As someone who has already championed himself a fan of the typeface and accompanying documentary, I found more to like, yet also dislike about Helvetica. Though the typeface has been given the international title of “most readable and legible font created by man”, I find myself questioning not only the validity of that statement, but also whether it is truly that important to society. After hearing all of these old Swedish men talk about the theory and perfection of the typeface, I grew to see this conflict with the actual practical use of the typeface. Although it may have been proven to the most scientifically pleasing typeface to the human eye, Helvetica remains a romanticised and highly ideal human-creation that I believe oversteps its boundaries in terms of importance to society and typeface in general.
Yes. It is a glorious thing of beauty that was given to the world in order to better realize literacy and understanding. But the idea Helvetica remains this “clear, crisp glass of water that refreshes the parched traveler in the desert” is truly someone laboring over their love with the typeface and not making an actual logical argument as to why and how this is a revolutionary social construct. I can read almost any other typeface just as well as Helvetica, and that does not necessarily mean those other fonts present a personality to the reading that somehow distorts the overall message one receives from the writing in front of them. The notion Helvetica is the “end all and be all”, the perfection of modern society’s values made in typeface, is a bloated and heavy-handed statement. In the world of communications, legibility is quite important, yet just because this typeface is more easy to read by one iota more than other fonts, does not immediately invalidate all other fonts.
When Helvetica was once the underdog, the unsung hero of the world of typeface, the font was first seen with skepticism and hesitation. Now, while the reverse has taken place, many are again arguing against the use of “the Modern typeface.” While Helvetica associates more modern theories of loss of identity and personality with everything it is printed on, other typefaces provide other kinds of connotations and personalities that are just as valid and useful, if not more than this. Perhaps the part of the documentary that resonated most with me was when towards the end, one of the few non-Swedish speakers discussed issues in legibility and communication. He argued for the two terms to be divided and not confused with one another, providing his example of using an entirely illegible and unreadable font for a rather poorly written story. Because the quality of the story is reflected in the representational value of the font, there is a more appropriate connection made, one that views communication as more important than the simple notion of legibility. It is a call to reclaim the personlaity lost with the abudance and reproduction of the typeface.
Although I still would call myself an enthusiast of the typeface, Helvetica symbolizes to me a way for people to simply “eat crap, because it is on every corner,” as one of the Swedish speakers said in the documentary. There is something very ingenious and poetic about the ubiquity of the typeface and its perfection, yet diversity is something inherent in communication I believe. Though we all see the font and understand it to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, I find myself at the DC metro stations asking why is everything like a doctor’s office, so steril? As much as I do enjoy seeing it everywhere, in graphic design, printmaking, journals, magazines, books, clothing, signs, I would like to see more creativity, more diversity in how we communicate with one another as people. That way, we could find more interpretations about what we read, not about what we see.
