Paul Rand’s use of typeface
…1945, without previous experience in book design–a craft that was jealously guarded by traditional typographers and compositors
So, as Elizabeth had mentioned yesterday, Keedy’s text about Beatrice Warde, comparing her views on book typography, in 1932, and his views, in 1993, on book typography, (not necessarily classics) as well as the use of type in ads, is not feasible. It is like comparing oranges and apples.
…since Rand was a functionalist, he respected those rules that contributed to legibility, and his interior book design was clean and handsome. His typography illuminated the theme of the book, but it was void of allusions to the past.
…while Rand refused to adhere to outdated rules and modes of composition, he never entirely rejected classical design, especially venerable typefaces, when deemed appropriate: ‘it is a mistake to think that the modern typographer does not have a healthy respect for tradition’, he wrote in American Printer in ‘What is Modern Typography?’ Rand argued that, ‘one cannot deprecate the contributions made by such men as Goudy, Rogers…