in Scheizer Graphische Mitteilungen, Number 4, 1946.
Recently, one of the well-known typographic theorists remarked that the "neue typografie,"
which had enjoyed increasing popularity from 1925 until 1933 in Germany, had been primarily
used for printed advertising matter and that it was obsolete today; for the design of normal
printed matter, such as books and, above all, literary works, it is unsuitable and should be
abandoned.
This either comes from an earlier advocate of the
direction now under attack or from a fashionable convert, when they themselves have lost their
vigor and belief in the future, and retreat back to the "tried and true." Fortunately there are
always young forces who don't blindly surrender to such argumentation and who look forward to
the future. They search unwaveringly for new possibilities and furthere develop the principles
already gained.
We witness opposing currents in every area, above all in the arts. We know painters, who, after
an interesting beginning that logically arises out of a contemporary view of the world, began to
express themselves later in reactionary forms. Above all we know this development in
architecture, where instead of following available progressive knowledge and further developing
architecture, decorative solutions are sought on the one hand while opening up to each and
every reactionary undertaking on the other hand, the most striking of which we know all too well
by the name "heimatstil" [vernacular style].
All these people claim to have taken that which was present in 1930 at the onset of a new
development and to have developed it furtehre t oa modern direction valid today. They glance
haugtily down upon (in their view), "those left behind," since for them the questions and
problems of progress are settled until a new fashionable manifesto is found.
Nothing is easier today than realizing that these people are fooling themselves, just as we
repeatedly did in the course of the last few years. They fell victim to clever "propaganda culture"
and became proponents of a direction which has conspicuously led to a debacle, above all a
political one. They represented themselves as "progressive" and unknowingly became the
victims of a spiritual infiltration useful to every reactionary current. Nothing could be worse today
than to continue to intellectually support those followers of "progress." Instead, their right should
be taken away to defame those who have also offered resistance in the intellectual-artistic area,
further developing their theories and the resulting work, as in typography.
Few professions are so receptive to simple schematic rules, with which they can work with
maximum safety, than that of the typographer. He who produces this "recipe" and understands
how to surround it with the appearance of being right, determines the direction which holds
sway for a time over typography. One must clearly keep this in mind when viewing the current
state of things, above all in Switzerland.
All these people claim to have taken that which was present in 1930 at the onset of a new
development and to have developed it furtehre t oa modern direction valid today. They glance
haugtily down upon (in their view), "those left behind," since for them the questions and
problems of progress are settled until a new fashionable manifesto is found.
Nothing is easier today than realizing that these people are fooling themselves, just as we
repeatedly did in the course of the last few years. They fell victim to clever "propaganda culture"
and became proponents of a direction which has conspicuously led to a debacle, above all a
political one. They represented themselves as "progressive" and unknowingly became the
victims of a spiritual infiltration useful to every reactionary current. Nothing could be worse today
than to continue to intellectually support those followers of "progress." Instead, their right should
be taken away to defame those who have also offered resistance in the intellectual-artistic area,
further developing their theories and the resulting work, as in typography.
