Blue Pencil no. 34—The Phaidon Archive of Graphic Design: E series

E [1920–1929]
E001
Pro Dva Kvadrata | El Lissitzky | book| UNOVIS | 1920
[Deborah Sutherland]
images: 5
text: 4
apparatus: 0

Why isn’t the Russian title translated into English in the heading as well as in the text? This is done with German items. In general, the text is good, though Sutherland does not explain how the book was done despite calling it “highly sophisticated” in execution. The date is misleading. Lissitzky designed the book in 1920 but it was not published until 1922. See Museum of Modern Art, Christie’s and The Russian Avant-Garde Books 1910–1934 by Margit Rowell and Deborah Wye (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2002), pp. 153–155.

There is a good choice of images to fully show off About Two Squares: the cover on the front and four interior pages on the back.

E002
National Socialist German Workers’ Party | unknown | identity | National Socialist German Workers’ Party | 1920
[Simon Bell]
images: 3
text: 3
apparatus: 4

The image (a German flag with the swastika) sits awkwardly on the front. A vertical use of the swastika could have been used instead. The back has versions of the swastika dated 1932, 1933 and 1937 but nowhere is there a version from 1920. Also, there is no ancient swastika for comparison to the Nazi version. The date of 1920 is not explained.

The title is odd. It should be “Swastika” since that is the subject of the card. A quarter of the text is inexplicably devoted to a 1932 Hitler election poster which does not use the swastika. The claim that Wilhelm Deffke designed the swastika is left unmentioned.

E003
Broom | various | magazine and newspaper | Alfred Kreymborg and Harold Loeb | 1920–1924
[Simon Bell]
images: 4
text: 3
apparatus: 5

Six covers of Broom are shown but surprisingly the famous one by El Lissitzky Broom vol. 5, no. 4 is not among them. And neither is vol. 1, no. 3 by Fernand Léger or vol. 3, no. 3 by Enrico Prampolini. There are three that appear to be for the March 1923 issue, two by Man Ray and one by Laszlo Moholy-Nagy. There is no explanation. The text is unclear about how many issues of Broom were published in total, saying only that five were issued after the magazine returned to New York. There is no mention of Ladislaw Medges, whose cover for vol. 2, no. 3 is shown on the back. And none of Léger or Prampolini.

• “Fabbriano paper” should be “Fabriano paper”

E004
Cooper Black | Oswald Cooper | typeface | Barnhart Brothers & Spindler |1921
[Steve Heller]
images: 3
text: 3
apparatus: 0

The front shows an undated page from a Barnhart Bros. & Spindler specimen book of Cooper Types and the back shows a second page from the same source, though only the latter focused on Cooper Black. There are no images of the type in use, drawings of it or the lettering that inspired it which first appeared c. 1910.

Steve Heller’s text has a few incorrect statements and dates. Cooper Black is not a face face as he claims. It is simply a very bold old style face. Bertsch & Cooper did not run a type shop, though they did offer typesetting services sometime between 1915 and 1917. They were essentially an art studio specializing in lettering, typography and ornament. A complete family of Cooper Old Style was not designed in 1918—only the regular weight roman, originally called Cooper. It was followed by Cooper Black  in 1922, not in 1921 as the sheet says. For the other members of the Cooper family, Heller has the correct dates. Cooper’s fight for copyright protection did not occur prior to his death in 1940, as he says, but between  1926 and 1931.

E005
Chanel | Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel | logo | Chanel | 1921
[Amelia Black and Riikka Kuittinen]
images: 3
text: 2
apparatus: 4

The date of the Chanel logo seems a bit iffy. The sheet heading says 1921 but the examples shown of the interlocking Cs and of the sans serif name are identified as c. 1925 while a perfume bottle sporting the combined logo is c. 1921—though the image looks suspiciously current (as does the nameplate). There is no mention of the design of the No. 5 that is part of the famous perfume name and identity. The typeface used for the logo is not named. I suspect it was originally hand lettered.

The text speculates that the interlocking C logo may have come from laboratory bottles. But lachanelphile.com has other, more plausible, theories: that it came from stained glass windows in a monastery in Aubazine, France; or from the monogram of Catherine de Medici. Other websites claim the logo was designed in 1925, though they provide no documentation. There are no Chanel images from the 1920s online.

E006
Bauhaus programmes | Laszlo Moholy-Nagy et al | book | 1922–1931
[Sony Devabhktuni, David Hyde, Paul Shaw, Graham Twemlow]
images: 4
text: 4
apparatus: 5

This entry has been cobbled together from texts written by Devabhktuni, Hyde, Twemlow and myself. And at least in my case, I was not told that this was going to happen. I wrote an entry on the Staatliches Bauhaus in Weimar 1919–1923 exhibition catalogue cover by Herbert Bayer. That text is now the basis for paragraph two here. Who specifically wrote the other portions of the text, about the Bauhausbücher series and the Bauhaus: Zeitschrift für Gestaltung magazine. I don’t know.

Cramming three topics each of worthy of its own entry together is unfortunate. The text is not deep enough and many outstanding and iconic images are not shown. The text implies that the entire Bauhausbücher series was issued in 1925, even though the front shows no. 14 from 1929 (which is properly dated in the caption). The symbolism of the elements comprising the cover of Bauhaus Zeitschrift no. 1—pencil, drafting triangle, sphere, cone and sphere—goes unremarked. And the definition of Laszlo Moholy-Nagy’s term “typo-photo” as “photograms combined with sans-serif type” is incorrect; it is simply the combination of typography and photography as the “most precise visual communication.”

Why does the date range begin in 1922 when the earliest item under discussion is from 1923?

E007
Dlya Golosa by Vladimir Mayakovsky | El Lissitzky | book | Gosizdat (State Publishing House) | 1923
[Emily McVarish]
images: 4
text: 5
apparatus: 0

There are no captions but the images are not all from Dlya Golosa [For the Voice]. The front shows a double-page spread; and the back has two more double-page spreads plus the cover—and two other images, one with a constructivist drawing (the Museum of Modern Art has a color verso of this image which is for a theatre production). Why are these two unidentified images here? On the other hand, the one page in For the Voice that Emily McVarish describes in detail is not among those illustrated.

The sheet heading should include the English translation of the title as the text does. Also, Mayakovsky’s first name should be used in the text.

E008
Hollywood Sign | unknown | symbol | Hollywoodland Real Estate Development | 1923
[Aaron Seymour]
images: 5
text: 5
apparatus: 5

There are two images: one of the Hollyood sign when it was Hollywoodland and one of it in the recent past. That is all that is needed. The text is workmanlike, though it focuses more on the history of the sign than on its visual appearance. For instance, there is no mention of the sign’s original material or of the style of lettering (Grecian).

E009
LEF and Novy LEF | Aleksandr Rodchenko | magazine and newspaper | Gosizdat (State Publishing House) | 1923–1925 and 1927–1929
[Mike Sheedy]
images: 3
text: 5
apparatus: 5

There is only one image of Lef (on the front) while there are three from Novy Lef. They are all covers. The Novy Lef covers are lackluster. More exciting (and famous) ones such as no. 10 of 1927 and nos. 8 and 12 of 1928 have been passed over. And it would have been nice to see at least one more cover of Lef such as no. 2.

Mike Sheedy’s text is very good.

• “Ossip Brik” should be “Osip Brik”

E010
Pro Eto. Ei i mne | Aleksandr Rodchenko | book | self-commissioned | 1923
[Helena Michaelson]
images: 5
text: 4
apparatus: 0

As with other Russian language items, there is no English translation of the title in the sheet heading. Helena Michaelson says the text was commissioned by the poet Vladimir Mayakovsky so he should be listed as the client in the heading rather than “self-commissioned” which implies Rodchenko originated it.

In general, Michaelson’s text is good. However, she does not discuss the cover design and its lettering nor does she comment on the typography of the poem.

E011
Next Call | Hendrik Nicolaas Werkmann | magazine and newspaper | self-commissioned | 1923–1926
[Véronique Vienne]
images: 4
text: 4
apparatus: 5

The front shows the cover from the next call issue no. 9 while the back has spreads and pages from numbers 1, 5 and 8. Yet the text by Véronique Vienne, is good, though it refers to Werkman motifs that occur in nos. 2, 4 and 7. The images chosen are all similar in color and two of them have his recurring “lock plate” image which Vienne rightly points out.

