echo
Echo, the revival. An issuance that focuses not only on the infamous dispute between the two Swiss Graphic Design theorists: Max Bill and Jan Tschichold, but also on the mediating services of Paul Rand and Paul Renner. In this edition, Echo aims to understand in which context this dispute arises, how it spread through time, and also what influences and references remain until today. The main goal is to understand the authors' work; the reason why this debate occured, and why Bill and Tschichold remain as timeless references. The publication works as a independent object, but it is also part of the diagram. These elements work together and create a puzzle. The diagram by itself, is a direct exposure of what is discussed in the main article, focusing on confronting quotes of the authors, to better illustrate the essence of the debate. Graphically, the diagram is like a itinerary of quotes and information, which guides the reader in a logical order. The publication's interior shares all the information about the dispute, resorting on the authors' most important and defining works and articles, and how Paul Rand and Paul Renner played a central role throughout the development of the debate.
The typographical dispute of 1946. The dispute between Jan Tschichold and Max Bill, in mid-1946 (April, to be precise), marked the history of typography, being then one of the defining moments os Swiss Typography, as the base of the work laid in Bill’s words and Tschichold’s break up with his 1930’s ‘New Typography’, as his typography had its origin in Constructivism but, after the War, the german artist took a reactionary position. Rumours were spread that the feud would have lasted many years and that both the authors would have came to blows and that a high quantity of critics towards one another followed for a lengthy period of time. Despite the hearsays, the only real proof of the dispute is on Jan Tschichold’s ‘Belief and Reality’, as it is a response to Max Bill’s essay ‘On Typography’, the initial criticism on Tschichold’s position. Still on the true truth side, it is known that Paul Rand, a personal acquaintance of Bill’s, had made mention of a satirical play written by Bill in which Tschichold is described to be holding a ‘middle axis’ and goose quill in both hands. This play, entitled ‘Litte Typography Theatre for Outsiders’, was, however, not published due to the lack of courage of Bill’s publishers.
This dispute was published under the form of articles in the Swiss Graphics Communication magazine, in 1946, due to the controversial lecture given by Tschichold in December 1945: ‘Constants of Typography’, where he criticized the New Typography movement (one he had helped establish in the mid-1920-30’s, even being considered the most relevant theorist on the matter because of it. Having said that, it is more than fair to revert to Max Bill’s almost immediate response: an article in the Swiss Graphics Communication magazine called ‘On Typography’, referring to Tschichold as being one of the ‘well-known typographical theorists’ and divides his groundwork between the so-called ‘new’ and ‘old’ guards and criticising him saying that as Tschichold reverts to a traditional or previous aesthetic, he is downgrading his work by taking cues from the past and merely emulating it. Bill stated that functional typography was no longer similar to the new typography, since some of the decorative elements disappeared, promoting clarity. To solidify his statement, he adds a mention to the functional character in typography and its systematic approach that encompasses the technical aesthetics, which needs work, expressing this with the own design of his article, as he writes his text in only lower case letters, set flush left, ragged right, with no word breaks, paragraphs only signalized by setting each one apart by a blank line. In Bill’s perspective, to emulate past traditional methods meant that the theorist was lacking of discipline. He explains this, giving an example:
What indeed would one say of an electrician who began to explain that an oil-burning lamp is more homely, more convenient and sweeter-smelling than an electric light? We would certainly resist if someone wanted to turn back technical development by 100 or 200 years, to take us back to the style of living of that time. Such an antiquarian craze would not last long; one would come to see the advantages of technical possibilities, of the forms that issue logically from these possibilities, and their artistic expression too.
Towards this, Jan Tschichold feels a certain obligation to hurry his response what was said was done, as two months later, a longer although equally critical article was published as a come back to Bill’s words. The designer wrote an argument focused on three issues: symmetry, grotesque typefaces and the relationship between design, content and reader. He starts by clarifying his ‘wrongly’ stated credentials, as he is not ‘one of the well-known typographical theorists’, but ‘the only one in German-speaking Europe’. He does not forget, obviously, to mention this credentials as a teacher, typographer and designer, using these to bring down Max Bill’s amateur view of typography and his criticisms. Then, he exposes the reasons that made him abandon the modernist movement...
