Imagine a history with Curlz MT

What is the role of history in shaping visual rhetoric? 

I’m hoping to expand this question a bit and offer an answer that shows a multidirectional perspective.  In sum, I see history shaping visual rhetoric and visual rhetoric shaping history.

In Helvetica and the New York Subway System, Paul Shaw outlines the twists and turns associated with Helvetica typeface, a journey that spans almost a century, with Helvetic being deemed the official typeface for the NY City subway system in 1989 (95).  Shaw explains that, upon its initial release to the American public in 1963, Helvetic was promoted for its legibility, uniformity, and flawless color (57).  From the present year of 2012, we can read these three characteristics as what was visually valuable at the time: clarity and conciseness. When we see the signs created during this time and read what was written about these visual artifacts, we form present-day conceptions of the standards and values of the 1960s.  Here, visual rhetoric shapes our understanding of history.

Imagine, for a moment, if, in the 1960s, Helvetica had been criticized for these same qualities.  Imagine that Helvetica was called boring, mind-numbing, and rigid. Instead, a font such as Curlz MT was praised for its elegance, fluidity, and expressiveness and this font was pushed as the standard font for the NY Subway System.  If this were the case, we would look back upon this period in history with very different conceptions about what was visually important and valuable during this time.  The narrative we might construct about the emphasis on Curlz MT would undoubtedly be different than the narrative Shaw tells based on Helvetica. Our understanding of the history and the values/goals espoused would be vastly different.

I agree with a comment Bruce made: “In all likelihood, it would appear as if a visual artifact is inseparable from its history when doing analysis.”  I think it’s also important to recognize that this is not a unidirectional relationship with only the history/context impacting the creation of a visual artifact. Rather, this is a multidirectional relationship. Yes, history/context does impact a visual artifact, but also, the visual artifact impacts conceptions of history.  We form conclusions about a specific period in time based on the visual artifacts produced during this time.  We understand a little bit about the NY City culture from the 1960s-1990s based on the struggles/battles we read about in Shaw’s text. There was clearly an emphasis on control, uniformity, and standardization. These efforts at standardizing the signs were aimed at avoiding “a visual mess” (17).  Based on the visual artifacts we see in Shaw’s book, we can understand what would constitute “a visual mess” during this time, and, conversely, what would be deemed a “coherent” sign system (18).  So, while the context/history of the time period definitely impacts the signs created (and not created), the signs themselves serve to impact our current understanding of the historical time period.