Hairlines: Contrast of Thick and Thin

[AndyT]

A particularly interesting thread.  A few observations (please forgive me for not quoting):

The whole business of the aesthetic desirability or otherwise of fine hairlines is entirely subjective: I predicted that it would all wind up in a stramash, didn't I?  Having seen original work by most of the American Golden Age big guns, I like 'em, but that's neither here nor there.  What is objectively true is that a sharp contrast between light and shade has long been prized in the American handwriting tradition, to the extent that nibs for the purpose were developed here in the UK for the US export market.  Those old masters undoubtedly expended a great deal of effort practising hairline techniques for Ornamental Penmanship, and the delicacy often seems superhuman.  What never comes out in reproductions other than photographs is that those "hairlines" are not usually monoline, but are in fact subtly shaded, with great consistency.

There are many references in the American literature to the need for speedy execution in order to eliminate the "wabbles", as CP Zaner calls them.  That's the point of all those oval drills.  That sort of gestural work seems very uncommon in Western calligraphy before the 20th century, and has very little in common with the kind of thing produced by, say, van de Velde or the Universal Penman artists.  You do see something of the sort in some of the brisker European manuscripts of the later medieval period (British Library MS Harley 1319 is quite a good example).  Whether it appeals is a matter of personal taste, of course.

It's perhaps worth mentioning in passing that the pointed pen stock in trade of the Golden Age penmen was overwhelmingly one-off documents, signature cards and so forth - not camera-ready artwork for reproduction.  (It's not so clear-cut with engrossing).  Frankly the Madarasz book, to take an obvious example, is a bit of a dog's breakfast when it comes to reproducing the nuances, a fact which is acknowledged in the preface.

Concerning Platt Rogers Spencer, his handwriting represents a transitional phase if you ask me: still written with a quill and not yet semi-angular.  In fact it's probably best regarded simply as his own personal style.  What we now call Spencerian is, if I remember correctly, to be attributed mostly to Lyman Spencer.  The forms evolved somewhat during the Spencer Brothers period, but in my opinion the only source anyone needs to learn Spencerian is a couple of pages from one of the textbooks: take your pick.  (Dunton's is rather good, actually).  This is in contrast to Ornamental Penmanship - so often muddled up with Spencerian nowadays - where there is no definitive reference.  Which is as it should be: "artistic penmanship" is a better term, really, but it never caught on.

Finally, talking of quills, they're as flexible as you want them to be.  A heavily cured turkey feather with a short slit is pretty stiff, whereas a softish goose quill with a long slit is like a sable paintbrush.  The latter was the tool of choice for producing versals, by the way, which is more a matter of painting, I suppose - the medium was minium or egg tempera rather than ink, after all.  Estefa is quite right: a quill can outperform any metal pen ... but they're temperamental little blighters and it's no wonder the steel pen magnates got rich so quickly.

[Ken Fraser]

But the Zanerian and the thick thicks and thinny thins... pure YUM! 

I've gone back to have a second look, as I respect your opinion.

No...it doesn't do it, for me. The hairlines are too fine in relation to the heavy downstrokes and the difference is too great to be attractive. A whole page written liked that, would be quite difficult to read. Slightly stronger hairlines would make all the difference IMO.

Ken

[sybillevz]

This is a very interesting conversation and, well I can't help but come and add my little grain of salt...

I must admit that when I started to get more interested in calligraphy, I was not very attracted by the very thin hairlines of the "golden age OP masters". I thought - and still think - that they hinder legibility, especially for my european eyes. And I'm convinced that legibility should always be a scribe's first priority. I love reading too much to accept that I can't read the words written on modern artistic pieces of art, for example... I find that extremely frustrating ! I learned paleography (on dutch documents....) and that probably makes me more capable to decipher handwritings than the average person is, but I'm frustrated when I have to work hard when it comes to reading  .

That being said, I really began to get mesmerized by the light strokes of masters when I started learning advanced spencerian script and OP capitals with Harvest Crittenden.
Some things require great skills, and perfectly mastered hairline strokes are undoubtedly the result of great skill.
I can do light hairlines, even barely visible hairlines..., but the OP masters' hairlines have something that makes them so much more graceful and perfect. Just like Andy said : it's the combination of subtle shades and hairy lines, combined with amazingly consistent oval forms that makes those hairlines so perfect. The lightness of the stroke in itself is not that impressive... But the consitency of the "secondary" shades expertly placed on perfect spencerian ovals dividing each other in perfect places... That's just brilliant !

Also, I need to point out that OP actually requires very very thin hairlines in some cases : when the hairline has to cross the words or the capital shape in itself, legibility will not be as good if the hairline is too visible. There are examples of signatures in Michael Sull's volume 2 where you can see a hairline crossing the words, forming an S shape (horizontal) around the design. It looks beautiful in the book, but when I see other people trying the same kind of design, it's just not working out (most of the time). The hairline has to be very very light and perfectly shaped in order to be only seen as a decorative element. The level of skill needed is outstanding, and it obviously takes time to get there !

