On History, Font, and Quantum Physics (ok... not quantum physics)

One way I see a big impact of history on visual rhetoric is the development of technologies that produce visual rhetoric and how those technologies have expanded and changed the possibilities of visual rhetoric. In Helvetica, there are several instances where screen printed signs were preferred to hand painted signs for their clarity and function and, as time marched on in the New York Subway system, technology would continue to change the way signs were created, such as the LED signs now being implemented.

What’s interesting to me is how the history of visual rhetoric is invisible. I’ve ridden on the NYC subway system with relative ease perhaps due in large part to some of the rhetorical choices made by sign and map makers that were largely concealed from me before I read this book. Too, I guess I have a tendency to think of visual rhetoric as a relatively new development, contingent on computer software and images displayed on screens. Through our investigation of historical artifacts, though, I see that this is not the case.  The history we’ve explored presents a sort of naturalized visual rhetoric – that is, we’ve being doing visual rhetoric for a long time and it seems to be a central form of the communication of social values, identity, and the construction of public and private spaces. The history of Helvetica in the NYC subway system really blurs the construction of history for me, too. In the earlier pictures, when the Modern typeface (which I had a difficult time distinguishing from Helvetica) was implemented and the broad black stripe began to appear, I was struck with how familiar and contemporary the signs looked, even though they weren’t the final rendition of the signs I’ve seen and read. It made the past feel more present (if that makes any sense).

But does history shape visual rhetoric or does visual rhetoric shape history? I can’t help but wonder. When we look at these artifacts, the Victorian floor plans and the samplers especially, we bring to our analysis the benefits and limitations of our own times. We identify the Victorian floor plans as gendered, class, and more than somewhat oppressive, compounding my negative view of Victorian times and values. I’m thinking of Sontag, too, and how these artifacts, although perhaps close to me (as I live in a home and engage in behaviors not unlike the ones described in these books), seem distanced from my own experiences. Somehow, these artifacts stand in for historical events and allow us to continually write a history that “will have been” (Zizek, cited in Helmers. I loved this idea).

I enjoyed Christine’s discussion of Helvetica and Curlz MT as font choices that reflect certain values. I’m a typography nerd in my heart. I don’t read Helvetica as utilitarian, although this is why it was ultimately chosen. Instead, I read it as if it’s sort of the hipster of fonts (probably because it lives in Brooklyn… I kid). I have to wonder now how much of that is historically imported or learned, however tacitly, from my encounters in the NYC subway system or from seeing it elsewhere (and once you know to look for Helvetica, it really is everywhere). I leave you with one of my favorite YouTube videos of all time: Font Conference. It’s a little silly, but I think pertinent to our discussion (and also good for a laugh). There’s another one (Font Fight) that opposes Helvetica and Ariel, which is also funny…. But I’ll resist the temptation to post both.