‘The derivation of typographical rules from the principles of painting formerly known as ‘‘abstract’’ or ‘‘non-objective’’ and now called ‘‘concrete’’ resulted in a valuable and temporarily novel typography’
As the feud went on, the dust from the Second World War was yet settling, trust and hope for the future lied upon both the technological and industrial developments, so Bill’s metaphor to look forward instead of looking back echoed fearcely this spirit. And despite the fact that, nowadays, it is usual to see theorists looking back to ‘purer’ times, Bill concludes his argument reiterating the point of ‘logical’, ‘clear’ and ‘unambiguous’ expression that ‘is suitable for our times’.
... even comparing it to the totalitarianism of the Nazi regime (due to his personal trauma with the Third Reich). This side of his thesis made it overstep its boundaries by moving it into the realm of practicality and became the main root to support his argument.
When it came to Tschichold’s criticisms of New Typography, it is certain that his arguments did not fall from the tree where Bill’s stand was hanging when criticizing the traditional typography. In other words, Tschichold’s comparison of the modern typography to the Nazi ideology is way too extreme and cliquish. New forms of design will eventually expand to encompass an excessive amount of content, in Jan’s perspective. The theorist then goes into an extensive discussion about hand composition and machine composition, blank lines or indentation to separate paragraphs, saying that machine compositions imitate hand ones, as near as possible, although it is way less flexible and more difficult to handle than the hand composition, and that is why ‘a book today is seldom so well made. Its format is often less practical and it is composed with less taste and affection’. To this he adds that the classical novel layouts in books are hard to improve, specifically the text area set out on the page, establishing with this that a book had to follow rules and conventions, while commercial design could just focus on getting attention, just as a advertising vehicle. For him, typography was still another form of expression, instead of only a transmitter of information and claimed that traditional typefaces are a much more useful contribution to modern typography. Lastly, of course, Tschichold chose to speak directly about Bill,as he wrote in the first person article.
‘He who calls for the suppression of freedom of thought and artistic expression carries on the gloomy business of those whom we thought were defeated. He commits the worst crime.’
Having terminated the feud, responses to it would obviously be expected. About two years later, Paul Renner, a colleague of Tschichold’s who was also familiar with Bill, decided to write an article on the matter. He finds support in the main issue of the feud, saying that...
‘We must reflect on the elemental rules, on the principles, on the meaning of each task, in order to build up a new tradition; we must, in the words of Kleist’s anecdote of the Marionette Theatre, “once again eat of the knowledge from the tree, in order to fall back to a state of innocence; that is the last chapter of the world.”’ Renner, with his words, decides to take a very modern position, as he agrees to disagree with the authors, despite how prominent and plausible their arguments may be. One will always be critical of the other, as both good and bad design are very ambiguous expressions and criticising the other party concerning only principles such as tradition and function is unfair as they both depend on one’s subjective view. With that in mind, Paul Renner concludes that symmetrical or asymmetrical layouts are not functions but aesthetics.
Another response to the dispute was one written by a contemporary graphic designer of the two in question, Paul Rand, having accepted the same position towards the feud as Renner placing value in the dispute itself and concentrating on the good and bad design options the designer has. So, what is good design and what is not is hard to distinguish in this scenario. In such landscape it is hard to take a side, to only agree with Bill or with Tschichold’s view on typography, as both perspectives are equally limiting. As for Bill, to regulate every possibility of creative expression into a functional form stunts the essence of the artist’s integrity, for Tschichold, to compare New Typography to the rigidity of the Nazi regime is extreme. His afterwards promotion of a more traditional approach to look design is equally restrictive.
It is no revelation that each style presents dificult problems. Traditional typography looks easy because balance, which is the sine qua non of good design, is achieved merely by centering. (...) It is not as easy to achieve perfect balance with asymmetry, even for the initiated — traditional typography may look dull and unimaginative, the new typography merely pretentious or disjointed.