Technologies of Romance: on the choice of a typeface for a book and the possibilities for technological Romance

This paper offers a rationale for the typefaces chosen for the publication Technologies of Romance: Part II written by Paul O’Kane and celebrated at a symposium held at the Science Museum in November 2018. In setting out this rationale the paper broadens its considerations to reflect on the extent to which typefaces might in themselves usefully be considered as technologies of Romance. It locates the practice of noting in print the typeface used in a given publication both historically and within contemporary practice. The recording of the decisions informing the making of a book starts to hint at the nature of the book itself as a technology, and allows for some discussion of the values of ‘making’ books within both past and present contexts of production, including the challenge of digital readers. Elaboration on the decisions concerning the use of a given typeface for a publication then opens out a discussion of the intention behind selection, and both the functional and emotional ambitions of the typeface choice. The associative aims informing selection of a typeface are explored against an understanding of the associative embedding of meaning within aspects of the terminology of typefaces, as well as the scripts they represent and their designed forms. The paper explores for example the imperial associations embedded in the character shapes of the basic letterforms, as well as the technological implications of the terms such as uppercase and lowercase and the problematic colonial implications of the term ‘Latin’ to describe the script in question. In considering the archival possibilities of typefaces as technologies the paper concludes by reflecting on examples of digital typeface design practice, which have actively sought to re-imagine a previous era of letterpress typesetting technology and the possibilities for investigating ongoing Romantic ideals within this very particular and highly specialised design discipline.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

3 more references, whose wording the paper’s licence keeps private.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.