What a Font Feels Like - A Field Guide to Typographic Dishonesty

Cooper Black on a funeral invitation. I sat with that contradiction for three full minutes the other day, staring at a PDF a friend forwarded me, trying to figure out why the typographic choice felt so deeply wrong, and also, at the same time, kind of correct, in a way I couldn’t explain. That is the thing about fonts. They have feelings. Usually those feelings are consistent, and designers can use the consistency to move you through a design the way composers move you through a piece of music. Sometimes the feelings are contradictory, and you get the typographic equivalent of a minor chord under a cheerful lyric, which is often the whole point of the piece.

Mostly, though, fonts lie. That is the part of the field almost nobody writes about, and it is the part I want to sit with here.

Helvetica is the most famous lying font in the world. It pretends to be neutral. It is not neutral. Helvetica is loaded; mid-century Swiss, corporate, postwar, modern, confident to the point of ideology. When you use Helvetica you are not making a nothing choice; you are making a neutrality-performance choice, which is a very loud thing to do, even if the type itself is quiet. Every airport signage system on earth uses a Helvetica variant for this exact reason; they are trying to look like nobody made them. They were made. Someone chose them. The choice was political. The choice is always political.

The last decade of startup branding happened in a rounded geometric sans that was doing the same move. GT America, Inter, Circular, a thousand cousins. The font says we are friendly, accessible, competent, modern, mildly left-of-center but also vaguely profitable. The font says nothing, loudly, to everyone, at exactly the volume a venture-backed company wants to speak. When I see one of these on a wellness brand that charges nine dollars for a matcha, I feel the same minor-key dissonance I felt with the Cooper Black funeral card, except there is nothing earned about it. It is just the font pretending to be neutral while doing unambiguous ideological work.

This is what I mean by typographic dishonesty.

Some fonts, on the other hand, tell the truth about themselves. Garamond is a font that has lived. You can tell. It was designed by a human man in 16th-century France, it has been revised by every serious type designer of the last four hundred years, and the italic shapes still carry the quiet remnant of a scribe’s wrist. When I read a page in Garamond I can feel that somebody, somewhere, thought carefully about whether an ascender should be shorter than a cap-height, and for what reason, and with what consequence. Garamond is emotionally honest. It is earnest. I cannot convince myself to dislike Garamond even when it is used badly, which is often, because the font itself is still telling the truth.

Papyrus, by contrast, is the purest liar in the font landscape, and it is a liar that has somehow become the most emotionally honest font of our century, which is a paradox I am prepared to defend. Papyrus was designed in 1982 by Chris Costello, who (by his own account) was trying to imagine what the apostle Paul’s handwriting might have looked like. The font became, over twenty years, a kind of global shorthand for ancient wisdom, exotic origin, spiritual something. It was used on the Avatar poster. It was used on ten thousand small-business logos for yoga studios, healing-crystal shops, and Ethiopian restaurants. It is the butt of a thousand design-bro jokes.

And yet. Papyrus tells the truth about what it is. It is trying too hard, and it wears the trying on the letterforms; the chipped, ragged edges pretending to be weathered, the unserious nod toward ancient script. Papyrus does not pretend to be neutral. Papyrus does not pretend to be modern. Papyrus is the font your aunt uses on her “Blessings” sign and it is, crucially, honest about what it wants you to feel. I think this is why designers can laugh at Papyrus and still kind of love it. It is doing an obvious thing. It is the fonts that do dishonest things subtly that we should be worrying about.

Comic Sans is similar. Comic Sans gets mocked because it’s clumsy. But Comic Sans is, in fact, a font designed to be read by dyslexic children, and it does this better than almost any other widely-available typeface. When Comic Sans is used on a school flyer for a child’s event, it is doing the job it was designed for, and it is doing it honestly. The problem with Comic Sans is not the font. The problem is when it appears on a corporate memo or a plumber’s invoice, at which point the font is being asked to do a job it was not designed for, and the dishonesty is the user’s, not the typeface’s.

