OEI #84/85, “Våtmarker & Experiment” and #86/87, “Publiceringspraktiker, Publiceringspoetiker”
OEI #84/85: cover
From the OEI website:
OEI is a Stockholm-based magazine for extra-disciplinary spaces and de-disciplinizing moments – experimental forms of thinking, montages between poetry, art, philosophy, film, and documents; critical investigations, editorial enunciations, aesthetic technologies, non-affirmative writing, speculative archaeologies, new ecologies and counter-historiographies.
For each issue, a new typographic treatment is commissioned by different (typo)graphic designers, with the actual production of each issue being done by the OEI editors themselves.
For the two double issues #84/85 (2019) and #86/87 (2020), the same treatment was used twice – for the first time. The issues originally were supposed to be one issue but as the number of pages by far exceeded the maximum, the publication was split into two issues, each counting around 640 pages.
For #84/85 and #86/87, Konst & Teknik / Peter Ström was commissioned. Below is a text that was included in OEI #86/87 on the typography, translated into English from its original Swedish.
14 TIMES TIMES — On the typography in OEI #84/85 and #86/87
Times New Roman is one of the most well known Roman typefaces in current times, originally drawn in 1931 by Stanley Morison for the Times newspaper in London.
During the century that has passed since, the technical conditions of typesetting and type design have drastically changed on multiple occasions. From the metal type that Times New Roman originally was drawn for, via phototypesetting, to the digital typography of the computer era.
Today typefaces are drawn and programmed to work straight on digital screens, either in layout software such as Adobe InDesign (for later reproduction on, for example, paper), or to work exclusively within the computer; in software, on web pages, and apps.
Times New Roman found its way into the personal computer quite early, as it was distributed with the operating system Microsoft Windows 3.11 in 1993. Since then a number of new versions and interpretations have surfaced: Everything from hand-drawn and mirrored versions, via conceptually interesting sans serif versions, to professional interpretations by established typeface designers. Worth noting here are Tiempos by Kris Sowersby (2010), LL Bradford by Laurenz Brunner (2018) and GT Alpina by Reto Moser (2020).
Times New Roman has in a way become as close to a “non typeface” as a typeface can ever be — rivaled only by other Microsoft-distributed typefaces such as Arial and Courier New.
Or, as the typographer (and lawyer) Matthew Butterick phrases it:
When Times New Roman appears in a book, document, or advertisement, it connotes apathy. It says, “I submitted to the font of least resistance.” Times New Roman is not a font choice so much as the absence of a font choice, like the blackness of deep space is not a color. To look at Times New Roman is to gaze into the void.
Today there are more than 20 digital typeface families that, in one way or another, draw references to Times New Roman. The initial idea for OEI #84/85 and 86/87 was to use all of them as a way to create an index of the evolution of printed matter over the last one hundred years. But as many of the fonts lack Swedish (or Danish) characters, are incomplete for other reasons, or are simply illegible, the amount was reduced to 14. All 14 come in both Regular and Italic versions, with a few selected exceptions where the italics have been emulated by manually slanting in the layout software — a homage to the era of early digital typography where italics weren’t always available.
The different versions of Times New Roman used are everything from professional versions, such as Times Ten, to unpublished interpretations used in earlier projects by Konst & Teknik, such as Times MMM Roman, a remix version of Moderna Museet’s own Times MM Roman, to free amateur versions like Tiny Times, a pixelated version based on the appearance of Times New Roman when rendered on low-resolution screens.
The 14 versions:
Times New Roman Regular & Italic
Dutch 801 BT Roman & Italic
Times Regular & Italic
Times MM Roman Regular & Italic
Times MMM Roman (K&T remix) Regular & Italic
Pantasia Regular & Italic
Times Ten Regular & Italic
Happy Times at the IKOB Regular & Italic
Times CG ATT Regular & Faux Italic (13 deg)
Times NR MT Pro Regular & Italic
#PCMyungjo (K&T edit) Regular & Faux Italic (13 deg)
Tiny Times (K&T edit) Regular & Faux Italic (13 deg)
Times LT Regular & Italic
Times ET Regular & Italic
In every project we take on as Konst & Teknik, the research and final decision of the typeface selection is crucial – often to such an extent that we have difficulties returning to the same typefaces more than once. The typeface selections reflect the project and its content so much that it becomes difficult to apply the same typeface selection on later projects.
