Forma, Datilo, Modulo : Nebiolo’s last eforts to produce a ‘universal’ typeface Alessandro Colizzi To appear in Paul Shaw, ed. Timeless Typography, Cambridge, MT : MIT Press (forthcoming). The content of the present article is made available under the Creative Commons licence Atribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International. This means it can be reproduced as long as the author’s name is mentioned, it is not used for commercial purposes, and it is shared with the same licence. The images used herein respond to the practice of fair use (Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C., 107), being aimed at historical and critical commentary and teaching. Alessandro Colizzi is professor of typography and design history at École de design, Université du Québec à Montréal. — colizzi.alessandro@uqam.ca 1. It is worth noting that all of the designers agreed to undertake consulting on a voluntary basis (their only reward being a gold medal from Nebiolo). Regardless of the outcome, such dedication to the cause of good design over such an extended period of time deserves admiration. A partial reconstruction of the main events related to Forma is included in Ratin, Ricci 1997 : 103–5. 2. Franco Camera, ‘La Nebiolo e gli artisti graici : studio in équipe di nuovi carateri’ in Qui Nebiolo II; 5 (1967) : 8–10. During the irst half of the 20th century Nebiolo (founded in 1852 in Turin) was probably the only Italian manufacturer of printing equipment with a real international proile. The company was also an important type manufacturer. Its Studio Artistico (Art Studio), headed since 1952 by Aldo Novarese (1920– 1995), had put out a number of successful designs, including the large text and display families Garaldus, Recta and Eurostile. In the early 1960s, facing the rapid technological changes brought about by the advent of photocomposition and ofset printing, Nebiolo was facing major inancial diiculties, partly covered by State intervention. In 1965, adopting a marketing-oriented approach to ind out what customers wanted before starting production, the foundry management set up a research commitee composed of graphic designers to sit beside Novarese and oversee new typeface designs. The team included prominent igures from Milan’s graphic design scene : Franco Grignani (1908–1999), Giancarlo Iliprandi (1925–2017), Bruno Munari (1907– 1998), Ilio Negri (1926–1974), Till Neuburg (b. 1939), Luigi Oriani (b. 1919), and Pino Tovaglia (1923–1977). Remarkably, the designers’ team would remain active for over a decade (well ater Novarese’s retirement) overseeing a number of designs produced by the Studio Artistico and signing at least two original typefaces, Forma (1968) and Datilo (1974), while work on a third one called Modulo was only halted, just shy of completion, because the foundry ceased operations in 1978.1 Writing in the house organ Qui Nebiolo in 1967, foundry director Franco Camera threw out a number of arguments to support this new turn. The world of printing faced speciic challenges in adapting to new composing systems and printing techniques. Next to obvious commercial considerations (which he actually downplayed), there were aesthetic and psychological factors afecting typeface design. Echoing McLuhan, Camera evoked the fast pace of technological progress and the increase in information low across all media : the ‘new alphabets’ for magnetic and electronic media were far from convincing — he stated — hence the urge to develop new quality typefaces suited to the changing needs where visual perception, legibility, and speed of reading were of primary importance.2 The irst input came from a meeting in May 1965 jointly organized by Nebiolo and AIAP, the Italian professional association of graphic and advertising artists (Associazione Italiana Artisti graici e Pubblicitari) and held at the Industry Union headquarters in Turin. The event brought together producers 1 3. See Franco Etzi-Coller, ‘Forma : le premesse’ in Qui Nebiolo IV; 10 (1969) : 2. For the history of the Nebiolo company see Giorgio Di Francesco, Lino Tavano (eds), Torinesi di caratere. La Nebiolo : un’industria, i suoi uomini. Turin : Lupieri Editore, 2004; and Boris Pesce, Lavorare in Nebiolo. Dal boom economico agli anni 70. Turin : Neos, 2008. 4. The number of Nebiolo’s employees went from 2040 in 1962 to 1804 in 1966, when production hit a minimum of 11,217 tons. For an overview of Nebiolo’s industrial history in the 1960s and 1970s, see ‘Storia e Cultura dell’industria. Il Nordovest dal 1850’ at www.corsi. storiaindustria.it/setoriindustriali/ editoria/nebiolo/storia/ (retrieved October 2013). 2 and users of type for an open exchange about the later’s speciic needs. The discussion clearly pointed to a gap in the market for an ‘objective’ typeface, stripped of any calligraphic feel and suitable to become the workhorse of contemporary graphic design. “To me there is this gap between your [ie. Novarese’s] work, which is close to traditional typography, and ours which is close to aesthetic issues … Those who only draw alphabets may not know the secrets of a part of the world that deals instead with other visual problems,” responded Grignani from the audience. The divergence seemed to relate to diferent aesthetic criteria between printers, bound to tradition, and graphic designers, bound to the emerging discipline of visual communication. Nebiolo’s releases, indelibly bearing Novarese’s hallmark, seemed to have litle appeal to the emerging professionals working in the advertising and corporate sectors. The situation was summed up by Grignani who said, “We are typographers who use few typefaces, only those which represent the spirit, the architecture of modern graphics.” However, while it is true that the foundry’s