H.N. Werkman is called a “small printer”? I think this is a mistranslation and that what is meant is that he was a job printer.

E012
Luchshih Sosok ne bilo i nyet | Aleksandr Rodchenko | poster | Rezinotrest | 1923
[Helena Michaelson]
images: 5
text: 5
apparatus: 4

Image no. 1 on the back is merely identified as a poster without any indication of its content or translation of its very short text. As usual, the heading of the sheet leaves the Russian text of the advertisement on the front untranslated. Fortunately, Helena Michaelson provides a rough translation in her text. (For Americans, “babies’  dummies” are “pacifiers”.) Her commentary is excellent and the Rezinotrest advertisement for pacifiers is supplemented not only by the mysterious poster but by two of Rodchenko’s amusing bookmarks.

• “the Soviet Aviation society” should be “the Soviet aviation aviation society”

E013
Lidantiu Faram | Ilia Zdanevich | book | 41° | 1923
[Emily McVarish]
images: 5
text: 5
apparatus: 0

Again, the Russian title is not translated in the heading, but only in the text. Emily McVarish’s text is excellent. The only quibble I have is that she mentions, but does not explicate or summarize Ilia Zdanevich’s graphic rules for zaum language.

The front shows the cover of Lidantiu Faram while the back of the sheet shows four spreads, all varying in design.

E014
Merz | Kurt Schwitters et al | magazine and newspaper | Merzverlag | 1923–1932
[Alison Barnes]
images: 4
text: 5
apparatus: 5

Although Merz was published from 1923 to 1932, only issues from 1924 are shown: three images for issue nos. 8/9 and three for issue no. 11. Fortunately, Allison Barnes’ text stresses Merz 8/9 as the epitome of the publication and also talks about no. 11—devoted to Kurt Schwitters’ commercial design work.

E015
Banknote for The State Bank of Thuringia | Herbert Bayer | money | The State Bank of Thuringia | 1923
[Melanie Archer]
images: 4
text: 3
apparatus: 4

The images are of the 1 million mark note (front and back), 2 million mark note and 5 million mark note. Given that the hyperinflation in Weimar Germany not only led to Herbert Bayer’s commission but also to its quick replacement—why and exactly when is not addressed by Melanie Archer—it is unfortunate that there are no images of the currency that preceded or followed his design for comparison.

Archer is unclear about the dating of the design. She says Bayer completed it on August 29, 1923 but the bill’s themselves bear the date August 9, 1923. Her last paragraph, an attempt to quickly sum up Bayer’s career between 1923 and 1931, is a bit of a mishmash. She incorrectly describes his Universal alphabet as a “typeface that remains fashionable today” and incorrectly claims that “Bayer also designed the prototype, which later became ITC Bauhaus, whose original letter shapes would inspire many typeface designs of the 1970s.” The Universal alphabet was never a typeface until the 1990s when several digital foundries issued versions. ITC Bauhaus (1975) by Ed Benguiat and Victor Caruso was inspired by Bayer’s design, but ironically included capitals—something which the Universal alphabet explicitly avoided. Bayer had nothing to do with ITC typeface.

E016
Time | various | magazine and newspaper | Time Inc. | 1923–present
[Eliza Williams]
images: 3
text: 3
apparatus: 5

Eliza Williams quickly summarizes the original design of Time and its subsequent design changes up to 2007, but somehow leaves out Nigel Holmes who was responsible for the prominent “maps, charts and diagrams” she mentions that appeared as part of Walter Bernard’s 1977 redesign. And she makes no mention of the various redesigns of the logotype—such as the first in 1938 and then the one done by Gerard Huerta in 1977 as part of Bernard’s overhaul. (It lasted until 1992 when it was replaced by a revised version of the 1938 logo.) The typeface that Bernard introduced was ITC Franklin Gothic not Franklin Gothic (as Williams says), a subtle but crucial distinction since the latter lacked a full family of weights that could function in a magazine context.

Despite the importance of Bernard’s 1977 redesign of Time which lasted for thirty years, there is no showing of its distinctive cover with the turned down corner nor of any of its interior pages with Holmes’ diagrams. The front of the sheet has the original 1923 cover of Time while the back has three covers from 1958 to 1962 and two interior spreads, one from 1958 and the other from 2007. There is no example of the first issue of January 3, 1927 to have the iconic red border or its first color cover, which occurred in 1928. (And Williams ignores the cover designs with the vertical colored band—variously green, red or orange—on the left that appeared for awhile in mid-1926.)

E017
Kino Glaz | Rodchenko | poster | Goskino (State Committee of the Council of Ministers on Cinematography) | 1924
[Graham Twemlow]
images: 4
text: 5
apparatus: 4

Graham Twemlow rightly points out the radical nature of the inclusion of photographic images in Kino Glaz but does not explain the technical limitations that made that unusual in 1924. Nor does he discuss the less familiar “landscape version” of the poster that is included on the back of the sheet. Other than the inclusion of the photographic eye, the elements of the design (including its lettering) are different from the vertical version. (Why was a horizontal version needed at all?) Otherwise, Twemlow does a fine job of situating the poster within Alexander Rodchenko’s overall oeuvre and the development of posters for the Russian film industry.

Along with the two versions of the Kino Glaz poster, there is a photograph of the Workers’ Club at the Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes showing the vertical one on the wall. What is missing that would have been nice to see, is a frame or two from Vertov’s film.

The title of Dziga Vertov’s film is not translated (whether as “Kino Eye”, “Cine Eye” or “Film Eye”) either in the heading or in Twemlow’s text. The caption for image no. 2 on the back of the sheet does not identify that the International Arts and Crafts Exhibition of 1925 took place in Paris. (It is the common English translation of the Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs et Industriels Modernes, the exhibition that provided the basis for the coinage “Art Deco”.)

E018
Pelikan Ink | El Lissitzky | advertising | Günther Wagner | 1924
[Phil Jones]
images: 4
text: 5
apparatus: 4

Phil Jones’ text is excellent. He spends one paragraph on El Lissitzky’s advertisement for Pelican [the spelling discrepancy is not explained; was this for the English market?] which reuses his famous “constructor” self-portrait—yet the image is not among those shown. Neither is Lissitzky’s well-known advertisement for carbon paper (Kohlenpapier) with its layers of contrasting tones, though Jones discusses it as well. Fortunately, the advertisement chosen to be on the front of the sheet is among the greatest of all Lissitzky designs—the photogram with floating pen and ink bottle stopper. The three additional images are less familiar, though nonetheless interesting.

There is more to Pelikan than Lissitzky’s brilliant advertising designs. Kurt Schwitters also did advertising for the company [see the back of E014], Ludwig Hohlwein designed a memorable poster, and O.H.W. Hadank was responsible for redesigning the logo in the 1920s into the form that exists today. [I wrote about the latter for Phaidon, but the text was among those dropped when the book became a box.] An entry on Pelikan touching on all of these designs would have been better than one solely dedicated to Lissitzky’s work.

E019
Knigi | Aleksandr Rodchenko | poster | Gosizdat (State Publishing House) | 1924
[David Hyde]
images: 5
text: 4
apparatus: 4

This is an essential design. The sheet has a four (spot) color version of Alexander Rodchenko’s poster for knigi (books) on the front and a two color version on the back, along with his photograph of Lily Brik that is at the heart of the design.

Hyde’s text is good, though the poster is not an example of photomontage in my view since it includes only one photograph. He does not explain why one version of the poster was printed in four colors (presumably more expensive, but also visually less “soviet”) nor does he discuss the lettering, other than to describe it as sans serif. (The letters of “knigi” being shouted by Brik had to be drawn by hand in 1924 because there were no photographic or digital methods at the time for creating perspectively distorted lettering. Also see Laszlo Moholy-Nagy’s famous “Pneumatik” drawing also from 1924.)

