Everybody loves “vernacular typography,” or at least enjoys finding examples. This purely functional sign resides on a store-front church in a neighborhood in Seattle (not far, in fact, from the building with the faded “Roycroft Theater” sign that I noted last year). For several years, the church sign was characterized by the shaky lettering in the top image; I was never sure whether it was a deliberate style or the result of being painted by someone with a nerve problem. (Whatever the intention or the skill involved, presumably it served its purpose; the information was there, albeit in a rather peculiar form.)
More recently, that sign was replaced by the one in the bottom image – same information, mostly, but a more controlled sort of lettering, or at least a more formal set of models. Still not anything that would be mistaken for the work of a professional sign-painter.
I was interested to note that while the lettering and design in the 2nd are definitely more formal, the from of the pastor’s name has gone from quite formal to very casual. The slight clash triggers my speculative button and I come up with reasons for the change! Human brains is weird.
MKK
Is there a general term like “outsider sign-painting” parallel to “ousider art”?
Neither of those signs would be at all out of place in large parts of Chicago, and probably many other places. We all know the sincere, very hand made sort of look, but it never occurred to me to title it before.
In my original draft (yes, I draft blog entries), I said “vernacular lettering,” but I changed it to “vernacular typography” because it was a more commonly used term. I’m of two minds about the distinction between lettering and typography. Strictly speaking, of course, typography involves repeatable letters – first cast in metal, then made transparent in photographic media, finally (finally?) turned into bits ’n’ bytes as digital fonts. But I suspect that the distinction between type and lettering is about to become historical.
Dear John,
I find myself becoming increasingly agitated by those using the word “typography” for lettering. I correct the offenders at each turn, as usually it is not their intention to use the term incorrectly, but I wonder if maybe I shouldn’t be ruffling my feathers over a distinction that will soon die, the way “typeface” and “font” have. Please advise me. Should I drop it?
Yours,
Stephen