dwindling sales could in part be atributed to Novarese’s stylistic departure from current graphic trends, Nebiolo’s market position in the early sixties proved problematic mainly because of its traditional role of supplying type to a few thousand jobbing printers all over the country, with limited sales abroad. Their catalogue was only available for handseting. Garaldus was not successful despite it having been one of the few Nebiolo atempts to produce a decent roman for texts, and even Recta’s numerous series — which were completed only a short time before Forma was excogitated — had proved a far from successful display face. Although from the early 1970s onwards a few typefaces were also released as Linotype matrices, no investments nor any strategic alliances were ever made to embrace phototypeseting technology — a delay that would prove critical to the foundry’s survival.3 Moreover, the problems facing the company were more complex : ater the strong expansion phase during the boom years of Italian industry — in the late 1950s Nebiolo’s printing presses saw a 26% sales increase, and a 64% increase in export — by 1965 the economy was contracting, and the company readjusted by laying of hundreds of workers. The situation only worsened towards the end of the decade, with labour unrest seriously afecting production.4 The ‘universal’ design which the group of progressive Milanese designers like Tovaglia and Grignani pressed for was expected to follow the same line of research of the experimental alphabets produced in the 1920s, upgraded with the latest scientiic results of legibility studies : “A typeface should relect the spirit of an era … Widespread sans serif typefaces that are so absolute, so readable best represent our desire for synthesis, the need to access the message instantly” (Tovaglia); “If we can create a sans serif leter so pure, so balanced that it conveys a sense of rest in its relationship between black and white, then we’ll have found the typeface we’re looking for” (Grignani). This view was not unanimous among design professionals, some even called it elitist. Advertising designer Armando Testa challenged the assumption of uniformity in text seting : “We know that American advertising favours mixing several faces, and even seeks typical alphabets, tied to a speciic context … This perfect brick of yours, these undisturbing, evenly leaded and spaced leters, who’s Alessandro Colizzi Forma, Datilo, Modulo : Nebiolo’s last eforts to produce a ‘universal’ typeface Studio artistico, Fonderia Nebiolo, 1968. From Qui Nebiolo 7 (1968), Tipoteca Italiana Fondazione, Cornuda. Gruppo ricerca carateri, Turin, 1967. From the let, Franco Grignani, Till Neuburg, Giancarlo Iliprandi, Aldo Novarese (oppos­ ite), Ilio Negri, Pino Tovaglia. From Qui Nebiolo 5 (1967), Tipoteca Italiana Fondazione, Cornuda. Gruppo ricerca carateri, Turin, ca. 1968. From the let, Maria Grazia Schenone, Till Neuburg, Pino Tovaglia, Franco Grignani, Aldo Novarese, Giancarlo Ilipran­ di, Ilio Negri, Franco Camera. From Qui Nebiolo 10 (1969), Tipoteca Italiana Fondazione, Cornuda. Gruppo ricerca carateri, illustration by Giorgio Cavallo. From Qui Nebiolo 10 (1969), Tipoteca Italiana Fondazione, Cornuda. 3 Aldo Novarese, Designer, study #1 and capitals, 1966. From Mostra nazionale di graica pubblicitaria, Castello del Valentino, 1969. AIAp, Centro di Documentazione sul Progeto Graico, Milan. 4 Alessandro Colizzi Forma, Datilo, Modulo : Nebiolo’s last eforts to produce a ‘universal’ typeface 5. All quoted in ‘Forma : le fasi di una ricerca’ in Qui Nebiolo IV; 10 (1969) : 5–6. In his opening speech at the round table where Nebiolo presented the new typeface Forma in December 1968, Camera cited works by Bayer, Burchartz, Schwitters, Cassandre, even Stefan George, thereby testifying to a solid historical awareness (quoted in ‘Forma : appunti da una tavola rotonda’ in Qui Nebiolo IV; 10 : 24). Among dissenting voices was Albe Steiner’s : “I declined the invitation and summarized my position in a report. I did not want to take part in a study which I felt was not suiciently and clearly set out, and whose outcome was likely to be of litle use. … The team did not include specialists such as ophthalmologists, biologists, and the like — and you cannot talk about type design and legibility without considering the anatomy of the eye. … You can draw more or less pleasant forms, but these will not match the degree of eye weariness. We keep on talking about sans serif, you can call those types any way you like, but they make people tired, because there is no calculated ratio between width and thickness, slant and width, and so on” (from Steiner’s intervention at a round table organised during the Graitalia conference at Milan’s Fair in October 1973; now published as ‘Contenuto e Forma’ in Steiner 1978 : 48–53; my translation). Such claims to a scientiic design process were common among the Milanese designers at the time, and strongly inluenced the commitee’s subsequent activities. See also Steiner’s short contribution to another round table organised by Nebiolo in July 1968, published as ‘Il disegno dei carateri’ in id. 1978 : 54. 6. Nebiolo, which had a solid relation with AIAp’s president Franco Mosca, appointed Tovaglia because the company was eager to develop a dialogue with the élite of Milan’s designers, who belonged to ADI (Association for Industrial Design) as opposed to AIAp, which represented (what can be loosely termed) commercial artists (the author thanks Giancarlo Iliprandi for pointing out this subtle but signiicant diference). 