A little background behind the poster
As a typography teacher, I frequently found myself irritated when beginning students would do things like putting two spaces between sentences instead of one space or using dumb quotes instead of smart quotes. After consulting with my colleague, Patrick Wilkey, I came up with 34 unprofessional ways to set type. The poster identifies each sin and explains how to avoid it.

About the poster
Size: 12 inches x 18 inches
Paper: Crane Lettra 110 lb. 100% Cotton Paper in Ecru color (fancy for cream)
Colors: Black + Pantone 227 (a red with a hint of purple)
Typefaces used: Primarily Cochin LT Std, Stuyvesant ICG and ITC New Baskerville Italic.
Price: $65 plus shipping and tax.

This first press run is 38, each poster is numbered and signed. When these 38 are gone, there will probably be another edition printed.

How to buy
The posters are officially sold out. The good news is that there will be a second edition of 100 that will go to press in early September. If you would like to get your name on a waiting list, send me an email and I will let you know when they are ready for purchase.

There is nothing quite like an empty sheet of paper. It is full of possibilities. Its potential lies in giving birth to an amazing idea. Its trepidation lies in the fear of birthing no ideas at all.

It can hold what is in my brain. It can give physical form to what I am thinking. I can draw, redraw, emphasize, erase. Often not refined, it is a container for rough and unpolished, yet often times powerful, communication. It is the seed or kernel of something that may become great.

Yet the page is also empty, devoid, blank. Will an idea come? Will it be worthy of the page? Will it blemish it, instead of enlivening it? I don’t know.

I love an empty page. I love to think, to write, to sketch with my hands.
I hate the empty page. I hate the uncertainty, the hesitancy to tarnish the page.

Long live the empty page. May it be filled with greatness. If it is not, I can always just turn the page.

1 Do you recognize the typeface for the opening credit sequence of a movie and then whisper it to your date, thinking (mistakenly) that you’ll impress him/her?

2 Speaking of movies, do you secretly theorize that Congress passed a law in 2002 mandating that Trajan must be used on three-fourths of all movie posters (and Bank Gothic on the remaining one-fourth)?

3 Do you think it’s a travesty that Copperplate Gothic is the typeface on the front of Seattle’s modern, state-of-the-art Qwest Field, home of the Seattle Seahawks?

4 When you make your children’s lunch in the morning, do you comp the type on their lunch bags?

5 Did you feel like it was Christmas/Hannukah/Holiday-of-your-choice when Emigre announced the release of Mr Eaves?

If you answered yes to all 5 of these questions, you’re a type junkie, just like me.

(Yes, I know the above typefaces are kinda lame, but so are these two terms.) While I am sure these words are fine to use in general circles, I would submit that they be outlawed when referring to graphic design. Every self-respecting graphic designer I know would cringe when “complimented” that his/her logo for a brand identity is “cute.” Equally, nothing says “I am not classy” quite like using the word “classy.” I am not sure how it has come to effectively undermine its own meaning. Perhaps it has been tossed around so much to describe things that obviously are not classy that it insinuates shallowness upon its use.

What adjectives, then, are we to use when describing design? The key lies not so much in finding the “it” words of the time (that is “sick,” that is “dope,” that is “all that and a bag of chips”) but in thinking about something in-depth and not glibly combing the surface. By contemplating and evaluating elements about a design that cause it to resonate with oneself, I am confident we will find more specific and appropriate vocabulary to express ourselves. For instance: “That design with the flower appeals to me because it is [not cute, but] reminiscent of a joyful summer day.” Yes, I know that is a lame example; but in all its lameness, it still excels calling it cute. As we become more prone to thinking before praising, we will not only provide observations with more of the proverbial meat and potatoes, but we will also increase our vocabulary. And rely less upon that romantic, yet overused couple: cute and classy, the Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie of graphic design vocabulary.

For the uninitiated, Claude Garamond was a punchcutter in 15th-16th century France. (Punchcutters developed the physical forms of a typeface by cutting letters into metal.) He created a beautiful typeface that bears his name. Although some argue it should bear Jean Jannon’s name, a fellow punchcutter in France. There are many different versions of Garamond today, including ITC Garamond (A condensed style of this family was ubiquitous in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In fact, use that cut today and your design will feel old-fashioned.) Garamond 3 is another version, along with Stempel Garamond, ATF Garamond and many others. To my eyes, the ultimate cut is Adobe Garamond Pro. It is beautiful, versatile and comes with a large set of glyphs. It is also, interestingly enough, based on Claude Garamond’s designs and not on Jannon’s. Robert Slimbach finished designing it in 1989 for Adobe.

But let’s get back to how Garamond is like ketchup. Students use Garamond all of the time, perhaps a little too much. This is because it seems to go with anything. When trying to mix typefaces, choose a bold san serif and Garamond will serve as a nice compliment. ITC Franklin Demi? Garamond works quite nicely. Futura Bold? Garamond matches it. DIN 1451 Mittelschrift? Yep. Even Rosewood, for the past 3 years the most ubiquitous typeface since, uh, Garamond, is a good match to Garamond. The list goes on. And on. And on.

This isn’t really an essay for or against Garamond, but somewhat of a backhanded compliment to it for being so versatile. I’ve heard it said (and I agree) that if you choose Garamond no one will applaud your choice, but no one will disagree with it either. So, here’s to a typeface that has lasted 500 years. May it last 500 more. Now its lunchtime and I’m ready for a hamburger. Pass the Garamond, I mean the ketchup, please.

For more about the history of Garamond, log onto typophile.com. For more about the history of ketchup try wikipedia.

What is it about Papyrus that makes it the ugliest typeface in the free world? I can’t quite put my finger on it. But here is a start:
1 - Its ubiquitousness (yes, I know that is not really a word). I have seen this typeface used on logos for companies from construction to scrapbooking. I have seen it on so many day spas that I am wondering if Congress has passed a law mandating its usage for such businesses. It is so universal that I am crossing my fingers the MOMA does not create a Papyrus retrospective. (And please, no documentary films, either.)
2 - The roughened effect on the type is what makes it so, er, distinctive. I think that is why so many people are drawn to it. I’m sorry, but roughened type became passe in the Fall of 2004 (okay, I just made up that date).
3 - The letterforms are hideous. Look at the gangly descenders on the g and y. I know the type is based on handwritten text, but the handwriting is neither elegant, nor attractive.
4 - A follow up to 3, I think the thing that bugs me the most is that the type has not been designed tight enough to look like a refined, non-handwritten typeface, yet it is not loose enough to pass as pseudo handwriting either. It is in typographic “No Man’s Land.” The typeface is completely unauthentic. Its pretended association with papyri is especially revolting.

So, does Papyrus have an upside? Well, here are a few “positives”:
1 - It looks great with most styles of clip art.
2 - It is one of the first font choices for a “desktop publisher.”
3 - It is cutely sophisticated and sophisticatedly cute.

I am almost to the point where I would like to start a club to combat its use. Or maybe a club whose membership requires that you have never set anything in Papyrus.

Please, someone design a typeface that appeals to everyone, that can be used on everything, that is not hideous. Oh, wait, that’s already been done: Helvetica.

Hoen designed a web site about the history of war propaganda. His work was featured in the Interactive Design section of the show. McNeil designed a fictional graphic design magazine titled “Thinking Outside the Box” which was included in the Publication Design category.

Brad’s work was part of his senior project which he completed in the Spring of 2008. Rendon’s work was completed as part of my ART 3410 class last fall (2007).

I am excited that the students’ work was included in the show and hope to continue to cultivate a national reputation for the graphic design program at UVU.

Congratulations to Brad and Rendon. Brad’s web site is on the right