The date of 1924 given here is that of the original design according to Hyde. He does not give the date it was printed which was 1925. See Rodschenko by German Karginow (Budapest: Corvina Kiadó, 1979) which gives the date of the two-color version as 1925 (see fig. 100) and Rodchenko and the Arts of Revolutionary Russia by David Elliott (New York: Pantheon Books, 1979), pp. 18–19 which gives the date of the four color version also as 1925. Oddly, Aleksandr Rodchenko: Painting, Drawing, Collage, Design, Photography eds. Magdalena Droste, Leah Dickerman and Peter Galassi (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1998) does not include the poster (in either version) at all.

E020
Gebrauchsgraphik | various | magazine and newspaper | Phönix Illustrationsdruck und Verlag GmbH | 1924–1937
[Jason Tselentis]
images: 3
text: 4
apparatus: 3

The heading has dates that neither correspond to those of the images shown nor to the facts about the life of Gebrauchsgraphik. The seven covers displayed date from 1926 to 1938. Gebrauchsgraphik, as Jason Tselentis correctly points out, was published from 1924 to 1944 and then revived from 1950 to 1971. He does not mention that from 1933 to 1944 it was the “Offizielles Organ der Fachgruppe Gebrauchsgraphiker in der Reichskammer der Bildenden Künste.” [That is, it became the “official organ” or publication for the “Subject Group for Commercial Art” within the Association of German Graphic Designers according to Jeremy Aynsley. See his Graphic Design in Germany 1890–1945, (Berkeley, California and London: University of California Press, 2000), p. 192.]

The covers shown are from the years 1926, 1930, 1931, 1937 and 1938. It is a shame there are none from its first and final years as well as from the aftermath of Hitler’s election. The latter is of interest because the magazine is an example that there was not a complete shift from roman type to blackletter in Germany as some believe, though there are issues with the masthead in blackletter. (None are shown in Aynsley, either.) The caption information for the covers does not include the name of the designers/artists. I have not been able to identify all of them but June 1936 is by Sandor Bortnyk; the one for September 1938 signed “A. Otto” might be by Otto Arpke; and the one for November 1938 is by Lois Gaigg. None are by the designers—Stephan Schwarz, Herbert Bayer, Uli Huber and Joseph Binder—that Tselentis singles out. (Both Schwarz and Huber are unfamiliar names to me. Schwarz does not appear in Gerald Cinamon’s list of “German Graphic Designers During the Hitler Period.” I was only able to find one cover by him online:  July 1931.)

Tselentis’ text is serviceable. My regret is that he does not discuss how the magazine’s content changed between 1933 and 1937, the year that its founder H.K. Frenzel died, and also between 1937 and its cessation in 1944. He also makes no mention of its use of Futura as its text face after 1927, something which surprisingly continued until 1944.

E021
Bochumer Verein | Max Burchartz | advertising | Bochumer Verein für Bergbau und Gusstahlfabrikation | 1925
[Frederico Duarte]
images: 3
text: 4
apparatus: 4

There are better examplesof the Bochumer Verein brochures online than those shown here. Francisco Duarte’s text is good overall, but he does not explain why Johannes Canis—Burchartz’s partner—does not get part of the credit for these designs. He says that Canis wrote the text. The NYPL Digital Collections gives him co-credit for the brochures. I am also curious about the typeface used in the heading, but Duarte only says that it is sans serif. (One brochure, not shown here, uses hand lettered sans serif capitals for the title.)

• “Johannis Canis” should be “Johannes Canis”

E022
Merz 14/15: Die Scheuche Märchen | Kurt Schwitters and Theo van Doesburg | book | Aposs Verlag | 1925
[Phil Jones]
images: 5
text: 4
apparatus: 0

The heading for this entry is odd. It is listed as Merz 14/15 when Phil Jones says that Die Scheuche Märchen (The Scarecrow) was published independently before being labeled a double issue of Kurt Schwitters’ magazine. Jones’ text is good, except that he leaves out any mention of the contribution Kate Steinitz made to the book. She is given credit in several sources such as the Schwitters-Stiftung, Berlin/Hanover: The 1920s (Dallas: Dallas Museum of Fine Arts, 1977) and  The Routledge Companion to Experimental Literature (2102). He is not the first person to leave her out (e.g. see Leslie Atzmon’s “Typography in a Brave New World” essay), which is why her role needs to be addressed. Also, given the unconventional use of type and printers’ ornaments, it would be nice to know who the printer of the book was. How was Die Scheuche Märchen laid out?

The images chosen are good ones—the cover on the front and three spreads on the back along with  the copyright page—but they are from a 1971 reprint by verlag biermann + boukes rather than from the 1925 original.

E023
L’Intransigeant | A.M. Cassandre | poster | L’intransigeant | 1925
[Graham Twemlow]
images: 5
text: 5
apparatus: 4

Graham Twemlow’s text manages to be lucid, informative and concise. There is none of the filler or bullshit that mars many of the Phaidon box entries. My only complaint—and it is a small one—is that there is no mention of “homages” to Cassandre’s L’Intransigeant poster such as the “Give the Gift of Audiophile” promotion for CBS Master Sounds (1980) by Henrietta Condak.

The images include the diagram of “regulating lines”—not a grid—that undergird Cassandre’s poster and a coin based on it. There is no date provided for the latter.

E024
Elementare Typographie | Jan Tschichold | magazine and newspaper | Bildungsverband der Deutschen Buchdrucker | 1925
[Richard Doubleday]
images: 4
text: 4
apparatus: 0

The sheet has three spreads (one on the front and two on the back) from Elementare Typographie, but no showing of its cover.  That’s unfortunate since the cover is the only aspect that is pure Tschichold—that is, without any concessions to the Bildungsverband der Deutschen Buchdrucker, the publisher of Typographische Mitteilungen, the printing trade journal in which it was inserted. The text of the interior spreads is set in a serif face despite Tschichold’s comment on p. 198 that “Elementare Schriftform ist die Groteskschrift aller Variationen: mayer—halbfett—feet—schmalz bis breit.” [with each style of type set in a relevant face.] (See Jan Tschichold: A Life in Typography by Ruari McLean [1997], pp. 30–31.) Richard Doubleday’s text glosses over any mention of the cover or of the typography of Elementare Typographie in favor of a discussion of the texts in it. What he has to say on this score is good.

Doubleday does not explain that the appearance of this issue of Typographische Mitteilungen was radically different from those before and after. And unfortunately, there is no image shown for comparison. (This is a complaint that can be equally lodged against most of the Tschichold literature. In fact, a Google search for such issues comes up empty.)

E025
Pierre Legrain Binding | Pierre Legrain | book cover | various | c. 1925
[Simon Bell]
images: 4
text: 4
apparatus: 5

The big question is what a deluxe bookbinding is doing in the Phaidon box. And if bookbindings belong, then why is there only this one entry for Pierre Legrain and nothing for the celebrated François Louis Schmied or for Paul Bonet, Georges Cretté, Henri Creuzevault or Rose Adler? Why is the date of the sheet c.1925 when the images shown are dated variously 1922, 1925 (front as well as two on the back) and 1926? Simon Bell’s text says that Pierre Legrain’s most famous binding was for an edition of Daphnis et Chloe (1925) but it is not illustrated here.

E026
Bayer Universal | Herbert Bayer | typeface | 1925
[Alison Barnes]
images: 4
text: 3
apparatus: 3

Bayer’s Universal Alphabet is not a typeface. At least it was not one until the 1990s when it was digitized by The Foundry and P-22. Bayer Type, a design which did become a typeface, is not the same, contrary to the implication by Alison Barnes. It is a “didone” rather than a sans serif.

Barnes’ text is good at situating the Universal Type within the context of the German language and the use of blackletter in Weimar Germany. She does not explain the differences between the two versions of the alphabet (one is distinctly narrower)—referred to unhelpfully in the captions as “specimen sheets”—shown on the back of the sheet or those with the one on the front. Despite the date of 1925 in the heading, the one on the front is from 1926 and the two on the back from 1925. See Das A und O des Bauhauses ed. Ute Brüning (Berlin: Bauhaus Archiv, 1995), pp. 186–187 and Herbert Bayer by Arthur A. Cohen (Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: The MIT Press, 1984, p. 216. Nor does Barnes address the formal inconsistencies in the alphabet such as the a in the 1926 version which does not match the b, d, p and q; or the a in the 1925 versions which has an out-of-place diagonal stroke; or Bayer’s solution for the z, the only normally diagonal letter to remain so.

