The Post-Helvetica Church后helvetica教会
Written by Mark Van Steenwyk : November 26, 2007写的马克范steenwyk ： 2007年11月26日
Recently, I watched a fascinating little documentary called最近，我观看了迷人的小纪录片，所谓的 Helvetica helvetica , which explores the ubiquitous nature of the font of the same name. ，其中探讨了无处不在的性质，字体的名称相同。 It has been 50 years since the font made its debut.它已50年以来的字体作出了自己的首次。 Since then, it has become the standard for brand logos, government documents, street signs, and word processing (Windows uses Arial–a cheap rip-off of Helvetica).自那时以来，它已成为标准的品牌标志，政府文件，街头标志，及文书处理（ Windows使用外加一个廉价的食价起飞helvetica ） 。
Helvetica typifies modern sensibilities. helvetica典型的现代情感。 It is clean, efficient, easy to read, and utterly neutral.这是廉洁，高效率，易于阅读，和完全中立。 The font is considered by many to be the perfect expression of neutralism.字体是许多人认为是完美的表达中立。 In the documentary, graphic designer Wim Crouwel reflects, “It should be neutral.在纪录片，平面设计师维姆crouwel反映， “它应是中性的。 It shouldn’t have a meaning in itself.它不应该有本身的意义。 The meaning is in the content of the text and not in the typeface.” It is a disembodied, gnostic font.意思是在案文的内容而不是在字体。 ： “这是一个disembodied ， gnostic字体。 It is universal.这是普遍的。 And it woos us to conformity.它woos我们要整合。
In the 80s, postmodernism began to challenge the reign of Helvetica.在八十年代，后现代主义的挑战，开始统治helvetica 。 In a new era of subjectivity, typographers began to rebel against the status quo as they designed expressive fonts that reinforced the meaning of their signified content.在一个新时代的主体， typographers开始反抗现状，因为他们设计的字体表达钢筋的意义，标志着其内容。 This troubled some of the typographic establishment, who saw this group of young typographers as “completely confused by that disease that was called postmodernism…[they] were just going around like chickens without their heads by using all kinds of typefaces…they didn’t know what they were caring for, they only knew what they were against…and what they were against was Helvetica.”One of those “headless chickens” was David Carson.这个困扰部分的排版编制，谁看到这一群年轻的typographers为“完全混淆，这种疾病，这是所谓的后现代主义… … [他们] ，只是绕过鸡一样，没有他们的元首用的所有种字体… …他们没有知道什么，他们关心，他们只知道他们是什么人反对， … …以及什么他们反对是helvetica “之一，这些”无头鸡“是大卫卡森。 Carson saw the hegemony of Helvetica as artistically stifling.卡森看到的霸权主义helvetica作为艺术扼杀。 In the documentary, he exhorts: “Don’t confuse legibility with communication…just because something is legible, doesn’t mean it communicates.在纪录片，他劝告： “不要混淆视听的易读性与沟通…只因为事情是易读，这并不意味着它沟通。 And more importantly, it doesn’t mean it communicates the right thing.”Does this debate sound familiar?更重要的是，这并不意味着它传达正确的事情。 “这是否辩论听起来很熟悉呢？ Maybe the emerging church is simply trying to design a new font to tell the story of God?也许新兴教会只不过是试图设计一个新的字体告诉的故事是神吗？ Though it probably goes deeper than that.虽然它可能深入得多。 But at the very least, we are trying to embrace the notion that form cannot be divorced from function, nor medium from message.但在最低限度，我们正在努力树立的概念，这种形式不能脱离功能，也不是中等，从讯息。 We are trying to redesign the church–and indeed Christianity itself.我们正试图重新设计教会事实上，基督教本身。 Not so that we can remake Jesus Christ in our own image.并非如此，我们可以重拍耶稣基督在我们自己的形象。 But so that we can set the Gospel free from status quo.但让我们可以设置福音免费从现状。 We inherited the Church of Helvetica, and wonder if it sufficiently communicates the message.我们所继承的教会helvetica ，不知是否充分传达的讯息。
for further reading .为进一步读。 . 。 . 。
- None Found无发现
As a graphic artist, I LOVE this … very cool metaphor作为一个绘画艺术家，我爱这…非常酷的隐喻
Some thoughts relating to your post:几点思考有关您的帖子：
1. 1 。 While there is no denying that David Carson gave the design world a much-needed shake-up, he is pretty irrelevant now.虽然没有否认，大卫卡森了设计世界极为需要的摇起来，他是相当不相关的现在。 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?据我所知，最大的波浪，他的创造，在过去10年已作为一个结果，他没有显示在事件，他是假定的发言。 多远你是否想采取比较呢？
2. 2 。 Modernism never tried to divorce form and function — quite the opposite.现代主义从来没有试图离婚的形式和功能-刚好相反。 In modernism form is the servant of function.在现代主义的形式，是公仆的功能。 There is a huge difference between Modern design and modern-style design.有是一个巨大的差异现代设计和现代风格的设计。 One is a philosophy; the other is a surface dressing.一个是哲学，另一种是表面修整。
3. 3 。 Helvetica is a wonderful font. helvetica是一个美好的字体。 Just don’t use it for everything.只是不使用它的一切。
Just so long as the EC isn’t in刚才，只要教统会是不是在 Papyrus纸莎草 or或 Comic Sans漫画的SAN , it’s all right with me. ，它的所有权利与我。
But yes, there are some interesting parallels.但是，有一些有趣的相似之处。 The myth of Enlightenment neutrality really shines through in the video there.神话的启示中立真正的光芒，通过在录像带中有。 I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone call a font gnostic though!我想我没有听说过有人呼吁字体gnostic虽然！
I’m not kidding about this; I’m seriously thinking of writing a post about it.我不是在开玩笑关于此;我很认真思考撰写文章约。
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.我是读历史，早期基督教的一段时间前，这表明它的扩散，通过帝国不是主要的问题，基督教的教义-作者引述的研究暗示团体成功地大规模转换运动，主要是通过社会因素，人们接受陌生的学说主要是因为他们要首先成为重视集团。 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.罗马城市被挤得水泄不通族群从农村，生活与他们的同胞，但削减松散，从乡村结构，以前形成对他们的生活，所以断开，他们当中许多加入集团提供多一点偶尔典礼晚宴和承诺大家会给予丧，视需要。
So.因此。 What are churches “for”?什么是教堂“为”呢？
Different purposes for different members?目的不同，不同的成员？ Different mixes of several reasons, even for any one member?不同组合的原因有几个，甚至任何一个会员？
Does God have only one purpose in mind that a church is supposed to fulfill?上帝只有一个目的，在考虑到一所教堂是为了履行？ One primary purpose?一所小学的目的呢？ (More specific than simply ‘being good for people’?) （更具体的不仅仅是'善为人民'吗？ ）
Are God’s purposes for having people come to church the same purposes that members typically have in mind?是上帝的目的，因人来教会同一用途的成员一般都在心灵？
In our country, in our times, I’d say that people are generally 1) severely socially dislocated and 2) spritually disconnected.在我们的国家，在我们的时代，我会说，人是普遍1 ）严重的社会脱臼和2 ） spritually断开。 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?有大规模的右翼教会利用这些条件… …但有一个更好的方式来使用他们，让这些需要一个真正满意？