I don't mean to be rude, and I sincerely hope I'm not, but when I see Ken's spencerian, I can see that he does not like that script as much as he likes Copperplate. It looks great in its form, but it lacks the grace and, well lightness and inspiration, of the master's specimens... I think this might be about control : copperplate is done slowly and requires a great amount of control. I think drills are not very useful to be able to make the letterforms, it's all about repeating the same movements consistently (flourishing is something else).
For Ornamental Penmanship, drills are needed to get consistency and confidence. The most important drill is repeating the oval shape, in all sizes and directions, so that you don't need to think about the shape you're doing when you're writing, you can think about connecting the words, about spacing each stroke perfectly, and you can quickly come up with seemingly complicated designs without even worrying about the end result... Control is not as important as in copperplate, but practice, study and inspiration will make all the difference.
I could compare this to litterature : it would be the difference between a good book written with correct grammar and some inspired paragraphs and a book where words just seem to flow effortlessly, poetically, and perfectly...

This is what makes OP so fascinating to me, not just the light hairlines...

[Ken Fraser]

I don't mean to be rude, and I sincerely hope I'm not, but when I see Ken's spencerian, I can see that he does not like that script as much as he likes Copperplate. It looks great in its form, but it lacks the grace and, well lightness and inspiration, of the master's specimens... I think this might be about control : copperplate is done slowly and requires a great amount of control. I think drills are not very useful to be able to make the letterforms, it's all about repeating the same movements consistently (flourishing is something else).

Good points , well made and of course, I take no offense.

I have admitted, on a couple of occasions, that I am no lover of Spencerian Script and I have made the point that you don't have to like it, to be able to write it.

The opinion that I write it as though I'd rather be writing Copperplate, has been made before.  I know that this is totally subjective, but I genuinely feel that my Spencerian Script looks OK and is, in fact, as good as most examples, old and new, out there.

(How's that for conceit!)

[Brush My Fennec]

I genuinely feel that my Spencerian Script looks OK and is, in fact, as good as most examples, old and new, out there.

(How's that for conceit!)

I remember that you mentioned in a previous post on here that you retouch your work before posting it: "I have always retouched and edited my work [...] I use pen, scalpel, eraser, white gouache, black ink and anything else which may do the job. I admit that I did dabble for a time with computer retouching". So I'm curious to know: what did that Spencerian piece you have posted look like before retouching, editing and suchlike?

The reason I'm curious is because I especially ornamental penmanship and Spencerian with 'natural' (as it were) work which is unretouched and certainly many of the finest examples of OP from the golden age are unretouched and I always prefer to compare like with like when it comes to calligraphy, and you did say that you feel your Spencerian is as good as most examples including old ones.

[Ken Fraser]

This piece was written a while ago, and to the best of my memory, there's wasn't much retouching - it didn't need it.
However, having said that, it would probably have been retouched to some extent however small, as this is my normal practice.
With this one, I think that I re-positioned some of the words to improve spacing, but little else. The lettering was fine.

Possibly of more significance was the fact that it was written very slowly, as is my normal practice.

As long as it was hand-done, to me it makes no difference how it was achieved, the only thing that matters is how it looks on paper.
I still retouch mainly by hand; for some perverse reason, I resist using the computer for this purpose.

I have no interest in work produced with fonts, pretending to be hand-written.

Ken

[Brush My Fennec]

I think that I re-positioned some of the words to improve spacing, but little else.

Ah, interesting thanks. How did you re-position the words? Was it with a scalpel and glue perhaps? Also how did you make it so it doesn't look like there was re-positioning of the words? 'cause I'd assume if it was a copy and paste with knife and glue for example that it'd be visible in a straight up scan or photograph. Also, was there any touching up with gouache, white out, ink or the like on the capital letters or the lower case t's, for example?

As long as it was hand-done, to me it makes no difference how it was achieved, the only thing that matters is how it looks on paper.
I still retouch mainly by hand; for some perverse reason, I resist using the computer for this purpose.

Hand-done is a very interesting term I think. Is 'hand-done' the same as 'calligraphy'? That raises philosophical questions I think! For example, if someone wrote out some calligraphic broad edge letters, but then photocopied them many times and used them to piece together words and eventually a whole page that appears to be calligraphy, is it actually calligraphy? I think one could argue that it was indeed 'hand-done', but calligraphy? I think the matter of how something was achieved it important, because terms like 'hand-done' are so vague that they could cover almost anything where someone did something using their hands.

