I was holding off on commenting (cause I know I’m a target here), but it’s ALL TRUE. It’s a disingenuous font (unless you’re, say, an Egyptian stationer, in which case it’s perfect). The little notches are so manufactured-lookin’ — c’mon, digital typefaces eliminated real divots and rough spots ages ago. It’s like buying jeans with the knees pre-torn. *Twitch*
So you’re saying we shouldn’t use typefaces that evoke an earlier era? And that we should only use clean, blemish free typefaces now that we can? (These are both easily dispelled enough that I won’t bother drowning this in examples)
There’s NO place for a font like this, or even Comic Sans, or Times New Roman, or whatever?
Are we sure this isn’t just anti-populism? I recognize that cuz I’m reeeeally good at it :)
Not a personal attack, I’m just curious. I’d love to see a true, technical critique of some of these hated typefaces against some of the designer favorite go-tos. And outside of Helvetica (drool), I’d like to see a typeface in common use (by “idiots”, i.e. non-designers) for which designers retain their original love.
To your last point (and blasphemous as it may be for a designer), I’m an Arial fan (a font used by the masses). And on the flip-side, I can’t stand Verdana (which seems to be every designer’s darling). I think it’s too wide and a little sloppy.
I like useful fonts, and Papyrus just isn’t very useful to me. It’s pre-weathered, so it’s nowhere as customizable as, say, Helvetica. And it’s hard to read; the little chips taken out of it just make it less legible. It’s thin in all the wrong spots. It’s bland.
There are plenty of places where distressed fonts-of-the-month are appropriate, although their shelf-life is generally limited. They start to show up everywhere. Just like hearing a song one time too many — it starts to lose its appeal and begins to irritate.
So maybe that’s it — I might have used Papyrus as display type back in the day, before it saturated fliers and signage everywhere (and assuming it appropriately honored the content). Maybe I now associate it with trite PowerPoint design. If I developed amnesia and happened upon the font as if for the first time, I might appreciate it. Familiarity breeds contempt.
The readability point is lost on me though … this is not a body copy font, or even a headline font. I see it primarily used for (often trite) logos or large titling.
Papyrus, like so many others, has a fairly specific set of situations that fit it well. So to say it isn’t useful just says to me that you aren’t doing those specific projects. But that’s not a comment on a typeface.
Comments
I was holding off on commenting (cause I know I’m a target here), but it’s ALL TRUE. It’s a disingenuous font (unless you’re, say, an Egyptian stationer, in which case it’s perfect). The little notches are so manufactured-lookin’ — c’mon, digital typefaces eliminated real divots and rough spots ages ago. It’s like buying jeans with the knees pre-torn. *Twitch*
So you’re saying we shouldn’t use typefaces that evoke an earlier era? And that we should only use clean, blemish free typefaces now that we can? (These are both easily dispelled enough that I won’t bother drowning this in examples)
There’s NO place for a font like this, or even Comic Sans, or Times New Roman, or whatever?
Are we sure this isn’t just anti-populism? I recognize that cuz I’m reeeeally good at it :)
Not a personal attack, I’m just curious. I’d love to see a true, technical critique of some of these hated typefaces against some of the designer favorite go-tos. And outside of Helvetica (drool), I’d like to see a typeface in common use (by “idiots”, i.e. non-designers) for which designers retain their original love.
To your last point (and blasphemous as it may be for a designer), I’m an Arial fan (a font used by the masses). And on the flip-side, I can’t stand Verdana (which seems to be every designer’s darling). I think it’s too wide and a little sloppy.
I like useful fonts, and Papyrus just isn’t very useful to me. It’s pre-weathered, so it’s nowhere as customizable as, say, Helvetica. And it’s hard to read; the little chips taken out of it just make it less legible. It’s thin in all the wrong spots. It’s bland.
There are plenty of places where distressed fonts-of-the-month are appropriate, although their shelf-life is generally limited. They start to show up everywhere. Just like hearing a song one time too many — it starts to lose its appeal and begins to irritate.
So maybe that’s it — I might have used Papyrus as display type back in the day, before it saturated fliers and signage everywhere (and assuming it appropriately honored the content). Maybe I now associate it with trite PowerPoint design. If I developed amnesia and happened upon the font as if for the first time, I might appreciate it. Familiarity breeds contempt.
Fair enough.
The readability point is lost on me though … this is not a body copy font, or even a headline font. I see it primarily used for (often trite) logos or large titling.
Papyrus, like so many others, has a fairly specific set of situations that fit it well. So to say it isn’t useful just says to me that you aren’t doing those specific projects. But that’s not a comment on a typeface.
TOO FUNNY
Sooo true - hahahha
Raspberry daiquiri….YUM! (That’s the point, right?)
Post a comment