I have a running list of what fonts feel like to me, and I’ll share it, because I think a working vocabulary is actually useful for anyone trying to make visual choices that don’t accidentally betray them. These are subjective, obviously. That is the whole point.

Cooper Black is warm, slightly drunk, and has opinions about the Grateful Dead. It was everywhere in the 70s and then everywhere again in the late 2010s, and it works best on things that are meant to feel slightly irreverent and homemade. It does not belong on funeral invitations. Even when the deceased would have liked it.

Futura is the font Kubrick used. Which tells you everything. It is cold, confident, precise, minimally emotional. It is the font of 2001: A Space Odyssey and of every moody fashion magazine editorial that wants to feel futurist without doing any actual futurism. It is a great font when you want the reader to feel like they are being observed by something.

Caslon is a kind older woman who has read everything and is slightly impatient with you. When Caslon speaks, you listen. When Caslon is bored, you know. Caslon is the English 18th-century serif, and it remains the single best choice for a literary publication that wants to feel grown-up without trying to feel grown-up.

Didone typefaces (Didot, Bodoni, their children) are the most elegantly empty fonts in the canon. They look correct in almost any application. They are the fashion-industry default for a reason: they do not emote, they pose. If you need to pose, they are a good tool. If you want to actually communicate something, they will fight you.

Gill Sans carries the biography of its designer (Eric Gill, whose private life was monstrous, a thing any designer using the font should at minimum know about) inside the letter shapes in a way that makes me never quite trust the neutrality it performs. Letters have histories. Sometimes the histories are important.

Any rounded wellness sans (you know the ones) is a font designed specifically to make you feel okay about spending $200 on a shampoo that costs $4 to make. These fonts are everywhere and they are all doing the same trick; softening a commercial ask until you do not notice the ask. When I see a new one on a DTC brand I feel the fontic equivalent of a small chill.

A custom serif with slightly too much character is usually the mark of a designer who cared. Custom typefaces cost money. A brand that commissioned one is telling you something about what they are willing to invest in being legible. It is not always good news (the typeface can still be bad) but it is at least evidence of attention, which is rarer than it should be.

Monospaced fonts are honest on a structural level. Monospaced fonts do not pretend each letter is equally important by varying their widths (serif and sans typefaces do this, which is why they look good as body text). Monospaced fonts just commit; every letter gets the same space, the design is code-like, the aesthetic is one of labor rather than polish. This is why I trust any designer who uses a good monospaced font in a long-form context. They are telling you they are a person who has written code, or spreadsheets, or concrete poetry, and they are not trying to smooth that out.

The whole practice of looking at fonts this way is, itself, a form of attention. When you start noticing typography, you cannot stop, which is either a gift or a curse depending on your temperament. You will find yourself unable to eat at restaurants whose menus are in the wrong typeface. You will judge brands by their wordmarks before you read what they do. You will notice when a wedding invitation uses Garamond instead of the Didone that was clearly pre-sold with the venue package, and you will think better of the couple.

This is not frivolous. The visual texture of the world is made of thousands of these tiny choices, and almost nobody is paying attention to them, which means the people who are paying attention have a quiet, compounding advantage; taste. Taste is a practice. Typography is one of the earliest and most accessible places to start practicing.

So the next time you open a file, before you do anything else, ask what the type is promising, and whether it’s telling the truth. Most of the time the answer will be no. That is fine. That is what makes the yes, when you find it, feel like a small vote for the entire visual culture surviving another year.

And if you want to know where to start actually learning this material, past my opinions: Ellen Lupton’s Thinking With Type is the cleanest introduction in English. Erik Spiekermann’s Stop Stealing Sheep is the practical follow-up. The Letterform Archive in San Francisco runs a free weekly newsletter that is better than any design podcast. Go, look at real typefaces, in real historical context, until the alphabet becomes a set of thousands of people who spent their lives thinking about the specific question of how to make an a work.

Then you can start trusting your own eye.

What a Font Feels Like – A Field Guide to Typographic Dishonesty

More from my site

About

Leave a Reply Cancel reply