Global Media Project group shot
Global Media Seminar with James Der Derian, John Santos, and chihuahuas

Global Media Project group shot
The 2007 Global Media class prepares for its psycho-geographic drift to the Providence Mall to see The 300

Global Media Project group shot
John Phillip Santos, James Der Derian and Eugene Jarecki with the inaugural 2006 Global Media class (and Che T-shirts)

« The Sociology, Political Economy, and Semiotics of the Film Award | Main | Terror's Advocate screening »

Helvetica Review

IR180- Global Media
Der Derian and Santos
2.28.08
Maria Mahler-Haug
Helvetica Review

The feature-length documentary Helvetica explores the emergence of Helvetica, a sans-serif type whose popularity exploded after its development in 1957. The film is made by Gary Hustwit, a young producer/filmmaker wanted to answer his own question of; "how do we interact with type on a daily basis?" Helvetica was developed in 1957 by a little-known Swiss typeface designer Max Miedinger and Eduard Hoffmann at the Haas'sche Schriftgiesserei (the Haas Type Foundry) in Munchenstein, Switzerland. In 1960, the Haas' umbrella company officially named the new font 'Helvetica,' derived from the Latin name for Switzerland. The world's embrace of this new font was astounding. It was, as one designer comments in the film, "a landslide just waiting to go down the mountain."

The film explores this question: was Helvetica a reflection of a changing society, or did the invention of this font help shape modernity? Did the popularity of Helvetica arise out of necessity or did it help breed a new culture? Ronald Deibert in his book Parchment, Printing, and Hypermedia explores the answer to this question and the ramifications of this debate.

Deibert writes that the most serious flaw in traditional medium theory is that it identifies and relies on an inherent link between the introduction of a new technology of communication and changes in specific social phenomena. This theory assumes a causal link between society and technology, giving technology unproved power over social constructs and emerging social environments. Deibert writes that by giving technology an inherent generative power, the theory tends to "slight the extent to which the technology itself emerges out of a particular context and is itself influenced by social, cultural, and historical forces" (Deibert, 28). Deibert writes that instead of assuming this causal link, more emphasis should be placed on the social and historical conditions from which these new technologies arise.

The social conditions into which Helvetica was born was a modernizing world, particularly in a technological sense. The film comments on the fact that one of the reasons for the sustained spread of Helvetica was its availability on computers, both mainframe and then personal. Helvetica also describes the rapid spread of this new, crisp font throughout the world of rising corporations that were hungry for a power-makeover. Helvetica provided the perfect letterhead representation for the corporate culture: a clear, crisp reflection of accessibility, transparency, and modernity. So in some ways, one can think of the manufacturing and the rapid and vast spread of Helvetica as a reflection of changes in technology and the redesign of environments. To Deibert, this new technological spread of the use of Helvetica would not have directly spawned aspects of modernity. He writes that "changes in modes of communication have an important effect on the nature and character of society and politics. New technologies of communication do not generate specific social forces and/or ideas, as technological determinists would have it. Rather, they facilitate and constrain the extant social forces and ideas of a society" (36).

Designer Massimo Vignelli says in Helvetica that it was the new, modern social environment that required a new, modern font. "When Helvetica came about, we were all ready for it," Vignelli says. "It just had all the right connotations that we were looking for-- for anything that had to spell out modern."

But perhaps it was these modern connotations of Helvetica that helped shape a more contemporary world. The font may have been the perfect vehicle through which modern ideas could be conveyed to society. Rick Poyner, a design writer in the documentary, said; "graphic design is the communication framework through which these messages about what the world is now and what we should aspire to,…reach us."

The documentary presents the current world of Helvetica by interspersing interviews with artists in the graphic design world with urban shots of the famous font in everyday life. These urban interaction shots reveal just how ubiquitous Helvetica has become and give the viewer a taste of its widespread use. From street signs to warning labels, the Swiss font has become what designer Lars Muller calls “the perfume of the city” and left an imprint on many aspects of our environments.

Whether the font created society or society create the font, it is clear that Helvetica dominates our environment. However, does the ubiquity of Helvetica underscore its power now? If those people who are not inflicted with “typomania,” (which designer Erik Spiekermann describes in the film as “an incurable if not modern disease,”) are not actively aware of the Swiss type’s imprint on their lives, how much more powerful is the font besides providing us with clarity, familiarity, and easy-to-read signs? How closely tied with our street signs and government documents is Helvetica?

Comments

Good post. Thanks for the info on the new Deibert text. I'll check that out.

And _Helvetica_ really was a wonderful film, wasn't it?

[Hit the wrong button: this was intended as a comment rather than a prof note]

By way of a response, I offer you a study of contrasts(and synchronicities), to begin a discussion on the sociology, political economy, and semiotics of the documentary award, beginning with this year's Global Media Lab in which Gary Hustwit made the case for staying indie (let's hope it's captured in the videoblog), juxtaposed to last year's GML with Eugene Jarecki and Alex Gibney making the case for selling your doc to the majors (see February 2007 archive); then watching last week (online, not primetime) the Spirit Award for the 'Truer than Fiction' category which went to 'The Unforeseen' rather than nominee 'Helvetica' (damn); followed this week by the Oscar for Best Documentary going to Gibney's 'Taxi to the Dark Side' (huzzah). My question(s): Why do we have such contests? How do we judge the success of a documentary? What should we make of the fact that Jarecki won the same Spirit award (Truer than Fiction) in 2003 for 'Trials of Henry Kissinger'? Why is the Spirit Award female (winged victory) and the Academy Award male (Oscar). Share your thoughts (and bonus point for anybody who identifies which Spirit Award honoree titled her presentation about studio business practices as"The Scum-Sucking Vampire Pig Theory of Hollywood"?

VTY
JDD

I liked your post about Helvetica and your incorporation of Ronald Deibert’s work. For me though, one of the most significant aspects of the birth of Helvetica was the fact that it enabled designers to have the freedom to introduce new and clean design, which was a turning point in the world of advertising. In addition, I was interested in the wide range of emotions which people felt that Helvetica symbolized. But I also liked how you described Helvetica as the perfect letterhead for corporate culture: “a clear, crisp reflection of accessibility, transparency, and modernity.”

A WATSONBLOG, hosted by THE WATSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES at BROWN UNIVERSITY