The Gulf War Memorial Inscription at the National Arboretum in Staffordshire
I approve wholeheartedly, and would have supported the endeavour in some way had I known about it before.
But they have spoilt the ship for a ha’porth of tar.
When creating the inscription, they employed a translator to turn it into Latin, but they omitted to employ a typographer for a few pounds more. This is what they ended up with:
It’s set in Times New Roman. That could have been someone’s choice, until you see the quote marks, dashes, kerning — or lack of any of them.
Nobody chose Times New Roman. Someone has typed it out and handed it as it was, unthinkingly, to the manufacturer. It is appalling. It is cheap. It is nasty. It is thoughtless. It is undignified.
They’ve used the first font that opened on their machine. I’m astounded it wasn’t Arial. They have used typewriter quote marks instead of typographic quote marks, so they chose
And look at the dashes. They are not dashes; they are hyphen-minuses, only to be used by typewriters. Typographers have a choice of em dashes, en dashes, quotation dashes, hyphens, minuses and no doubt many more I haven’t heard of — a plethora of dash marks. They have different widths and different lengths for their different purposes. All ignored here, of course. The hyphen-minus will do — what more do you need?
I would have proposed something like this. Trajan is almost unbeatable for inscriptions, and a little letter spacing adds the simple majesty a war memorial requires. Forget the quotation marks, and note the completely differing dashes:
I’m sure the last thing the organisers wanted was an undignified tribute in hackneyed old Times New Roman. But they didn’t know any better. And our soldiers deserved better.
When I presented my brother-in-law Andrew, a former British Ambassador, with my book The Encyclopaedia of Fonts, he responded “I never knew there was more than one.”
Andrew didn’t tell me whether he was on the Inscriptions Committee.
March 14th, 2016 at 19:32
Why do some people feel the need to pour scorn on good deeds and well meaning? You began by saying you approved wholeheartedly and then proceeded launch a vitriolic attack on those people who devoted a considerable amount of time, thought and effort into this project.
As I know some of those involved with the construction of this memorial on a close, personal basis, I feel safe in saying that everything was done to ensure dignity and respect to those who gave their lives was duly shown.
If you had taken a little time to research this project, perhaps you would have been a little more respectful. Personally, I am not interested in your typographical knowledge of typefaces, fonts, hyphens, underscores or otherwise smart Alec comments. Your brother in law – British Ambassador or whoever, is probably as interested in your book as the rest of us.
The sacrifice of the fallen and the efforts of all those responsible for this memorial are the important things. I wouldn’t think that any of the 1800 people at the unveiling gave two hoots about Verdana, Lucida Console, Arial, Wingdings or any other font. Life………..and in this case death are far more important. Get a grip!
March 15th, 2016 at 16:23
Thank you for reading my blog. I would never pour scorn on good deeds, but I will always criticise bad or unthinking design — or the lack of any — wherever I come across it.
I believe that design and presentation are important, as do most people, whether they are aware of it or not.
It is no coincidence that the most moving memorials, such as the Menin Gate at Ypres or the Cenotaph in Whitehall, have been created by the finest architects and artists this country has produced. The design is important. The lettering is crucial.
As I wrote, the Gulf War Memorial has been spoilt for a ha’porth of tar. The person responsible for the inscription was way below his or her pay grade. They were insufficiently informed to make the decision they made.
There is a saying about major decisions and statements; that they are ‘cast in bronze’. That alone tells you about the importance of an inscription, especially on a war memorial.
Finally, I write about typography. It may not interest you — it clearly doesn’t. Your work is probably uninteresting to me, but I wouldn’t dream of denigrating it.
March 15th, 2016 at 21:47
Sorry Gwyn but you did pour scorn on this project in using words such as appalling, cheap and undignified. The fundamentals of typography are legibility and readability as I’m sure you are well aware, book writer that you are. To us ordinary folk, it scores well on both counts and to my mind use of typefaces is quite a subjective issue in any case. Verdana was the font of choice to use for legibility whilst I undertook my teaching certificate but like many things they become flavour of the month and then are consigned to the recycle bin.
