Study Task 5 Analysis of a Typeface, Context of Practice OUGD401

The Baskerville typeface was designed by John Baskerville in 1757 who had the intention of creating the font that would be the epitome of legibility and readability. Inspired by the clarity of William Caslon's work, Baskerville set out to improve on it by increasing the contrast in line weight and implementing flourishes that reflected his origins in calligraphy. Although his typeface is the major legacy associated with Baskerville, he also worked with inks and paper making in an effort to create print as near 'perfection' as possible. 
What defines 'perfection' in a typeface is a point of great controversy between many typographers, best described by those of the bauhaus movement as 'form versus function'. According to Beatrice Warde in 'The Crystal Goblet, or Why Printing Should be Invisible', great type is "the unnoticed vehicle for the transmission of words". In short the meaning, or the words conveyed, are what should be noticed by the reader not the letter forms. This modernist view supports the functional side of the argument, in which the function of a design informs the aesthetic. Those who favor the 'form' school of thought believe that the glyph is a canvas on which meaning can be imposed. An example of this would be medieval illuminated manuscripts, heavily ornamented to communicate the sacred nature of the words being conveyed.

Although Baskerville was created with the ideals of the modernist designer, to a modern eye, the flourishes and delicate decoration to be found on its glyphs could be seen as a form over function design. Of course at the time of its creation many of Baskerville's critics disliked it, accusing it of cutting the eye of the reader. So could it ever be considered a successful functional font? Did Baskerville get caught up in the "vulgar ostentation" of creating a type face "to be looked at not through"? 

My argument is that much like the codes and signs of semiotics all the meaning and power of these ideals lie within our own minds. There is no question that Baskeville has a great clarity and legibility, yet with many additions now considered to be superfluous to "invisible type". My belief is that great type, as with beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. If the reader sees a typeface that is completely unfamiliar to him, then he will notice it, yet a familiar one will pass without comment, thus promoting the stagnation of typographic design and by extension thought and civilisation its self. To me the sign of great typography is striking the balance between form and function and in this situation Baskerville has found the proverbial needle.

In general the commercial uses of Baskeville have mostly been for educational bodies. Its first use was for Cambridge University Press, soon after which it fell into disuse until 1917 when it was revived for Harvard University. The transitional serif classification of Baskeville means that it was ideal for these uses; its legibility making it functional and its calligraphic elements giving it a touch of the traditional. Calm and sedate compaired to its modern successors such as Bodoni, Baskerville is sought out for the delicate elegance it exudes.