Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.

1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<title>new tome in town | Print, June 2009</title>
</head>
<body>

<h3>books</h3>
<h1>new tome in town</h1>
<h2>Review by Paul Shaw</h2>

<h3>Typography and Graphic Design: From Antiquity to the Present</h3>


<address><cite>By Roxane Jubert
Translated by Deke Dusinberre
and David Radzinowicz</cite>
Flammarion
432 pp.;$75</address>

<p>Over the past quarter century, the study of the history of graphic design has
gained a strong foothold in American design schools. This can largely be
attributed to the success of<cite> A History of Graphic Design by Philip
B.Meggs</cite>, published in 1983 and now in its fourth edition (co-written by
Alston W.Purvis since Megg's death). Despite the book's widespread acceptance,
Meggs&#8212;as it is known&#8212;has been subject to criticism, and several
attempts have been made to create an alternative. Now there is <cite>Typography
and Graphic Design by Roxane Jubert</cite>, a rival to Meggs in heft and page
count.</p>

<p>Jubert's book is accompanied by ecstatic blurbs by Paula Scher, Massin, and


Paola Antonelli; it has forewords by Serge Lemoine (for the French edition) and
Ellen Lupton (for the English translation). This praise&#8212;along with Jubert's
reputation as a design historian, her fresh perspective, and the clear, crisp
design by Thomas Gravemaker&#8212;all create expectations that a new Meggs has
arrived. Unfortunately, <cite>Typography and Graphic Design</cite> does not live
up to these high hopes.</p>

<p>The problem begins with Jubert's introduction, in which she touches on


important aspects of the study of design history without saying anything concrete.
She lists what she considers the best of the existing literature but does not
evaluate any of it. She praises the new interest in graphic design history, notes
that there are gaps to be filled, and urges more publishing activity. These are
all welcome points&#8212;especially the call for more research&#8212;but she is
short on specifics. Most glaringly, Jubert does not define either typography or
graphci design, which is odd given that she claims her book will balance the two
terms in a way that previous (unnamed) surveys have failed to do.</p>

<p>What should have been a historiographical foundation for the text to come is a
set of vague generalizations:<q>Certain media and aspects of visual communication
are scarcely dealt with here,</q> she writes aobut the material missing from her
survey, <q> "and clearly another history might have allotted more place to popular
graphics, to anonymous creation, to expressions of protest, to everday forms of
advertising, to the illustrated book and graphic illustration, to the comic strip,
to graphics for the screen (cinema, television, digital film), to signage&#8212;or
to little-known facts and phenomena concerning area which history has tended to
overlook, such as creations by women and, of course, non-Western
civilizations."</q></p>
</body>
</html>

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen