It
seems to be a golden age of type design—not only are there more type
foundries now than ever before, not only is distribution easier and more
direct, not only is type a hot topic for numerous specialised blogs and
magazines, but even the general interest media are in on the
conversation, (if only occasionally). New type design courses are
opening regularly, churning out legions of type designers. And there are
now over 150,000 fonts available for direct download.Click to Edit
Xband Rough 1
30px
In
spite of all the attention to type and the unprecedented conditions for
type designers, the vast majority of new fonts desperately lack
originality. Just as in the music industry, where cover versions and
remixes are often more popular than new music, font designers seemingly
prefer to exploit successful models from the past rather than strive for
new solutions. Scant decades ago, new typefaces underwent a rigorous
review procedure to ensure that they met the publisher’s artistic and
technical criteria. Today, self-publishingClick to Edit
has
eliminated such processes, and there is little critical review, little
effort to add something new to the evolution of the profession.
Mediocrity abounds as quality control dwindles. Dozens of blogs (as well
as the print media) simply republish press releases without
distinguishing between marketing and independent reviews, praising
uninspired fonts and institutionalising the average. Many design awards
do the same, perpetuating a false idea of what constitutes superior
quality. We don’t need new fonts like this.Click to Edit
Xband Rough 1
16px
