A "stupid" Question About Spencerian

[MusinkMan]

Well this is going to be a stupid question, but I don't care. Maybe some kind soul on here will stop laughing long enough to tell me the answer and it will be worth my humiliation. :embarrassed_smile:

 

My question is...what are the defining traits of the Spencerian hand? I know that it is mainly little thin lines with dramatic bold lines accentutating...and some not-so-bold swells that make Spencerian such an attractive (to me) style. That wasn't a question was it? I'll try it again...the question is, what is the rule as to when and where the swelled strokes are placed? Surely there is some rhyme or rhythm to the method? Or is it simply a matter of "memorizing" where to place the swelled strokes?

 

Let me try to explain what I mean. If I'm writing an italic style with a broadpen, then it's pretty evident which lines will be "thick" and which lines will be "thin" because the angle of the pen shapes them. If lettering a Roman print witn this same pen, the same "laws" govern where the thick and thin lines will fall. On a Roman capital "M", the first downstroke (this / stroke) is thinner, the second one (this \ stroke) thick, etc. Because a broadpen held at a 45 degree angle sets the rule (so to speak). This makes it easy for me to remember how to place thick and thin lines. But Spencerian does not follow these "rules". I can't wrap my head around the "rule" that governs where to place the thick or swelled lines.

 

Is there a "rule" for this, or do I simply need to memorize that alphabet in that style?

 

So...there it is...stupid question from me. I will listen to what you guys say, because you are my only source of help. And since none of you know me in real life, I can risk a stupid question here and there. :-)

Edited January 15, 2013 by MusinkMan

[mboschm]

As far as I am concerned, "true" Spencerian, like the one found in the IAMPETH Manuals doesn't shade the lowercase letters, and only shades lightly ascenders and descenders. The "swelling" you mention is only found on capital letters.

Ornamental penmanship is another piece of cake, with dramatic swellings on ascenders and descenders, which look more or less like wedges.

 

Hope this helps.

[caliken]

As far as I am concerned, "true" Spencerian, like the one found in the IAMPETH Manuals doesn't shade the lowercase letters, and only shades lightly ascenders and descenders. The "swelling" you mention is only found on capital letters.

Ornamental penmanship is another piece of cake, with dramatic swellings on ascenders and descenders, which look more or less like wedges.

 

Hope this helps.

 

This is the basic Spencerian Script with light shading on certain elements of the lower case letters. Without the shading, it's known as Business Writing.

In Ornamental Spencerian, the lettering stays basically the same but there is additional decoration (flourishing) mainly, but not exclusively, to the Upper Case letters.

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd289/caliken_2007/Spencerianalphabet.jpg

Edited January 15, 2013 by caliken

[caliken]

The question is, what is the rule as to when and where the swelled strokes are placed? Surely there is some rhyme or rhythm to the method? Or is it simply a matter of "memorizing" where to place the swelled strokes?

 

There's nothing stupid about this question. This has bothered me also, for some time, and I'm glad that you raised it.

 

When P R Spencer devised the lettering, he evoked nature and its lack of regularity as a basic principle. He said -

 

Light letters, when properly formed, are in themselves beautiful; yet when combined, as on a written page, they produce a monotonous effect.

To break up the monotony, and produce something which will please the eye, and gratify the taste, light and dark lines should be mingled, so as to present an agreeable contrast.

Shade, however, not being essential to form, may be used, or omitted at the option of the writer.

The principles involved in the subject of shading are few, and their application depends mainly upon a right exercise of judgement and taste.

 

Michael Sull -

 

Thus it is that shading becomes a somewhat personal expression of emphasis by the penman. Some general rules of guidance must be maintained however, in order for beauty and a pleasing appearance to be achieved.

 

And here we come to my problem, and I suspect, yours as well.

