Drone is not necessarily a font I would use when designing, no matter what the subject matter. After analysing this font and other work from Barnbrook I cannot help but feel his stance in any modernism/post-modernism debate would be firmly aligned with the post side. Drone, and the many other typefaces he has designed all have key links to post-modernist beliefs concerning type; it should not only be a means to present and showcase textual information, but to add to it aesthetically.

“It’s hard to evaluate [Helvetica], it’s like being asked what you think about off-white paint” Johnathan Hoefler, Helvetica film, Gary Hustwit (2006, 3 min). Originally first conceptualised as a modernisation of radical sans serif font Akizendz- Grotesk in 1957 at the Haas Type Foundry in Switzerland by Max Miedinger and Eduard Hoffmann, Helvetica has since become arguably the most recognisable and familiar typeface in the world. Used throughout the late 1950s and 1960s in the US and Europe as a tool for reimagining the old, dull, pre-war notions of advertising and corporate identity, the font spearheaded the modernist movement at its peak in those times. Over time, through its global appeal, the font has taken over the world’s view of logos, posters, signs, transportation systems (NYC Subway) and computer operating systems (Apple Max OS X) amongst a whole host of other uses. Whilst not the first sans serif font of its kind to be designed from the Swiss-led typography movement in post-war Europe, Helvetica is today seen as the ultimate, conclusive development of sans serif fonts. Tobias Frere-Jones, of acclaimed type design firm Hoefler & Frere-Jones states that “there’s a feeling of finality to it”, while US designer Michael Bierut claims the font “seems to be unfixable” - Helvetica film, Gary Hustwit (2006). With the majority of the world viewing the font as perfect, it is easy to see why it has encapsulated the design world so much since its inception. One major example of this ‘unimprovable’ mentality is the American Airlines logo. Remaining the same for over 40 years, today it can still be found plastered along their aircraft fleet in the original Helvetica Bold.

On a design level the typeface itself is incredibly ordinary, as it was initially designed with a focus on legibility, readability and the idea of producing a neutral, practical font that the early modernist designers were craving at the time. With its clean-cut, geometric curves the font embodies the common conception of modern, contemporary 21st century life. It is heavily uniform with each individual letter lending its basic design principles to one another, be it the link between the lower- case H and N or the D and B. The typeface has come to represent everything a commercial font should stand for: clear, legible, uniform and organised. Even in comparison to Drone’s weight titles Helvetica features the traditional Thin, Regular, Italic, Extra-Bold et al.

Upon its initial incarnation Helvetica may well have been intended to simply showcase, present and organise the textual content it held, something few designers would try to achieve through the use of Drone, such as for a index or contents page. Because of the ubiquitous nature of Helvetica it can be applied to any designers work and seem fit for purpose whatever the subject matter. The same cannot be said of Barnbrook’s Drone which, whilst heavy in personality, does not have a specific genre of design or use it seems perfect for.

One negative effect of the overuse of Helvetica is the rise of standardisation, which can play into fears of globalisation. With the font all around us, it becomes difficult to identify certain brands and a sense of uniqueness is lost within design at times. Typographer Erik Spiekermann, for instance, believes “You would recognise the Marlboro brand two miles away because they use a typeface only they use… If they used Helvetica it wouldn’t work.” Helvetica film, Gary Hustwit (2006, 40 min). Such a notion only fuels the idea that fonts of a unique, bespoke nature such as Drone, rather than Helvetica, should be used within design when trying to achieving something new, exciting and apart from anything else previously designed.

One of the great assets of Helvetica that is available to designers is the ideology of taking such a font with its preconceived notion of familiarity and predictability and transforming it into something different and distinctive. Essentially graphic design could be interpreted as creating the extraordinary out of the ordinary so why not apply the same view to type. Instead of beginning with a blank canvas, why not use the already smudged canvas with the intention of breathing unique life into it.

The two fonts, Drone and Helvetica, essentially exemplify the debate between modernist and post-modernist designers. Drone with its abstract, unique approach to type breaks all the rules previously set by the regimental, omnipresent Helvetica. Wim Crouwel, the Dutch modernist designer believes “the meaning is in the content of the text, not the typeface” Helvetica film, Gary Hustwit (2006, 12min), such a view on type would deem Helvetica perfect for neutrally displaying any message and letting the words speak for themselves. Post-modernists designers such as David Carson believe the typography can feature the same personality as illustration with each word representing its own definition.

In this comparison, finding similarities in the two fonts was a difficult task. However, throughout the 90210 variation of Drone, several of the letters, in particular H, K, V and X appear similar to those found in the Thin Extended variation of Helvetica. These are subtle similarities, only reserved for individual letters, and the only ones I could find.

Overall, although short on similarities, these two fonts can be linked with one word: incomparable. In Drone, because of it unique, eccentric, radical, and illegible approach to type design and Helvetica due to its esteemed perfection, ubiquity and omnipresence the world over.