Oct 20, 2009 16:08
I have always liked dafont.com. I like the weirdness and creativity that goes into creating fonts, because fair few of them would offer very poor readability. But that's not what they're necessarily for, are they? A lot are made for decoration, individuality.
Which brings me to a horrible find. The font Stylograph. It is terrifyingly close to my normal handwriting, and yet, it was not made by me (would I ever name a font Stylograph?).
Having both parents who are teachers probably influenced the way I write as I've been told I have teacher's handwriting. It's quite messy, very loopy and all over the place, but I always liked it because it's mine and comes naturally to me. I've developed it over the years, changed the way I write "4", capital G's and removed the dots from 'i' and 'j'. However, despite a few differences (dots on i's for example), this font - Stylograph - is VERY similar.
This made me think about individuality in the arts. I spend 20 years developing my own particular font, and someone else, somewhere in the world, has just about copied it. And to go off from type, is it possible that there is someone out there somewhere who paints just like I do? Is anything really individual?
study,
art,
ucol