On typography and its origins

Comment by the Editor-in-Chief | Johannes Frederik Christensen

The Business of Brand Management sheds light on brand management in the context of the present and history. This article is part of a series of republications of selected texts by Olaf Leu and Bodo Rieger from the years 1987 to 2018. What was thought, written and advocated back then is worth re-reading - not out of nostalgia, but because it reflects questions that have not been resolved even today.

Hanna Kölbl (University of Applied Sciences, Würzburg): Professor Leu, you are the first German member of the Type Directors Club of New York. How did it come about that the TDC NY opened a German liaison and when was that?

First of all: I am only the second German member, before me was Hermann Zapf. And to your second question: Ultimately, it was the ICTA (International Center For The Typographic Arts), founded in New York in 1961, that pursued international efforts, worldwide, including the exchange of information in the graphicarts.

When I was in the USA for the first time in 1964, especially in New York, I recognized the opportunity to create American design across the North Atlantic. The ICTA always acted as the organizer. The Type Directors Club was also under the wing of the ICTA until 1983 - only when the ICTA ceased to exist was it possible to speak of a German section of the TDC, and I was then its chairman until 1990. A small team only had the task of arranging the Type Directors Show with suitable partners. It was more of a consular task - New York did not want any active association work of its own.

To summarize in conclusion: The TDC and its annual exhibition were sponsored by the ICTA network from 1965 to 1983, then became an independent site representative organization in 1984 and has remained so to this day.

What status did the TDC have in the design industry, and especially in the typography industry, when it wasfoundedand whatstatusdoes it have today?

All this has or had to do with the East Coast situation. The Art Directors Club of New York had existed here since 1920 and published its own yearbook after the competition had taken place. And it was also chic to meet colleagues for lunch in the club's own restaurant. That was the contact exchange par excellence. Unfortunately, there was no empirical thinking. Rather, the ADC of NY was more of a social get-together, no room for experiments, new worlds, new possibilities. This gap was filled by the Type Directors Club of New York, which became active in 1946, particularly in education. Its annual exhibition, i.e. the competition, was only founded in 1955 - the whole world associates the TDC almost exclusively with this exhibition, but doesn't realize that the club is very local, very New York-based and thus offers what is known as an active club life. That's why membership outside of New York is pure nonsense. As a German member, you can't take part in the actual club life, the events and lectures etc. - but that's what makes the club what it is! TDC membership outside of New York is a signature after registration - pure bluff. But the designation TDC member looks good on letterheads and business cards.

In the early days, as the catalogs of competition results from 1955 to 1979 show, the empirical idea can be followed until the end of the 1970s. After that, it becomes mushy. The once clear, stringent, analytical and logical solution disintegrates and dissolves.

Today, the TDC is very popular, but that only refers to the annual show, which is always good for a typographic surprise. And what's more: the yearbook and the exhibition are a cooper mine - an exchange of ideas and inspiration. Well stolen is always easier than homemade!

If the TDC had an influence on the development of the design, how can this be recognized, or how would you determine this - in which years is this particularly noticeable? How has the influence changed, possibly in recent times?

The influence of the TDC was enormous, especially in the fifties and sixties. Suddenly, people were talking about the New American School, whose leading protagonist was Herb Lubalin. Lubalin's typeface solutions have become typographic icons. A typeface like the Avantgarde alone became popular, the interlacing of letters, figures and characters became fashionable. Unfortunately, it also produced a lot of crap, because Avantgarde is only really good in one style, the original style. Architects and design students love this font, but in Hairline, it's downright gruesome.

But my beloved Herbie (Herb Lubalin) also made mistakes by adding more to his original cut, including lowercase letters - you can smoke all that in your pipe. His influence waned considerably from around the 1990s onwards. This was also due to the many publications that suddenly flooded onto the market. The once bubbling, clear source, the TDC, was heavily mixed with external influences. In the end, the result was not pure Kentucky whisky from the USA, but a mixture of cherry, apple, peach, banana and plum schnapps. In principle, the lid should have been kept on from the start and only work made in the USA should have been accepted - but there were people like Olaf Leu, who wanted Awards from the USA - and the source was already spiked with Black Forest kirsch ...

