Implikācija, ka 'not understanding anything' būtu iespējams stāvoklis, ir visnotaļ mulsinoša. Turklāt uzkrāta nesaprašana (nesapratne?) tiek novērtēta nevis kā zināšanas, bet kā zināšanu robežu apzināšanās, zināšanas un sapratnes potenciāls.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

UPDIKE & SCHOLARSHIP

In his admirably written book, The Printed Book in America, Joseph Blumenthal praises the works of Daniel Berkeley Updike: ‘Of great importance to his craft, his written works in the history and scholarship of printing are primary sources for its understanding and appreciation,’ and, more specially about Printing Types: ‘Updike's scholarship is thorough and perceptive, his style urbane and witty.’

This is generous, very generous, and I try to believe that it is honest as well, but I do not recognize anything of it in my reading of Printing Types. The judgement of Updike is amazing and perhaps, if you would happen to enjoy a very special sense of humor, even amusing, but everywhere it demonstrates painfully the absence of the most elementary understanding of type design and its history.

I appreciate Printing Types as an invaluable compilation of facts, dates and pictures which has been unsurpassed in the fifty years after its publication. If it were revised, most of the information could be brought up to date without essential changes, and this is remarkable enough. Printing Types is an excellent directory, but as a work of scholarship it is ridiculous.

It is necessary to say this if I want to be trustworthy for students of typography and type design. I have to assure my young colleagues that it is not their fault when they do not understand anything of this ‘source of understanding.’ Printing Types does not offer the slightest contribution to the understanding of typography but rash prejudice at most.

I come to this now because I wanted to consult Printing Types about Bodoni. For the facts Printing Types might still be reliable, but Updike's interpretation of facts is definitely nonsense. This would not be a serious problem if there were an alternative, but I do not know of its existence. I am afraid that there is no source for understanding the history of type design and typography. Perhaps even this would not be a very serious problem if everybody were aware of this situation. The serious problem is not that we do not understand anything, but that we appreciate our accumulated misunderstanding as knowledge or even scholarship.

This edifying consideration resulted in an attempt to invent a scientific framework for history (the Exercise, page 72).

As to Updike's style it is not my principal objective to criticize it, but I find it at more instances clumsy and ponderous than ‘urbane and witty.’

Some positions, such as the traditional reputation of Updike and Morison and probably Tschichold and Mandersteig, cannot be discussed. Turning to the psychologist in the teacher of design, I would like to know why this ‘is not done.’ He is not quite sure. Any social circle has its unassailable authorities. Other members of the tribe may get lost or even be sacrificed deliberately only to preserve the sacrosant position of the leader. In a primitive society this behavior might be necessary for the survival of the tribe. However, to explain it as sheer atavism might be a simplification in an individualistic society such as ours. There is at least also some logic in the civilized tradition of celebrating the dead prophets and killing the living ones. The latter do not as patiently accept our adjustments to their message as the dead. Moreover, in our overestimation of youth the young generation is a threat to any established position. It would be the ideal solution for this problem if young people could be educated in respect for our position while keeping them busy with attempts to understand the ununderstandable. This method could prevent our personal dismissal for a while. But the combination of tribal and individualistic reactions is not healthy for a modern society. For science and scholarship it is a disaster. It is worrisome that scientists and scholars are so readily inclined to condemn an open attitude as something that ‘is not done.’

Even this more complicated explanation of cultural repression might be a simplification because a few exceptions, such as Letterletter, are often accepted.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

The problem is, that we don't understand the problem.
Paul MacCready

Bieži vien nav misunderstanding, bet apzināts bullšits ar piekabinātu adžentu nosaukts par zināšanām.

How came he understood what 'problem' is?