Instead of showing the Universal Alphabet in use at an exhibition about the Bauhaus in 1960 and a photograph of Bayer drawing something else, the space on the back of the sheet could have been used to show the alphabet or letters like it used for Bayer’s 1928 letterhead, for designs by other bauhauslers (see Das A und O des Bauhauses, pp. 188, 195, 210–213, 248) or the masthead of the magazine die neue line.

E027
Die Kunstismen / Les Ismes De L’Art / The Isms of Art | El Lissitzky and Hans Arp | book | Eugen Rentsch Verlag | 1925
[Alan Rapp]
images: 5
text: 4
apparatus: 0

Alan Rapp’s text is good, but devotes too much time to El Lissitzky’s background. As a result there is no discussion of the cover design and its failure to match the format of the interior pages (which Rapp rightly focuses on even though the cover is on the front of the sheet) nor any mention of the possible influence of De Stijl on the layout. Although Hans Arp is credited as “co-publisher” with Lissitzky on the copyright page Rapp does not say exactly what his role was.

Along with the cover, two pictorial spreads and the copyright page are shown. The trilingual text pages are left out.

• why is the title on the cover Kunstismus but Kunstismen on the copyright page?

E028
The New Yorker | Saul Steinberg | magazine and newspaper | Condé Nast Publications | 1925–present
[Ina Saltz, Jody Boehnert]
images: 3
text: 2
apparatus: 4

Who actually wrote this text? I assume it is another mash-up of two separate, but related texts like the Bauhaus publications entry (E006) which would explain its skewed perspective. The text focuses rightly on Saul Steinberg and less so on Art Spiegelman and Christoph Niemann, leaving out many other notable cover artists who have made The New Yorker iconic: Rea Irvin, Peter Arno, Charles Addams, William Steig, Ed Koren, Charles Saxon, Eugéne Mihaesco, George Booth, S.W. Reynolds, Constantin Alajalov, the mysterious “M”, hauptt and more recently Roz Chast and Barry Blitt—to name a few. None of these individuals is even mentioned in a roll call. Irvin, the first art director of the magazine is noted only for creating its three-column grid and not for his cover designs or masthead lettering—though the front image, that of the first issue of the magazine with the portrait of Eustace Tilley, is his and is acknowledged as such in the caption. Besides the Eustace Tilley cover, the sheet shows covers from 1945, 1960 and 1976 by Steinberg, from 2004 by Niemann, and from 2001 and 2008 by Spiegelman.

• the publisher may be Condé Nast today, but for much of The New Yorker’s history it was Raoul Fleischmann and his heirs. That should be acknowledged in the heading.

E029
Fanghuang by Lu Xun | Tao Yuan-qing | book cover | Beijing Beixin Book Company | 1926
[Wendy Wong]
images: 4
text: 5
apparatus: 5

I know very little about Chinese graphic design. But I don’t understand why the back has the cover of Guxiang, a design with no discernible Western influences and which Wendy Wong does not discuss. On the other hand, she mentions Kumen de Xiangzheng (1924) which is not shown. Since Wong emphasizes Lu Xun and Tao Yuan-qing’s pioneering “concept of viewing each book as a unity, including cover, illustration, text, layout, paper and binding”, it is a shame that no interior pages of Fanghuang are not shown.

E030
Kandinsky | Herbert Bayer | poster | Anhaltischen Kunstverein Dessau | 1926
[Kimberly Elam]
images: 5
text: 4
apparatus: 4

Herbert Bayer’s poster for Wassily Kandinsky’s 60th birthday exhibition is one of my favorite posters. Kimberly Elam’s text, although good at explaining the influences Bayer brought to bear on the poster design, fails to note the circular visual movement he achieves nor is there a mention of his pioneering use of an “information box”. Elam also fails to explain why Bayer did not reproduce a painting by Kandinsky as part of the poster. The back image is of the related, though not nearly as brilliant, 1926 poster for an exhibition of architecture and lighting by Hans Poelzig. It is not mentioned in the text.

• “Anhaltischen Kunstverein” should be “Anhaltischer Kunstverein”

E031
Abeceda | Karel Teige | book | J. Otto | 1926
[Phil Jones]
images: 4
text: 4
apparatus: 0

The spread from Abeceda on the front is horizontal, as are many of the images in the E section, making it fit awkwardly in the space. The designers should have prepared a horizontal format as well as a vertical one. Along with the spread for the letter A on the front, the sheet contains the cover and spreads for the letters B, D, R and S. The one for D is an anomaly: it is set in a different typeface and is in English, suggesting it came from a translated facsimile rather than the original source. Why?

Phil Jones’ analysis of Abeceda is excellent, especially in his emphasis on the collaborative aspects of the book. One thing which he passes over is a discussion of the style of letters themselves. Why did Teige choose stencil letters? Also, why do some poses of the dancer Milca Mayerová look like letters but others (e.g. R) do not? Jones focuses on the letter M which is not among those shown.

E032
US Route Shield | Frank F. Rogers et al | information design | US Federal Government | 1926
[Ben Terrett]
images: 2
text: 1
apparatus: 2

“Rather than evolving through a coherent design program me (as the British system did), American numbered highway signs developed haphazardly, with no coordinated scheme ever implemented nationwide,” says Ben Terrett. This is a debatable assertion as he seems to be comparing the Kinneir Calvert signage for the British motorway system (begun 1958) with American signage predating the Interstate Highway System of 1956. The latter is coordinated and has been from the beginning. The route signs are shields—following the example of the signs introduced in 1926 for state highways—either in blue and red or all green (for business and truck routes). Even numbers indicate east/west routes and odd numbers north/south routes. Routes are designated with two digits except for urban loop routes which are three digits. Britain’s roadway signage prior to the creation of the motorway system was as haphazard, if not more so, than that of the United States prior to the beginning of the Interstate Highway System. (See Herbert Spencer’s photo essay in Typographica (New series no. 4) December 1961.)

Terrett’s topic is the US Route Shield but he fails to distinguish the different levels of American roadway jurisdiction and usage in his discussion of its history. His text is a bit sloppy. Here is Terrett: “The United States Numbered Highways (US Highways) system… first introduced in 1926. The famous shield designed to mark them derived from a sketch by Frank F. Rogers, the Michigan State Highway Commissioner, which he based on the shield of the Great Seal of the United States.” Here is Wikipedia: “The U.S. route shield was developed during the first meeting of the Joint Board on Interstate Highways…. During the meeting, held at the Bureau of Public Roads offices in Washington, D.C. on April  20, 1925, board member Lou A, Boulay of Ohio was credited with suggesting the use of a shield, inspired by that on the Great Seal of the United States, with the letters “U.S.A.” and the route number as a route marker.… the next day…Frank F. Rogers of Michigan sketched a possible implementation of the shield.” Thus, the date of the design is 1925 not 1926 and Rogers should share credit for it with Boulay (or Boulay deserves all the credit, depending on whether the emphasis is on the idea or the execution).

Terrett does not mention the Manual and Specifications for the Manufacture, Display and Erection of U.S. Standard Road Markers (1927) which AASHTO says was the first manual—not the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (1935) that Terrett cites—to address standardized sign shapes and colors—and lettering. It is available online as a PDF and on p. 6 there appears diagrams for the design of the shield route signs proposed by Boulay and Rogers. The lettering shown there matches that in image no. 2 (for Missouri US 66) on the back of the sheet. It is very different from that in the three other images on the sheet (all for Route 66), indicating that they are all later signs following the 1935 guidelines. Here is the description of the “U.S. Route Marker” from the 1927 manual (p. 7): “The Standard Route Marker, M-3, Plate I, which is a shield bearing the name of the State, the number of the route and the letters ‘U.S.’, shall be used in marking the United States Highways only. The background color of the shield is white and the design black.[ There is no mention of the lettering style which is a sans serif (or varying width depending on the nature of the sign) with squared counters in he manner of Bank Gothic. (There is a list of Alphabet Series on pp. 42–44 that indicates working drawings  for standardized letters and numbers were provided to those creating signs.) The manual is surprisingly thorough otherwise.

The images are inadequate. There is nothing from the 1927 manual. Dimensions for the Route 66 sign (taken from the 2006 ADOT manual not from the 1935 one mentioned by Terrett) is on the back along with two other images of the Route 66 shield. The front shows a  Citröen (!) on an American highway with a jumble of US route signs for 64 and 74-A in the foreground. It is a black-and-white photograph yet the caption says it is from 2006.

E033
Kombinationsschrift | Josef Albers | typeface | Bauhaus | 1926–1931
[Frank DeRose]
images: 3
text: 1
apparatus: 5

The choice of images for Josef Albers’ Kombinationsschrift alphabet is poor. The image on the front is not identified. (It looks like the gift shop version sold by the Museum of Modern Art.) Not shown are his “Schablonenschrift” drawings from 1923–1926 which clearly anticipated the alphabet nor a page from the brochure for the final ceramic product of 1931. See pp. 182–183 and 185 in Das A und O des Bauhauses (1995). There is also no image of the actual ceramic letters.

Albers’ client is listed as the Bauhaus but the ceramic alphabet was produced by the Metallglas-Aktiengesellschaft in Offenburg-Baden. Frank DeRose’s text is equally disappointing. He makes no mention of the “Schablonenschrift” experiments so there is no discussion of Albers’ evolving ideas about stencil letters and modular alphabets. He compares the Kombinationsschrift to Michael Bierut’s identity system for the Museum of Art and Design in New York, ignoring much more important contemporary designs such as Futura Black (Futura Display) by Paul Renner or Transito by Jan Tschichold that explored similar territory. He nonsensically says that Albers’ letterforms were “partly inspired by Egyptienne and Grotesk, each coincidentallu based on geometric forms.” He asserts that it was “designed for easy legibility”. And there DeRose make no mention of the alphabet’s manufacture and the choice of physical materials made by Albers.

E034
Breuer Metallmöbel | Herbert Bayer | book | Standard-Möbel | 1927
[Will Hill]
images: 5
text: 2
apparatus: 0

The title of the catalogue is not set in geometric sans-serif capitals as Will Hill asserts. The typeface is a typical German grotesk, though I do not know which one it is. It is the same face used by Bayer for the design of the Bauhaus at Dessau stationery. Hill’s commentary fails to relate Bayer’s catalogue design to contemporary catalogue designs or to those that must have been inspired by it such as Max Bill’s work for Wohnbedarf in 1931 and 1932. (See max bill: typografie · reklame · buchgestaltung by Gerd Fleischmann, Hans Rudolf Bosshard and Christoph Bignens (Sulgen: Verlag Niggli AG, 1999), pp. 184–191.) This is because he talks only about the cover and not about the interior, even though the back of the sheet shows six spreads from the catalogue. (The entire catalogue is available online from the internet archive.)

E035
Nord Express | A.M. Cassandre | poster | Compagnie des Wagons-Lits | 1927
[Graham Twemlow]
images: 5
text: 5
apparatus: 5

Another excellent text by Graham Twemlow, proof that a lot can be packed into the small amount word count allowed by Phaidon and a rebuke to those contributors who have opted for filler and fluff. Twemlow explains the regulating lines of the Nord Express poster, as he did for Cassandre’s L’Intransigeant poster, mentions the use of the airbrush, and—thankfully—addresses the importance of lettering in the designer’s oeuvre. Two quibbles: 1. Twemlow says the poster was commissioned by the Chemin de Fer du Nord but the heading gives the client as the Compagnie des Wagons-Lits; and 2. what happened to the border of railway company names seen in the study (and also in the Étoile du Nord poster)?

The Nord Express poster on the front is accompanied by a study for it on the back and the posters Chemin de Fer du Nortd and Étoile du Nord by Cassandre.

E036
Kabel | Rudolf Koch | typeface | Klingspor Foundry | 1927
[Emily McVarish]
images: 3
text: 3
apparatus: 4

Why put a diagram about Kabel on the front rather than a sample of the typeface itself?—especially when Klingspor issued some memorable type specimens for the face (none of which are even included on the back). The diagram is not even reproduced as it originally appeared, but has been taken out of context and given a weasally date of 1926–1929. (It seems to have been taken from Rudolf Koch: Letterer · Type Designer · Teacher by Gerald Cinamon [Newark, Delaware: Oak Knoll Books and London: British Library, 2000], p. 120. But it can be found, spread across five pages in Das Schriebbüchlein by Rudolf Koch [Kassel: Barenreiter Verlag, 1930], p. 2–6 which mimics how it appeared in a Kabel specimen book.) The back of the sheet has two pages from unspecified specimens of Kabel reproduced too small; and a irrelevant photograph of Koch.

Emily McVarish’s text does not provide Koch’s date of birth which is relevant to his different conception of what a geometric typeface should  look like. She fails to understand how Koch’s calligraphic inclinations explain some of the unexpected aspects of the typeface such as the angled terminals of diagonal strokes; the form of the a, e, and g; and the x-height and ascender proportions. Finally, she makes no mention of its successful rebirth in the 1970s as ITC Kabel, a design that deviated significantly from Koch’s original.

E037
Depero Futurista | Fortunato Depero | book | Dinamo Azari | 1927
[Davina Thackara, Richard Weston]
images: 3
text: 3
apparatus: 3

Depero Futurista, Fortunato Depero’s “bolted book”, has an embarrassment of exciting page designs inside. But only one of them is reproduced here. Instead, the back of the sheet has two sketches for the book (neither dated) that are less scintillating.

Depero’s friend was not “Dinamo Azari” but Fedele Azari. Dinamo-Azari was the name of his publishing concern. Somehow the breathless recitation of the variety of design strategies in the book fails to adequately convey the surprising nature of the book. (The texts arranged in a circle are among the most amazing in my view, given the technological limitations of the time.)

(I wonder why two people are credited with the authorship of the text. I suspect that Davina Thackara, on Phaidon’s editorial staff, substantially altered a submission by Richard Weston. But I have no idea why.)

The layout on the front of the sheet, showing the cover of the “bolted book”,  is yet another instance of a horizontal image on the front of the sheet that has been shoehorned into an unforgiving design format.

E038
Phoebus Palast | Jan Tschichold | poster | Phoebus AG | 1927
[Richard Doubleday]
images: 3
text: 3
apparatus: 4

Why choose the poster for Die Frau hone Namen for the front of the sheet among all of the posters that Jan Tschichold did for the Phoebus Palast? According to Jan Tschichold: Master Typographer: His Life, Work & Legacy by Cees W. de Jong et al (New York: Thames & Hudson, Inc., 2008), it was the first one he did—but Richard Doubleday makes no mention of this fact. The back has two posters that are superior—for Napoleon by Abel Gance and The General by Buster Keaton—and two that are of lesser quality. Where are the posters for Die Hose or Orient-Express?

Doubleday talks about the fast-paced production cycle that Tschichold had to endure but does not indicate how many posters he designed for the Phoebus Palast. Jan Tschichold: Master Typographer—a book that Doubleday contributed to—lists 29 posters on p. 182 (and shows 24 of them). Doubleday emphasizes Tschichold’s use of sans serif type in the posters, but does not indicate that some posters include handlettering (some of it serifed, some of it script and some of it sans serif as in  “Buster Keaton” for The General poster). But more surprisingly, he makes no mention of the repetitive “O” shape—representing the camera lens and the projector lens but also simply providing a focal point—that Tschichold uses in the best of the posters. In fact, the only analysis he provides of Tschichold’s designs is to indicate that he alternated typographic and photographic posters in order to get them done on time.

E039
Futura | Paul Renner | typeface | Bauersche Giesserei | 1927
[Alison Barnes]
images: 3
text: 3
apparatus: 4

Is the image on the front of the sheet from a Bauer type specimen of Futura? There is no caption identifying it. Also, why is there an image of Futura magazine from 1965 on the back? The other two images on the back—advertisements for Futura from 1930—are outstanding since they place the typeface squarely into an historical moment. If Phaidon wanted an instance of Futura used decades after its design the logical choice should have been one of Doyle Dane Bernbach’s iconic advertisements for Volkswagen (noted by Alison Barnes in her text). More importantly, there is no showing of any of the early versions of Futura by Renner prior to the involvement of Bauer—even though Barnes refers to its original “idiosyncrasies”.

