Beatrice Warde’s iconic essay, “The Crystal Goblet,” was originally presented as “Printing Should Be Invisible” in the form of a speech at the British Typographers’ Guild in 1930, London. The numerous subsequent re-printings indicate the impact Warde had on the design world at the time. Warde’s essay is a discussion of the old tenent “form follows function.” The central metaphor of the essay is whether it is preferable to drink wine, i.e. the content, from a crystal or a golden goblet, i.e. the form (39-40). The transparency of the crystal goblet allows the drinker to be primarily aware of the wine. On the other hand, the drinker with the golden goblet is aware of the goblet itself as an expensive and rare and in doing so, it detracts from the wine. Warde claims that a true wine connoisseur will choose the crystal goblet and is irritated at anything that stands between the drinker and the wine (39-40). There is a moral implication behind Warde’s words that suggests that anything other than the most plain of types is self-promoting on the part of the designer, if not downright deceitful. Also inherent in Warde’s argument is the idea that typographers are mere servants of the author of the words. Warde carries the metaphor into a discussion of modernism (functionalism) versus traditionalism and refers to the individual who prefers the crystal goblet as a modernist who is concerned with how the goblet functions as opposed to the traditionalist who is concerned with appearance of the goblet (40).
Given that the essay is still being cited and read today attests to its relevance as a concise manifesto for functionalism. However, does that mean that functionalism is necessarily the best doctrine for today’s typographers? Michael Rock claims that both the functionalist and the traditionalist sides of the debate are missing the point and that is—should good design only be concerned with content (n.pag.). The author calls for a greater acceptance of the typographer as an artist in the shaping of the message of the text. According to Rock, design education is based on the acceptance of a natural division of form and content and that in good design, form must follow function. It is Rock’s contention that it is form and not content that is the driving force behind innovations in design. However, the typographer is not completely in charge. Although the stylistic choices regarding type shape the content, the choices the typographer makes are shaped by the social context.
In their brief review typographical history from Warde’s day to the digital present, Bachfischer and Robertson comment that reading, as in deciphering a glyph, may not be the only way to experience text (8). If the intent is to solely convey a narrative, then Warde’s crystal goblet is remains an appropriate metaphor. However, current software allows us to instantly manipulate text so that typography is interactively experienced rather than merely read.
Both Rock and Bachfischer and Robertson argue against the preference for style as a crystal goblet. The issue that is not addressed by Warde, Rock, or Bachfischer and Robertson is whether it is even useful today to debate whether form and content should dominate in good design, but rather accept the fact that typographer and author are both responsible for promoting the meaning of the words.
Works Cited
Bachfischer, Gerhard, and Toni Robertson. “From Movable Type to Moving Type - Evolution in
technological mediated Typography.” n.d. 1-13. Web. March 27, 2016. <http://research.it.uts.edu.au/idhup/wordpress/
wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Bachfischer_AUC2005.pdf>.
Michael Rock. “Fuck Content.” 2x4. 2009. n. pag. Web. March 26, 2013. <http://2x4.org/ideas/2/fuck-content>.
Warde, Beatrice. “The Crystal Goblet, or Why Printing Should Be Invisible.” (1930). Rpt. in Graphic Design Theory: Readings from the Field. Ed. Helen Armstrong. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009. 39-43. Print.
