![]() ![]() Moreover, “when the model for an adaptation extends back further than the previous technological or cultural phase, then we speak of revival rather than adaptation” 1 Although suggestive, this explanation seems to fall in a simplistic way by distinguishing those terms only for the amount of time between original and remake, whereas it is suspected here that those terms might imply interventions of different nature. Thus Charles Bigelow and Jonathan Seybold proposed a distinction between ‘revival’ and ‘adaptation’, saying that the Humanist revived the Roman capitals and the Carolingian script, while the first printers adapted the Humanist bookhand. could be taken as implying slightly or dramatically different attitudes facing historical models. Terms like imitation, inspiration, adaptation, translation, re-interpretation, redesign, echo, homage, revision, remix, restoration, recreation, rendition, resurrection, etc. But in fact apart from ‘revival’ some other terms have been also employed, perhaps to more clearly qualify their particular approach. The concept of ‘revivalism’ could be thus understood as the process of merely converting or translating one design for different, newer devices. Like a tightrope walker on the line of technological changes, by its nature type design immediately compels us to better define the term ‘revival’, since (as usually pointed out) the whole history of typography can be seen as a series of successive and quite ephemeral adaptations to new technologies.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |