% Lines starting with % are comments and will be ignored
% comments may be treated as commands/actions/functions

% http://ospublish.constantvzw.org/typo/tools-of-the-trade

% FS = Femke Snelting
% RL = Ricardo Lafuente


% TITLE: Tools|of|the|trade


% NOWSPEAKING: X
% ---------------
Ricardo Lafuente is a designer and developer based in Porto, Portugal, where he runs the Manufactura Independente[^]{http://manufacturaindependente.org/}  studio with Ana Carvalho. At the time, he was in the process of  finishing a text about the way typography, (open source) tools and  design economies feed off and into each other. The conversation is based  on an e-mail exchange.


% NOWSPEAKING: RL
% ---------------
I  am interested in the way designer’s tools, particularly the  typographer’s, from letterpress to software, have influenced/defined the  whole production system.


% NOWSPEAKING: FS
% ---------------
I  think you’re right to start thinking about the (r)evolution of type  tools, by looking at the interrelation between tools for designing  (digitizing?) type, systems for their distribution, and tools for  output. It means looking at the development of Fontographer, of  typefoundries, but also at the history of Postscript. Although all of  these elements are intimately connected, each of the tools in the chain  is operated upon by other professionals with different aims.In _Pandora’s Hope_[@Latour:1999:PandorasHope], Bruno Latour argues that objects and subjects can not be viewed as separate from each other, 
in other words — we have been shaped by our artifacts as much as we have shaped them:

* Who or what is responsible for the act of killing? 
* Is the gun no more than a piece of mediating technology? … 
* Which of them, the gun or the citizen, is the actor in this situation? 
* Someone else (a citizen-gun, a gun-citizen) … 
* You are a different person with the gun in your hand; 
* the gun is different with you holding it.


% NOWSPEAKING: RL
% ---------------
Besides  a historical reference as to the evolution of those tools, I also want  to delve upon how the availability/cost/dimensions of the design tools  actually shape the design activity.
The  main ‘cost’ in producing typography is time; time needed for  development, for proofing and for apprenticeship. Now the price of tools  such as Fontographer Fontforge is relatively low or even gratis,  digital proofing systems are widely available and there’s other  materials to design in/with than carving marble, lead molds or  photographic systems … all that’s left is human hours spent on drawing a typeface or tuning kerning tables.
In  that way, the process of developing a typeface is in some aspects  similar to developing software and I think typographers should seriously  look at open source developments, because it could help in imagining  another future than erasure or control. Sharing the work could actually  work for typography.
What  is the role of those tools in shaping the market and professional  relationships (e.g. the way availability/cost/size of tools helped  change the environment from craft to commodity)?


% NOWSPEAKING: FS
% ---------------
I  do not think typographic craft has become commodified; the craft has  changed and the commodity has changed with it. Again, if you think of  type as software, the shift makes sense if you parallel it to the way  commodity functions in software (Microsoft vs. MySQL: not that the  latter is necessarily more sympathetic, but to base profit on service  seems to make more sense than to base profit on distrust)

% WWWGRAFIK: http://www.laidout.org/screenshots/images/monkeypatch.png Un|singe|sympa

% NOWSPEAKING: RL
% ---------------
Since  Gutenberg, drawing and printing tools have progressively become more  accessible and less bulky. Today, free software means we have access to  free tools with no larger a physical footprint as the computer that  hosts them. Rid of its physical and economical restraints, what is a  design tool today, and more importantly, what can it be? What  implications does this have to the whole design field?
With  print-to-plate systems, or the way screen typography is (hopefully)  developing, you could say that also printing is close to being  incorporated. To me the most exciting effects of this convergence of  tools, is that in theory design, distribution and use are melting into  each other. It could potentially radically change the way typo(graphic)  practice works. A designer is not necessarily an authority and the user  becomes potentially more than a consumer.


% N!OWSPEAKING: RL
% ---------------
I  also found an interesting concept that can help sustain the issue of  de-physicalisation (horrible term) of the tools – Radovan Richta’s  concept of technological evolution and its consequences (particularly,  the importance of the switch from manual to mental labour).[^]{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_evolution}


% WWWGRAFIK: https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/l/t1.0-9/10425176_10152548208049547_177745308172521140_n.jpg


% NOWSPEAKING: FS
% ---------------
I  am not so sure whether this shift from physical to mental labour should  be taken that literally when it comes to software for (type)designers,  and whether de-physicalisation is a useful term. Someone like Katherine  Hayles writes about the embodiment, and materialization of knowledge  beyond the physical in ways that seem to link to the practice of design.  In _Abstracting Craft: The Practiced Digital Hand_[@McCullough:1998:AbstractingCraft], Malcolm Mccullough describes how tools shape our perspective, i.e. how physical and mental work inform each other:
* Tool usage simultaneously involves direct sensation, 
* provides a channel for creative will, and affirms a 
* commitment to practice. The latter is quite important: 
* only practice produces the most lasting and satisfying 
* form of knowledge.
and later on:
* A tool directs your attention. Its function becomes your focus: 
* as the saying goes, when you hold a hammer, 
* all the world looks like nails.
(Or should we say with Latour that when you hold a gun, everyone looks like potential victim… ;-))
Physicality  shifts place, but we still have bodies: hands operating keyboards,  trackpads; eyes that judge, limbs suffering from RSI. To often, craft is  made synonymous with ‘handmade’ and software ubiqutous – in short:  craft is not solely manual, and software is not body-less
Maybe  those two truisms could help rethink craft beyond the patriarchal  master-apprentice system that is still en vogue with typographers. The  problem with type-design is, that it is often thought of as signature;  writing in purified form. But in a networked world this cannot be the  only way to do type. Typographers, while using digital tools for longer  than most of us, have a hard time to let go of a closed model of  authorship, and a hierarchical approach to teaching. I am not sure why  it the stereotypical image of the lonely, ascetic, male typographer  fighting against all odds for the survival of an undervalued secret  craft seems so necessary to be maintained.


% NOWSPEAKING: RL
% ---------------
 Is  the market model and the typographer/designer’s activity accounting for  this evolution, or is it lagging behind? And what would be a feasible  alternative that could account for authorship safeguards? And why should  it be open?


% NOWSPEAKING: FS
% ---------------
 I  am convinced that a more progressive form of licensing, and an open  source approach to the development of typefaces is absolutely necessary  for typography to survive. The amount of policing necessary to check  illegal copies would be absurd. It is impossible but most of all  undesirable to technically protect typefaces; this form of Digital  Rights Management will come at the cost of typographies fluidity and  ability to be truly embedded.
Also,  typefaces are getting more complicated now since they are often shared  over multiple computers with different locales and operating systems. So  it seems important to engage in a collaboration with people across  borders to continue to develop typefaces fit for todays texts (I do not  think we have enough typography already!). Think about networked  typography, dynamic type, print on demand… When the bezier curves and  kerning tables are made available to be studied, adjusted, discussed by  communities of people I think this could mean a whole new life for an  old discipline.