First, describe what the difference is between typography and typefaces. Second, describe what you think
Keedy means when he says "There is no such thing as a bad typeface...just bad typography." Third, pick out a sentence or section from
Helfand or Solomon that interests you. Describe what it is that draws you to this particular idea.
The
difference between typography and typefaces are
sutle at first, but they become more pronounced as one move through the visual rhetoric world. When one
originally looks into the
difference of the two, one first notices that they have one thing in common. The two words deal with lettering. Once this has been established, one
notices that typefaces are the kinds of interfaces for the words: meaning what the words look like. While typography concerns itself with not only the selection of font types but the
positioning of them on the page and the effect the
positioning has on the reader. For example the
Astrix (*) tells the reader to move to another spot on the page if she would like some more information.
Keedy Comment means that there are a vast amounts of typefaces at the typographers disposal. She may use the best ones to represent the point of the paper. However, if she chooses a bad typeface it is her responsibility because there are so many typefaces she may choose from.
The sentence that
interests me the most is from the writings of Jeffery
Keedy. On page280 he states: Typography, in this
environment [electronic,
Internet], desperately needs direction. This is interesting because the
Internet is like everything
else; when something is new they are not
sure of what to do with it. Electronic typography is in this
unorganized state. The
unorganized state helps make interesting designs because there is no norm of electronic design.