7. Till Neuburg, unpublished interview, c.2008 (courtesy of interviewee). going to read them…?”5 Nonetheless, that was the proposition that maintained the interest of Nebiolo’s management, as a sans serif typeface of this kind matched their need for a commercially viable product to contrast (and possibly displace) competitors such as Helvetica, Univers, Folio and the like. In the following months a small research group was formed which initially included Novarese, Tovaglia, and Grignani, and whose objectives were to ofer advice on designs being developed by the Studio Artistico so as to cater to the taste and needs of a wide customer base. Tovaglia decided to broaden the group by inviting fellow designers Iliprandi, Negri, Neuburg, Munari and Oriani; for Nebiolo, besides Novarese, the group comprised commercial representatives and Maria Grazia Schenone of the Publicity oice, who acted as main coordinator for the meetings, which were held regularly on a bimonthly basis, either in Turin or Milan.6 In April 1966 Novarese set forth a new alphabet called Designer, a rather compact, low-contrast sans serif with a clear humanist structure, tapered stroke endings and tiny serifs — which the designers judged troppo profumato, too noticeable to become the general face they were aiming for. This irst criticism lead the team to set optimal legibility and neutrality as deining criteria for their ‘ideal’ typeface. Perhaps the decision was not unrelated to broad philosophical orientations typical of the Zeitgeist, as relected in the assumption that simplicity is synonymous with clarity and therefore universality. The need for a more ethical design also stemmed from the general political climate of the sixties, not to mention the fascination with Japanese minimalism espoused (among others) by Munari. “At the time a certain rhetoric of collectivism was predominant and Tovaglia (in good faith) believed it was possible to create a typeface collectively.”7 The collective design process began with a formal analysis comparing proportions, construction, terminals, and stroke width of the main competitors, such as Univers, Helvetica, Folio, Akzidenz Grotesk, in order to determine the starting point for a toned-down interpretation of the Swiss sans serif model without following it too closely, as was the case of many imitations — for instance, Umberto Fenocchio’s Linea released by Milan’s Fonderia Tipograica Cooperativa foundry in 1966. The irst step was to simplify the original alphabet laid down by Novarese : the contrast was reduced, the serifs removed while keeping the slight thickenings of the stroke endings, and the x-height was strengthened by further shortening ascenders and descenders. Alternate characters were proposed for some leters (G R a) which would eventually go into production. Through constant iteration between the Studio Artistico and the committee, Novarese (assisted by the young Luciano Agosto and Gianni Parlacino) provided the technical drawings for the many modiications or variations advanced by the designers, who in turn elaborated on the ideas generated in the meetings (sometimes as sketches, more oten as lengthy typewriten reports), which were then discussed at the next meeting. Opinions varied considerably within the group. In the early stages, Negri wanted to explore new symbols unconstrained by tradition, Tovaglia aimed at building up a radical new set of leterforms, Grignani wanted to play with phonetic transcription. 5 While admiting that Helvetica and Univers were problematic for continuous reading, Tovaglia was in favour of a ‘gray efect’ in text seting; a view opposed by Neuburg, who preferred Akzidenz’s imperfections and warned against an excess of uniformity. Whenever research seemed to go astray, Nebiolo had to steer the discussion back to a more pragmatic objective within the general rules of visual perception. A consensus was reached to comply with the current trends and market expectations. Forma, as the typeface began to be called from 1967 on, would be a no-nonsense jobbing sans serif, aiming to challenge market leaders by improving legibility and photographic reproductions for ofset and photogravure printing. The process was quite laborious with meetings spanning across two years. Work progressed in parallel on three cuts : semi-bold roman and italic, and bold. The italic (which is actually a slanted roman) was obtained through photographic distortion (the Studio Artistico had a dark room and a full-time photographer) and then redrawn by Novarese and his assistants. The designers did not approve of the italic, which they felt was inconsistent with their design logic. Novarese must have had diferent views, but ultimately it was Nebiolo who insisted on it for obvious commercial considerations. There were disagreements on the narrow series as well (which was later added to the family) as the group again felt it contradicted the harmonic balance of curves of the basic cut, which for them was the semi-bold.8 During 1968 the designs were inalized and went into pre-production : matrices were cut, from which type was cast and the irst proofs printed. Each designer in the team was asked to create advertisements and specimens, which were published in leading Italian periodicals. Photographic proofs were made available to a number of professionals to test the typeface. The results were presented in a panel discussion entitled “The evolution of research : Forma” held at the Hotel Principe & Savoia in Milan in December 1968. The audience comprised members of Milan’s design (Silvio Coppola, Franco Bassi, Atilio Rossi), advertising (Horst Blachian), and publishing (Felice Nava, Piero Sansoni) communities. Reactions were broadly favorable, although some voiced their concern about the ‘gray efect’ in continuous text. To Rossi the typeface looked like “a bread without salt,” whereas Blachian (creative director at Young & Rubicam), who was otherwise appreciative of the work accomplished by the team, found there was “an excess of harmony, a compact ‘gray’ that is uninviting, especially in small sizes ... Forma looks almost as if output by a computer.” Iliprandi defended the design : “We asked ourselves, do we want a mannered or an aseptic character? We opted for tonal music….” and Grignani explained, “Type is a mass, it’s up to us as designers to give it life.”9 8. Giancarlo Iliprandi, interview with the author, 24 June 2013. 9. All quoted in ‘Forma : appunti da una tavola rotonda’ in Qui Nebiolo IV; 10 : 24–26. 6 Forma was initially released in three cuts, semi-bold roman and italic, and roman bold. Since Nebiolo types were only available as founders’ type, agreements were made with the Adler Traldi foundry in Rome to produce linotype matrices, which were available from 1972, although in a limited range of variants : roman/bold, roman/italic, light/light italic. The family received regular additions in the following years : bold italic, extra light roman, black roman, bold condensed and bold outline — and became one of the largest and most Alessandro Colizzi Forma, Datilo, Modulo : Nebiolo’s last eforts to produce a ‘universal’ typeface Gruppo Ricerca carateri, Design­ er, study #4, 1966. From Mostra nazionale di graica pubblicitaria, Castello del Valentino, 1969. AIAp, Centro di Documentazione sul Progeto Graico, Milan. Table comparing Designer to main sanserif competitors, 1966. From Qui Nebiolo 10 (1969), Tipoteca Italiana Fondazione, Cornuda. 7 Early specimens of Forma medium and bold roman, and medium slanted, 1968. From Mostra nazionale di graica pubblicitaria, Castello del Valentino, 1969. AIAp, Centro di Documentazione sul Progeto Graico, Milan. 8 Alessandro Colizzi Forma, Datilo, Modulo : Nebiolo’s last eforts to produce a ‘universal’ typeface 10. Forma also won a special mention at Gute Form 1970, the annual award promoted by the Internationale Design-Zentrum in Berlin. 11. ‘The making of a type design — by commitee’ in The British Printer 81; 9 (September 1968) : 87– 89 [author not given]. 12. Giancarlo Iliprandi, interview with the author, 24 June 2013. 13. When Parlacino entered Nebiolo in 1968, he and Agosto were the only assistants to Novarese — besides the photographer in charge of the darkroom (Gianni Parlacino, interview with the author, 24 September 2013). 14. Giancarlo Iliprandi, interview with the author, 24 June 2013. 15. The original Recta roman was drawn by Alessandro Buti shortly before being dismissed from Nebiolo in 1953 (information from Ennio Lavagno, former type dratsman at Nebiolo under Buti’s direction; unpublished documents gathered by Enrico Tallone; interview transcript courtesy of Riccardo Olocco). Recta anticipated in many ways the trends to come, but unfortunately was met with litle interest from the management, only to be recovered in 1958 to counter the success of Helvetica and Univers. Novarese designed its slanted companion (much to Buti’s annoyance, who considered the typeface needed a true italic) and oversaw the other series until 1961 (see Ratin, Ricci 1997 : 111–2). Alessandro Buti (1893–1958) entered Nebiolo as chief compositor in the company’s printing plant in 1926; he collaborated with Rafaello Bertieri as dratsman for the production of a number of historical typefaces, such as Ruano, Paganini, and Inkunabula. Ater a stint as assistant to Guido Da Milano, in 1936 he was appointed director of the Studio creazione carateri, and designed numerous successful types for Nebiolo, including Fluidum, Hastile, Augustea, Microgramma (see Ratin, Ricci 1997 : 99-102). As for the common atribution to Novarese of numerous type designs from the 1940s and 1950s (based on Novarese’s own accounts, for lack of other sources and critical studies), it should be noted that, according to witnesses, Novarese’s signature on several original drawings was actually faked by Novarese himself (Gianni Parlacino, interview with the author, 23–24 September 2013). lexible type families available in Italy in the 1970s. As its name implied, Forma aimed at representing the ideal leterform of its time, as neutral and self-effacing as possible, suited for continuous text as well as titling, potentially appealing to graphic designers, advertising art directors, and printers alike. The new typeface was favorably received by the design community and it won a special mention at ADI’s (Associazione per il Disegno Industriale, Industrial Design Association) annual award Compasso d’oro in 1970.10 It was the irst time a type design was awarded such an honor. Initial sales were encouraging, also abroad, but Forma could not really compete in a market already saturated by competitors, which moreover were available for all the main composing systems. Despite some interesting formal solutions and improvements in terms of legibility, Forma basically did not stray far from the neo-grotesque model, nor did it achieve its self-claimed ‘universal’ status, as a contemporary reviewer pointed out : “Univers … has held the stage for a fairly long time, Forma is a more elegant and readable face, and may well prove successful — for a few years, until fashion changes again.”11 “We designed Forma to use it, and we did,” said Iliprandi. Forma also catered to the newspaper market, since most Italian newspapers still set headlines (and sometimes text) by hand. Nebiolo had its own linecaster, Nebitype, and Forma matrices were produced for this machine as early as 1968. The annuals and newsleter of the Art Directors Club Milano, and the ADI Annual were designed by Iliprandi using Forma throughout the 1970s; Tovaglia also used the type extensively in his own work. An atempt to introduce Nebiolo’s new type family in the newspaper sector was arranged with Genoa’s daily Il Lavoro, whose layout was redesigned by