Catherine Dixon, ‘Admit constraints: then having admitted, fill with discovery’, conference talk at Typography Theory Practice, Saturday 19 October 2024, Leeds Beckett University
Catherine Dixon, a colleague who has taught typography for many years at CSM, previously alongside designer and typographer Phil Baines, presented a paper at a conference dedicated to Typography in relation to theory and practice.
Dixon discusses how she feels the terms used to classify typography and related disciplines (lettering, calligraphy, etc) can act as a form of controlling what becomes canon or not. Dixon talks about how, particularly in Northern Europe, there is a preference to distinguish between practices, eg ‘typography’ and ‘lettering’, whereas this is not true everywhere, for example in Brazil where Dixon has experience of teaching.
Specifically, Dixon talks about “reframing lettering” in order to acknowledge other sources of knowledge on an equal level of hierarchy, in order to counter the idea of what has been previously deemed as ‘professional’ or ‘unprofessional’.
“The typographic is ONE way of communicating with letterforms and words, not THE way” (Dixon, 2024).
This relates to my research in terms of ideas of inclusivity, and decolonisation and the design canon. Part of this is thinking about what and how we present to students as typography, what do we mean by ‘professional’ typography, and how this might exclude certain work, particularly work by marginalised practitioners.
My initial reactions to this were that, in my opinion, it’s the distinct classifications that create the issue, so why not just call everything ‘typography’?
Dixon argues against just calling everything typography as this fails to acknowledge how classification has previously excluded certain work and certain designers.
Dixon suggests that the disciplinary blurring is a contemporary default and “not a blurring I find useful” (Dixon, 2025). “we could be here all day… year, talking through the many overlaps” […] “These definitions are helpful, because they start to hint at distinct skillsets” (Dixon, 2025).
Dixon prefers to “admit narrowness and identify constraints” (Dixon, 2024) and finding ways to “Expand awareness of the possibilities within visual/graphic communication practice” (Dixon, 2024).
Dixon went on to talk about the systems that are at play. That professional expensive equipment such as printing presses, typesetting technology, even more recent Adobe subscriptions, typeface licences, etc “Remain systemic obstacles to be negotiated” (Dixon, 2025). As with many professions, certain communities are excluded because of access to tools and finances. There is also inequality in different parts of the world:
“Global technologies are biased towards the Latin script […] at the expense of the quality of typesetting possible in other scripts”. “Access to systems of type is far from equal, and has been far from universal” (Dixon, 2024).
Dalton Maag, professional typeface design studio who I invited in to co-teach my intervention, also talked about this inequality. That there are many varieties of typefaces for the Latin script and far fewer in other scripts, which limits expression and limits how sophisticated communications can be in non-latin scripts.
Dixon talked about the professionalisation of graphic design, that leads to favouring work by professional class, middle class, white males. There has been a huge amount of control on the canon of typography through the professional class, usually white, middle-class males, who historically were working as professional designers, typesetters, printers. “Printing being heavily unionised and pretty much a closed shop” (Dixon, 2024).
Something that had a huge impact was the development of Letraset, a method of rub-down type, which “literally put typography in the hands of the people”. This enabled a certain degree of democratisation of the production technology of typography, as something that previously required professional typesetting services could be done by an untrained individual. “It became possible for groups, outside mainstream media, to publish zines and find a voice in print”
(Dixon, 2024). “Though such printed materials were still seen as far from professional examples of graphic design” and were often used in DIY publishing, punk fliers, etc.
In education this professionalisation was also reflected in the changing of course names and activities, moving away from making practices to reflect new technological practices.
Nicolete Grey, who taught at the Central School and established the Central Lettering Record, used a photographic collection of lettering to demonstrate the possibilities.
“A key tool in helping Grey to reinvigorate understanding of the possibilities of lettering was a photographic teaching collection first established at the Central School in 1963” (Dixon, 2024).
“The Central Lettering Record (CLR) had originally helped promote awareness to students of letterforms beyond the Trajan letter, which was the kind of established civic go-to letter for much of the 20th century” (Dixon, 2024).
“Under her remit, Grey expanded the vision for the CLR to celebrate lettering diversity of all kinds and as her teaching context at the Central shifted in 1966, to one of graphic design, the aim was to counterpoint the new emphasis on the typographic in teaching” (Dixon, 2024).
Dixon refers to Gray’s reframing of lettering as key to her argument:
“Lettering is the broad space, within which it is possible to situate more focussed letterform related practices” (Dixon, 2024)
“It’s a reframing that I find hugely helpful because it counters the dualistic thinking that prioritises the rational premise of design over other forms of lettering knowledge, generally demoted as craft. It affords space for recognising practices beyond the modular and the systematic and the contribution that these make to visual communication, outside of professional graphic design and it affirms that these spaces outside of professional graphic design have value. Typography is ONE way of communicating with letterforms and words and not THE way.” (Dixon, 2024)
So Dixon is talking about how this reframing of practices can allow for what otherwise might be dismissed as non-professional to be given the same hierarchy as so-called professional graphic design. Leading to acknowledging a broader range of knowledge sources. This allows us to look at sources of knowledge before the professionalisation of graphic design and bridge gaps between knowledge silos.
Dixon goes on to talk about the work of Colette Gaiter, specifically a talk for BIPOC Design History, which Dixon refers to as a “Canon shattering presentation” (Dixon, 2024).
Dixon talks about how Black designers have been excluded from the canon. “Typographic work of black designers such as Emory Douglas has wilfully been overlooked”. “Typography by designers of Colour is missing from the design canon for a number of reasons, but the fact is that it was always there, just not visible to those who decided what went into design history” (Dixon, 2024).
Dixon references a quote from Gator that describes “Decolonisation as ‘Responsible expansion’” (Gator in Dixon, 2024).
“Wilful racism has played its part but some of that discrimination is less direct, embedded as it is in operating systems of many kinds. This is where I think it is helpful to understand the exclusive basis on which the idea of the typographic has operated” (Dixon, 2024).
“For me it does matter whether we refer to this work as typography or lettering. It bothers me that this amazing work of [Wadsworth] Jerrell and [Carolyn] Lawrence would need to be positioned as typography to somehow become more legitimate within the design canon. These are extraordinary pieces of visual communication and perhaps al the more extraordinary because they are not typographic. The letterforms are free of the systems that would then have limited such expression. To produce this work required exceptional skill, a skill set that has been rendered invisible by this work having been ignored for so long, but a skillset that is perhaps in danger, I would argue, of continuing to be rendered invisible by being described as typographic. I also don’t want to let the exclusivity that has characterised typography off the hook quite so easily by just elasticating definitions now. It’s not just a case of including previously ignored outcomes into the canon.” (Dixon, 2024)
“We should expand our historiographies and give thanks to those […] doing that challenging work. We should all challenge the remit of what professional graphic design was and is to reclaim lost stories and reconnect with a continuum of visual communication practice but also to help us to be more inclusive going forward.” (Dixon, 2024)
systems #access #bias #control #exclusion
Bibliography
Typography Theory Practice (2024) Catherine Dixon: Admit constraints: then having admitted, fill with discovery. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4EvTqoj0Cs (Accessed: 3 January 2025).