Typography has a language of its own. To develop a good taste for type, graphic designer and artist extroo says you have to learn the language first through research, visual exposure, and understanding context. Once you have that foundation, the rest starts to make sense.

We sat down with him to talk about what it really takes to build typographic taste, and how to tell a good design decision from a bad one.

Can you introduce yourself and your practice?

Hello, I’m extroo! I’m a graphic designer and artist based in Kolkata. I love playing with typography to explore human expressions and communication. My journey with type began by exploring Swiss typography design, which led to an interest in expressive jazz album covers. After exploring interactions between type and photography, I started developing an interest in forms through expressive typography. Thus began my practice of using type in unconventional ways to communicate thoughts, feelings, and emotions.

When it comes to typography, what does “taste” actually mean to you?

I think taste depends on context. Tasteful design/work is when the type, paired with other elements, effectively communicates what needs to be invoked or felt. Bad taste would be using a scratched-out, jarring type to say peace (unless sarcastic/satirical in nature) or using a futuristic, geometric type for something that wants to feel dated or antique.

How do you train your eye to notice good and bad typographic decisions beyond obvious mistakes?

I try not to judge when I am observing but rarely succeed. I love documenting what I see around me. Judgment comes in stronger when I am trying to contextualise decisions based on what I see. Good and bad can only be decided based on context, so trying to understand the designers’ decisions is paramount. If the context matches the usage, I consider it a good decision.

What role does reading, research, or visual exposure play in developing typographic taste?

Reading, research, and exposure are extremely vital in developing taste. Reading and research help bridge the gap between visual and understanding by providing theory. Theory acts as a structure/guide to explore further. Visual exposure is our first point of contact. The more we see around us, the more we learn. Exposing ourselves to type around us helps us learn more about the things they’re associated with. It can be as simple as the nameplate for a building or something more complex like an instruction manual. Each decision is made with a level of care, craft, and love.

Why is focusing on systems, spacing, and hierarchy more important than choosing “interesting” fonts?

The technical aspects are more important than picking the coolest, quirkiest font when we’re choosing a font that needs to be legible. These systems have been developed from years of understanding, which standardised everything and is hence generally acceptable. Learning the rules of the game helps us break them, too. So if you wanna do something fun, see how you can bend the rules to your liking.

How do you know when to stop when typography is doing enough without being overdesigned?

A lot of it is done by feeling. For my personal work, it’s entirely based on feeling. If I have created something that has achieved my goals, I’ll stop myself. Sometimes I’ll play more to see how far I can stretch it, but the final iteration is the one that evokes the right feeling. Sometimes I’ll also ask others for their opinions to understand how they interpret it and modify it.

How do typographic rules help build taste, and when is it right to break them?

I started with Swiss design, so I was deep into the rules. Following grids, using the perfect sans serif (cough cough, Helvetica, cough cough) and never ever stretching type. It helped me understand the idea of typographic taste. What is good, why is it good, what works, how it works, all of this explains the pre-existing system. When is it right to break them again circles back to context. If a cool, playful execution benefits the brief, then go for it!

With experimental type constantly circulating online, how do you avoid confusing novelty with taste?

I’ll answer this when I find the answer myself. I think somewhere I look at the visual appeal of the entire piece, whether it fits with my current taste or not. If I can imagine how it works differently, if there is a way it can be modified or played with. Can I use it in different contexts? How does it behave? Just because something looks good doesn’t mean it might work well. Overarchingly, I think there needs to be a central idea that ties the piece together to make it palatable.

How does working with motion, packaging, and digital formats sharpen or challenge typographic judgment?

Different mediums behave differently with type. In print, you cannot go lower than a certain thickness. In digital, you can play with the type however you want. In motion, type can take on a whole different personality. Different mediums challenge and sharpen typographic decision-making. We choose the type that’s fit for its purpose.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DRUgCszk3YS/

What makes typographic work age well over time?

I think more than the work, what it conveys ages either well or poorly. From a technical perspective, if the work conveys the same feeling as it did when created, automatically it becomes a strong piece of work.

Do designers have a responsibility to prioritize clarity and readability over visual impact?

I think sometimes it’s necessary to focus on visual impact over clarity and readability. If the work has a strong visual, it automatically can interest people to read what it conveys even if it’s a little difficult to read. This again depends on where the type is and what its purpose is. If I’m late for a flight, I would want the type to tell me where I need to haul ass rather than ask me to spend two/three seconds deciphering it.

As tools make typography easier to manipulate, what still separates good taste from bad decisions?

It’s still context. I think no matter how much we advance in terms of tools, technology and methodology, what remains strong throughout is context. Good type will always respect its purpose and convey the message it needs to.

Do you think typographic taste can be taught, or is it something only built through time and practice?

Initially, good typographic taste needs to be taught. One must teach themselves how to see and decipher these systems which predate all of us. Once the technicalities and rules have been dealt with, time and practice are essential for improving these skills. Time and practice are what help us learn new things and sharpen our skills to meet new requirements.

Can you share 2-3 projects where typography carried the identity?

Philadelphia Art Gallery branding by Gretel; Matheson Food Company by Wedge; You&Me and Me&You by Anthony Burrill; Pirate by Only Studio UK; TypeOne Magazine by TypeOne; The Diversity Type Project by Distillery

What would you tell young designers who want to build typographic taste instead of chasing trends?

Observe things around you, question them, try to break them down, and build them up again. Always ask why something works. No better way to teach yourself.

Chasing trends is fine as long as someone is using that to learn something. There’s a reason behind these trends so try to learn what, why, and how. Mindlessly chasing trends never improves craft.

Banner image courtesy of @_extroo

auster

​​To develop a good taste for type, graphic designer extroo says you have to learn the language first through research, visual exposure, and context.

auster

To develop a good taste for type, graphic designer extroo says you have to learn the language first through research, visual exposure, and context.