[sybillevz]

The opinion that I write it as though I'd rather be writing Copperplate, has been made before.  I know that this is totally subjective, but I genuinely feel that my Spencerian Script looks OK and is, in fact, as good as most examples, old and new, out there.

(How's that for conceit!)

I can't disagree on the fact that your spencerian looks good in its form. I could maybe argue that it is not as angular as I like (an the capital I is not at its best ), but it's just me and I'm sure you copied one of the old time masters' style that suited your own taste, which is fine ! Of course, you make it look like you don't have to like the script to be able to write it.

You just get me wondering : what bugs me in your examples ? The form, consistancy, angle... all look good, almost perfect - better than what I can do, surely - but there is something missing. I don't think speed is an issue (slow and steady wins the race), neither is retouching (adding or perfecting shades is a common thing). I can only think of what we call "élan" in french. It's a combination of inspiration and absolute confidence in one's ability that gives some kind of charisma to a piece. It's what makes the difference between "very good" and "amazing".
You just don't put your whole heart in it and it shows. Your copperplate, on the other hand, does have that missing part.

I'd say this "élan" shows in the copperplate flourishes (or capital embelishments) and in spencerian "(h)air-lines"...

[AndyT]

A much higher resolution scan or - far better - a photograph would be more enlightening.

I can't remember who sent me the attached image, but I don't think it's available from the usual sources.  Anyway, D E Knowles' writing here is eccentric, but the Spencerian feel is spot on and the pen seems to have danced across the page.  To my mind this is a good example of the élan Sybille refers to, but I disagree about speed, which I think is essential to getting this sort of spontaneity and line quality.

[sybillevz]

Beautiful example !
Speed is one factor of course, and it certainly was an important one back in the day... But I'm not convinced that it is an absolute necessity when it comes to showing the "dance of the pen", although it certainly helps to get the spontaneity. What is the minimum speed needed in your opinion ? I go faster than when I'm copperplating, but I'm still very slow (slower than Schin, and probably a tiny bit faster than Barbara Calzolari in her "Berlin Calling" video : )

I think the key, then, is to not be obsessed by perfection. I can see a few imperfections in this letter by Knowles, but they're not bothering me at all, whereas the controled perfection of Ken's letterforms makes them too stiff for my own taste.

Speed takes away the need for absolute control and leaves place for such minor imperfections (the scribe's style really). I have to say that I'm torn between perfection and spontaneity / personality /...  when it comes to my own calligraphy, and this discussion leaves me thinking about which way I'm choosing when I practice. I guess my heart knows the answer, but my head is too stubborn to accept it 

[Ken Fraser]

I can see a few imperfections in this letter by Knowles, but they're not bothering me at all, whereas the controlled perfection of Ken's letterforms makes them too stiff for my own taste.

I can't argue with that, as a reasoned, subjective point of view.

However, I'll take it as a compliment - thank you! 

If I've achieved "controlled perfection" in my Spencerian writing = I'm happy!

[Ken Fraser]

Ah, interesting thanks. How did you re-position the words? Was it with a scalpel and glue perhaps? Also how did you make it so it doesn't look like there was re-positioning of the words? 'cause I'd assume if it was a copy and paste with knife and glue for example that it'd be visible in a straight up scan or photograph. Also, was there any touching up with gouache, white out, ink or the like on the capital letters or the lower case t's, for example?

Hand-done is a very interesting term I think. Is 'hand-done' the same as 'calligraphy'? That raises philosophical questions I think! For example, if someone wrote out some calligraphic broad edge letters, but then photocopied them many times and used them to piece together words and eventually a whole page that appears to be calligraphy, is it actually calligraphy? I think one could argue that it was indeed 'hand-done', but calligraphy? I think the matter of how something was achieved it important, because terms like 'hand-done' are so vague that they could cover almost anything where someone did something using their hands.

I found the original copy and I can confirm that there was no retouching to the lettering. The only modification was, as I remembered it, to the inter-word spacing in a couple of places. As you surmised, this was done by cutting and pasting the copy, re-positioning a millimetre or so to the side to balance the spacing. I then painted over the joins in white gouache, before scanning it, and the joins didn't show up.

In fact, I rarely retouch either of the two main handwriting styles - Spencerian and Cursive Italic. The reason being that as handwriting styles, a certain amount of deviation has to be expected and is acceptable. I don't believe that handwriting should be assessed in the same way as Calligraphy.

If I do retouch originals, there's a limit to the amount of time and effort I would spend on it as it's a tedious business. I might straighten a wayward ascender or increase or decrease the weight of a stroke or two - but nothing major. If a lot of time/work is involved, I'd rather start again. Fortunately, with experience gained over the years, I can now produce lettering which requires the minimum of retouching.

A lot of my work is on one-off projects such as scrolls, dedications in the frontispiece of books for presentation, and lettering on gold leaf tablets for art galleries.  Retouching in any of these cases is, of course, impossible. When the occasions arise when the work is for printing or duplication, I take the opportunity if necessary, to make minor, clean-up adjustments for improvement.

By "hand-done" I just meant not produced by computer fonts.

I apologise for my part in wandering off the original topic! To resume :-

With lettering produced by a flexible nib, hairlines are an integral part of a letter and equally as important as the broad strokes. I have no problem with the finest hairlines in themselves, but as an important part of the letter, they have to be easily seen for the purely practical reason of legibility.The example posted by AndyT may be attractive, but I can't believe that I'm the only one who finds it difficult to read. Surely, writing is first and foremost a system of communication.

Ken

[AndyT]

What is the minimum speed needed in your opinion ?

Crikey, that's a "how long is a piece of string?" sort of question, isn't it? 

The only high flying Ornamental penman I've watched "live" is Brian Walker, and I'd say that he works at the same sort of speed as Schin ... but it varies.  The larger the shape, the quicker he goes.  For lower case it's the sort of rhythmic push-pull muscular action you'd expect, but he slows down noticeably for ascender loops.

From the sublime to the ridiculous: I go at about the same rate as Schin for lower case but slower for capitals - which is completely the wrong way around but it's the best I can manage.  This stuff is not easy!  I'd really struggle to slow down to Barbara Calzolari's speed, and I don't see much sign of élan in the result.

The example posted by AndyT may be attractive, but I can't believe that I'm the only one who finds it difficult to read.

'Tis true, but of course it's a letter in the Ornamental mode from one professional penman to another.  I've said before that "artistic penmanship" was probably a better name for this sort of thing, but in this case it's "dude, check this out!" penmanship.  Showmanship in other words.  Funnily enough, it doesn't appear that these people felt any need to rein themselves in for the benefit of the postman, and there were some very fancy envelopes flying around the US in the decades around 1900.  So perhaps perceptions of legibility have changed.

Thought you might like the attached, Ken, which exhibits the same spontaneous quality but is much more restrained in design.  C E Doner is a personal favourite: very tasteful.

[jeanwilson]

My personal answer to the question about speed is this:
I always need to warm up which takes about 15 minutes, then I have about a half hour where everything is looking good (to me) and I get faster and faster until it starts to deteriorate and then I have to take a break. If I come back after a 15 minute break, it only takes a couple minutes to warm up again, then I get a good half hour or 45 minutes.

AndyT uses the word penmanship and the *hey, dude, look at this* is exactly where I like to go with penmanship - which is how I approach Spencerian. With calligraphy, I channel my inner robot and can maintain the consistency for much longer and don't need as much warm up time.

FOR ME, being able to work both ways: super controlled, as well as, as-fast-as-possible - is a logical extension of my fine art training where in drawing 101, you learn how to make exact renderings of what you see (slowly and carefully) -as well as- gestural drawing (fast and loose) which accesses a much more emotional, intuitive part of the artist.

You do not need fine art training to explore either side. But understanding that there are at least two ways to approach *putting words on paper* is helpful. In my classes, I have 3 categories, calligraphy, penmanship, and lettering. I share my own person definitions, but I recommend that students come up with their own. I prefer they enjoy the process and decide on labels and rules after they have some experience. I also assure them that my opinion is just one and they will no doubt run into others.

[Brush My Fennec]

I found the original copy

Might it be possible to see a picture of the original copy or a non-high contrast scan? You've said that you're confident that your Spencerian can stand up to what's out there including the old work, so I'd really be interested to see what it looks like as close to how it would if you saw it in person. I've seen work from the late 19th and early 20th century where there was no retouching and seen it in person even, so seeing some modern work which is said to be as high quality as that would be very interesting.

I might straighten a wayward ascender or increase or decrease the weight of a stroke or two - but nothing major

Hmmm, I'd personally count altering letters with ink and/or white out, as being major since one of the points, as it were, of calligraphy, is that it is writing as opposed to drawing, but I suppose if one is saying the work is 'hand-done' and not calligraphy then anything done by hand is acceptable.

I don't believe that handwriting should be assessed in the same way as Calligraphy.

Well, calligraphy means 'beautiful writing' and handwriting is writing. The idea that cursive styles like Spencerian and Italic are not calligraphy is a bit baffling to me because surely beautiful handwriting has one of the strongest claims to be calligraphy given the literal meaning of the word.

A lot of my work is on one-off projects such as scrolls, dedications in the frontispiece of books for presentation, and lettering on gold leaf tablets for art galleries.  Retouching in any of these cases is, of course, impossible.

It's not impossible if you scan it and then retouch the scan though! I remember you retouched something you did which the queen signed, and you moved her majesty's signature about a bit, which is probably practically treason or something