What are the views of Massimo Vignelli on typography?
Vignelli believes massively in that typography shouldn't be expressive or shout something to readers; his ethos revolves around the idea that within the world of type, 'all we need are a few basic ones (fonts) and trash the rest'. This very much reflects the attitudes and actions of graphic designers in the modernist West during the 1960's - typography saw an evolution in designers using simple, san serif typefaces like Helvetica which cleaned up the over complicated commercial design prior to its use, such as the redesign of the New York Subway.
Where do I stand?
Vignelli also states in the Vignelli Canon that 'type manipulation represents a new level of visual pollution threatening our culture'. To some extent, within my own work ethos, I disagree that all forms of expressive type should be considered 'pollution', as the role of a designer is to communicate ideas, and through type manipulation, it can be done subliminally and make positive impacts on our culture. I suppose that my perspective mirrors a majority of todays' contemporary designers, as I think that within the current landscape of typography, designers find a balance between type with rules and type that has meaning. For instance, I think my typeface for the Bloomberg exhibition reflects this balance, as I have built a rule, yet done so in order to communicate my theme of reflection.
No comments:
Post a Comment