Kyle Rath

The inaugural Face Forward typographic conference, which was held at the Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) in Ireland, forms part of 'ID2015; the Year of Irish Design' governmental initiative, which aims to bring global awareness to various branches of Irish design and by extension, typography. Face Forward is the first peer-reviewed conference of its kind, and offered a sizable forum for engaging with and presenting critical research into typographic production, representation and dissemination in use. With eleven tracks and more than seventy presenters, including notable designers, typographers, design critics and researchers such as Tobias Frere-Jones, Cathy Gale, and Denise Gonzales Crisp, the conference sought to bring to light connections between typographic craft, research, theory, history, criticism, and pedagogy.

Over the past forty years, studies concerning visual rhetoric have become increasingly prevalent, seeping into multiple areas of research, from visual studies to architecture and design. Robin Kinross's The rhetoric of neutrality is arguably one of the most influential pieces on visual rhetoric in design. The article was published in 1985, alongside Richard Buchanan's Declaration by design: Rhetoric, and demonstration in design practice and marks an important moment in design and particularly typographic design. The article mirrors sentiments from postmodern typographic design, where stiff modernist grids, formulaic layouts and neutral letterforms were fervently outcast. Central to this paper is Kinross's rejection that any visual medium can be described as neutral. From the mid-2010s, there seems to have been a renewed interest in "neutral" typographic application. In pursuit of "accessibility", designers and design agencies working in the spheres of...

Letterforms exhibit a great many structural differences across a plethora of assorted typefaces. Opting for the elegance of Chronicle’s charming characters over a bolder Bebas brigade for example, suggests that the structural complexity of each typeface strikes a remarkably particular tone. In my view, these complexities embodied by the letterform are under-explored in design discourse (van Leeuwen 2005:138). I maintain that typography is largely viewed as inherently linguistic – as dependant on the rhetoric of language. Furthermore, I believe that the visual manifestation of type is really a visual manifestation of language, of thought – a “true art”. In my experience as a designer and design educator, I have observed that the majority of typographic exploration is limited to the semantic quality of type, where the appropriateness of letterforms – changes in their structural composition – are qualified by the degree to which they promote and elevate the conceptual genius of either ...

Over the past few decades, numerous prominent authors in various spheres of design discourse have discussed the rhetorical potency of type “icons” and how they come to embody cultural connotation. As icons, typefaces offer a universal language system—an expansive visual vocabulary that immediately references what we already know of their context. Iconic typefaces and their letterforms are subject to a process of narrative interpretation where what we “already know of them” is in a constant process of resignification. Here, critics tend to follow a Barthesian view that, as mythic structures, letterforms’ narratives are continuously used and reused as signification in different contexts. This widely regarded view presumes that iconic meaning develops as a chain of signification, where one narrative builds onto the next. This, however, leaves little explanation for instances where symbolism embedded in iconic typefaces develops in unexpected ways. In this article, I therefore investigate and unpack other means by which iconic typefaces evolve rhetorical meaning. By referring to examples throughout, I explore typical perspectives on iconic type in the Barthesian sense, but also trace different processes of signification. In doing so, I aim to offer alternative insights into ideological type as a more fluid rhetorical entity.

Over the past forty years, studies concerning visual rhetoric have become increasingly prevalent, seeping into multiple areas of research, from visual studies to architecture and design. Robin Kinross's The rhetoric of neutrality is arguably one of the most influential pieces on visual rhetoric in design. The article was published in 1985, alongside Richard Buchanan's Declaration by design: Rhetoric, and demonstration in design practice and marks an important moment in design and particularly typographic design. The article mirrors sentiments from postmodern typographic design, where stiff modernist grids, formulaic layouts and neutral letterforms were fervently outcast.

Central to this paper is Kinross's rejection that any visual medium can be described as neutral. From the mid-2010s, there seems to have been a renewed interest in "neutral" typographic application. In pursuit of "accessibility", designers and design agencies working in the spheres of branding, motion, advertising and user-experience steadily strip letterforms of their distinctive characteristics; purging them of cultural symbolism to satisfy a kind of "global palate". In this paper, I revisit Kinross's treatise on neutrality and explore possible reasons for a renewed interest within "neutral" letterforms within a global context.