Barnes stresses the geometric aspect of Futura but ignores the classical underpinning of its capitals, one of the reasons that it succeeded where other geometrically influenced typefaces of the period failed. It also would have been nice if she had addressed the problem that geometric types have in maintaining their identity in heavier weights and how Renner managed to solve things (including the design of Futura Display, a member of the family that many try to ignore).

E040
Opel | Max Bittrof | poster | Adam Opel AG | 1927–1929
[Paul Shaw]
images: 3
text: 4
apparatus: 4

This text is by me so I cannot objectively comment on it. (But a few sentences have too many clauses.)

However, I can criticize the choice of images which I suspect is true of most of the authors involved in the Phaidon box. The date range indicated in the heading is 1927 to 1929 but the images shown are all from 1928. Furthermore, my text stressed Max Bittrof’s use of the letter O as a design element in his work for Opel but only three of the five designs shown here live up to that claim (two of which were provided to me by Phaidon). My discussion was based on additional Opel designs that I turned up in my research, much of it in printed sources.

E041
Berkel | Paul Schuitema | advertising | The US Slicing Machine Co. | 1927–1932
[Toon Lauwen]
images: 5
text: 3
apparatus: 0

The advertisement by Paul Schuitema for Berkel on the front of the sheet is excellent and the two on the back are good. But the outstanding all-type advertisement he did—in which the type is angled like a blade on a paper guillotine—is missing, even though there is room for it. None of the images is dated. The one on the front is from 1927 and the one on the left on the back is from 1929, but I don’t know the date of the one on the right on the back. I suspect it is not an advertisement at all but a spread from a 1930 catalogue. Toon Lauwen’s text is not illuminating on this score. He spends more time on Schuitema’s career overall than on his work for Berkel. His comments about the work for Berkel focus on the typo-photo designs and make no mention of the all-type ones.

For some odd reason the client for these designs is listed in the heading as The US Slicing Machine Co., US. Although W.A. Van Berkel eventually opened up an American distributorship, it was a Dutch company founded in 1898 in Rotterdam. That was Schuitema’s client.

E042
Dentifrices Gellé Frères | Jean Carlu | poster | Gellé Frères | 1927
[Graham Twemlow]
images: 5
text: 4
apparatus: 5

Graham Twemlow’s text is, as usual, superb—except for his description of the text on the Dentifrices Gellé Frères poster as a “stylized contemporary typeface.” It is actually lettering and it relates to no typeface of the time.

Along with the toothpaste poster on the front of the sheet, there is another poster by Jean Carlu—reproduced only in black-and-white for some reason—on the back. It is described in the caption as his first use of photomontage in 1930. Twemlow makes no mention of this poster which bears a similar stylized head in profile as the Dentifrices poster. But he does talk about Carlu’s 1925 poster for Monsavon which is not displayed here, even though there is room for it.

E043
Arts et Métiers Graphiques | various | magazine and newspaper | Deberny & Peignot | 1927–1939
[Caroline Archer]
images: 4
text: 4
apparatus: 3

Caroline Archer’s text is workmanlike. She outlines the basics of Arts et Metiers Graphiques, though ignores the fascinating issue of its anti-German attitude. The captions provide issue and year information but nothing about the designers involved. That may be because they went uncredited according to Archer. Yet, she says it is clear that some were done by Alexey Brodovitch and Herbert Matter. Are they among those shown?

The front shows the cover of the first issue of Arts et Metiers Graphiques while the back shows the cover of issues 34 (1933) and 57 (1937) along with two spreads from each. Visually it is a good sampling of the journal, but a wider chronological showing would have been better.

• “Deberny & Peignot Type Foundry” should be “Fonderie Deberny & Peignot” or “Deberny & Peignot type foundry”
• “Typographic” should be “Typographica”

E044
Gaba | Niklaus Stöcklin | poster | Goldene Apotheke Basel | 1927
[Thomas Wilson]
images: 5
text: 4
apparatus: 0

Thomas Wilson’s text does the job. He places Nicklaus Stöcklin’s poster in the context of Gaba advertising but not in the context of 1920s Art Deco-influenced abstract design (e.g. E42 Dentrifrices Gellé Frères). His information on the production methods of the Gaba poster is excellent.

The sheet shows the Gaba poster on the front and the back has a pastille tin with a miniature version of it on it. No date is provided and Wilson does not discuss such brand extensions.

E045
N.V. Nederlandsche Kabelfabriek 1927–1928 | Piet Zwart | book | Nederlandsche Kabelfabriek | 1928
[Mike Sheedy]
images: 4
text: 4
apparatus: 4

Piet Zwart’s 1927/1928 catalogue for NKF may be my favorite piece of 1920s typographic design. It is an astonishing work that still looks fresh today. A facsimile of the entire catalogue should be produced.

This sheet is unusual in that the front is not given over to a single iconic image. Instead, the cover, title page spread and two other spreads are shown—a much better use of available space than elsewhere in the Phaidon box. The choice of images is good, but still leaves out several outstanding spreads from the catalogue. But instead of including them on the back of the sheet, it is given over instead to the cover and two spreads from a 1933 NKF catalogue. This second catalogue is not discussed in Mike Sheedy’s otherwise good text. That is too bad since the pictures show pages with die-cut tabs and what might be short sheets—elements that are worth discussion.

E046
Simfonia Bolshogo Goroda | Georgii Stenberg and Vladimir Stenberg | poster | Sovkino | 1928
[Mike Sheedy]
images: 4
text: 4
apparatus: 5

Mike Sheedy does a good job of summarizing the Stenberg brothers’ career. He only briefly explains the power of their poster for Simfonia Bolshogo Goroda. More information, including mention of the basis of their design on a 1926 Bauhaus photomontage, can be founded at Rennert’s Gallery.

The sheet has the Stenbergs’ poster for High Society Wager (1927) on the back. It is an example of their affinity for designs involving spirals, something that Sheedy points out without mentioning specific titles.

E047
Labanotation | Rudolf von Laban | information design | self-commissioned | 1928
[Aaron Seymour]
images: 5
text: 4
apparatus: 4

Despite Aaron Seymour’s detailed explanation of Labanotation I do not fully understand the example on the front of the sheet. Part of the problem is trying to match it to the “key” on the back of the sheet. (Neither is dated in the captions.) The inclusion of Labanotation is one example of the editors at Phaidon thinking outside of the box.

The photographs (1940) of a dancer following Labanotation accompany the example and key.

E048
Büro | Theo Ballmer | poster | Internationale Bürofachausstellung | 1928
[Phil Jones]
images: 5
text: 4
apparatus: 5

Phil Jones says that Theo Ballmer’s lettering (which he inaccurately refers to as typefaces in his opening paragraph and properly as lettering further on) is “geometric”.” I agree that it is graph-paper based, but would contend that it is not geometric since the letters are not constructed of elemental shapes such as circles, triangles and squares. Instead they are fitted into rectangles with some corners rounded off arbitrarily. Jones makes a connection to Armin Hofmann and Emil Ruder but misses the more direct one to the 1919—1922 lettering of Theo van Doesburg or the relation to a number of fonts designed in the early years of digital type by Zuzana Licko, Max Kisman (FF Rosetta), and Pierre di Sciullo (FF Minimum A Medium) and others. He also fails to mention the digital version of Ballmer’s lettering issued as Architype Ballmer.

The sheet has two additional posters by Ballmer from 1928 employing the same grid-based lettering, one of which is rarely seen. Neither is mentioned in Jones’ text. What is intriguing about the poster on the left (“norm”) is that the title ignores the explicit grid.

