fraterdeus
Ricevo e pubblico:
“A recent dialog on one of my type design lists...
enjoy!
p
>At 8:40 AM -0800 12/8/05, Sumner Stone wrote:
>
>>I like Jonathan's antler analogy. It is topological rather than historical. The history seems to lead us to babble. Topologically speaking I would say the number of serifs on an m is arbitrary. Of course, this is the view of a former math teacher.
>>
>
>Per Sumner's observation that the number of serifs is arbitrary, I have enlarged one of the feet of the "m" that he sent, indeed, one would have to admit that there is no way to put a final integral value on this serif.
>
>http://www.fraterdeus.com/downloads/mserif/view (download the pdf (50K))
>
>At 8:26 PM +0100 12/8/05, prof. erik spiekermann wrote:
>
>>shouldn't that be "finite" instead?
>
>
>Not necessarily ;-)
>
>I propose that this type of serif be given a dimension of between 1 and 2, say perhaps about 1.26185 [1]
>
>p
>
>[1] http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/courses/m308-03b/projects-03b/skinner/ex-dimension-koch_snowflake.htm
At 10:53 PM +0000 12/8/05, Laurence Penney wrote:
>Thanks Peter!
>
>This reminds me of something I wrote on comp.fonts on the subject of fractal serifs a little over 10 years ago. I never thought it received sufficient admiration at the time. Luckily Google Groups still publishes it, so here it is again:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.fonts/browse_thread/thread/e02ad43afbcab440/2280ab249764179a?lnk=st&q=fractal+serifs&rnum=1#2280ab249764179a
Laurence --
Excellent!
Ain't Google mahvelous? (Well, until it remembers something best left forgotten, which sadly may be the larger part of it)
Your reference, of course, from Swift's lines:
So, Nat'ralists observe, a Flea
Hath smaller Fleas that on him prey,
And these have smaller Fleas to bite 'em,
And so proceed ad infinitum.
("On Poetry: A Rapsody" 353-6)
The citation here from http://www.rc.umd.edu/praxis/complexity/yoder/yoder.html
"Romanticism and Complexity"
"Unlocking Language: Self-Similarity in Blake's _Jerusalem_"
>From which this strikingly timely elucidation!!
"""
For Blake the unit of signification can be anything along a sliding analogical scale of the particulars of textual production: from the whole of a published, finished copy down to the smallest drops of ink and finest of etched marks, Blake's vision of signification is like a great chain of reading with every link forged as it is perceived by the reader. David Erdman was the first to note that around 1791 Blake began using an italic "g" with a "serif or topknot on the left side instead of the right," but that after 1805 Blake changed the serif on the letter "g" to the right. And not only did Blake write all of his new material with the rightward serif, but he even changed the serif on re-issues of earlier etched works ("Suppressed and Altered Passages" 52). We cannot be sure why Blake changed his letter "g," but we can see that for Blake the signifying unit was not simply the word, not even the letter, but even smaller and smaller marks. The minute end of the scale of signification is limited only by the limits of his perception, the minutest of graphic particulars that his graver could carve or his pen could write. The grand end of the scale is limited only by the poet's and reader's imagination. The serif signifies in and of itself, but it is also part of a letter, part of a word, phrase, line, plate, chapter, volume, oeuvre, tradition, history of traditions, all of which signify in their own right.
"""
Every Jot and Tittle, indeed ;-)
P
PS, sorry, Google forced me to put this in too...
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/797.html
Big whorls have little whorls
That feed on their velocity,
And little whorls have lesser whorls
And so on to viscosity.
-- Lewis F. Richardson
--
AzByCx DwEvFu GtHsIr JqKpLo MnNmOl PkQjRi ShTgUf VeWdXc YbZa&@
ARTQ: Help stop in-box bloat! Always Remember to Trim the Quote!