Over the past few decades, numerous prominent authors in various spheres of design discourse have discussed the rhetorical potency of type “icons” and how they come to embody cultural connotation. As icons, typefaces offer a universal language system—an expansive visual vocabulary that immediately references what we already know of their context. Iconic typefaces and their letterforms are subject to a process of narrative interpretation where what we “already know of them” is in a constant process of resignification. Here, critics tend to follow a Barthesian view that, as mythic structures, letterforms’ narratives are continuously used and reused as signification in different contexts. This widely regarded view presumes that iconic meaning develops as a chain of signification, where one narrative builds onto the next. This, however, leaves little explanation for instances where symbolism embedded
in iconic typefaces develops in unexpected ways. In this article, I therefore investigate and unpack other means by which iconic typefaces evolve rhetorical meaning. By referring to examples throughout, I explore typical perspectives on iconic type in the Barthesian sense, but also trace different processes of signification. In doing so, I aim to offer alternative
insights into ideological type as a more fluid rhetorical entity.

Letterforms exhibit a great many structural differences across a plethora of assorted typefaces. Opting for the elegance of Chronicle's charming characters over a bolder Bebas brigade for example, suggests that the structural complexity of each typeface strikes a remarkably particular tone. In my view, these complexities embodied by the letterform are under-explored in design discourse (van Leeuwen 2005:138). I maintain that typography is largely viewed as inherently linguistic – as dependant on the rhetoric of language. Furthermore, I believe that the visual manifestation of type is really a visual manifestation of language, of thought – a " true art ". In my experience as a designer and design educator, I have observed that the majority of typographic exploration is limited to the semantic quality of type, where the appropriateness of letterforms – changes in their structural composition – are qualified by the degree to which they promote and elevate the conceptual genius of either language, illustration or other forms of parerga. In this article therefore, I explore and illustrate intricate communicative facets of (Latin) letterforms as communicative entities in their own right. In doing so, special attention is given to type as experiential form. By this, I refer to connotations that we derive from our reminiscent and intuitive perceptions of " abstract " letterform shapes.

The ability to select and apply type sensitively is an art form that requires an astute knowledge of the communicative complexity of letterforms. However, as a designer and design educator, I have observed that many designers frequently select and apply typefaces inappropriately or arbitrarily because they are simply unaware of the complex meanings underlying letterforms, as well as the power of the communicative choices they make. Many designers with even a basic understanding of type still tend to prefer to use illustration, illustrative graphics, icons or photography as their primary media of communication. In the event that type is indeed used, designers tend to choose ‘clean’ typefaces because they appear to detract less from the communicative aspects of other rhetorical texts already at play in their design. In other instances, letterforms may be chosen to achieve an array of elaborately intricate design layouts that are often superficially strewn across decorative, trite and eye-candied designs.

From these observations, I have therefore dedicated my study to delineating and discussing two default modes or methods used for selecting and applying type – type as experiential form and type as iconic form – in order to illustrate the powerful, yet intricate communicative facets of the letterform. The first mode relates to how designers select type based on a typeface’s experiential form. By this, I refer to the connotations that we derive from our physical and sensual perceptions of letterform shapes. I refer to George Laukoff’s experiential metaphor theory, as well as sound-image symbolism theory (synesthesia) in order to identify reminiscent and intuitive letterform perception. The second describes several ways in which designers invoke symbolic connotation by selecting iconic typefaces. Here, I investigate historical and cultural narratives woven into iconic typefaces and how these narratives may be signified, resignified and repurposed.

