Why Spencerian?

[Ken Fraser]

To each his/her own!

Well quite.  Differences of opinion about aesthetics are healthy enough, and I've made it pretty clear in the past that copperplate does nothing for me - that implies no disrespect for the practitioners.

... it's certainly much more forgiving and therefore easier to do than English Roundhand which requires far more disciplined control of the nib's flexibility.

I'm going to take issue with that, though.  You're comparing apples with oranges, Ken - Spencerian is a business hand with shading options, intended to be written at speed.  We're back to the spontaneity / precision thing again, and it's the former which is fundamental to Spencerian and its ornamental variants - in my opinion.  It all rather depends on what level you're aiming for.

I am lucky enough to have seen original examples by most of the big Golden Age names, and they all have that dashy quality which cannot be obtained laboriously, except in the sense of having to practice for years.  I also have letters from Brian Walker which display the same flair and lightness of touch - having seen him in action I can report that he dashes these things off with no preparation and using only a single baseline for guidance.  You could put that down to indiscipline, but he'd probably say that it was down to twenty years of hard work on the style, and half a century as a calligrapher.

Your points are well made.

However, as far as the appearance of lettering is concerned, all that really matters in the end, is how it looks on paper. How quickly or slowly it was written, is totally irrelevant.
The "Apples and Oranges" may begin life differently with different objectives, but they both still end up being judged and appraised for their appearance on paper.

Also, in my opinion, with skilled hands, it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to tell if that "dashy quality" was achieved quickly or slowly. Being able to write quickly, is not necessarily a virtue. Spencerian is a far less disciplined style of writing than Copperplate which cannot be written quickly.

Fortunately, with half a century as a calligrapher, I don't have to like it to be able to write it!

[AndyT]

Your example, which strikes me as strongly reminiscent of Earl Lupfer's as reproduced in Zaners "Lessons in Ornamental Penmanship" book, is highly professional and does you credit.  Almost certainly your chosen method of reproduction belies the quality of your work, which, as it stands, has the look of Spencerian as written by someone who would far rather be writing copperplate.

This is not something we're going to agree on, Ken.  In my opinion there is a vast difference between the two styles, and what is desirable in the one is detrimental to the other.  I am not prepared to reproduce Mr Walker's work here without his express permission, but below is a photograph of a signature card by Lupfer.  (The total length of the inscription is 2¾" / 70mm approx).  It is my contention that delicacy of this order simply cannot be achieved by accuracy alone without brisk whole arm movement, and furthermore that Spencerian and its ornamental derivatives in their highest expression are essentially gestural in character. 

[Ken Fraser]

In my opinion there is a vast difference between the two styles, and what is desirable in the one is detrimental to the other. 

We certainly agree about that. In fact, besides the fact that the writing equipment and materials are the same, everything is different. There is nothing in Spencerian letter construction which is anything like that in Copperplate.



You are right in that my Spencerian is not written at a rapid pace. In fact, "dashy" anything is contrary to my nature. I don't believe that being careful and precise is detrimental to the quality of my work. I believe in taking my time.

I don't understand your comment that your work (...) has the look of Spencerian as written by someone who would far rather be writing copperplate. In my opinion, my Spencerian doesn't remotely resemble my Copperplate.

[AndyT]

I don't understand your comment that your work (...) has the look of Spencerian as written by someone who would far rather be writing copperplate. In my opinion, my Spencerian doesn't remotely resemble my Copperplate.

Well, at every point I've been doing my utmost emphasise my respect for your abilities Ken, so I hope you're not feeling offended.  You've made it clear that Spencerian with all its "illogicality" isn't much to your taste (majuscules aside), so it's probably fair to say that you would rather be writing copperplate, no?  Your Spencerian looks very measured, consistent and "finished" - in those respects it's very like your roundhand, and in accord with your nature as you describe it.  I took it for granted that you'd realise that my point, imperfectly made as it may have been, is about manner of execution rather than the forms - yours are, of course, exemplary.

You should not take the aforegoing as criticism.  I was going to make a similar argument in more general, historical terms in the spontaneity / precision thread, and may still do so, except that it's gone off the boil whereas this one popped up again. 

[Erica McPhee]

Very interesting to read the different perspectives. If anyone reading along is interested, I posted an example of Brian Walker's Spencerian here.