Semiotx Inc. http://typeandmeaning.com
Web Strategy Consulting Communication Design Typography
Peter Fraterdeus http://www.fraterdeus.com ”
“A recent dialog on one of my type design lists...
enjoy!
p
>At 8:40 AM -0800 12/8/05, Sumner Stone wrote:
>
>>I like Jonathan's antler analogy. It is topological rather than historical. The history seems to lead us to babble. Topologically speaking I would say the number of serifs on an m is arbitrary. Of course, this is the view of a former math teacher.
>>
>
>Per Sumner's observation that the number of serifs is arbitrary, I have enlarged one of the feet of the "m" that he sent, indeed, one would have to admit that there is no way to put a final integral value on this serif.
>
>http://www.fraterdeus.com/downloads/mserif/view (download the pdf (50K))
>
>At 8:26 PM +0100 12/8/05, prof. erik spiekermann wrote:
>
>>shouldn't that be "finite" instead?
>
>
>Not necessarily ;-)
>
>I propose that this type of serif be given a dimension of between 1 and 2, say perhaps about 1.26185 [1]
>
>p
>
>[1] http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/courses/m308-03b/projects-03b/skinner/ex-dimension-koch_snowflake.htm
At 10:53 PM +0000 12/8/05, Laurence Penney wrote:
>Thanks Peter!
>
>This reminds me of something I wrote on comp.fonts on the subject of fractal serifs a little over 10 years ago. I never thought it received sufficient admiration at the time. Luckily Google Groups still publishes it, so here it is again:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.fonts/browse_thread/thread/e02ad43afbcab440/2280ab249764179a?lnk=st&q=fractal+serifs&rnum=1#2280ab249764179a
Laurence --
Excellent!
Ain't Google mahvelous? (Well, until it remembers something best left forgotten, which sadly may be the larger part of it)
Your reference, of course, from Swift's lines:
So, Nat'ralists observe, a Flea
Hath smaller Fleas that on him prey,
And these have smaller Fleas to bite 'em,
And so proceed ad infinitum.
("On Poetry: A Rapsody" 353-6)
The citation here from http://www.rc.umd.edu/praxis/complexity/yoder/yoder.html
"Romanticism and Complexity"
"Unlocking Language: Self-Similarity in Blake's _Jerusalem_"
>From which this strikingly timely elucidation!!
"""
For Blake the unit of signification can be anything along a sliding analogical scale of the particulars of textual production: from the whole of a published, finished copy down to the smallest drops of ink and finest of etched marks, Blake's vision of signification is like a great chain of reading with every link forged as it is perceived by the reader. David Erdman was the first to note that around 1791 Blake began using an italic "g" with a "serif or topknot on the left side instead of the right," but that after 1805 Blake changed the serif on the letter "g" to the right. And not only did Blake write all of his new material with the rightward serif, but he even changed the serif on re-issues of earlier etched works ("Suppressed and Altered Passages" 52). We cannot be sure why Blake changed his letter "g," but we can see that for Blake the signifying unit was not simply the word, not even the letter, but even smaller and smaller marks. The minute end of the scale of signification is limited only by the limits of his perception, the minutest of graphic particulars that his graver could carve or his pen could write. The grand end of the scale is limited only by the poet's and reader's imagination. The serif signifies in and of itself, but it is also part of a letter, part of a word, phrase, line, plate, chapter, volume, oeuvre, tradition, history of traditions, all of which signify in their own right.
"""
Every Jot and Tittle, indeed ;-)
P
PS, sorry, Google forced me to put this in too...
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/797.html
Big whorls have little whorls
That feed on their velocity,
And little whorls have lesser whorls
And so on to viscosity.
-- Lewis F. Richardson
--
AzByCx DwEvFu GtHsIr JqKpLo MnNmOl PkQjRi ShTgUf VeWdXc YbZa&@
ARTQ: Help stop in-box bloat! Always Remember to Trim the Quote!
Semiotx Inc. http://typeandmeaning.com
Web Strategy Consulting Communication Design Typography
Peter Fraterdeus http://www.fraterdeus.com ”
<< Home