 

I can write Spencerian, and I enjoy looking at it...but I still have great difficulty in coming to terms with the illogicality of it. I could undersand it, if it were just a case of adding shading as and when if felt right to 'break up the monotony' However, there are definite rules which make little sense to me. For example - why is the third downstoke of m shaded but never the first or second, instead? Why is the bottom half of f shaded but never the top? Although there are some decisions which are left to the writer..(which shades can be omitted, for example) the effect of the rules of this random shading, means that every letter has to be learned with or without its shade.

 

I think that the basic, monoline Business Writing script is very beautiful and I, personally, prefer it to the full Spencerian script.

 

All of this, of course, applies to the lower case letters. Spencerian Capitals, in the right hands, can be magnificent, miniature works of art IMO.

 

Ken

Edited January 15, 2013 by caliken

[caliken]

The question is, what is the rule as to when and where the swelled strokes are placed? Surely there is some rhyme or rhythm to the method? Or is it simply a matter of "memorizing" where to place the swelled strokes?

 

While we're on the subject, why was it felt necessary to attack the English Roundhand (Copperplate) script from which Spencerian script evolved?

 

P R Spencer -

 

Were all writing executed with heavy downward lines, as in the old-fashioned Roundhand (Copperplate), it would possess no more beauty than if the lines were uniformly light, since excess of shade as effectually destroys the contrast, as its entire omission.

 

I disagree. The even, consistent shading in Roundhand (Copperplate) contributes a great deal to its beauty.

 

It's interesting to note, that not all his followers agreed with him.

 

E. A. Lupfer, Principal Zanerian College Of Penmanship 1895 -

 

There is possibly no style of writing which is more

beautiful than roundhand, nor is there a style which

can be used appropriately in as many places.

 

 

 

 

Ken

Edited January 15, 2013 by caliken

[MusinkMan]

And here we come to my problem, and I suspect, yours as well.

 

I can write Spencerian, and I enjoy looking at it...but I still have great difficulty in coming to terms with the illogicality of it. I could undersand it, if it were just a case of adding shading as and when if felt right to 'break up the monotony' However, there are definite rules which make little sense to me. For example - why is the third downstoke of m shaded but never the first or second, instead? Why is the bottom half of f shaded but never the top? Although there are some decisions which are left to the writer..(which shades can be omitted, for example) the effect of the rules of this random shading, means that every letter has to be learned with or without its shade.

 

 

Ken

 

Yes yes yes...that is exactly what I was asking. Thank you for this insight! Now I have a "way of looking at it" if ya know what I mean? The examples you mentioned (the letters m and f) are perfect examples of the things that didn't make sense to me. I mean, I love the way it looks, but when I would try to "practice-copy" from an example...I would get all mixed up and the whole exercise became a laborious drawing/drafting session instead of a nice flowing script exercise. It became frustrating to me, because my practice pages definitely "looked like" a drafting/drawing/copying exercise. I could not get to that happy place, where I understood the principles of the script. I didn't have very high or unreal expectations because I seriously do realize that I'm totally untrained, but I never could make any sense of the "rules" of Spencerian. Roundhand made "sense", Roman made "sense", Chancery made "sense" (not that I'm good at any of those hands)...but Spencerian seemed to break all of those rules...yet to me it was beautiful to behold and I so wish I could write like that.

 

As always Ken, thank you for the explanation. Good stuff!!!!!

[Mickey]

I agree with Ken, the question is hardly stupid. I'm a retired, conservatory trained musician and I see Spencerian's malleability as a means of controlling the linear rhythm of the text (emphases or accents). In fact, it is the inherent musicality of Spencerian, both in appearance and process, which draws me to it.

 

Shades are in Spencerian, more than in Copperplate, emphatic or gestural terms rather than structural elements. As in music, emphasis is used to control and direct the audience's experience of the text (melody, monody), in particular the flow of the eye down the writing line.* Also, as in music, the rules for emphasis are complex and subtle, but ultimately come down to one question, whether an emphasis works, i.e., does it do something useful.

