Thoughts on Serif vs Sans Serif fonts for determining how real a piece feels?

[_katerina]

To elaborate, a friend of mine and I got into a conversation about fonts during the design of a WIP box mockup experiment I was playing with, attached below.

To get to the point at hand, they described a sensation that Sans Serif represents things that lack tangibility or a sense of being real, leading to them feeling as if those things are less important, forgettable, etc. I find it interesting conceptually, and don't necessarily disagree to an extent, but I'm curious as to how common that perspective actually is.

To kind of add on top of this, if that sense exists for you, do you find yourself using either font type more often as a result of it?

 

[jadd]

I don't think I get this feeling at all. To me sans vs serif is more about modernity vs tradition. For example street signs in my country used to be in serif but then around the mid 70s it got switched to sans.
I tend to only gravitate to sans fonts to evoke this feeling of progress and hopefulness. But maybe I can see why it could be seen as not real: in a way it reminds us about an utopia that never really fully materialized.
I tend to explore this subject a lot in my productions, people back then were adamant to imagine and build a radically different society although their vision was slightly shortsighted and corrupted by capitalistic endeavors.

 

[Andrew]

To get to the point at hand, they described a sensation that Sans Serif represents things that lack tangibility or a sense of being real, leading to them feeling as if those things are less important, forgettable, etc.

From an art history perspective I'd disagree w/ that which is emphasized here, though I certainly find it interesting on an emotional level. Helvetica's arguably the most recognizable & popular Sans Serif typeface in the world & was designed entirely pre-digital, yet all the same it's what I consider the clean, modern, digital type. (One peek @ the desktopGeneration wordmark will betray my thoughts on this)

Additionally interesting to me is that there is a style of type that I look at and go "aha! not real!" and it's some type designs that I would go as fall as calling "neo-serif" in a sense. They're incredibly fancy type displays that usually are presented with a retro flair that's accurate to memory alone. (Note: not a bad thing.)
They're absolutely gorgeous work, but not adopted commercially at large / designed with usability or accessibility in mind (this contributes to the prior point) / completely, totally digital. Helvetica had to be delivered via Letraset sheets and had real world limitations it existed in & worked within. These do not, and are entirely free from those shackles. Quite fond of them, but that lack of commercial adoption & development only within artistic circles has put them in a specific corner of my mind lol.

 

[Transendium]

"sensation that Sans Serif represents things that lack tangibility or a sense of being real, leading to them feeling as if those things are less important, forgettable, etc."

I honestly think that, serif or sans, it really depends on what you need the font to achieve in the end. Personally I don't see sans serif fonts as "lacking tangibility"; far from it, in fact, because I absolutely see lots of real signage and contexts sans serif fonts work better to convey Vibes (using vibes very loosely here) than serif fonts.

maybe I don't really anthropomorphise fonts as "tangible" or "real" as much as your friend does

 

[ethos]

Adding onto what some others have said about the historical side, Serif fonts didn't really take off until the Renaissance with the printing press - they're used because they help keep the reader's eyes aligned on something flexible like a piece of paper. I think that's where a lot of formal, classical connotations to serif fonts come from. It feels official, like it's something to be printed out or read in a long, paragraph form. Before the printing press, the ancient Romans used them to sort of clean up the chiseled ends of letters.

I think the "real" factor for me often comes in the form of typeface choice inside of a category. Like Times New Roman has been so overused when it became the default serif font for most word-processors in the 90s, so now it feels a bit lowbrow and noisy. While similar fonts like Garamond, Cambria, or Georgia bring back the "official" factor for me. Similarly the font Impact was destroyed when it became the top text/bottom text meme font throughout the 2010s so now I can't take anything else in impact seriously. Bebas Neue is so similar, but somehow more real when I see it on a poster.

Adding onto Andrew re: Helvetica as well, the original designs for Helvetica were different than the one that became the official typeface. The original designs were a bit more narrow fit to each other though didn't agree with most letterset presses so they needed to be adapted. But now we're using digital tools and can actually use the original intended design - Neue Haas Grotesk. It's a wonderful font that to me reads like Helvetica but just adding on a level of attention to composition.

 

[_katerina]

All good points!
My interpretation was kind of through the lens of tech-pessimism, where a lot of things are being kinda created from mediocrity machines or simulacra. I'm quite attached to Inter and Inter Tight as typefaces and have gotten some eh responses from said friend for using it due to the immersion in the digital. They did follow this up with asking if the font in use was Helvetica or closer to Myriad Pro (It's Metropolis Extra Light :3), playing directly into the following:

Helvetica's arguably the most recognizable & popular Sans Serif typeface in the world & was designed entirely pre-digital, yet all the same it's what I consider the clean, modern, digital type...

...Additionally interesting to me is that there is a style of type that I look at and go "aha! not real!" and it's some type designs that I would go as fall as calling "neo-serif" in a sense. They're incredibly fancy type displays that usually are presented with a retro flair that's accurate to memory alone.

I definitely agree with this. I think Helvetica's fine to use especially due to that pre-digital context. You could argue it lacks identity *because* of that degree of use, but I think it's a perfect blank slate. To your point, @Andrew , when seeking fonts it admittedly feels kinda like I have to do a lot of combing when searching for type platforms. I don't think the 'neo-serif' fonts as described are necessarily bad either. I *do* really want to play with this more and seeing what the friend thinks of it when actually put into the abstract design environment.

I honestly think that, serif or sans, it really depends on what you need the font to achieve in the end. Personally I don't see sans serif fonts as "lacking tangibility"; far from it, in fact, because I absolutely see lots of real signage and contexts sans serif fonts work better to convey Vibes (using vibes very loosely here) than serif fonts.

Precisely, @Transendium !

maybe I don't really anthropomorphise fonts as "tangible" or "real" as much as your friend does

I'm starting to think it's a flavor of burnout on digital design, which, fair. I'll have to ask and check up on them.

I think the "real" factor for me often comes in the form of typeface choice inside of a category. Like Times New Roman has been so overused when it became the default serif font for most word-processors in the 90s, so now it feels a bit lowbrow and noisy.
...
Similarly the font Impact was destroyed when it became the top text/bottom text meme font throughout the 2010s so now I can't take anything else in impact seriously.

Genuinely. Seeing Impact in cyber and meatspace kinda gives me this weird backlash effect everytime I see it now. It's a fine font but I can't undo the internet brainpoison inflicted upon me 🤷‍♀️

But now we're using digital tools and can actually use the original intended design - Neue Haas Grotesk. It's a wonderful font that to me reads like Helvetica but just adding on a level of attention to composition.

If I found it correctly, it's a wonderful implementation and I might give this a bit of a shake, depending on what the licensing is like. Thanks for bringing it to my attention @ethos ! :D