At this point, the use of Helvetica seems to imply more of a lack of expansive type knowledge than nuanced taste. Therefore, I think it’s time to look some alternatives. Helvetica has changed significantly over the decades, losing its original feeling for a cold rationale that the typeface wasn’t really designed for. It represented the strength of Swiss type, and a new age of design whose power was rooted in clarity and simplicity. Helvetica Neue is even more deviant from the original, as it stretches the width of many of its letters, rounding out counters and increasing crossbar lengths, to create a kind of faux-neutrality that feels forced and disingenuous.Īs designer Martin Perks describes, Helvetica was very much “a product of modernism”. The version we use is boxy, and lacks the fine curves that gave Helvetica its style. Since then, the typeface had to make significant design compromises to keep up with moving technology: a sloppy family expansion, an adjustment of stroke weights for the linotype machine (where the name was changed to Helvetica for international appeal), character width systems the linotype photo-setting system, and an automatic slant to the roman on digital PostScript with the Macintosh.ĭecades of readjustments across platforms changed Helvetica into something that isn’t… really Helvetica. The original typeface, Neue Haas Grotesk, was released in 1957 by the Haas foundry to compete with Akzidenz-Grotesk at Berthold. The problem is that we use and interpret Helvetica in a lot of situations it wasn’t designed for. English Grotesque What’s wrong with Helvetica?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |