In keeping with the theme of fakes and fanatics we spoke to one of Australia’s most prominent exponents of typography; Stephen Banham. Stephen has developed a reputation as one of the most dedicated campaigners for the imaginative use of typography in the Australian design community believing that typography is a reflection of our imagination and society as a whole. He believes that type should bean integral part of culture, rather than a merely aesthetically pleasing arrangement. Over the years he has amassed a collection of typographic samples of this culture from a diverse range of sources. Things as eclectic as betting slips through to notes left on car windscreens. Stephen has released numerous typographic publications, including the exploration of typographic urban myths; Fancy In response to a series of questions, Banham deliberated on the notions of the fake and the fanatic, drawing from his own experiences together with the broader philosophies of graphic design.

The theme for the inaugural edition of Typotastic is the concept of Fakes and Fanatics. What are your thoughts on each of these within the Held of typography? Can you think of any designers today who you believe fit the role of either a Fake or Fanatic?
As the field of interest, typography has a rich esoteric vein running through it, communities form around aspects of typography and type design. Within these communities I would certainly say that there are fakes and fanatics but it depends on how you would define these Fanatics – well, that’s pretty straightforward. Many a fanatic has come to me after a talk and starting speaking of type as though it has become the spiritual basis of their lives I don’t mean to sound like a moderate but whilst this deep felt passion is great their love of type and graphic design has to be seen within a broader context social cultural and political (that’s what the Character forums are all about) After all type is dependent on content; otherwise we would just be producing type specimens. Passions run high in this pursuit. Fakes – well it depends on what they’re faking. Most of the faking that goes on is centred about the integrity of the content. Until we have a degree of autonomy in this aspect of our work the faking will continue.

In a way the obvious passion you display for type could classify you as a Fanatic. Would you agree with this? Are there any examples from your past that highlight this dedication. Or conversely if you disagree any examples that reveal you as a fake?
The word passion is probably closer to it now. In the late eighties I spent three months hand kerning photocopies of typefaces on my kitchen table whereas I wouldn’t feel the need to do that now. It was good technical practice but just an exercise in the end. The longer I have been doing this the more I scope out and see things for what they are. It s a method I use in relaxing whenever I feel stressed I imagine an overhead view of myself worrying, then the whole room, the whole floor, the whole building, the whole street, the whole city etc. As a typographer this micro/macro aspect is important. The micro is the miniscule detail of typography, the macro is the purpose behind it all. When you have the ability to see both these perspectives the work becomes more meaningful for you and the reader.

You have commented in the past on how you believe that type reflects the vitality of our imaginations. Could you develop this point a little?
Well that was the entire basis of the Fancy project. In type design (and graphic design) we tend to get very pragmatic. Creating stones (true or not) lends a greater sense of possibility. What if? is a question that a lot of graphic designers don t seem to ask after a while. In this aspect the advertising industry is perhaps conceptually more flexible than design. A few months after Fancy came out it was funny to see ad for a telecommunications company featuring birds forming words in the sky (one of the stories in Fancy). I don’t know if the two were linked but you begin to see these associations.

Your publication Fancy investigates both true and fictitious stories which report on type used in a variety of non-conventional ways. Are there any similar stories that you have come across regarding individual typefaces themselves?
Well, that may be another book in itself Fancy was deliberately centred on type as a curious visual language and storytelling rather than specific typefaces. It’s that micro/macro idea again. If we zoom out of the fact that they are typefaces and we see them as cultural signifiers, then they have another life altogether.

It’s a commonly held notion today that the role of the typographer; the designer dedicated solely to the arrangement of type, has almost died out in this digital age. Do you agree? Do you believe that typography in design is suffering as a consequence?
That notion is a myth (or a fake) in itself I’m still here and so are my colleagues so I guess that proves that theory wrong. Sure, the tools of production are different and ever changing but we still go through the same design and thinking processes that Frederic Goudy or WA Dwiggins would have gone through (we just can’t draw as well). After a questionably prolific period in the l990’s, type designers are once again turning their attention to text faces and more extended glyph sets and families—these are encouraging and exciting times indeed.