Stern, A. (2016) ‘Freaks of Fancy, Revisited: Nineteenth-Century Ornamented Typography in the Twenty-First Century’. Design Issues. [Online] 32 (4), p.88-89. Available from: http://ud7ed2gm9k.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Freaks+of+Fancy%2C+Revisited%3A+Nineteenth-Century+Ornamented+Typography+in+the+Twenty-First+Century&rft.au=Arden+Stern&rft.date=2016-10-01&rft.pub=The+MIT+Press&rft.issn=1531-4790&rft.eissn=1531-4790&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=76&rft.epage=90&rft_id=info:doi/10.1162%2FDESI_a_00418&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=10_1162_DESI_a_00418¶mdict=en-UK
Introduction
For this module, I have been studying the current meaning of retro design and, as a result, I have gained an interest in the relationship between revivalism and a cultural history of the present. To help articulate this relationship I drawn on the work of Arden Stern, a design historian of graphic arts and visual culture who is based at the Art Center College of Design. Via Stern’s ’Freaks of Fancy, Revisited: Nineteenth-Century Ornamented Typography in the Twenty-First Century’ (Stern, 2016) I found her argument applicable to helping me better understand the meaning of the revivalism and how that informs an understanding of current aesthetic practices.
In this critical analysis, I focus my attention on page88 line4 to page89 line40 of this article to comprehend how revivalism of nineteenth-century decorative typography still holds influence and is cultural reference point for contemporary design values.
Background
In this section, Stern first cited the three perspectives of revivalism in general, by accumulating opinions and criticisms of representative theorists. She then moves on to historicize the meaning of current nineteenth-century decorative type and today’s revivalism from the vantage point of a current Neo-Victorian’s aestheticism status and contemporary imperialism of the U.S..
My theme’s focus range is mainly the twentieth century style, but various arguments are discussed here, the interpretation and history of revivalism and the reference to the present day have importance to understand current revivalist phenomenon, not limited to nineteenth-century’s revivalism. To know revivalism’s historical background and the way of positioning its material and cultural value today is essential to my practice of retro typography.
Analysis
Stern started this section of her article by referring to three theoretical approaches about revivalism－postmodern theory, marketing perspective and a cultural studies perspective－each explicating a unique discourse.
Stern first dissects postmodern approach to understanding revivalism. Stern quoted arguments that revivalism of Victorian typography was a reaction to Modernist typography and a counter to Bauhaus style itself. She then makes a point about Victorian typography’s connection to postmodern theory as the lead of following postmodern criticisms. However, this style repetition as simple reaction might have concern with the criticism of postmodern, various causes such as time and environmental change could be considered for the style change. From this portion of quotes, other interpretations might also be possible.
Stern went on to criticize pastiche as style that is ‘only surface’ by representative critics such as Jameson, Kalman and others, but here counter arguments are not mentioned. There are also positive opinions about this appropriation among critics and scholars. For instance, Poynor also referred Garrett who insisted that all art is not the original (Poynor, 2003); while according to Breathnach and Dermody, the materiality of retro has a function in the way that it expresses one’s identity (Breathnach & Dermody, 2013). In the latter half of this part of paper, there are opponent parts of postmodernism, but only this postmodern theory section is cited which provides unilaterally negative opinions.
Next, Stern subsequently offers an argument of revivalism from a marketing perspective in order to shed more light on the value of revivalism. A discussion is cited whether the revivalism is a consolidated boom at the end of the century or a constantly repeated phenomenon. Brown’s dissenting opinion of ‘dynamic strategy to the future’ stated here has a connection with the further discussion. However, the brief summary is too simple and abstract to gain a proper insight into the argument’s validity.
Stern later returns to Guffey (out of the scope of this analysis) and discusses retro’s cultural meaning but it seems quite abrupt and disjointed if considered from marketing perspective. Stern asserts that Guffey’s historical view of revivalism paradoxically helps to understand the progress of culture from ahistorical standpoint, but details were wooly and speculative. She also pointed out that Guffey’s theory is based on the logic of postmodernism and the rupture of history and loss of the meaning caused by retro were analyzed within it. Stern maintained to quote Guffey to state about the cultural meaning of retro, that is to look back the past in the space-time that will continue to advance to the future forever.
Stern expanded the argument to the future perspective, that grounded in the reform of nineteenth-century and reached its peak at postmodern time and moved on to the theme of this paper, nineteenth-century. According to Sadoff and Kucich, this nineteenth-century per se is “the break”, and all cultural put outs since nineteenth-century are postmodern in degree and here the connection with nineteenth-century and postmodern was suggested. Stern asserted that this early postmodernism is the reason why the scholars of Neo-Victorian Studies do modern reinterpretation of nineteenth-century objects and are obsessed and reacting to modern capitalism, and moreover suggested the relationship with postmodern by stating the definition of Neo-Victorianism that is Victorian pastiche. If postmodern era is set from nineteenth-century onwards and Victorian targeted by Neo-Victorian already includes postmodern, the meaning of the ‘original’ and pastiche might change. So the meaning of the series of arguments mentioned here since late capitalism era might be influenced.
From a political and economic point of view, Stern quoted Ho to suggest that contemporary Victorianism could leave the original context, the range of Neo-Victorian might deal with postcolonial era and imperialism that gives the influence to the world, in connection with the capitalist imperialism of the U.S.. This is considered as the continuing of culture but the not real rupture as criticized by anti-postmodernist, and the Victorian style which is reinterpreted in the neo-imperial U.S. is suggested to have context as it continues to the present day. There is no direct mention of typography in this paragraph, but it is conceivable that Victorian typography is considered as its representation. This view seems to justify the reinterpretation of the nineteenth-century British style, Victorian typography in the U.S. today.
Conclusion
This part of the article developed the identity and today’s meaning of revivalism and Victorian typography by providing a theoretical summary of current critiques. Hence the logic between sentences and their explanatory power might be a little bit rough but the point of overall argument of revivalism is well still historically impactful and culturally informed.
The significance of the restoration of the nineteenth-century typography is argued after justification is gathered in general, the author’s position that this revival has a meaning in the contemporary world is reasonable and understandable. Although this article focuses on the nineteenth-century decorative type in the U.S., this argument and the way of thinking from pluralistic perspective are applicable vis-à-vis other retro styles and highly relevant to the development of my own retro style.
(1098 words except for titles – Introduction/Background/Analysis/Conclusion)
Reference:
Breathnach, T. and Dermody, B. (2013) ‘The Appeal of the Past: Retro Type and Typography’. InPrint. [Online] Vol. 2, Iss. 1, Article 4. Available from: https://arrow.dit.ie/inp/vol2/iss1/4
Poynor, R. (2003) Appropriation. In: No More Rules. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd