Interview with Peter Bilak (by Prue Barber)
October 1999

Do you feel that legibility of type has been lost due to technology?
Technology has always had a crucial influence on the type development. If you look back in the history you can see that the industrial revolution in the late 18th and early 19th century confused type designers and typographers for decades. Because of the major innovations (high speed steam presses, invention of photography, improved quality of paper and plates) designers passionately embraced decoration and ornament. This resulted in an opinion that design and ornament were identical.
So technology development has had paradoxical consequences on typography. On one hand one would expect improved legibility thanks to the new technical possibilities, on the other designers focus on the technology itself rather than on the real purpose-communication.

What do you think of recent designers rejection of the modernist design value? ie. structured grids, uniformity etc.
I am not sure I understand the “recent” rejection in this question. The refusal of modernist ideas in graphic design started in the 60s and continued more radically in the late 70s. What we see today is a another reaction to the design history. It was triggered by the introduction of personal computer, and some sociological changes of cultural climate. Because the recent development of graphic design can be understood as a mere temporary style, we can expect new trends (perhaps reflecting the modernist ideas) coming soon.

Do you feel illegible or creative type engages the reader or tempts them to put it down? In what context do you feel creative typography can be adapted? and to be understood?
Type alone has a potential to communicate complex ideas. The context/situation in which type is used is central to any decision taken by the designer. The designer is responsible (and trained) for making the most appropriate choice of means of expression for content of an assignment. Sensitive use of those means can help to engage the reader more intensively in the process of reading. Designer’s intervention can also visually enrich the content and perhaps (quite ambitiously) to bring more values for the reader.
The terms illegible and creative typography, however, should not be interchangeable. Creative typography can also be nearly invisible. Martin Majoor, the Dutch typographer, designed a typeface for the Dutch PTT used in telephone directories. He also introduced new ideas in organising a huge amount of data. This is what I understand as a creative solution in typography which makes information more accessible and this has nothing to do with “illegibility”.

How do you feel we'll move forward in creative typography?
I don’t think we need to spend time thinking what is the “next big thing”...If we focus on the communicative aspect of design, new solutions will necessarily come because of the developments in other interconnected fields. My best work was done not when i wanted to experiment with graphic design but when i had an assignment in which i could really get involved with the project, talk to clients about their needs and concerns. Projects themselves must inspire designer’s action; it is not necessary to look in the centuries of design history and future trend books.