I wonder why so many fonts are available? Choice perhaps?
What may not seem right to you does not mean it is cheap, apalling etc. and that the person asked to do the work was below their pay grade and I feel you do him/her a great disservice.
As an engineer and quite close to the work on this project, you did denigrate my work. I’m sure you can see how totally peeved I am at your comments and insensitivity. It is the memorial itself, not typeface, colour of flagstones, brushed or polished finish of the stainless steel that defines it and what it stands for.
March 16th, 2016 at 14:21
No, no, no, no, NO! You are deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote. My criticisms are solely directed at the lettering and choice of typeface, not at the monument, the men who died, any of the people who campaigned to erect it … it’s what I wrote in my original post — it was spoilt for a ha’porth of tar.
If you cannot understand the importance of design and typography, then of course I’m sorry for you, and you are not alone; but why defend something you know nothing about? The lettering on your memorial is shockingly bad and does it a disservice. There is no getting away from that.
But you are attempting to divert my attack away from that and on to everything the monument stands for, and you are completely wrong. My only gripe is with the amateurism of the lettering. It’s simply not good enough, and it is not sufficiently respectful.
I have a very good friend who shares your disability. He was best man at my wedding. He has perfect pitch, but he can’t tell the difference between serifs and lineales. At least he understands their relevance, and knows that thoughtless typography is the equivalent of listening to Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto in Bb being played in C#.
Legibility and readability are vital in book typography. It’s said that the best typography is the typography you don’t see. It’s different for advertisements, it’s different for inscriptions. Which is why yours was so ugly. It’s all I could see.
You got upset for all the wrong reasons, and I’m sorry about that. But I hope you’ve become more aware of how important type is.
March 16th, 2016 at 16:49
Yes, yes, yes! I’m not deliberately misinterpreting your comments in the slightest. Your insistence is, that the lack of thought over typeface has spoiled this memorial. I am not alone in feeling annoyed over your persistence with the triviality of typeface. Most feel it is puerile to say the least. I do have a reasonable understanding of typography from a previous life but obviously will remain a typographical Philistine in your eyes. I have no disability in this field that I am aware of. As a guitarist and avid musical person, I see no relevance to your comparison between typography and Mozart’s works, once again it is purely subjective.
Rick Poynor (1991) in his essay “Type and Deconstruction in the Digital Era” explains: “contemporary typographic works embody multiple readings, encourage readers’ participation and are becoming complex.” Poynor states: “type design in the digital era is quirky, personal and unreservedly subjective. I wholeheartedly concur with him in this respect. I’ve said enough Gwyn, we will never agree, you have your opinions, and I mine. I have enjoyed the debate but I really needed you to understand how hurtful your comments have been.
March 17th, 2016 at 00:54
Gwyn, 3rd paragraph…. It’s simply not good enough, and it’s not sufficiently respectful.
I’m not quite sure who is being disrespectful, I was at the unveiling at the Arboretum, and it was a very respectful occasion.
It’s disappointing that you feel it appropriate to comment on something that may not be to your own very high standards… But your comments are disrespectful to the Gulf war veterans who have worked tirelessly to raise the funds to erect this monument.
April 6th, 2016 at 09:49
Hello Gwyn. I was involved in the fabrication of the project mainly turning the concept into something that could be manufactured.
I also worked closely with the engravers to produce the 3 plates.
It has now come to light that there is an issue with the Arabic translation, so I will be working with the engravers to produce a replacement.
This brings me onto you, would you like to free up some of your time (foc) to supply me with the correct wording/typography, and I will produce all the required engraved plates at my expense to ensure the memorial is a fit and proper tribute.
I will send what you produce to the GWMTA for approval prior to production and hopefully they will fully appreciate your efforts.