 

As an example and to answer Ken's question about the shading of the letter m, I believe the answer is that shading any down stroke other than the third would arrest the eye at a point unlikely to have much meaning, the middle of a character. The third down stroke shade, unlike the 1st and 2nd, does not terminate on the writing line, but continues (tapers down) through to a bottom curve, ultimately returning the eye to the characteristic 30 degree up stroke angle without halt. The eye is propelled through the letter. The added weight of a 1st or 2nd-stroke shade would anchor the eye to the writing line and halt the linear progression. While there may be times when one might want the eye to linger on the letter m, they are sufficiently rare that dictum discouraging such pauses holds the virtual strength of law. Some shades just don't work.

 

In contrast to Spencerian, Copperplate does not rely or does not rely as heavily on linear momentum for its beauty, but rather on the balance of its architecture. I believe the tension between the two styles, almost an antipathy, is a natural consequence of Copperplate's fundamentally Classical aesthetic (Monteverdi, Mozart) versus Spencerian's Romantic (Bach, Berlioz).

 

* Shades can also direct flow over the page, but these sorts of emphases are really in the domain of OP, have their own rules and aesthetics, and are more the playthings of master practitioners than the rules we dabblers need to memorize.

[RobbieG]

Yes, most of it has already said but here are two main things I would offer as a way for you to help compartmentalize the round hand/copperplate/engrossers script camp apart from Spencerian and ornamental penmanship, which is generally presented as a particularly flourished Spencerian-esque hand. First, remember that the former is comprised of drawn characters, and is not handwriting. Second, Spencerian and ornamental penmanship is generally presented with shading of varied thickness. That is you will see shades with swelled centers and ends and as mentioned not all shades will be the same thickness and not all letters are shaded, some not at all particularly the majority of the miniscules. In the drawn letterform camp you typically see shades of uniform thickness not only from letter to letter, but the shade itself on each letter is of a relatively uniform thickness from top to bottom. If you look for these two broad characteristics, script in the Spencerian style should start jumping off the page at you and become instantly recognizable. For the record, round hand and engrossers script appeals to my head, but Spencerian has my heart. This is in no way meant to be derogatory toward Copperplate, but being handwriting and not a drawn form, Spencerian and it's organic flow from form to form has a "life" to it that is hard to describe....

Edited January 15, 2013 by RobbieG

[thang1thang2]

And here we come to my problem, and I suspect, yours as well.

 

I can write Spencerian, and I enjoy looking at it...but I still have great difficulty in coming to terms with the illogicality of it. I could undersand it, if it were just a case of adding shading as and when if felt right to 'break up the monotony' However, there are definite rules which make little sense to me. For example - why is the third downstoke of m shaded but never the first or second, instead? Why is the bottom half of f shaded but never the top? Although there are some decisions which are left to the writer..(which shades can be omitted, for example) the effect of the rules of this random shading, means that every letter has to be learned with or without its shade.

 

I think that the basic, monoline Business Writing script is very beautiful and I, personally, prefer it to the full Spencerian script.

 

All of this, of course, applies to the lower case letters. Spencerian Capitals, in the right hands, can be magnificent, miniature works of art IMO.

 

Ken

 

Spencerian is, in my opinion, one of the fastest "ornamental" scripts you can do. Business hand, of course, is designed to keep up with typewriters, yes? So it would make sense that its more ornate cousin would also be rather fast for a work of art. In my view, the shades would then become more of a practicality to enhance the readability, and to add some elegance to an otherwise plain script. This means shades are few and far in between, and when they do happen they happen in a way that doesn't stop your hand.

 

For example, writing a lower case 'm' can be done very fast (up down up down up down up down is a very fast motion humans can do) however if you shade it, as in Copperplate, it's suddenly up light, down heavy, pause and then up light, down heavy and then pause, etc. Whereas spencerian script is updownupdownup down just heavy enough to swell the nib a little, but then light back up to connect to the second letter.

 

In the case of the 'f', if you're writing very fast, it's hard to control your swells while controlling the shape of the letter as well (it's so many things at once, I doubt even Madarasz wrote very fast while shading heavily). So to me it makes sense that you would go up light in the first part of the f, and by the time you reach the 'x' height your letter is now not moving anywhere, you're going directly downward and can thus start to shade the f again without losing control of either speed nor form.

 

The shades seem to me to have been placed "wherever one could shade without losing speed or form". So the tail of the t can be shaded as it's straight downward and you have to pause very briefly at the top, anyway. Same for any shades at the 'end' of a letter (as in the third final stroke of the 'm' or the final stroke of an 'n'). And, to be quite honest, it doesn't seem particularly hard to learn the non shaded versions of a letter after learning the shaded versions of it.

 

 

The decisions that are left to the writer seem to come from the fact that Spencerian is about speed and elegance. If the writer is not capable of shading while writing at speed, then he shouldn't feel obligated to shade and considerably slow down his work just to meet an ideal. The business man, after all, is a busy man and although he does have to write in a firm and good hand, he shouldn't have to shade it if it slows him down too much. Those that shaded, then, stood out as more skillful. Or perhaps there were some who simply didn't like shading. It speaks to me of the freedom of American scripts. Copperplate/ENGLISH round-hand, has been in use since the 16th century in one form or another, while Spencerian was developed in America and became popular in the 20th century, a time of new ideals and challenging the status quo (slavery abolished, women not being able to vote was being questioned, worker unions, industrial revolution, etc). All of this would have contributed to a very wide variety that hadn't been seen before. After all, freedom to do whatever you want in anything you do is a rather American idea, though everyone else has borrowed it.

[caliken]

Yes, most of it has already said but here are two main things I would offer as a way for you to help compartmentalize the round hand/copperplate/engrossers script camp apart from Spencerian and ornamental penmanship, which is generally presented as a particularly flourished Spencerian-esque hand. First, remember that the former is comprised of drawn characters, and is not handwriting....... This is in no way meant to be derogatory toward Copperplate, but being handwriting and not a drawn form, Spencerian and it's organic flow from form to form has a "life" to it that is hard to describe....

 

I have posted several examples of Copperplate (English Roundhand) on this forum and they have all been handwritten with few, if any, pen lifts.

 

The original English Roundhand, prior to engraving, was handwritten.

 

American Engrossers Script is drawn.

 

Ken

[RobbieG]

True, I'm probably guilty of lumping Copperplate and round hand into the engrossing camp and my relative lack of experience with those particular letterforms probaly shows there. Some of my mentors had done so early on and it's not always the case. Many times these styles are presented in a very similar fashion and so it's easy to see why folks do that sometimes but it's also impossible to tell where the lifts are if any with all letterforms. With that I retract any such hard deliniations based solely on how the script "looks". And I agree wholeheartedly that the beauty in round hand is the uniform shading - almost exclusively so, and that's it's challenge as I see it as well. More "organic" shading as I call it, draws the attention away from the flawless nature of each individual letter form and it's beauty and into the overall balance of the combination of letterforms in a sentence or a whole piece. And that to me is the true distinction of the styles and not how one goes about actually executing it.

Edited January 16, 2013 by RobbieG

[RobbieG]

I agree with Ken, the question is hardly stupid. I'm a retired, conservatory trained musician and I see Spencerian's malleability as a means of controlling the linear rhythm of the text (emphases or accents). In fact, it is the inherent musicality of Spencerian, both in appearance and process, which draws me to it.

 

Shades are in Spencerian, more than in Copperplate, emphatic or gestural terms rather than structural elements. As in music, emphasis is used to control and direct the audience's experience of the text (melody, monody), in particular the flow of the eye down the writing line.* Also, as in music, the rules for emphasis are complex and subtle, but ultimately come down to one question, whether an emphasis works, i.e., does it do something useful.

 

As an example and to answer Ken's question about the shading of the letter m, I believe the answer is that shading any down stroke other than the third would arrest the eye at a point unlikely to have much meaning, the middle of a character. The third down stroke shade, unlike the 1st and 2nd, does not terminate on the writing line, but continues (tapers down) through to a bottom curve, ultimately returning the eye to the characteristic 30 degree up stroke angle without halt. The eye is propelled through the letter. The added weight of a 1st or 2nd-stroke shade would anchor the eye to the writing line and halt the linear progression. While there may be times when one might want the eye to linger on the letter m, they are sufficiently rare that dictum discouraging such pauses holds the virtual strength of law. Some shades just don't work.

 

In contrast to Spencerian, Copperplate does not rely or does not rely as heavily on linear momentum for its beauty, but rather on the balance of its architecture. I believe the tension between the two styles, almost an antipathy, is a natural consequence of Copperplate's fundamentally Classical aesthetic (Monteverdi, Mozart) versus Spencerian's Romantic (Bach, Berlioz).

 

* Shades can also direct flow over the page, but these sorts of emphases are really in the domain of OP, have their own rules and aesthetics, and are more the playthings of master practitioners than the rules we dabblers need to memorize.

 

I also happen to be a composer/musician myself and this is an absolutely perfect analogy in my view...

[schin]

I agree with Ken, the question is hardly stupid. I'm a retired, conservatory trained musician and I see Spencerian's malleability as a means of controlling the linear rhythm of the text (emphases or accents). In fact, it is the inherent musicality of Spencerian, both in appearance and process, which draws me to it.

 

Shades are in Spencerian, more than in Copperplate, emphatic or gestural terms rather than structural elements. As in music, emphasis is used to control and direct the audience's experience of the text (melody, monody), in particular the flow of the eye down the writing line.* Also, as in music, the rules for emphasis are complex and subtle, but ultimately come down to one question, whether an emphasis works, i.e., does it do something useful.

 

As an example and to answer Ken's question about the shading of the letter m, I believe the answer is that shading any down stroke other than the third would arrest the eye at a point unlikely to have much meaning, the middle of a character. The third down stroke shade, unlike the 1st and 2nd, does not terminate on the writing line, but continues (tapers down) through to a bottom curve, ultimately returning the eye to the characteristic 30 degree up stroke angle without halt. The eye is propelled through the letter. The added weight of a 1st or 2nd-stroke shade would anchor the eye to the writing line and halt the linear progression. While there may be times when one might want the eye to linger on the letter m, they are sufficiently rare that dictum discouraging such pauses holds the virtual strength of law. Some shades just don't work.

 

In contrast to Spencerian, Copperplate does not rely or does not rely as heavily on linear momentum for its beauty, but rather on the balance of its architecture. I believe the tension between the two styles, almost an antipathy, is a natural consequence of Copperplate's fundamentally Classical aesthetic (Monteverdi, Mozart) versus Spencerian's Romantic (Bach, Berlioz).

 

* Shades can also direct flow over the page, but these sorts of emphases are really in the domain of OP, have their own rules and aesthetics, and are more the playthings of master practitioners than the rules we dabblers need to memorize.

 

I also happen to be a composer/musician myself and this is an absolutely perfect analogy in my view...

 

I just had a nutty idea of placing a Madarasz script on some music bars and placing notes on every turning point, how would it sound?

[Mickey]

I agree with Ken, the question is hardly stupid. I'm a retired, conservatory trained musician and I see Spencerian's malleability as a means of controlling the linear rhythm of the text (emphases or accents). In fact, it is the inherent musicality of Spencerian, both in appearance and process, which draws me to it.

 

Shades are in Spencerian, more than in Copperplate, emphatic or gestural terms rather than structural elements. As in music, emphasis is used to control and direct the audience's experience of the text (melody, monody), in particular the flow of the eye down the writing line.* Also, as in music, the rules for emphasis are complex and subtle, but ultimately come down to one question, whether an emphasis works, i.e., does it do something useful.