Tovaglia. The newspaper tried to reposition itself through a graphic overhaul, in which Forma was a key element. Ater just a few issues, however, the collaboration was discontinued because journalists opposed it.12 The teamwork continued without interruptions ater Forma’s release. Numerous alphabets were developed independently by the Studio Artistico and submited for discussion to the commitee. These included personal creations by Novarese, such as Magister, Metropol, Stop, Sprint, Delta, and Fenice, and contributions by Agosto and Parlacino, who were de facto in charge of the studio following Novarese’s retirement.13 In fact the graphic designers acted as global consultants to the Studio Artistico, ‘next to poor Novarese, who begrudged this situation.’14 Apparently, Novarese did not really like Forma, most likely because it was not his own creation. Nonetheless, he oversaw many of the additional cuts, including extra light and condensed. He did not sign the black weight though, which was eventually produced ater he quit the foundry (he considered it unnecessary, despite Haas having released its Helvetica ultra black at about the same time). Another reason why Novarese was unsympathetic towards Forma is that he must have seen it as a repudiation of the Recta, the sans serif family designed by Alessandro Buti in the early 1950s and later conceived by Novarese as a large family to compete with Univers and Helvetica.15 Next to working on Novarese’s own type designs (for which they have hardly deserved any credit so far) and Forma black, Agosto and Parlacino developed or contributed substantially to typefaces like Boxer 9 (a compact titling face for newspapers, loosely inspired by Berthold’s Block), and a Bodoni revival which was halted before production. They played a more active role working on the extended project that lead to Modulo, perhaps the most experimental of the designs undertaken by the commitee. Ater this irst success, Nebiolo understably pressed for a companion face to Forma. The commitee members aimed to broaden the scope of the research by returning to their initial ambitions of developing an innovative project ex nihilo in a strictly functional manner, without reference to competitors. They needed data from which to set up objective criteria, but given the lack of resources for a broader market survey, they fell back on a more modest opinion poll among graphic designers about their preferred text typefaces. Ater some hesitations as to the best way to tackle the new design, it was decided to revert to Forma as a starting point — as Novarese had suggested back in 1969. The idea of a slab serif echoing the aesthetics of typewriter characters was Novarese’s, as was its name Datilo. As member of the Rencontres internationales de Lure since 1955 Novarese was aware of international trends and, following the success of Frutiger’s Serifa (Bauer, 1967), he felt the need for something more in tune with contemporary sans serif models rather than the older Clarendon (such as his own Egizio, released in 1955). The group came up with the idea of essentially adding serifs to Forma, whose proportions were adapted to the new design with minor adjustments. Production progressed at a slow pace. Datilo was eventually released in 1972 in three basic cuts, semi-bold roman, extra light, and black, while other variants (condensed and semi bold italic) were completed at a later stage and released in 1974.16 Like its sans serif companion, Datilo’s launch was accompanied by a wealth of printed mater — posters, advertisements, specimens — entrusted to the graphic designers and in-house to Novarese. The typeface got a successful response from the graphic community, as conirmed by positive marketing results. Compared to Forma, Datilo had a slight tonguein-cheek look that made it more appealing as a titling face and for advertising. Its serifs efectively break the former’s monotonous black/white rhythm, which was its ideological strength as well as its formal weakness. Not surprisingly, Armando Testa (who had been critical of Forma) was among the creatives who joined the team to produce posters for Datilo. 16. Information based on a raw chronology of the meetings’ minutes, courtesy Giancarlo Iliprandi. 17. When Novarese retired as artistic director in 1972, Agosto and Parlacino were let in charge of the studio. The company granted Novarese oice room where he could continue work on his own projects, which would usher in his second career as independent type designer. 10 The group was by now a closely-knit collective more experienced with the subtleties of type production. Over time there had been some changeover : Neuburg and Oriani quit the team in 1970, while Turin-based designer Giovanni Brunazzi (b. 1938) joined the group around 1974; and Gianfranco Repeti replaced Franco Camera as commercial director of the foundry. What proved to be increasingly diicult was the relationship with Novarese. Nebiolo’s idea of opening up the creative process and mark a change from the traditional crat seting that had prevailed until then may have had its own merits, but Novarese, who had worked alone and without any restrictions for over twenty years, could not willingly accept the teamwork that the management imposed upon him. In the end, that assignment weighed heavily on him and was the main reason that prompted him to leave the company towards the end of 1974.17 Alessandro Colizzi Forma, Datilo, Modulo : Nebiolo’s last eforts to produce a ‘universal’ typeface Forma nera specimen, 1968. AIAp, Centro di Documentazione sul Progeto Graico, Milan. Promotional piece by Pino Tovaglia, 1974. Tipoteca Italiana Fondazione, Cornuda. Specimen Forma tonda neris­ sima, 1975. Tipoteca Italiana Fondazione, Cornuda. 