4 ms·

I'm sorry, but again, none of that stuff has anything to do with "brutalism" which has been made a complete buzzword for the last 4 years, just because "design

I'm sorry, but again, none of that stuff has anything to do with "brutalism" which has been made a complete buzzword for the last 4 years, just because "design needs trends". No it doesn't. Design for your audience and don't follow "trends".

FoundersGrotesk 6y ago
I replied above how I do believe it adheres to a Brutalist ethos. We design exactly for my audience, and while we don’t follow trends we’re very aware of the zeitgeist.
petters 6y ago
What would a "true" brutalist font look like? Brutalism is about exposing the materials used in construction (i.e. the raw concrete is visible). So maybe a font that also shows its own spline control points?
- FoundersGrotesk 6y ago
  My understanding of the Brutalism ethos is not about exposing the material itself used in construction, but “… rather the quality of the material… ” A font with it's own BCP's exposed exists! https://djr.com/gimlet-xray/ https://djr.com/gimlet-xray/ But they're still drawn with béziers… the're not the BCP's themselves. Now that would be a recursive/fractal vector nightmare.
- tomcam 6y ago
  Read the article. You may be surprised.
dvaun 6y ago
The author does explain[0] his underlying persective/meaning of Brutalism: > Brutalism wasn’t a specific material or style, it was an attempt to be true to the raw qualities of materials. It was an ethic.¹⁸ Signifier adheres to this ethic, Brutalism’s core concepts framed my working process and thinking rather than pre-determining the outcome. There’s a sense of the vector, the grid, the underlying digital nature. For instance, you can’t see that Adobe Garamond’s a is digital, but you can see it in Signifier’s a. And from the footnote: > “The difference is not merely one of form of words: ‘Neo-Brutalist’ is a stylistic label, like Neo-Classic or Neo-Gothic, whereas ‘The New Brutalism’ is, in the Brutalist phrase “an ethic, not an aesthetic. It describes a programme or an attitude to architecture.” Reyner Banham, “The New Brutalism”, (1966): 10. I don't believe that the term was applied based on it being a buzzword or a recent trend. [0]: https://klim.co.nz/blog/signifier-design-information/#footnote-back-18 https://klim.co.nz/blog/signifier-design-information/#footno... Edit: Added reference to the location in the article
prennert 6y ago
Rarely is an article so explainatory as this one. The author writes (all below quoted): [...] > Thinking about the materiality of digital fonts lead to Brutalism. According to architectural historian and critic Michael Abrahamson, “the word ‘Brutalism’ has lost its meaning. At present, it equates to: large buildings, sometimes of concrete, constructed sometime between World War II and the end of the 1970s.”⁷ Abrahamson clarifies and re-orientates the meaning, quoting Peter Smithson: > > Brutalism is not concerned with the material as such but rather the quality of the material, that is with the question: what can it do? And by analogy: there is a way of handling gold in Brutalist manner and it does not mean rough and cheap, it means: what is its raw quality? > > My question now became, “what is the raw quality of digital fonts?” [...]
- throw_m239339 6y ago
  > Rarely is an article so explainatory as this one. The author writes (all below quoted): Yes, and I totally disagree they achieved any form of "brutalism" with their font.
tln 6y ago
I felt the same when I skimmed the article, especially after seeing the "Signifier, version 1". But the actual version has sharp edges, echoing the "rigid geometric style" that characterizes brutalist architecture.
Ericson2314 6y ago
I felt bits of both awe and nausea, so it passed the my Brutalist test.
- FoundersGrotesk 6y ago
  One could not hope for a better reaction! Thank you!
tomcam 6y ago
I fear you did not read the article, which explains the usage completely.

FoundersGrotesk 6y ago

I replied above how I do believe it adheres to a Brutalist ethos. We design exactly for my audience, and while we don’t follow trends we’re very aware of the zeitgeist.

petters 6y ago

What would a "true" brutalist font look like? Brutalism is about exposing the materials used in construction (i.e. the raw concrete is visible). So maybe a font that also shows its own spline control points?

FoundersGrotesk 6y ago
My understanding of the Brutalism ethos is not about exposing the material itself used in construction, but “… rather the quality of the material… ” A font with it's own BCP's exposed exists! https://djr.com/gimlet-xray/ https://djr.com/gimlet-xray/ But they're still drawn with béziers… the're not the BCP's themselves. Now that would be a recursive/fractal vector nightmare.
tomcam 6y ago
Read the article. You may be surprised.

dvaun 6y ago

The author does explain[0] his underlying persective/meaning of Brutalism: > Brutalism wasn’t a specific material or style, it was an attempt to be true to the raw qualities of materials. It was an ethic.¹⁸ Signifier adheres to this ethic, Brutalism’s core concepts framed my working process and thinking rather than pre-determining the outcome. There’s a sense of the vector, the grid, the underlying digital nature. For instance, you can’t see that Adobe Garamond’s a is digital, but you can see it in Signifier’s a. And from the footnote: > “The difference is not merely one of form of words: ‘Neo-Brutalist’ is a stylistic label, like Neo-Classic or Neo-Gothic, whereas ‘The New Brutalism’ is, in the Brutalist phrase “an ethic, not an aesthetic. It describes a programme or an attitude to architecture.” Reyner Banham, “The New Brutalism”, (1966): 10. I don't believe that the term was applied based on it being a buzzword or a recent trend. [0]: https://klim.co.nz/blog/signifier-design-information/#footnote-back-18 https://klim.co.nz/blog/signifier-design-information/#footno... Edit: Added reference to the location in the article

prennert 6y ago

Rarely is an article so explainatory as this one. The author writes (all below quoted): [...] > Thinking about the materiality of digital fonts lead to Brutalism. According to architectural historian and critic Michael Abrahamson, “the word ‘Brutalism’ has lost its meaning. At present, it equates to: large buildings, sometimes of concrete, constructed sometime between World War II and the end of the 1970s.”⁷ Abrahamson clarifies and re-orientates the meaning, quoting Peter Smithson: > > Brutalism is not concerned with the material as such but rather the quality of the material, that is with the question: what can it do? And by analogy: there is a way of handling gold in Brutalist manner and it does not mean rough and cheap, it means: what is its raw quality? > > My question now became, “what is the raw quality of digital fonts?” [...]

throw_m239339 6y ago
> Rarely is an article so explainatory as this one. The author writes (all below quoted): Yes, and I totally disagree they achieved any form of "brutalism" with their font.

tln 6y ago

I felt the same when I skimmed the article, especially after seeing the "Signifier, version 1". But the actual version has sharp edges, echoing the "rigid geometric style" that characterizes brutalist architecture.

Ericson2314 6y ago

I felt bits of both awe and nausea, so it passed the my Brutalist test.

FoundersGrotesk 6y ago
One could not hope for a better reaction! Thank you!

tomcam 6y ago

I fear you did not read the article, which explains the usage completely.