For the love of all this is holy, do not read this article. If the internet has taught has anything, it's that you cannot unsee an image - I predict you will not be able to unsee upside-down H's (and even an S) post-reading. Save yourself.
That is hidden behind a paywall. The curious part of me wants to know what the guy said, but the logical part of me knows it was likely little more than “oops”.
The article makes clear that the orientation of the lettering has changed over time, which counts against the idea that what it is now necessarily reflects the original intent.
To me the evidence in the article still suggests that “hard correctness” is probably not historically appropriate…hand lettering is not a typeface.
That’s really where I am coming from — the perspective of historical architecture, historical architectural practice, and historical methods of delivering buildings.
In particular, today’s mythological Wright is not the 1908’s historical Wright on a commercial jobsite. And the contractual relationships of a 1908 construction project were not delineated like current construction projects.
For the love of all this is holy, do not read this article. If the internet has taught has anything, it's that you cannot unsee an image - I predict you will not be able to unsee upside-down H's (and even an S) post-reading. Save yourself.
ob. XKCD:
https://xkcd.com/1015/
part2: https://www.inconspicuous.info/p/the-man-behind-the-upside-d...
That is hidden behind a paywall. The curious part of me wants to know what the guy said, but the logical part of me knows it was likely little more than “oops”.
I was more bothered by the extraneous word spacing on the second line, between “and” and “the.” Is it just me?
I noticed that but I guess it's to avoid the vertical river.
I would not be surprised if the manufactured letters and their installation was based on hand hand drawn letters.
That it is not aesthetically obvious, suggests it was drawn that way and not a mistake. Good typography is subtle and bespoke typography even more so.
The article makes clear that the orientation of the lettering has changed over time, which counts against the idea that what it is now necessarily reflects the original intent.
Fair enough.
To me the evidence in the article still suggests that “hard correctness” is probably not historically appropriate…hand lettering is not a typeface.
That’s really where I am coming from — the perspective of historical architecture, historical architectural practice, and historical methods of delivering buildings.
In particular, today’s mythological Wright is not the 1908’s historical Wright on a commercial jobsite. And the contractual relationships of a 1908 construction project were not delineated like current construction projects.