Times New Roman in its different versions seem to be an exception, a typeface family we have returned to more times than once. Maybe thanks to its rich technical and visual history, making it easy to apply conceptually to different projects and commissioners. It is by far the typeface I have the most different versions of in my computer, making it easy to find a suiting visual expression within the framework of a “clear” typography. Because of this, it has for a long time been an interesting thought to apply all the different version at the same time to a bigger printed matter project thus making it possible to in detail compare the different version properly. OEI #84/85 and #86/87 offered that possibility, both content wise, conceptually and technically.
Peter Ström
Konst & Teknik
January 2020
OEI #86/87: cover, spine, and back
OEI #84/85: spread
OEI #84/85: spread
OEI #84/85: spread
OEI #84/85: spread
OEI #84/85: spread
OEI #84/85: spread
OEI #84/85: spread
OEI #84/85: spread
OEI #84/85: spread
OEI #84/85: spread
OEI #84/85: spread
4 Comments on “OEI #84/85, “Våtmarker & Experiment” and #86/87, “Publiceringspraktiker, Publiceringspoetiker””
Thank you for your contribution, Peter, and apologies for the long wait.
I’d like to add some clarification regarding our policy of tagging typefaces on Fonts In Use. The entries listed under “Typefaces” represent general designs, be it single styles or families.
Typically, we maintain a single typeface entry for many different incarnations. For example, our page for Franklin Gothic covers the foundry original by ATF; the wood type copy by Hamilton; the adaptations for machine typesetting by Linotype, Ludlow and others; numerous phototype and dry transfer versions, as well as various digitizations. The main guiding princible is identifiability. Often it is tricky and laborious or downright impossible to pinpoint the specific version (keep in mind that the contributor often is not identical with the designer, and we have to ID the typeface based on a more or less detailed image). Also, we want to avoid too much fragmentation, so that visitors can easily browse all in-use examples of a given typeface design – across time, and across formats.
Sometimes we do give distinct versions a separate entry (which is crosslinked from the canonical entry). We tend to favour this option when the name is different, and/or when it’s relatively easy to tell the specific version apart from others. In the case of Franklin, that includes ITC Franklin Gothic, HEX Franklin, and others.
Following these principles, several of the fonts featured in this Use would be normally grouped under the same typeface entry. For example, Times NR literally stands for Times New Roman, and is the name used for one specific digitization of Monotype’s Times New Roman, made by Adobe. The differences between Times NR (top, v001.003, © Adobe Systems Incorporated) and Times New Roman as bundled with Mac OS (bottom, v5.01, © 2006 The Monotype Corporation) are discernable: the latter has different outlines, is smaller on the body, is spaced more tightly, and lacks a kerning pair for “Vå“. Yet, it wouldn’t be feasible to maintain separate typeface entries on Fonts In Use.
Times NR MT vs. Times New Roman
Or take Times LT: that’s merely a specific retail version of Linotype’s Times. It’s distinguished from the system version mainly by the character set: Times LT has small caps, but a less wide language support. The basic design is virtually identical. A different font, but not a different typeface, if you will.
To illustrate this, here’s a comparison between Times LT Roman (top, v1.040, © 1985, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2002 Adobe Systems Incorporated. © 1981, 1999, 2002 Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG) and Times Roman as bundled with Mac OS (top, v5.0, © 1990–99 Apple Computer Inc. © 1981 Linotype AG © 1990–91 Type Solutions Inc. © 1990–91 The Font Bureau Inc.). The main difference that I can spot in this sample is that the system font again lacks the kerning pair for “Vå“.
Times LT Roman vs. Times Roman
We understand that the conceptual nature of this project is special. That’s why we made an exception and kept all of your entries.
Makes sense, thanks for clarifying that!
Absolutely wonderful project.
I myself had already thought about the wide variety of uses to which the Times could be put. Unfortunately, as was said in the quote to Matthew Butterick, it may be that the Times, today, especially when it is not properly used, produces a sense of “apathy”. But if this is due to extreme trivialization, perhaps it is an indication that the typeface “works” extremely well and with great versatility, which is an enviable merit for any font.
If other typefaces were used on so many occasions, then, although they may be very well designed and beautiful, perhaps the exaggerated occurrence of their use would make them undifferentiated. However, from an absolute point of view, i.e. taking Times in itself, I consider it to be a perfect typeface.
Based on the beautiful typography of 17th century Dutch books, it would be difficult for Times not to result in a beautiful work. In fact, the impression it produces overall, by its compactness, sharpness, wide x-height, is that of a truly modern interpretation of Dutch typographic practice of that time, and so much so that its designer, Stanley Morison, was praised by Tschichold.
Konst & Teknik / Peter Ström produced some excellent work. The solutions adopted in the design, considering the samples presented here, managed to emphasize the beauty of typography, especially in the variations of the design of the font itself. Congratulations.
This is such a nice and well executed project!