 

As an example and to answer Ken's question about the shading of the letter m, I believe the answer is that shading any down stroke other than the third would arrest the eye at a point unlikely to have much meaning, the middle of a character. The third down stroke shade, unlike the 1st and 2nd, does not terminate on the writing line, but continues (tapers down) through to a bottom curve, ultimately returning the eye to the characteristic 30 degree up stroke angle without halt. The eye is propelled through the letter. The added weight of a 1st or 2nd-stroke shade would anchor the eye to the writing line and halt the linear progression. While there may be times when one might want the eye to linger on the letter m, they are sufficiently rare that dictum discouraging such pauses holds the virtual strength of law. Some shades just don't work.

 

In contrast to Spencerian, Copperplate does not rely or does not rely as heavily on linear momentum for its beauty, but rather on the balance of its architecture. I believe the tension between the two styles, almost an antipathy, is a natural consequence of Copperplate's fundamentally Classical aesthetic (Monteverdi, Mozart) versus Spencerian's Romantic (Bach, Berlioz).

 

* Shades can also direct flow over the page, but these sorts of emphases are really in the domain of OP, have their own rules and aesthetics, and are more the playthings of master practitioners than the rules we dabblers need to memorize.

 

I also happen to be a composer/musician myself and this is an absolutely perfect analogy in my view...

 

I just had a nutty idea of placing a Madarasz script on some music bars and placing notes on every turning point, how would it sound?

 

Undoubtedly more interesting than the onanistic noodling of Ludovico Einaudi.

[GClef]

http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m496/gclef1114/photobucket-2683-1358392564708.jpg

[MusinkMan]

http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m496/gclef1114/photobucket-2683-1358392564708.jpg

 

heh...I hear ya, Manny. I do connect with all of these comments though, and I did get Mickey's music analogy. I'm a musician too, but this stuff approached the Berklee level, and I'm like at the Black Sabbath level. LOL! But I did understand exactly what he meant and I understood his visualization comparisons to music. In my musical world, Spencerian is unto "Heart Of The Sunrise" by YES, while Copperplate is like unto "Pull Me Under" by Dream Theater.

 

Yeah...(in a Tommy Chong deep voice)..."Now that's just cool, man".

Just being silly there....

 

Seriously...I really do appreciate every comment and everyone who has offerred help and advice. I have read every one at least twice, and I'm trying to absorb it all.

 

Gonna post a little exemplar of my attempts soon so that I can maybe get some even better and more precise feedback and advice.

 

Thanks to everyone again!!! Big time!

[thang1thang2]

I'm practicing my handwriting and calligraphy vicariously through ya, Musink, as I don't have the time to do it as of late. Once I get started up I'll see how much worse I've gotten...

[Chris Chalmers]

Admitting to not having read every word in this discussion, I have to say that from the recesses of my memory I recall the one thing all teachers/gurus/artists advise........ learn to write with your arm, not your hand. Once you get used to using your arm to guide your writing, instead of your fingers.....things will be much easier.

 

sorry to interrupt....please resume your wonderful thread!

 

Hugs!

[GClef]

Admitting to not having read every word in this discussion, I have to say that from the recesses of my memory I recall the one thing all teachers/gurus/artists advise........ learn to write with your arm, not your hand. Once you get used to using your arm to guide your writing, instead of your fingers.....things will be much easier.

 

sorry to interrupt....please resume your wonderful thread!

 

Hugs!

 

Yay! Another reason to re-post this post. I love this tip.

[MusinkMan]

I'm practicing my handwriting and calligraphy vicariously through ya, Musink, as I don't have the time to do it as of late. Once I get started up I'll see how much worse I've gotten...

 

 

OK bro, you stick with me. Are your fingers feeling cramped and sore? Vicariously of course. LOL!!!

 

Thanks, Thang1&2...you've been a big help to me. I always read your posts with interest.