Excerpt from LetterLetter 2, not part of the Hartley & Marks edition.

The Hamburg Thesis

In a reaction to Letterletter 1 Taro Yamamoto wrote from Tokyo that computer programmes are becoming increasingly sophisticated, complex, large and expensive, whereas simpler programmes and cheaper equipment might be sufficient for better solutions of the same problem.

Our Japanese colleague may be right. Harder problems are met with more software, probably because a software specialist does not see other problems than software problems. In typographic software the typographic problems are difficult to recognize in the simplified presentation: variations in weight (medium, semibold, bold, etc.) show random shapes because the shapes are filled-in outlines which are drawn through the interpolations of points that are chosen arbitrarily. The computer specialists share the laymans conception of a shape as being the space within an outline. By relying on those specialists the industry develops sophisticated equipment which is founded on primitive notions. Modern systems present shapes that are defined by random outlines. Designers hold that the outline is defined by the shape. We could say that these views part typographers and outsiders, a division that is serious enough to pay attention to it. The Committee on Education and Research concentrates this attention on the teaching of handwriting; by tradition this subject is on the agenda of all our meetings. It is not for tradition only that it will be the subject of the Hamburg Seminar: since typographic designers have to work with software that is designed by typographic laymen, the conception of shape is no longer a division between professionals and outsiders. The school boys view is corrupting type design and it is a nuisance for typographers. For the survival of typography we have to educate the school boys.

It is the shape that defines the outline. This is no point of discussion among designers. Our problem is the next question: what is the origin of the shape? This problem is the theme of the Hamburg seminar, but in Martin Andrersch’s approach the question appears in a provoking statement:

a. Typography is writing with prefabricated letters.

b. The criteria for type design and typography come from handwriting.

c. Typography is learned in handwriting.

This thesis cannot be neglected. It can be rejected, but not without engagement because we would need an alternative. And agreement with the thesis would require justification by a description of the parameters of handwriting that have to be applied in type design and typography. Convenient ready-made answers — such as those stored in old books e.g. — are excluded. In this respect Martin Andersch is preparing a seminar which has to be realized by the participants.

The typographic argument is a visual one. This is why Petr van Blokland will demonstrate his parameters in an interactive computer programme. The validity of the arguments can be tested on the viewing screen.

[editorial note: participants in the Hamburg Seminar were invited to visualize their own points of view in a exhibition of type design. The exhibition was to be a visual contribution to the discussions. Finished artwork was not considered important. The presentations included one by Gerrit on ‘Perception in teaching reading and handwriting’ and another by Gerrit (‘Analysis of writing’) and Petr van Blokland (‘Synthesis of writing’ with demonstrations of an experimental software program).]