is it supposed to look like it belongs with the other letters there..? 'cos it doesn't. Apart from being generally florid, the little portion between the top and bottom (like the middle point of a "3") has a sort of flattened loop to it as if it's trying for a calligraphic effect...but there's no real way that I can see that someone wielding a pen would produce a "g" like that. Yeah, I don't like it.
exactly what he said ^ but maybe scan it after you draw it (to trace in Illustrator then copy the path into Fontographer or whatever else). I only know this way.
I might have to go with mick and mondo here. if all of the other letters were as extravagant and unrealistic then thumbs up, but as a typeface I prob wouldn't use it other then as a swirl or something.
^ that's very nice! I agree that the topic's "g" is interesting, but it doesn't belong to the rest of the typeface. As a matter of fact, both "g"'s shown above don't belong to that typeface. The author concentrated on the "g", that's it.
I'll try to post some of my studies, but I never finished any complete set. A tutor I had (David Quay, author of many well known typefaces) once told me that a typeface takes a long time to design and an even more time to produce. He also said the type designer should be more than 40 years old! (he justified saying that it was a matter of experience...).
I think it's (as most things in design) something concerning the attention to detail. A well designed typeface is noticeable...
thank you, silent, for putting so well what i was trying to say. ;)
i am not snarking on the talent of the "g" designer, or the grace of the glyph, but when you can't read something unless you already know what it says, then what you end up with aren't words, but mnemonic devices. that said.. many famous brand names rely on gestalt recognition (shape intuited as information) rather than legibility.
i am pretty well versed in the neuro-science of vision. if anyone is interested, there's an interesting article from the Institute for Sensory Research on how people identify letters. There's some pretty dense math to ignore, but if you go to the conclusions, you'll get the gist.
I think its so hard to read because the "o" part of the g is identical to the real o, just a bit smaller. Pretty easy to get mixed up as a stylized o from the same font. If this font was pushed to have plain letter forms as well as stylized lower and uppercase I could see myself using it for simple things, posters, invites, menus maybe. That kind of thing where its nice to use flourished letters but stay withing the same type family. I haven't found to many I like where there is a plain upper/lower case and an ornamental version of both.
Comments
b.c we should really have one. and I'm too fazy to search at the moment.
as a swirl.. it's very nice.
x
I think it is da sexâ„¢
if all of the other letters were as extravagant and unrealistic then thumbs up, but as a typeface I prob wouldn't use it other then as a swirl or something.
the g is a lovely swoopy thing and nearly useless. it would work ONCE.. for maybe a perfume label... and then what?
i get that it's got nice curves. it could go on your wall with your other examples of arty calligraphy.
how does one make a g?
there's always.. scribbling until some kind of form appears.
*swoopy hug for squappy*
x
edit: i got snippy, and gladly, got back to edit fast enough. :D
I agree that the topic's "g" is interesting, but it doesn't belong to the rest of the typeface.
As a matter of fact, both "g"'s shown above don't belong to that typeface. The author concentrated on the "g", that's it.
I'll try to post some of my studies, but I never finished any complete set.
A tutor I had (David Quay, author of many well known typefaces) once told me that a typeface takes a long time to design and an even more time to produce. He also said the type designer should be more than 40 years old! (he justified saying that it was a matter of experience...).
I think it's (as most things in design) something concerning the attention to detail.
A well designed typeface is noticeable...
i am not snarking on the talent of the "g" designer, or the grace of the glyph, but when you can't read something unless you already know what it says, then what you end up with aren't words, but mnemonic devices. that said.. many famous brand names rely on gestalt recognition (shape intuited as information) rather than legibility.
i am pretty well versed in the neuro-science of vision. if anyone is interested, there's an interesting article from the Institute for Sensory Research on how people identify letters. There's some pretty dense math to ignore, but if you go to the conclusions, you'll get the gist.
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/pelli/pubs/pelli2006letters.pdf (1 MB)
aaaand.. i thought of the PERFECT use for that "g". :D
I agree with your post, you are touching the scientific part of type design, excelent contribution!
i'm done being overly critical while talking through my *cough* hat *cough*.
glad you liked the pdf, silent.
x