“Contextualizing Place as Type: Creating an Auburn Typeface”
by Harry Lewis | Xchanges 12.2/13.1
Typography as Rhetorical Argumentation
Trimbur, in his work Delivering the Message: Typography and the Materiality of Writing (2017), explores the unique, but perhaps unnoticed, arguments inherent in typographic design, as well as how its ability to serve as rhetorical artifact has been neglected as composition studies transitioned through the “process movement” of the 1970s. His analysis of the rhetoricity of typographic design speaks to Vandenberg and Clary-Lemon’s (2007) call for students to be cognizant of their place within academia, while also placing emphasis on how composers can view letters as more than merely marks on a page.
Much like Vandenberg and Clary-Lemon’s (2007) call to action, Trimbur (2017) pushes for “a thoroughgoing reconceptualization of the writer at work – one that locates the composer in the labor process, in relation to the available means of production” (p. 261). While Vandenberg and Clary-Lemon focused on academia’s ability to produce professional generalizers devoid of spatial identifiers in their writing as a result of persistent institutional ideals, Trimbur places emphasis on the process movement of the 1970s as a key factor in the devaluation of words on page as rhetorical artifacts.
Within composition studies, process movement-influenced pedagogy places importance on voice, cognition, and conversation, while viewing writing as an imperfect translation of thought: “an invisible process, an auditory or mental event that takes place at the point of composing, where meanings get made” (Trimbur, 2017, p. 260). However, Trimbur argues that in contemporary society, as technological advancements have composers utilizing computers over typewriters, the materiality and rhetoricity of letterforms becomes harder to ignore. Trimbur calls upon Marshall McLuhan (1967), who states that society only recognizes evolving environments once significant change has occurred, much as compositional mediums have drastically transitioned in the wake of rapid technological encroachment.
The privileging of speech and cognition over written language within the process movement may stem from a hesitance to place trust within imagery, as a dependence on visuals could be seen as “immature, ephemeral, and manipulative” (Trimbur, 2017, p. 262). Trimbur (2017) posits that “we need to recast the figure of the composer and its essayist legacy – to see writers not just as makers of meaning but as makers of the means of producing meaning out of the available resources of representation [letterforms]” (p. 262).
For a composer to locate themselves in the production of letterforms and use it as artistic exigence, they capitalize on an opportunity to synthesize the influences of their place of composition into a visual medium. Trimbur (2017) argues that not only does typography afford a rhetor the opportunity to visualize abstract thought, it’s also intrinsically connected to Cicero’s fifth canon of rhetoric: delivery. Similarly, Eva Brumberger (2003; 2004) places emphasis on the persona of specific letterforms, and how their application serves as rhetorical argumentation.