De kerk post-Helvetica
Geschreven door Mark Van Steenwyk: 26 november, 2007
Onlangs, lette ik op het fascineren weinig geroepen documentair Helvetica, wat de alomtegenwoordige aard van font van de zelfde naam onderzoekt. Het is 50 jaar geweest aangezien font zijn debuut maakte. Sedertdien is het de norm voor merkemblemen, overheidsdocumenten, straattekens, en tekstverwerking geworden (het gebruiks arial-A goedkope oplichterij van Vensters van Helvetica).
Helvetica typeert moderne gevoeligheden. Het is schoon, efficiënt, gemakkelijk, en volkomen neutraal te lezen. Font wordt beschouwd als door velen om de perfecte uitdrukking van neutralism. In documentair, denkt de grafische ontwerper Wim Crouwel na, „het zou neutraal moeten zijn. Het zou geen betekenis op zichzelf moeten hebben. De betekenis is in de inhoud van de tekst en niet in de lettersoort.“ Het is disembodied, gnostic font. Het is universeel. En het streeft ons aan overeenstemming na.
In de jaren '80, begon postmodernism uit te dagen regeert van Helvetica. In een nieuwe era van subjectiviteit, begonnen de typografen tegen de status-quo te rebelleren aangezien zij expressieve fonts ontwierpen die de betekenis van hun betekende inhoud versterkten. Dit verontrustte enkele typografische onderneming, die deze groep jonge typografen zag zoals „volledig verward door die ziekte die postmodernism… werd genoemd [zij] enkel rond als kippen zonder hun hoofden door allerlei lettersoorten te gebruiken… zij gingen wisten wat niet zij voor gaven, zij slechts wist wat zij tegen… waren en wat zij tegen waren Helvetica waren. “ Één van die „kippen zonder hoofd“ was David Carson. Carson zag de hegemonie van Helvetica zoals artistiek verstikkend. In de documentaire, maant hij aan: „Verwar geen leesbaarheid met mededeling… enkel omdat iets, niet leesbaar is betekent het communiceert. And more importantly, it doesn’t mean it communicates the right thing.”Does this debate sound familiar? Maybe the emerging church is simply trying to design a new font to tell the story of God? Though it probably goes deeper than that. But at the very least, we are trying to embrace the notion that form cannot be divorced from function, nor medium from message. We are trying to redesign the church–and indeed Christianity itself. Not so that we can remake Jesus Christ in our own image. But so that we can set the Gospel free from status quo. We inherited the Church of Helvetica, and wonder if it sufficiently communicates the message.
for further reading . . .
- None Found
As a graphic artist, I LOVE this … very cool metaphor
Some thoughts relating to your post:
1. While there is no denying that David Carson gave the design world a much-needed shake-up, he is pretty irrelevant now. As far as I know, the biggest waves he’s created in the last 10 years have been as a result of him not showing up at events that he was supposed to speak at. How far do you want to take the comparison?
2. Modernism never tried to divorce form and function — quite the opposite. In modernism form is the servant of function. There is a huge difference between Modern design and modern-style design. One is a philosophy; the other is a surface dressing.
3. Helvetica is a wonderful font. Just don’t use it for everything.
Just so long as the EC isn’t in Papyrus or Comic Sans, it’s all right with me.
But yes, there are some interesting parallels. The myth of Enlightenment neutrality really shines through in the video there. I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone call a font gnostic though!
I’m not kidding about this; I’m seriously thinking of writing a post about it.
I was reading a history of early Christianity awhile ago, which suggested that its spread through the Empire was not primarily a matter of Christian doctrines–The author cited studies suggesting that groups succeeded in mass-conversion campaigns mainly through social factors, people accepting unfamiliar doctrines mainly because they’d first become attached to the group. Roman cities were packed with ethnic groups from the countryside, living with their countrymen but cut loose from the village structures that had formerly given shape to their lives, so disconnected that many of them joined groups that offered little more than occasional ceremonial dinners and the promise that members would be given funerals, as needed.
So. What are churches “for”?
Different purposes for different members? Different mixes of several reasons, even for any one member?
Does God have only one purpose in mind that a church is supposed to fulfill? One primary purpose? (More specific than simply ‘being good for people’?)
Are God’s purposes for having people come to church the same purposes that members typically have in mind?
In our country, in our times, I’d say that people are generally 1) severely socially dislocated and 2) spritually disconnected. There are mass right-wing churches that exploit those conditions… but is there a better way to use them, to give these needs a true satisfaction?