And then: Did the TDC influence the role of typographic representation or rather direct it and with what?

One cannot speak of strategic, dogmatic steering by the TDC - dogma is generally not part of the American structure. Quite the opposite in this country, e.g. the Ulm School. They were sheriffs. Anyone who didn't believe in them was shot on the spot. If there was an influence, yes, it was through what was seen, what was possible in a type directors show.

Some successive vintages differ greatly from one another in terms of style. To what extent do you think this is due to the annual replacement of the jury?

An almost painful but fundamental question. There are two systems: one is that of a permanent jury. This is characterized by the jurors' constantly expanding and growing knowledge of the material presented. In itself, this is the ideal form when it comes to analyzing years and their results. I was a member of such an ideal jury for 18 years. Every year, we recognized the duplicates from the previous year and laughed our heads off at so much incompetence. It is the understandable desire to be a juror, to judge others. Very, very human. According to the motto, what he can do, I can do too.

Of course, new people don't recognize the duplicates from previous years because they don't have this memory of what has gone before. But of course it's great to be introduced as a juror on the first pages of a yearbook. Look how important I am ...

Probably the best form would be: two thirds permanent jury, one third new jurors.

The judging market is one of vanity. Every FIFA referee in soccer has to know and master 300 rules, only the little designers believe they can do this quickly and easily from the hip.

How did functionalism (form follows function - Louis Sullivan) and styling influence the development of European and American design?

From 1880 onwards, especially after 1915, the USA experienced huge waves of immigration, including many a European genius in architecture, industrial design and graphics. Who knows that Cassandre, who is considered THE French poster designer, spent several years in the USA, working there and providing significant impetus for graphic design. It was the Russians who were instrumental in the flowering of magazine design. The USA was a pool of talent with an enormous influence on its entire environment. The first streamlined cars and locomotives came from the USA - apart from the soaring glass palaces in Chicago and New York. The USA virtually thrived on the talents of immigrants. So it was mainly Europeans from all over the world who made America the great role model for styling, not forgetting everyday objects such as a food processor.

The Europeans had the theoretical knowledge, but the implementation took place in the USA. In this respect, American design influenced Europe more and more, although Europe was still involved in two world wars during these formative times. The USA became and was a hothouse of design.

To what extent has European functionalism influenced American design?

Well, Futurism originated in Italy, where it was also used in architecture. Italy was always aware of its creative influence, in fashion, in color design, in the industrial design of everyday objects. In Italy, as in France, graphic design was a poor relation as far as modernity was concerned. France produced outstanding poster-only designers, England was a leader in the publishing industry, Germany was a poster country on the one hand, but the commercial printed matter also betrayed a creative awakening that took place around 1925 and continues to radiate far into our time. Without the findings of this 1920s movement, today's graphic design would be inconceivable. The ultimate catastrophe was the Second World War, which killed off all progressive ideas and triggered the emigration, indeed the flight, of outstanding talent to the USA. The USA profited handsomely from this.

Is there a greater rejection of historicism in Europe than in the USA, and if so, where does that come from?

Well, historicism was an expression of the crowned heads. They had their palaces built in various styles and enjoyed neo-renaissance, baroque and classicism. The well-to-do bourgeoisie followed suit. They too wanted to splurge, as the huge economic boom after 1875 freed up unimagined resources. Suddenly money was available and people invested.

The USA, on the other hand, lived off its previously poor immigrants, who gradually came into money, but did not necessarily recreate what they knew from their homeland. In this respect, historicism never had a chance in the USA. Modern buildings à la Mies van der Rohe or Gropius were in demand.

What would you describe as the good form? And is it true that the desire for it seems to be greater in Europe than in the USA?

The Good Form was once, especially in the 1920s, the endeavor of designers to help people, ultimately the public, to have more taste in all areas of application. To educate them, so to speak. However, this was only successful in various application segments such as textiles, glass, ceramics or metal. The Frankfurt kitchen is one such example. Here, the focus was on the ordinary citizen, who was supposed to live better. In general, the missionary zeal of designers at the time was boundless. They finally wanted to make it clear to their fellow human beings that a better life required better, good design. All these educational measures, as I call them, could only achieve partial success. Because good form, i.e. good, often elaborate design, simply costs a little more, and some people don't want to afford it.