As a means of understanding the interconnected nature of meaning embodied by the letterform, my final objective is to highlight letterform communication from a visual rhetorical perspective. By conducting an in-depth case study of the Fraktur typeface (as communicating at once
experientially and symbolically), I stress several tensions that exist as a result of overlapping meaning and the interconnected nature of the two default modes of type selection. I thereby argue that designers need be aware of the communicative implications of their default modes or strategies to typeface selection. My point of departure is that a more holistic approach to selecting and applying typefaces could be followed and that rhetorical theory may provide an analytical framework for such an inclusive perspective. I maintain that if the communicative
complexity of letterforms is viewed from a visual rhetorical perspective, where rhetorical intricacies of meaning embodied in the letterform are thoughtfully and holistically considered (where designers may question their default modes of type selection), designers can be more strategic in directing meaning through type.

Over the past forty years, studies concerning visual rhetoric have become increasingly prevalent and so seep into multiple areas of research, from visual studies to architecture, and of course, design. Robin Kinross' The rhetoric of neutrality is arguably one of the most influential pieces on visual rhetoric in design. The article was published in 1985, alongside Richard Buchanan's Declaration by design: rhetoric, and demonstration in design practice and marks an important moment in design and particularly typographic design. The article mirrors sentiments from postmodern typographic design, where stiff modernist grids, formulaic layouts and neutral letterforms were fervently outcast. Central to this paper is Kinross' rejection that any visual medium can be described as neutral. From the mid 2010s, a renewed interest in 'neutral' typographic application seems to have reared. In pursuit of 'accessibility,' designers and design agencies in branding, motion, advertising and user-experience spheres steadily strip letterforms of their distinctive characteristics; purging them of cultural symbolism to satisfy a kind of 'global palate.' In this paper, I revisit Kinross's treatise on neutrality, and explore possible reasons for a renewed interest in 'neutral' letterforms in a global context.

Over the past few decades, numerous prominent authors in various spheres of design discourse have dissected and discussed the rhetorical potency of type ‘icons’ and how they come to embody cultural connotation. As icons, typefaces offer a universal language system; an expansive visual vocabulary that immediately references what we already know of their context. Iconic typefaces and their letterforms are subject to a process of narrative interpretation where, what we ‘already know of them’ is in a constant process of resignification. Here, critics tend to follow a Barthesian view that, as mythic structures, letterforms’ narratives are continuously used and reused as signification in different contexts.

This widely regarded view presumes that iconic meaning develops intertextually, in a linear progression where one narrative builds onto the next. A postmodern understanding such as this leaves little explanation for instances where symbolism embedded in iconic typefaces develops in unexpected and less referential ways. In this article, I therefore investigate and unpack several other means by which iconic typefaces take on or evolve rhetorical meaning. By referring to several examples throughout, I explore typical perspectives on iconic type in the Barthesian sense, but also trace different processes of signification that inform iconic type. In doing so, I attempt to offer alternative insights into iconic type as a more fluid rhetorical entity so that visual artists, practitioners, writers and theorists might consider alternative aspects of type’s social and cultural significance.

The perceived function of typography, and specifically letter form, has, since it’s first mechanical implementation in the fifteenth century vacillated tremendously. Whether viewed as a purely semantic/linguistic device; graphic imprints of a particular zeitgeist; as defining geographic and spatial bounds; patriotic and nationalistic insignia or as badges of technical proficiency, letterforms have played a crucial role in most forms of communication design.
       
However, not until the 1970s and 1980s with the onset of New Wave and Deconstructionist design ideology, had a ‘more’ visceral aspect of letter forms been investigated (and rigorously so) in terms of design practice, philosophy and discourse. In reaction to the notion of transcendental universality in typeface design held by Modernist typographers, and at the height of a tech-boom, Postmodern designers sought to exploit the complexity of letterforms by manipulating its tactile and textural qualities.

Central to this chapter is a focus on a relatively recent (since roughly 2016) (re)turn to what I refer to as ‘the typographic sensorium.’ Following Ong’s concept of ‘the sensorium’ – that our sensory instruments; sight, sound, touch (including kinaesthesia), smell and taste overlie each other – I investigate notable uptake in a sensory approach to the analysis and design of letter forms. In doing so, I analyse noteworthy letterform experiments that explore the interplay and communicative value of specific sense-based letterforms. That is, I am interested in the sounds, taste, texture, movement and smell of letterforms.