Is the art of typography dead? Look around... Is the ability to use type – correctly – dead? Dying? Hiding in the back of some studio? Or alive, kicking and thriving? Do most people even know good type when they see it? Posted by: Chris Inman, Graphic Design / Communication Design Architect.
Editor's note: Unlike the branding answer we posted a couple of weeks back, the 61 answers provided by the respondents of this question varied greatly. The general idea behind Chris's question pops up among designers on a regular basis, and everyone it seems, has an opinion. And why should we be any different?
I believe that the vigorous response to your question provides at least some insight. While I haven't read every response, it seems that the very issue — while somewhat misunderstood by some in my opinion — is one that many are working to resolve on a daily basis. To be sure, the computer has produced some lazy habits, but I don't believe it is the cause of what might seem a languishing attention to typographic detail. With few exceptions, we simply don't set every character, every word, every line in this day and age, and as such, we allow the computer's limitations to solve problems for us. This can begin with the very construct of the type itself (for which quality, in many cases, has indeed suffered), our understanding of the typesetting tools at hand (more complex than the passive operator might care to master), or the limitations of time and detail that the client has imposed (also a result of the computer's perceived efficiencies). But the computer itself, is hardly the cause of the problem. That is, if you care to look at it as a problem.
There is no question that the limitations of the Web (and digital display in general) have been many. I see that as part of the delivery media itself, rather than as a problem, per se. That being said, I do believe we are beyond many of the issues which previously limited us as typographers in the digital age. Browsers are rendering type quite well if its underlying code provides that attention to detail. Resolution has improved to a degree that finer letterforms and their relationships can be rendered (this is another question altogether; should letterforms developed for earlier processes be expected to perform in digital media?) in a more than acceptable manner. Typographers are understanding digital media and the opportunities and/or challenges to a degree previously unrealized. In short, we are still learning how readers use, or respond to, the written word onscreen.
I also believe that there is a renaissance, of sorts, among younger people in terms of "craft." They are, by and large, becoming (or are born into) a set of increasing concern for the way things are handled. Or made. And with that, the very nature of any product which relies upon the human hand becomes, for lack of a more descriptive term, "better."
So I suppose that is my windy way of saying, no and yes. Typography is anything but dead. The interest in understanding the discipline of typography is very much alive and well. A new generation of designers, typographers, craftspeople are fully attuned to traditional processes and understand digital media at a gut level. Even a few "codgers" in such small firms such as ours, (who arguably came up in the dark days of typography) are helping to bridge gaps between the traditional and new medias.
To your final point, I would provide a resounding no. "Most people" don't know "good type" when they see it. But that's largely an issue of conditioning. "Most people" don't recognize or respect quality in any form (beyond their most closely-held interests) and typography is largely a practice of interest among designers. That is not to say that the unwashed don't recognize that "something" is beautiful, or easier to use, or more enjoyable. They just can't put their finger on what it is.