[Jakmo1935]

I have been practicing calligraphy for 33 yrs.  I never cared for Copperplate as it always seemed too regimented, vertical black marks marching down the line.  For whatever reason I've just recently discovered Spencerian and find it one of the harder hands to master ( not that I have really mastered any of the hands that I do.).  There is more freedom in where and when to shade that gives it a more relaxed, flowing feeling to the script.
I enjoyed Brian's envelope very much.

[Ken Fraser]

I don't understand your comment that your work (...) has the look of Spencerian as written by someone who would far rather be writing copperplate. In my opinion, my Spencerian doesn't remotely resemble my Copperplate.

Sorry Andy, I misunderstood. The trouble with the written word is that it is so easily misinterpreted. 

[AndyT]

My fault for favouring the snappy phrase over being clear, Ken. 

[AndyT]

There is more freedom in where and when to shade that gives it a more relaxed, flowing feeling to the script.

That made me smile.  A few months ago Mr Walker included an essay on shading lower case letters in the Spencerian Review (this applies to ornamental forms rather than copybook Spencerian), and sure enough he delivered the goods because there was a set of ten commandments.  Followed immediately by the words "At the end of the day, it's all a matter of taste and judgment" and a brief discussion of the word "illustrate" and how it plays havoc with all the rules. 

[Ken Fraser]

I have been practicing calligraphy for 33 yrs.  I never cared for Copperplate as it always seemed too regimented, vertical black marks marching down the line.  For whatever reason I've just recently discovered Spencerian and find it one of the harder hands to master

Thank goodness for the differences of opinion between us, which keep this forum alive and interesting! 

I take the opposite view. To me, the consistent, even shading in Copperplate contributes largely to the elegant beauty of the script. I find it very relaxing unlike Spencerian with its spasmodic, illogical shading.

I found Spencerian much easier to learn as it's so much more forgiving of deviation than Copperplate which requires a very even touch and an accurate eye.

I first took an interest in Calligraphy at the age of thirteen......I'm now seventy six. 

Ken

[Ken Fraser]

Your example, which strikes me as strongly reminiscent of Earl Lupfer's as reproduced in Zaners "Lessons in Ornamental Penmanship" book, is highly professional and does you credit. 

I apologize for introducing a piece of Copperplate into the discussion, but it is relevant.

The words are by Spencerian E A Lupfer and the writing is mine.

(For the uninitiated, 'Roundhand' in this context means Copperplate.)

 

[Jakmo1935]

Thank goodness for the differences of opinion between us, which keep this forum alive and interesting! 

I take the opposite view. To me, the consistent, even shading in Copperplate contributes largely to the elegant beauty of the script. I find it very relaxing unlike Spencerian with its spasmodic, illogical shading.

I found Spencerian much easier to learn as it's so much more forgiving of deviation than Copperplate which requires a very even touch and an accurate eye.

I first took an interest in Calligraphy at the age of thirteen......I'm now seventy six. 

Ken

Yes! Thank goodness.  What you see as "spasmodic and illogic shading," I see as being given a choice of freedom within the script. What I see as regimented, with every downstroke shaded, you see as "elegant beauty."   As someone once said, "the only concession we have to make to conformity, is that we have to wear clothes."  I do not find Copperplate distasteful , it does have its beauty, which is apparent in its popularity . It's just not on my menu.

I have always admired your penmanship, in whatever hand you write. I have followed your work for years.

I first took interest in calligraphy when I was age forty seven.  I'm now 19 days short of being eighty.
[/quote]

[Ken Fraser]

I first took interest in calligraphy when I was age forty seven.  I'm now 19 days short of being eighty.

OK....you win !! 

[Jakmo1935]

My wife tells everyone I'm a wiener

[Milonguera]

Gentlemen,

I've enjoyed reading this exchange if for no other reason that it so clearly points out valid differences of opinion.  I'm only 1 year into learning this beautiful art form so my opinions come from a novice's eye. 

One thought is that it seems the beauty of copperplate lies in its precision while the beauty of Spencerian lies in its variety.  To think one better than the other is like thinking a Monet painting is better than  say, a Frank Gehry building--they're equally fascinating, but are enjoyed in different ways, and potentially, by different people.  Thank heaven for the diversity! 

The other thought is that both copperplate and Spencerian are forms of handwriting and much has been written about handwriting analysis.  Could it be that one form or the other is simply more attractive to predictably different temperaments? 

So far, I find the experience of doing both equally enjoyable, but they serve different purposes and moods.