VERY INTERESTING (Research Paper, Part 3)

A very interesting interview given by Rhonda Rubinstein question Licko's ideal set-up as a type designer! 

(( I got a lot out of this interview. The importance and truly loving what you're doing and allowing your confidence to really consume you in your work is very insightful.)) 

Rhonda Rubinstein: Do you have a maxim? (Maxim being a fundamental principle or rule of conduct!) 

Zuzana Licko: I've never thought about having a maxim . . . it might be: "Question the obvious."

RR: And what typeface would it be set in?

ZL: That would depend on the context, of course. But for general print reproduction I would pick the last one I've finished, as I'm still trying to get better acquainted with the most recent designs.

RR: What is your greatest accomplishment?

ZL: That I was able to design functional and desirable typefaces without mastering calligraphy, which I was taught was impossible.

RR: Your greatest regret?

ZL: Sometimes I wish my career was more involved with disciplines that generate tangible items, like designing textiles, clothing, or shoes. I find it difficult to find good-looking shoes that are comfortable. I often pick up a comfortable shoe and think, if they had just done this or that differently, I'd wear it. ((VERY INTERESTING POINT!)) 

RR: After becoming well known for designing radical fonts, you became interested in more traditional ones. Why?

ZL: My interest in reviving the classics (which began in 1995) was sparked by two factors: the sophistication of personal computer technology, and Emigre magazine's shift towards theory and the subsequent need for text faces to set large bodies of text. Each design gives me the opportunity to study details of classic faces that I'd never fully appreciate or notice through casual observation or usage. For example, working on my Bodoni revival, Filosofia, allowed me to better understand this long-time classic. This kind of scrutiny, in turn, has given me ideas for faces that are not strict revivals, such as Tarzana and Solex.

RR: How do you judge good typeface design?

ZL: It depends on the intended usage, and what criteria you define as being important: longevity of usage, intensity of usage, influence on other designers, etc. It takes the perspective of time to determine which typefaces remain classics, which become icons, and which fade away. Moreover, these perceptions also change, and it is the constant changing of these perceptions that drives our desire for new typeface solutions. In addition, new technologies and environments present new problems for the designer to address. The most successful experimental typeface designs are often those that address the possibilities or limitations of a yet uncharted technology.

"...perspective of time..." 

But we live and make decisions in the moment without the benefit of a time-lapse perspective. You must have opinions on typeface designs, and criteria for determining whether you want to pursue a particular design. For me it's like the Supreme Court's definition of pornography: "I know it when I see it." I don't have a preconceived idea about what constitutes a good typeface design. It can be a font created by LettError's random technology, an old classic such as Bodoni, or a new classic such as Matthew Carter's Verdana. It has to contain some originality, something that makes you think, "Hmm, I hadn't thought about that," but originality in itself is not enough.

RR: Can you describe your working methods?

ZL: While I work primarily on screen, sometimes I begin with rough thumbnail sketches, to give me an idea of the proportions or a detail of a character. Then I try out shapes and serif details directly in the Fontographer drawing window. The only hand drawing I do is on laser printouts, to mark areas that need adjustment, or to sketch alternate forms. Then I eyeball the corrections on screen. At any given time, I have several designs sitting on the back burner. Sometimes I put a design away when I hit a stumbling block, and it may take months or even years to resolve some of these design problems.

((I'd like to do that with some Typ & Vis-com homework! :) )) 

RR: In the 1980s your typefaces were criticised as being either ugly or hard to read. How do you look back on those reactions?

ZL: The establishment's negative reaction towards new forms and technologies is natural. So if this work eventually becomes accepted, it's a compliment in hindsight, because it means the work was truly innovative.

RR: Which is your most popular typeface?

ZL: To judge from the volume of sales and usage, it's Mrs Eaves, my Baskerville revival. I see it everywhere: magazines, book covers, even the junk mail with my electric bill!

RR: How would you explain its success?

ZL: I think Mrs Eaves was a mix of just enough tradition with an updated twist. It's familiar enough to be friendly, yet different enough to be interesting. Due to its relatively wide proportions, as compared with the original Baskerville, it's useful for giving presence to small amounts of text such as poetry, or for elegant headlines and for use in print ads. It makes the reader slow down a bit and contemplate the message.

.."Familiar enough to be friendly, yet different 

enough to be interesting"...

RR: How did you come to work with VanderLans?

ZL: We met at the University of California at Berkeley where I was an undergraduate at the College of Environmental Design and Rudy was a graduate student in photography. This was in 1982-83. After college we both did all sorts of design-related odd jobs. There was no direction. Then, in 1984 the Macintosh was introduced, we bought one, and everything started to fall into place. ((It all starts with the MAC!)) We both, each in our own way, really enjoyed this machine. It forced us to question everything we had learnt about design. We both enjoyed that process of exploration, of how far you could push the limits. Rudy is more intuitive; I'm more methodical. Yin and yang. It seemed to click, and still does.

RR: How do you deal with the challenges of working with your partner when the tradition of design partnerships often means that the woman gets less recognition?

ZL: Rudy and I are both very detail-oriented and hands-on. This makes it difficult for us to work together. I'm not a great collaborator and neither is he. It's one reason why I switched my studies from architecture to graphics. I realised that having to compromise with so many outside opinions wouldn't allow me the kind of creative freedom I desired. I'm no diplomat! Our Emigre collaboration works because we each control a distinct part of the equation. I control my typeface designs, Rudy controls the magazine, and Emigre is the symbiosis.

As for the gender-biased recognition, I don't know what the perception is from the outside, but I feel that I do get as much recognition for my type designs as Rudy is getting for the magazine. A bigger problem for me is that type designers in general are under-recognised. 

RR: You named your Baskerville revival after Sarah Eaves, who became Baskerville's wife and finished printing the volumes he left incomplete on his death. Is the typographic world as male-dominated as it appears from the outside?

ZL: The history of type design is rooted in the use of heavy machinery and lead founding, which have traditionally not been considered women's work. Today, the discipline is available to any artist who embraces computer technology, but it is one of the more technical specialities within visual design. A type designer does benefit from some understanding of computer programming - another field that women traditionally seldom enter, though maybe this will change. Certainly, the field of type design is more open to women than it ever has been.

Girl power! 

RR: How is your personal style and personal philosophy (such as your commitment to recycling) reflected in your work? How do you see the designer's responsibility in these times?

ZL: To live in harmony with our environment, we will need to treat all life and material as precious. There can be no "waste"because there is no black hole on this planet for its disposal, and storing it ultimately degrades the quality of life. The key to getting rid of waste is to rethink the way we use materials. For example, a container shouldn't become waste as soon as it's emptied. Next, we need to realise that what we do at home and at work are connected.

At home I can make the effort to wash an empty container out, then re-use or recycle it. At work, I can take the effort to design a container that is more easily re-usable and recyclable. But neither action will be nearly half as effective as when I do both. This is a very simple example, but I think you get the idea.