If the printing process was one of the main facilitators in the development of the modern world, then the phrase ‘modern typography’ may be an unnecessary duplication of sense. Is not all typography modern?

And so begins the exceptionally cogent argument that design historian and publisher Robin Kinross offers in his foundational book Modern Typography. It’s a singular account of the rise of typography as a discipline. If you are interested to have a firm grounding in typographic history, this is absolutely the place to begin. I strongly suggest buying the book, putting it on your shelf, and looking forward to referring to it again and again. 



My own copy shows that iI have returned again and again — it’s lousy with notes [↓].



Top right of this page is one particularly important note, a kind of schematic diagram implied in the text. Kinross suggests that typography emerged as its own professional practice separate from printing, in part anyway, as a result of this self-propelling and self-reinforcing three-way cycle [↓].



Emerging mass production required specialization to break up the task into more efficient units. Specialized workers could develop specific competencies which then fueled the speed of mass production. Specialization was then facilitated by standardization, of the materials and practice of printing (measurement systems, type height, naming protocols). Agreed standards allowed printers to work with common type foundries and presses which then accelerated the mass production process. (I really should have drawn the arrows going both directions as each part of the process reinforces the other ... oh well.)

I would like you to pay special attention to places in the chapters I have asked you to read where one of these three parts of the triangle above appear. Make mental notes and physical notes. We will look at this together in class next week.