Bauhaus was possibly the most influential design movement in the early 20th century. Artists and craftsmen of all types came together to combine their understanding of art and culture with a commitment to unite under a mission of creating an improved society. László Moholy-Nagy, a student of the Bauhaus school, brought to the Bauhaus several deliberations with enthusiasm. The integration of word and photographic image, in his mind, was a powerful antidote for the slippery nature of text (Armstrong). Moholy-Nagy’s essay Typophoto expressed his idea of integrating typography and image. He explains typophoto as, “Typography is communication composed in type. Photography is the visual presentation of what can be optically apprehended. Typophoto is the visually most exact rendering of communication.” (Moholy-Nagy)
In collaboration with Walter Gropius, the founder of the Bauhaus school, typography became a central focus for many students. Moholy-Nagy had an important role to articulate the new typography for the Bauhaus school in collaboration with Jan Tschichold and Kurt Schwitters. Their principle was that the new typography be asymmetrical and adhere to a grid. Herbert Bayer’s contribution to these principles offered his idealistic approach to typography with the geometric sans-serif typeface Universal. Bayer’s research found that the history of our alphabet and any probing into its optical effectiveness expose a lack of principle and structure, precision and efficiency that should be evidenced in this important tool.” (Bayer) This experimental typeface was truly constructed in Bauhaus standards using geometric characteristics incorporating circles and straight lines.
Fast-forward more than half a century—as co-editor of Design Observer Jessica Helfand and others feature news and critical essays on design, urbanism, social innovation and popular culture (Observer). As a critic of graphic design Helfand has written numerous essays and has published many books. In her essay De Stijl, New Media, and the Lessons of Geometry she emphasizes that a structural element can serve a graphically direct yet intensely personal need through the reflections of earlier twentieth-century visionaries who sought to embrace social order and spiritual harmony through simple, formal means (Helfand). Helfand argues that as technology and society embrace and develop New Media it should not overlook historical cues in geometric order and aesthetics using the De Stijl movement as a model.
The lessons being learned in New Media are very much like those faced in the earlier half of the twentieth century. Moholy-Nagy informs in his essay that the future of typographic methods lies with the photomechanical processes and the invention of the photographic typesetting machine and indicate the trend to which every typographer or typophotographer must adapt himself (Moholy-Nagy). His intuition to foresee the imminent need for art, design, and technology to unite was remarkable. To embrace the new technology in printing as a tool to improve upon design and visual communications has served society well. Without this vision of Typophoto—type co-existing with image molded by the message—many communication mediums we take for granted today would not exist.
Herbert Bayer pulls upon Moholy-Nagy’s spirit as well as other enlightened typographers of the 1920’s to support his renewal in typography. Bayer states, “It appears that the searching went beyond surface effects into underlying strata. It is fallacy to believe that styles can be created as easily and as often as fashions change… moreover, the typographic revolution was not an isolated event but went hand in hand with a new social, political consciousness (Bayer). Bayer’s view of typography renewal needs to be considered today while developers of web typography and screen typography are adapting the newest innovations. This present movement to offer a deep diversity of available typefaces in websites includes innovations such as Webkit Fonts and Typekit. However this movement’s progressive nature is overlooking the underlying strata and is purely focused on the aesthetics of surface effects.
In backing this argument one can look to the supporting words of Helfand, “these ideas are surprisingly relevant, as they—and the work they influenced—suggest a deceptively simple way to think about the formal, temporal, and cultural phenomena that collectively define new media. In an effort to resolve the relationships between structural form and transient content, between cyclical time and infinite space, and between a message transmitted and a message received, the propositions of De Stijl suggest an ideal paradigm with which to evaluate the role and effectiveness of design in an electronic age.” (Helfand) She continues in suggesting that geometric idealogies can resolve much of the conversation regarding design flaws.
The perspectives held by these authors, although carried over decades of time, reflect a new ideology in today’s society. We must not fall victim to the speed of change and allow technology to shape our future. Nor should be accept forced change merely to satisfy the search for a new style. The challenge as Helfand describes, “designers often struggle in particular with the intangible temporal component implicit in these new media, where experience is meant to be customized and mutable.” (Helfand) It is the diligent duty of the design community to embrace this challenge and become the voice to inspire others.