11 Specimen Datilo chiarissimo, 1974. Lars Schwartz, licker.com. Datilo chiarissimo, advertise­ ment by Franco Grignani, 1968. AIAp, Centro di Documentazione sul Progeto Graico, Milan. Datilo chiarissimo, advertise­ ment by Armando Testa, 1974. Tipoteca Italiana Fondazione, Cornuda. 12 Alessandro Colizzi Forma, Datilo, Modulo : Nebiolo’s last eforts to produce a ‘universal’ typeface 18. Account based on conversations with Gianni Parlacino (24 September 2013) and Luciano Agosto (14 June 2013). 19. Till Neuburg, unpublished interview, c.2008 (courtesy of interviewee). 20. Tovaglia, Negri, Iliprandi were apparently more accommodating, Grignani was more unequivocal, Munari ‘in his usual seemingly naive, minimalist way, was the most inluential in the group’ (Neuburg). 21. Novarese quoted in ‘Forma : le fasi di una ricerca’ in Qui Nebiolo IV; 10 : 14. 22. Excerpt from the minutes of 22nd meeting, Turin, 18 February 1970. AIAp, Centro di Documentazione del Progeto Graico, fonds Ilio Negri, folder Gruppo Ricerca Carateri. All in all, Novarese was no less a prima donna than the Milanese designers. From the beginning he resented them because not only did they steal his role of creative director, they told him what he should do — much to his annoyance. Also the fact that Tovaglia and his colleagues had the task of designing promotional materials bothered Novarese, who had always maintained an almost maniacal control of the foundry’s publications. Except for a few meetings, Novarese took litle part in the legibility research that the commitee embarked upon between 1970 and 1972. This situation explains why young studio assistants Agosto and Parlacino were involved from the beginning in the project — and on a par with the designers.18 “Unfortunately Novarese was an unintentional victim of an equally unintentional ‘conspiracy’. Every time that we met in Milan, we knew that he sufered,” said Neuburg. “We carelessly threw in our views that almost invariably made much of his work useless, and he had to go back to Turin to start almost from scratch. I couldn’t understand why he didn’t send everyone to hell. But Novarese was shy and probably complied to Nebiolo’s management, so he had to accept and work out our oten contradictory remarks.”19 Indeed Tovaglia and the other graphic designers did not have much respect for Novarese either. They regarded him as a romantic artist not in line with their functionalist values. This subdued contrast certainly did not create the best conditions for a balanced exchange between individuals with strong personalities.20 Moreover, Novarese was a serious stuterer, which complicated things further, particularly when he lost his temper. The designers’ remarks on formal aspects of all the alphabets presented to them reveal they had litle experience in leter design (with the exception perhaps of Grignani and Neuburg) and were prone to geometric solutions that contradicted Novarese’s typographic common sense : “I think that such an alphabet, besides having an unduly mechanical appearance, would create diiculty in visual perception.” 20 A case in point is a discussion about the Stop typeface that Novarese submited to the committee for feedback in early 1970. Looking at the complete alphabet before them the designers observed that Q could be mistaken for 9, that W is hard to read and too similar to the Alitalia logo, and raised the point about the dot on the I; Munari wanted to get rid of punctuation altogether, suggesting the addition of a horizontal notch on the O and a reduction in its horizontal proportions; Grignani proposed instead a notch on the let; Tovaglia and Oriani wanted to make O a perfect circle (then realized that this causes problems at the end of a word)… Signiicantly, Novarese did not intervene, and the discussion ended without reaching a consensus and the general conclusion that “Novarese will develop recommendations.”22 Records of the meetings also show that the discussions almost inevitably tended towards speculation and were oten inconclusive. For all their great talent as designers, Tovaglia and colleagues inclined toward an excess of theoretical lingo that sometimes bordered on lights of fancy. Due to Novarese’s growing impatience with ‘abstract talk’ from around 1970 it was decided to proceed by spliting the group’s activities in two : at every meeting half of the time was devoted to examining typefaces developed by the Studio Artistico, the other half to the long-term search for the ideal alphabet, yet to be determined. Munari invited psychologist Gaetano Kanisza, known for his studies of 13 perception, who provided a survey of legibility studies. Access to this kind of scientiic information was at the time very unusual for graphic designers, even more so in Italy where the English language constituted a further obstacle. Following this initiation, it was decided to carry out an experimental study from which to garner the data needed for deining the ideal alphabet. 23. ‘Stralcio della Relazione di Alberto Munari’ (1973) in Archivio Giancarlo Iliprandi, Milan. 