In the meantime, the Good Form - both the need for it and its rejection or ignorance - has become global. Italy plays a leading role in fashion, textile design and furniture design, Scandinavia also shines in glass and furniture design, but Good Old Germany has Audi and BMW. If you were to ask a foreigner what comes to mind when they think of Germany, they would definitely not mention the extraordinary graphic design, but Mercedes and BMW. We are the No. 1 carmakers, with Vorsprung durch Technik, and not Vorsprung durch Design, which is what we would like to have.

Does today's creative tool, the computer, lead to greater monotony than earlier creative tools did, or have we been exposed to visual overload through the World Wide Web and the mass media, and have we become less sensitive as a result?

That's a question you're asking a soon-to-be eighty-year-old. In this respect, it is unfair, because I am not inundated, because I am neither active in the so-called social networks nor do I have a presence on the web, I am simply not interested (anymore). But I don't deny that these are and will be problems for my children (4), grandchildren (10) and great-grandchildren (3).

As you know, there are many opinions on the difference between art and design. What is your personal opinion on this?

Well, that's very simple, or I make it simple for myself. Designers solve other people's problems - with their design and in relation to a commission they have been given. Artists don't know the other person and usually don't have a client; they do what they feel like doing. For example, blue forests that nobody buys. Only after a certain amount of time has passed - and as an artist you have to put up with that - does word get around that Blue Woods are a hit. And finally a gallery - which always takes half of the proceeds (!) - drives up the prices. The higher, the bigger the share. Art comes from skill. However, this saying is increasingly being misused because it doesn't fit in with art marketing, doesn't fit in with their arguments. But at the end of the day, both industries, art and design, try to make a living from skill. In the end, it's as simple as that.

When did the title of designer change to designer , and what consequences did this have and how has the job profile changed as a result?

Well, the designers - in Switzerland, by the way, this is an honorable job title - have always had a sense for theater, for disguises, for reversing roles. Moving with the times, but actually always doing the same thing. A new label. It's quite nice to look at. And the technology. The software. The hardware. Today you type with your finger, department wipe & go. As designers, we used to have scissors, a razor blade, tweezers, a ruler and Fixogum, which was a removable adhesive. And of course a base, white cardboard 800 g/sqm.

Today you stare at an illuminated screen, next to it - marked with post-its - are the latest design books, the yearbooks of the ADC of NY, the TDC of NY, plus a few English and American scene magazines. And the groundhog always greets the groundhog ...

How has the designer's mindset and attitude changed as a result of the new job description ?

The new job description is totally alien to me. Up to now, what came out afterwards was always the benchmark for what was labeled either original, original, mediocre or crappy. The way of thinking is not new, either I am dealing with a creative solution or not. What is supposed to change or have changed significantly? I am paid in the long term for the acceptance of my professional practice, which , by the way, is purely a work of art, not art!

What role do you think typography will play in the future?

Typography is the basis of all graphic design. Herb Lubalin said this, and although he is long dead, this quote is still valid. And as long as people know the alphabet, have learned it, they will have to read to get information. This happens through letters, 26 in number in our regions, which, when combined, become words and whole sentences, whole columns, whole books. We will not (be able to) change the person or people. What has been communicated with and through writing for 2000 years is irreversible for and in the future.

EPILOG on the article "On typography and its origins", August 29, 2025.

The question remains, WHAT has become of the Type Directors Club of New York since it was founded in 1946? Well, many, most, of the agencies and their type directors that were then located in the Madison Avenue haze are long gone. The substance of knowledge and vision contributed back then has long since been used up. In 2022, the TDC became a further component of an overarching institution, "The One Club for Creativity" - also home to the Art Directors Club of New York. Competitions are organized and the results are sent around the world, and the title of the TDC yearbook "The World's Best Typography" should not bother you - it is not, it would be more honest to call it "contemporary". But where substance is on the wane, integrity is difficult to maintain - not even with empty words - and the TDC and the ADC are no different, like many once proud foundations. They seem to be falling victim to the natural fading of once glorious dreams.