I wanted to expand on my comment in class about the Puterschein article. For anyone who may have missed this Puterschein begins this review off with a quote:
“Not all typefaces have to be versatile, or distinctive, or even attractive. Like people, many typefaces are, well, just normal. Some can be naive, or clumsy or plain as vanilla yogurt. This doesn’t mean they’re bad deisgns–they’re just not great designs. None of the typefaces reviewed here is a great design, but each can find a place to fit… maybe even shine.”
This got my thoughts spinning out of control. Why haven’t I ever compared a person to a font? Especially since we’ve been using fonts to describe our generation for much of our lives. We’ve made the transition to define ourselves via font from AIM (AOL Instant Messenger) to middle school homework assignments (why teachers even required the standard Times New Roman, 12 pt) to email signatures.
I came across this link while searching for other literature on comparing people to typefaces as some key words came up. This article also relates to our discussion in class about eliciting specific feelings with certain fonts and phrased “font personalities” which I liked a lot.
We compare people to drinks and everything else (i.e. you’re like a fine wine or your as smooth as silk) so why not “you’re as bold as Broadway” or “you’re a crazy as Webdings?” Is it because there are so many fonts that vary on different machines that people not understand what you’re saying? Is it perhaps that fonts are still a relatively “new” concept for some to wrap their heads around? Or maybe is it that you can’t be summed up in a typeface?
Are you more than a typeface? Would you receive the compliment out of “you’re as elegant as Lucida Calligraphy” or “you’re as fun as Curlz”? Would you be offended that someone would even try to compare you with a typeface?
Maybe you’re a typeface the world hasn’t seen yet.