14 The legibility study was conducted in 1972 by Alberto Munari, researcher at the Faculty of Psychology in Geneva, in consultation with the commitee who set the basic typographic parameters for the test. The aim of the trial was to evaluate the reading performance of three kinds of printing types : serif, slab serif, and sans serif — using Nebiolo’s own Garaldus, Egizio, and Forma — further discriminating within each group between lowercase/capitals and between single leters of the alphabet. The experiment’s format focused on the recognition of short strings of randomly combined leters and numbers, which were shown at tiny intervals to participants, who then recorded which leters were actually remembered and their relative position. Based on statistical analysis of data, the study concluded that sans serif type was more readable than the two serifed ones, and that lowercase performed beter than capitals; and that in general character style and time seemed to be the most critical factors afecting legibility.23 Although the experimental setup was rigorous both in its epistemological assumptions and methods, some of the conclusions are surprising — especially since Herbert Spencer’s The Visible Word, which was irst published in 1967, speciically addressed these same issues from a designer’s perspective and could have ofered useful insight. Obvious laws concern the equation between recognition and legibility, unaccounted diferences in optical size of samples, and the narrow set of variables taken into account. Overall, the study did not provide any indications as to which factors made some leters more easily recognizable than others. Nonetheless, the indings conirmed Nebiolo’s selling proposition for Forma (claiming to improve legibility of the sans serif) and provided ample material for discussion within the group. Using the data, Negri assembled a hybrid alphabet, afectionately known as ‘Bastardone,’ mixing upper- and lowercase leters of the three families according to their legibility. In a sense, it was the study’s visual transposition. Although it was meant to be an exercise to beter understand aspects of leter design related to legibility, the formal outcome had a postmodern look that unknowingly anticipated the typographic experiments of the 1990s. Modulo was an experimental project stemming directly from the Geneva study and the Bastardone. Unfortunately, Negri, who passed away in 1974, did not see the outcome of his eforts. The idea of a modular construction based on a mathematical ratio and without any optical corrections (proposed by Munari) must have appeared radical at the time, but it received the management’s approval. The alphabet’s basic structure and proportions were in fact derived from the Bastardone, in order to “begin from a classical structure regardless of its covering,” but the design was based on a 7 : 10 grid (the ratio of the standard poster format), which equally determined the basic stroke thickness, the slant of italics, and the spacing units. Its development, over three years in the making, was anything but smooth. Signiicant diferences Alessandro Colizzi Forma, Datilo, Modulo : Nebiolo’s last eforts to produce a ‘universal’ typeface Excerpt from the Legibility study report, Alberto Munari, Univer­ sity of Geneva, 1972. Courtesy Giancarlo Iliprandi, Milan. Photographic paste­ups of the alphabet ‘Bastardone’, Ilio Negri, 1972/73. Courtesy Giancarlo Iliprandi, Milan and Gianni Parlacino, Turin. 15 Modulo, inalised drawings with grid, c.1976. Courtesy Gianni Parlacino, Turin. Modulo, proof, c.1976. Courtesy Giancarlo Iliprandi, Milan. Untitled alphabet, Franco Grignani, c.1975. Courtesy Giancarlo Iliprandi, Milan. 16 Alessandro Colizzi Forma, Datilo, Modulo : Nebiolo’s last eforts to produce a ‘universal’ typeface 24. Excerpt from the minutes of 39th meeting, Milan, 2 April 1973. AIAp, Centro di Documentazione del Progeto Graico, fonds Ilio Negri, folder Gruppo Ricerca Carateri. 25. Vox populi has it that Fiat had taken over Nebiolo only because it was eager to secure Nebiolo’s new factory in Setimo Torinese. The company was sold to Ceruti, a leading manufacturer of rotogravure printing machines in Casale Monferrato. This solution did not halt the decline of the company, which in the following years went through several ownerships until inal bankruptcy in 1993 (Vitorio Merlo, email exchange with the author, 10 October 2013). 26. Nebiolo’s interest in its type foundry had been waning since the late sixties, and the dialogue with the designers was more an investment in terms of image rather than a real expansion strategy. Franco Camera was an engineer whose commercial and technical experience was far removed from the world of typeface manufacture. Ater Novarese’s retirement, the Studio Artistico was entrusted briefly to his former pupil Gianfranco Uberti, then — except for a shortlived consultancy by Umberto Fenocchio — was let without direction (Maria Grazia Schenone, email exchange with author, 6 October 2013). Cf. Ratin, Ricci 1997 : 64–5. 27. Ater the foundry’s closure, Nebiolo’s original materials irst went to the Haas foundry, and eventually to a joint partnership between Schritenservice Stempel (Rainer Gerstenberg) and Swiss entrepreneur Walter Frutiger, who still holds the copyright to this day (Indra Kupferschmid, email exchange with author, 16 October 2013). A handful of matrices, styles and sizes are available from Gerstenberg’s typefoundry in Darmstadt (www.rainer-gerstenberg.de/). within the group meant that each designer carried out research on his own, which was then shared at meetings. Grignani, for instance, developed his own geometric alphabet as opposed to the approach championed by Tovaglia and Munari.24 Modulo was designed in ive weights taking as reference (like Forma and Datilo) the semi bold or #2. Heavier cuts posed serious optical problems, illing the counters almost completely, and for this reason only Modulo #1 and #2 went into preproduction. By that time, however, Nebiolo was again almost bankrupt and in 1976 it was bought by Fiat. Despite the acquisition by Fiat, work on Modulo went on uninterrupted and was actually the only project still running at the Studio Artistico. Tovaglia’s sudden death in 1977 brought it to a halt, until Iliprandi assumed the role of coordinator in a rush to complete it. There were even plans to make it Nebiolo’s irst electronic release suited to the new technology of CRT typeseting, but the company was doomed. By 1978 Fiat was ready to discontinue parts of the