Pierce Horvath: Errol Morris Article Reflection
Subconsciously, we all have had this moment. We even consume art in a similar manner. When a typeface, a drawing, or an object, is crafted in a way that displays the amount of hard work and skill that was put into it, we tend to equate it with having a greater value. Now, there is some room for argument in how to scale these levels of value, but I think it’s quite simply put like this:
A child and a designer are told to draw the same object. The child’s work is crude, and, through means of observation, is deemed a ‘child’s drawing.’ Vice versa applies to the designer.
Now, I’m not saying that Comic Sans or Meatball was designed by an eight-year-old. I'm merely stating that designers are conscious of how they wish to create their work and at least have some idea as to how it will be interpreted.
All this said, another way of saying this is, ‘Would you take an academic thesis more serious if it was typed in Harlow or Times New Roman font?’ We react to these typefaces in this fashion because we are conditioned from an early age to recognize them. Kids are bombarded with textbooks and articles that, in order to be legible and evoke a sense of credibility, are printed with these fonts.
I’m not surprised at all by the results of this experiment and feel it opens the door to many other questions and experiments. What do we rely on to tell ourselves the information we are consuming is reliable? Is it the font? Of the more academic fonts, which is the most ‘trusted’? Which font favors a specific subject matter?
Questions like these may just keep me up all night.
Comments
Post a Comment