![]() ![]() Thus there was no need of originality, explains Christopher Burke 3, for the main reason of the Lanston Monotype Corporation at that moment was to ‘adapt’ the current repertoire of hand-setting families for the machine-composition. But as it is well-known the beginnings of the twentieth century were a prolific moment for revivalism in typography, although the pioneer early years of the type foundries were still signed by the need of matching the look of manual composition (like Gutenberg had to do it with mediaeval scribes’ handbook). As we will discuss later, only oppositions of terms like ‘imitation’ and ‘recreation’ would preliminary allow us to distinguish in some extent one approach from another. In fact it was William Morris in 1892 who ‘romantically’ attempted in the Renaissance Jenson’s style (Venice, 1470s) a robust, ‘gothic’ interpretation that became his Golden Type. So (it could be taken as a clue) there seems to be a ‘romantic’ spirit involved in the act of reviving something from the past. 2 The publisher William Pickering and the printer Charles Wittingham used the Caslon type to better connote the ‘literary’ atmosphere in their books, mainly concerning poetry and literature, in contrast with the scientific spirit of those days. It has been said that the use of the old-face of William Caslon made in the Chiswick Press during the 1840s probably is the first intended historical ‘revival’. And a third part is concerned with the ‘controversy’ issue that has always surrounded the matter. Secondly, the different approaches taken in successive revivals of Griffo’s types are briefly explored. An initial part refers some revival attempts made in the early twentieth century. Naturally it would have been impossible to cover all cases of type revivals in history in such a short essay, hence a selection of them has been chosen to talk about. It is then intended in this work a brief discussion on type ‘revivalism’, in the sense of the intentional act of recovering or reinterpreting older type designs and restore them from their ‘physical reality’ to remake their current use possible in the belief that there would be different approaches in these interventions and that those approaches might be arguments useful for a discussion. ![]() However the word ‘revival’ will not account here for the unconsciously grown-up and collectively experienced, evolutionary process of typeforms. To this respect the idea of revival thought as an encounter of traditional forms with current technology seems to me a very spontaneous manner of evolving. In other words, the possible aesthetic interrelations that can be sustained among the forerunner-in-style families and which constitutes the prime material of type classification. On the other hand a more subtle sense of ‘revival’ could also be perceived as an underlying factor in the entire history of printing: the constant process of imitation/innovation pushed by the ‘type community’ and contained by the readers’ staunch conservatism in their need of conventional and immediately recognisable typeforms, that results (at the same time) based on and cause of the perennial legacy of (say) the ‘mother’ styles. Moreover, “when the model for an adaptation extends back further than the previous technological or cultural phase, then we speak of revival rather than adaptation” 1 Although suggestive, this explanation seems to fall in a simplistic way by distinguishing those terms only for the amount of time between original and remake, whereas it is suspected here that those terms might imply interventions of different nature. Thus Charles Bigelow and Jonathan Seybold proposed a distinction between ‘revival’ and ‘adaptation’, saying that the Humanist revived the Roman capitals and the Carolingian script, while the first printers adapted the Humanist bookhand. ![]() could be taken as implying slightly or dramatically different attitudes facing historical models. Terms like imitation, inspiration, adaptation, translation, re-interpretation, redesign, echo, homage, revision, remix, restoration, recreation, rendition, resurrection, etc. But in fact apart from ‘revival’ some other terms have been also employed, perhaps to more clearly qualify their particular approach. The concept of ‘revivalism’ could be thus understood as the process of merely converting or translating one design for different, newer devices. Like a tightrope walker on the line of technological changes, by its nature type design immediately compels us to better define the term ‘revival’, since (as usually pointed out) the whole history of typography can be seen as a series of successive and quite ephemeral adaptations to new technologies. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |