Ugly in More Ways than One

The other day I was half-joking with some folks about the politics of typography. Then I saw this from the May 2006 issue of Metropolis, via the AIGA website: POTUS Typographicus: Appealing to the Baseline and George W’s Typographic Legacy. Heller argues that “…good design in patriotic.” Ultimately though, what is more disturbing than unkerned, overstyled typographic disasters is their cynical attempt to sway public opinion through visual repetition. As Heller notes himself, “No president before Bush—not Kennedy, Reagan, or Clinton—relied on such huge typographic statements to get their messages across. I checked 100 or so photographs of past presidents’ major speeches and saw no such signs or banners for ‘The New Frontier,’ or even ‘The Evil Empire.’” Just because it says “Protecting America’s Borders” or “Iraqi Freedom” a hundred times behind Bush’s head doesn’t make it so. The true “patriotic” (whatever than means) designer would refuse to lend an air of aesthetic legitimacy to Bush & Co. by helping them in the selection of more visually appealing fonts.

For more on the relationship between letterforms and politics check out: Blackletter: Type and National Identity.