedic knowledge, especially later on in his life. But in Vienna after 1918 there was a remarkable local political development, especially in housing. Isotype really comes from a housing museum, explaining to the people what was going on in the city’s housing projects. Marie Neurath was the intermediary who did the detailed, planning work: the designer. Then Gerd Arntz was the main artist they employed. The great thing of Isotype, which is what Michael Twyman saw when he discovered it and then got the archive for Reading, is the logic of arrangement. It’s not simply putting things in rows from left to right. For example, take the famous births and deaths chart, with the births going one way and the deaths the other way. It has a system that you may be able to put into words and tell someone else how to do it. Except that in the imitations of Isotype, you see how other people misunderstand it. The things that Marie Neurath did are the true Isotype. It’s a familiar paradox. You develop a system. In principle you can
The Publick | INTERVIEW
05
Books by Robin Kinross
(Top L) Modern typography in Britain: graphic design, politics, and society (Top R) The transformer: principles of making Isotype charts (Bottom L) Designing books: practice and theory (Bottom R) God’s amateur: the writing of E.C. Large
The Publick | INTERVIEW
06
THE HYPHEN PRESS BUILDING
Hyphen Press publishes books on design – in the largest sense of the word. The first book issued by Hyphen Press. We cherish writing that is lively, precise, free of jargon; pictures that are realistic, vivid. In 1980, was Norman Potter’s ‘What is a designer’.
The Publick | INTERVIEW
07
tell other people how to do the work. But when it comes to it, you realize that it’s actually a little bit more complicated. What about things that have been done after Isotype, for example Otl Aicher’s pictograms? How has Isotype influenced such things? The pictograms are a bit misleading. It’s not the whole story. My idea of the whole story is that it’s about arrangement or configuration of elements, words and images. I don’t think influence matters, except in a deep way. I hope that, people respect it and carry on some of the traditions. I would say that their original system of signs has something of the same spirit as Isotype. This means the pictograms, yes, but also the whole system of deployment of elements: the treatment of words, the colours. There is a way of thinking here that you can find in other places. What about the question of reading, perhaps a hot topic. You criticized the idea that the designer should interpret the text for the reader.
What do you call it? Postructuralism? Yes, or ‘deconstruction’. I think that argument has gone away now. But certainly four or five years ago, it was there. I’m not sure why I got so involved. It certainly was an argument, that’s the right word. There were people making these manifestos, even, about what graphic design could or should be. My attempt was to discuss the arguments, and not the design that followed There is another thing I began to realize, which is that there was a specifically American dimension to this. It connects with what is called political correctness, which I begin to think is largely a matter of people surviving in a multi-cultural society. It becomes very dangerous to criticize anyone for anything. The immediate way in which someone will respond to criticism is to say ‘I’m a black person; I’m a woman; I’m gay; I’m a disabled person; I’m an old person; I’m a young person.’ Everything comes down to what you are. There were some arguments I had with people, where I felt I really couldn’t say anything, because I would be taken as criticizing them personally. I suppose this became a
Everything comes down to what you are. There is no room for ‘is this a good argument? Is this a bad argument? Does it make sense?’ All you can say is ‘look at me’. It’s what is called identity politics. wish of mine: to make arguments for some sort of objectivity. So that it is possible to make remarks about a piece of work that is in the world, without any criticism of the person who made it. A student at Central Saint Martins once told me ‘we had a lecture, and we were told that common sense doesn’t exist’. I felt I knew for sure what that lecturer had been saying: ‘common sense is the voice of authority; it’s a kind of repression; it’s your parents telling you to behave properly: “it’s common sense” they say’. They reduce the idea? Yes. And I sympathize with this a lot. But I think a part of the argument is to say that each reader makes his or her own reading: ‘don’t interfere with the reading that I am making; it’s mine.’ So yes, to boil it down, that was what that was all about. And now I think it has passed on. What is fashionable now, in purely visual terms, is not that wild deconstruction. Things have changed. Can design criticism help in the development of the profession?
I think that it can be part of some sort of public dialogue. So the designers would read what the critics have written: that part of the dialogue happens. Perhaps people still don’t know what it is, really. Just to talk about it, to say ‘that was designed’, was one function of the graphic design critic. That is before you ever go on to say ‘this is good; this is bad’. I don’t know if that battle has been won or not. Design criticism has mainly been written by people who have been art historians. To what extent can art historians explain design? I might say ‘not at all’. It depends. I don’t see anything in art history that prepares you for design. But, having said all that, I should acknowledge that art history has changed. It has become more historical or more social. There was a kind of arrogance about this: design was just a part of the territory of art, and it wasn’t seen as art anyway. It was more or less like compost in a vegetable garden; something like that – just a load of rubbish. From the mid-1970s onwards people were fighting a mission to get design taken seriously. Now I’m not sure.