company, including the type foundry, which was closed down — thereby ending the whole project. Nevertheless, two new series of Modulo were developed speciically for Fiat. Ater quiting Nebiolo in 1976, Parlacino associated with the foundry’s publicity manager Grazia Schenone to set up a graphic design studio. Through Schenone, who kept her position in Nebiolo under the new management, Parlacino established a solid relation with Fiat, receiving numerous advertising and design commissions. Working on a new identity for the automobile company, Parlacino was able to promote Modulo as the basic corporate typeface, for which he and Agosto designed an italic and an intermediate roman (equivalent to grade #2½ in the original system). Unfortunately, when the remnants of the Nebiolo company were inally wound up by Fiat in 1981– 82, the typeface was dumped along with the identity.25 In 1979 ADI awarded Modulo its prestigious Compasso d’oro as a posthumous celebration of the ambitious and unsuccessful project. With hindsight it is clear that the Nebiolo foundry failed due to its own management’s incompetence. Lack of foresight prevented the company from tackling the challenges at a time of major technological transition, thereby determining its demise.26 Sometime in the mid-1960s Compugraphic had ofered the foundry a partnership to take over and digitize their type catalogue. But the ofer was turned down because the foundry management feared giving up control over their main source of revenue. It might have been a key alliance for Nebiolo, opening up the emerging market of digital fonts and most likely changing their fate. When the type foundry was wound up, its archive and library ended up in a landill. However, Nebiolo matrices and casting equipment were acquired by a new company named Italiana Carateri (owned by printing industry businessman Orazio Samoggia) which continued to produce Nebiolo types up until the late 1980s (that is, as long as hand composition remained a viable technology).27 On the other hand, the designers’ obstinate search for a universal alphabet, like a sort of holy grail, appears today a relection of the idealistic zeal and rationalist obsession of the 1960s. Modulo is, for beter or for worse, the culmination of the far-reaching research process that Tovaglia, Grignani, Munari, 17 28. Cf. Piazza, Sligioti 2002 : ‘Forma is the quintessential example of the incommunicability of the two worlds … The idea was to join their respective skills, but the result proved the dialogue between the technical culture of traditional typography (Novarese) and the industrial design culture was impossible. Although dominant and successful, designers were inexpert in the issues of typographic design’ (4–15). Iliprandi, Neuburg, Negri, Oriani, Brunazzi, Agosto and Parlacino had undertaken together with Novarese to create Forma. Despite their prolonged eforts and methodological soundness, what was missing was an open dialogue between the two professional worlds of typographic designers and graphic designers, which could have lead to far more signiicant and long-lasting results. All conditions were met except that it just did not happen. In part because of personality clashes, but above all because of the rigidity and weaknessess of their respective ideological positions — which in a sense summarize the vexata quæstio at the root of modernity, the ambivalent relation between tradition and positivism.28 ¶ AcknowleDgeMenTs The author wishes to express his warmest thanks to the following people, without whose help this article would not have been possible : Luciano Agosto, Giovanni Brunazzi, Giancarlo Iliprandi, Till Neuburg, Gianni Parlacino, and Maria Grazia Schenone for sharing recollections, opinions, and documents; Vitorio Merlo, Nebiolo’s General Manager from 1978 to 1981, and Boris Pesce, author of studies in the history of Nebiolo for elucidating the circumstances of Nebiolo’s demise; Lorenzo Grazzani, curator of AIAp’s Centro di documentazione del progeto graico for granting access to Ilio Negri’s archive; Andrea Amato, for sharing his master thesis on Forma; and Riccardo Olocco for sharing litle known facts about Alessandro Buti and Novarese. The views expressed in this article, including possible omissions and misreadings, are entirely the author’s. BIBlIogrAphy (1968) ‘The making of a type design — by commitee’ in The British Printer 81; 9 (September) : 87–89. (1969). ‘Forma : le fasi di una ricerca’ in Qui Nebiolo IV; 10 : 4–20. (1969). ‘Forma : appunti da una tavola rotonda’ in Qui Nebiolo IV; 10 : 24–28. (1969). ‘Resoconto sintetico delle riunioni’ in Qui Nebiolo IV; 10 : 14. Amato, A. (2009). Forma. Breve storia dei carateri lineari e il caso studio del Forma. Politecnico di Milano, Facoltà del design, corso di laurea in Design della comunicazione, aa. 2008-09 (relatore Andrea Braccaloni). Unpublished master thesis. Camera, F. (1967). ‘La Nebiolo e gli artisti graici : studio in équipe di nuovi carateri’ in Qui Nebiolo II; 5 : 8–10. Di Francesco, G.; Tavano, L. (eds) (2004). Torinesi di caratere. La Nebiolo : un’industria, i suoi uomini. Turin : Lupieri Editore. Etzi-Coller, F. (1969). ‘Forma : le premesse’ in Qui Nebiolo IV; 10 : 2. Pesce, B. (2008). Lavorare in Nebiolo. Dal boom economico agli anni 70. Turin : Neos. Piazza, M.; Sligioti, S. (2002). ‘Dopo Novarese. Il disegno di carateri contemporaneo in Italia’ in Paola Lenarduzzi, Mario Piazza, Silvia Sligioti (eds), Italic 1.0. Il disegno di carateri contemporaneo in Italia. Milan : Aiap edizioni (4–15). Ratin, M.; Ricci, M. (1997). Questioni di caratere. Viterbo : Stampa Alternativa. Steiner, A. (1978). Il mestiere di graico. Turin : Einaudi. 18 Alessandro Colizzi Forma, Datilo, Modulo : Nebiolo’s last eforts to produce a ‘universal’ typeface