Letterforms exhibit a great many structural differences across a plethora of assorted
typefaces. Opting for the elegance of Chronicle’s charming characters over a bolder
Bebas brigade for example, suggests that the structural complexity of each typeface
strikes a remarkably particular tone. In my view, these complexities embodied
by the letterform are under-explored in design discourse2 (van Leeuwen 2005:138).
I maintain that typography is largely viewed as inherently linguistic – as dependant
on the rhetoric of language. Furthermore, I believe that the visual manifestation
of type is really a visual manifestation of language, of thought – a “true art”. In
my experience as a designer and design educator, I have observed that the majority
of typographic exploration is limited to the semantic quality of type, where the
appropriateness of letterforms – changes in their structural composition – are
qualified by the degree to which they promote and elevate the conceptual genius
of either language, illustration or other forms of parerga.