E049
Gill Sans | Eric Gill | typeface | Monotype Corporation | 1928–1929
[Caroline Archer]
images: 4
text: 4
apparatus: 3

Caroline Archer does a decent job of telling the story of Gill Sans. Her text is marred by the failure to be more specific about the impetus behind Stanley Morison’s decision to commission the face and its oldstyle roots; and to forego any discussion of its family. She says Morison was reacting to “the deluge of sans-serif designs released by the German type foundries during the first half of the twentieth century” when in fact it was a reaction to Futura’s immediate popularity (and possibly that of Kabel) in 1927. As for the oldstyle influence on Gill Sans James Mosley and several other writers have persuasively argued that the face is heavily indebted to Caslon and that it can thus be seen as part of “the English letter” traced by Alan Bartram as an alternative to the Trajan letter. The reason for wishing that Archer had touched upon the development of Gill Sans as a family is that its members have an inconsistency that often puzzles many. Like so many Phaidon contributors—in response to Phaidon’s request to explain the relevance of the item being discussed—she concludes her text with a fatuous claim, in this case that Gill Sans thrives today because it is “often chosen to bring an artistic or cultural sensibility to an organization’s  corporate style”.

The images are a bit puzzling.  The front shows a sketch of the Gill Sans capitals dated 6 June 1927 while the reverse has an incomplete character set of the capitals, lowercase and lowercase italic of what is presumably the regular weight (the caption does not say), a photograph of Gill in his sculptor’s studio, and two well-known schematic drawings of Gill Sans lowercase g on graph paper and B P R and S overlapping one another in colored pencil. These two drawings are always fascinating but oddly they bear the dates respectively of 3 September 1933 (though the caption says 1928) and 12 December 1932. Why are these dates so many years after the release of Gill Sans? Were they made to explain the concepts behind the typeface rather than as part of its development?

E050
Die Neue Typographie | Jan Tschichold | book | Bildungsverband der Deutschen Buchdrucker | 1928
[Richard Doubleday]
images: 4
text: 4
apparatus: 0

The image from Die neue Typographie, Jan Tschichold’s landmark text, chosen for the front of the sheet is a disappointing one. It is a spread from the book showing two examples of “false”—and therefore bad—new typography. The book’s iconic opening title spread is relegated to the back of the sheet along with three spreads from it. The latter are good with one spread showing Tschichold’s advocacy of the DIN paper sizes, another showing modern logos by Johannes Molzahn, Herbert Bayer and Piet Zwart, and the third comparing “old” and “new” page layouts. Any of these would have been preferable on the front of the sheet. Two images that are lacking are the prospectus for the book and the invitation card to a lecture by Tschichold 11 May 1927 about the new typography that says no questions will be allowed. At least one of them should have been fitted in.

Richard Doubleday’s text is very good, explaining the book’s origins, summarizing its contents (and describing it physically), and telling about its history as a text. He is mistaken about the typeface that the book was set in. It was not Akzidenz-Grotesk but probably Aurora-Grotesk. He also fails to mention that following the bibliography, Tschichold includes the addresses of practitioners of the new typography in his book, thus making it not only a history and theoretical treatise but a promotion piece.

• “Die Neue Typographie” in the heading and text should be “Die neue Typographie” title incorrectly capitalized in entry title]
• “Ring Neue Werbegestalter” should be “Ring neue Werbegestalter” or all lowercase

E051
Chrysler | Ashley Havinden | advertising | Chrysler | 1928
[Steve Rigley]
images: 5
text: 4
apparatus: 4

Phaidon has categorized this entry as advertising rather than as a poster even though the front shows a poster by Ashley Havinden for the Chrysler 65. Ostensibly, this is because the poster was part of a broader advertising campaign. (The back does show a magazine advertisement for Chrysler.) But this same reasoning is not applied elsewhere in the Phaidon box such as E. McKnight Kauffer’s work for Shell or Cassandre’s for Dubonnet. Perhaps Phaidon should have considered placing some items in more than one category.

Besides showing a poster and an advertisement for Chrysler, the sheet has a 1927 poster for British Petroleum (BP) by Havinden which has an airbrush drawing of a speeding car that anticipates the aerodynamic cars in the Chrysler work. It is a good choice, but Steve Rigley never mentions it. Otherwise, his text is excellent in describing the Chrysler 65 poster and providing the basics of Havinden’s career as it relates to modern design. One thing he does not do is discuss the use of handlettering, rather than type, in the posters. (The advertisement has a sans serif typeface that I cannot identify.)

E052
5 Finger Hat Die Hand | John Heartfield | poster | German Communist Party | 1928
[Phil Jones]
images: 5
text: 5
apparatus: 5

Phil Jones’ text immediately explains why there seem to be two almost duplicate images on the sheet. The front has John Heartfield’s famous poster while the back has the same image (in black-and-white only) on the cover of Die Rote Fahne. It turns out that the latter is the original design and that the poster is a variant design. Jones’ detailed text is excellent though he does not mention that the 5 is drawn.

E053
Domus | Gio Ponti et al | magazine and newspaper | Editoriale Domus | 1928–present
[Véronique Vienne]
images: 3
text: 2
apparatus: 3

Why show a Domus cover from 1952 on the front? Although the entry is for 1928 the sheet has no covers from the period 1928 to 1942. The back shows covers from 1943, 1947, 1951, 1955 (two), 1958, 1960 (possibly the most famous Domus cover, done by William Klein—though not credited here), 1977, 1987 and 1992; and two interior spreads, both from 1998. Although Domus continues to be published today there are images from the past decade.

Véronique Vienne says that the magazine was launched in 1929 even though the sheet says 1928 (and the Domus website has the tagline “since 1928”). Vienne’s text emphasizes the interior design of the magazine by Gio Ponti and his successors and makes no mention of any of its covers, creating a disconnect with the images. While Vienne rightly contrasts Ponti’s layouts with those of Alexey Brodovitch, she does not place Domus in the context of Italian design publications. How does it compare with its rival Casabella, for instance?

E054
ZLOM by Konstantin Biebl | Karel Teige | book | Odeon | 1928
[Krzystof Fijalkowski]
images: 4
text: 4
apparatus: 0

The images of Zlom—a spread on the front, two more on the back (which have blank versos) along with the cover—are wonderful. However, Krzystof Fijalkowski talks about On the Ship Importing Tea and Coffee (1928) as an equally important collaboration between Karel Teige and Konstantin Biebl and it would have been nice to have one image from that book as well. Or perhaps a spread from the first edition (1925) of Zlom which Fijalkowski says was done by Cyril Bouda and Otakar Fuchs.

E055
Modiano | Róbert Berény | poster | Modiano | 1928
[Lawrence Zeegen]
images: 5
text: 4
apparatus: 5

Lawrence Zeegen not only explains why Róbert Berény’s Modiano poster is so brilliant, but he provides some much needed background on the company and the artist, both of whom are not well known. A second design by Berény, a 1930 book jacket, is on the back of the sheet but Zeegen makes no mention of it—even though it has some of the same playful feeling as the Modiano poster. My only other quibble is that he does not mention the Problem cigarettes poster (1930) by Willy Willrab (not Willrass as Corbis has his name spelled) which similarly plays with the letter o.

• “Lajos Kassack” is normally spelled “Lajos Kassák”

E056
Vanity Fair | Mehemed Fehmy Agha | magazine cover | Condé Nast Publications | 1929–1936
[Lawrence Zeegen]
images: 4
text: 3
apparatus: 3

Lawrence Zeegen explains the origins of the first version of Vanity Fair to be published by Condé Nast—it began in 1914—but he does not explain its demise in 1936. It was merged into Vogue because it was out of touch with the politics of the 1930s as well as having economic problems due to the Depression.  The period 1929 to 1936 covered by this entry refers to the years in which Mehemed Fehmy Agha was art director of the magazine. He was also the art director of Vogue magazine (see E062).

It is hard to believe that Vanity Fair was out of touch politically in the 1930s given that some of its covers from that decade are among the best examples of political satire—none of which are included, though, on this sheet. Paolo Garretto’s amazingly witty caricature of Hitler with the swastika as his body should be here or perhaps his 1935 cover with the earth sweating under the threat of the Japanese flag. Or what about the covers by Miguel Covarrubias on Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the New Deal, Benito Mussolini and other subjects? Instead, the sheet has the outstanding 1931 cover by Jean Carlu on the front, Fortunato Depero’s sketch for a cover and three so-so covers from 1930 to 1932 on the back. Zeegen mentions Garretto but says nothing about Covarrubias who was a major caricaturist of the time. He emphasizes the aesthetic aspects of the magazine’s cover designs and not their content.

The captions do not credit any of the cover designs. No. 2 is by Eduardo Garcia Benito and no. 4 is by Vladimir Bobritsky. I have not identified the designer of no. 3

E057
You Can Be Sure of Shell | E. McKnight Kauffer | poster | Shell | 1929–1939
[Graham Twemlow]
images: 5
text: 4
apparatus: 5

Graham Twemlow does not explain what lorry bills are to those of us who are not British. Were they posted on the sides of trucks? That would explain why the three shown here by E. McKnight Kauffer are all horizontal in format. Twemlow mentions a standard format without indicating that it is horizontal—something that is atypical among posters. This is not Twemlow’s best entry in the Phaidon box, even though it is better than most of the efforts of others. He rightly mentions the lettering in the “Magicians Prefer Shell” poster on the front but then incorrectly describes the “Actors Prefer Shell” poster on the back as being set in a “condensed typeface”. He skips over “Explorers Prefer Shell” which is also shown on the back—probably because it is not as radical a design as the other two.

“Actors Prefer Shell” is misdated in the caption as 1935 when it should be 1933.

E058
Die Neue Linie | Herbert Bayer and Laszlo Moholy-Nagy | magazine cover | Leipziger Beyer-Verlag | 1929–1938
[Paul Shaw]
images: 2
text: 5
apparatus: 3

The designers of the covers of Die neue Linie illustrated on the sheet—the inaugural issue on the front and five others on the back—are not identified. They are Laszlo Moholy-Nagy for September 1929, February 1930, June 1930 and May 1931; and Herbert Bayer for October 1934 and July 1935. These are not the best or most interesting covers each man did. Moholy’s cover of December 1931 is my favorite of his; and I would have preferred to see December 1934 and January 1938 for Bayer. The latter sports the head of Mussolini, a reminder that this lifestyle magazine came under increasing political pressure beginning in 1937 but that Bayer did not resign until August 1938. An image that should have been included at the expense of one or two covers is the massive billboard that Bayer designed to promote the magazine in 1930 (see Die neue Linie: The Bauhaus at the Newsstand by Patrick Rössler, p. 52.)

I had no say in the choice of images which is why they do not wholly connect with my text. I would have preferred to look at the whole history of Die neue Linie and not just at the covers by Moholy and Bayer. Many of the covers done by other artists, especially the prolific Otto Arpke, I find more appealing. I also think that at least one interior spread should have been shown.

E059
Foto-Auge | Jan Tschichold and Franz Roh | book | Akademischer Verlag Dr. Fritz Wedekind & Co. | 1929
[Phil Jones]
images: 4
text: 5
apparatus: 0

Phil Jones’ text is very good, though I wish he had described the text pages of Foto-Auge—assuming it has some. The sheet shows the cover and two interior photographic spreads. None of the photographs are credited since there are no captions. Jones lists a number of avant-garde designers and artists—such as Hannah Hoch, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy and Piet Zwart—whose photographs are in the book, but are among the four illustrated. In trying to read the captions within Foto-Auge itself it seems the photographers are Sasha Stone, “Farben Industrie”, Eugene Atget, and the New York Times. The cover, shown on the front, is the famous “Constructor” self-portrait of El Lissitzky.

E060
The Man with the Movie Camera | Georgii Stenberg and Vladimir Stenberg | Reklam Film, Russia | 1929
[Liz McQuiston]
images: 5
text: 3
apparatus: 5

The sheet has the familiar poster for Man with a Movie Camera [the usual translation of the Russian title does not have the ‘The” that the Phaidon entry has] by the Stenberg brothers on the front and—wonderfully—an alternative version on the back. The back also has their poster for Fragment of an Empire for some odd reason. Liz McQuiston does not mention it. Unfortunately she also ignores the alternate poster for Man with a Movie Camera which seems to better capture Dziga Vertov’s film than the the primary one. McQuiston’s description of the latter fails to mention that the woman has no torso; it is merely implied by the circling texts. (In the alternative poster a similar sleight of hand is achieved by the Stenberg brothers with a pair of woman’s legs, a tripod, part of woman’s face and a camera lens surrounding the space where the torso should be.)

• “disorientating” is the British equivalent of “disorienting”

E061
Broadway | Morris Fuller Benton | typeface | American Type Founders | 1929
[Caroline Archer]
images: 4
text: 1
apparatus: 3

Why is Broadway included in the Phaidon box? There are far more important faces that have been left out: e.g. Century Schoolbook, Cheltenham, Electra, Goudy Oldstyle and News Gothic just to mention a few American ones.

Broadway was designed in 1927 and released in 1928 (not 1929 as indicated here). (See American Metal Typefaces of the Twentieth Century by Mac McGrew [New Castle, Delaware: Oak Knoll Books, 1993], p. 50.) Caroline Archer’s text is poor. Broadway was not “born during the Great Depression”—which did not begin in the United States until 1930. It is not “a tongue-in-cheek font… which in name and appearance aimed to bring glamour and glitz to the dark days of the economic crash” but a display typeface that successfully attempted to capture the Art Deco zeitgeist that had finally reached America in 1927. It was emblematic of the heyday of the Jazz Age with a name intended to evoke the a street that symbolized entertainment. Morris Fuller Benton was the head of typographic design at American Type Founders and not simply its “chief typeface designer”. Archer speculates that he “probably drew inspiration from the explosion of creative energy in the fields of art, architecture and fashion” which seems highly unlikely given that Benton is famous for seeming to have had little interest in anything outside of his family, cars, skiing, and croquet. (See The Bentons: How an American Father and Son Changed the Printing Industry by Patricia Cost [Rochester: RIT Cary Graphic Arts Press, 2011].)

Archer is right in seeing Broadway as a fat face mixed with a sans serif. But she is wrong in saying that digital copies were made by the International Typeface Corporation and Font Bureau. She probably has LSC Manhattan designed by Tom Carnase in 1970 (since renamed ITC Manhattan) which has many similarities and Bradley Initials (originally Bradley Ultra Modern Initials digitized by Font Bureau in 1994) in mind. Finally, Archer makes no mention of the many contemporary Art Deco typefaces in the same vein that were issued at the same time or immediately after Broadway, including several by Benton himself (e.g. Boul Mich, Chic, Gallia, Parisian, Modernique and Modernistic).

The front of the sheet shows the cover of a specimen booklet of Broadway, complete with the rarely seen alternate S and an Art Deco stock cut for November that was part of the set of “calendar silhouettes” that accompanied the typeface. The back of the sheet has two more pages from Broadway specimens, including a showing of the character set. There is also a photograph of an undated sign in New York City spelling out “Broadway” in Broadway. It could easily have been deleted and replaced with an example of a competing Art Deco typeface from the late 1920s or a sample of similar lettering from a sign, poster or magazine cover (see below).

E062
Vogue | Mehemed Fehmy Agha, Alexander Liberman et al | magazine and newspaper | Condé Nast Publications | 1929–1956
[Véronique Vienne, Zoe Whitley]
images: 4
text: 5
apparatus: 5

Véronique Vienne’s text is very good. Many of the designers and photographers she name-checks are not included in the images provided (which, for one of the few times in the Phaidon box,  include names as well as issue numbers—with the exception of items 3 and 4 where the photographer is left out). She especially cites the June 1939 cover by Salvador Dalí and layouts by M.F. Agha, neither of which appear here. (The only spread shown is by Alexander Liberman.) Vienne mentions Agha’s use of sans serif type in place of italics but does not provide a starting point for this innovation (or an ending one if there was one). (See Vanity Fair, March 1930, p. 31 for an explanation of a five issue experiment of using sans serif type for headings in articles and illustrations in Vogue’s sister magazine, also art directed by Agha.)

The front of the sheet shows the great August 1940 cover with the letters of the nameplate formed by women (photographed by Horst P. Horst). The back has four covers from the years 1931 to 1950 and a spread from 1944.