What Makes 'good' Handwriting?

[caliken]

Fine Art, in conventional painting and drawing, can lift the spirits and please the eye, but it has no

practical purpose. Handwriting, however, is primarily a form of communication and, as such,

certain rules have to apply if its to be easily read and understood.

 

These rules are there purely to make the reading process easier. The fact that they also

produce handwriting which is pleasant to look at, is a fortunate by-product.

 

The first, and arguably the most important rule, concerns slope angle. Every piece of

handwriting which is generally considered to be attractive, is written at a consistent slope. It

doesnt matter if its written upright or at an extreme angle, as long as its the same throughout

a piece of writing. There is no other single factor which can instantly improve the appearance

of any piece of wayward handwriting. If this is a problem, I strongly advocate the use of

paper with slope lines for practice, until consistency becomes second nature.

 

Whether or not calligraphy and lettering are, in general, arts or crafts, is an argument which will

go on forever. I, personally, think of lettering as a craft which can be learned by anyone with

sufficient interest and the time to practice.

 

Everyone has experienced trying to decipher bad handwriting.

 

If handwriting is to be read without difficulty, the consistency of individual letters is important.

When written slowly, as in calligraphy, every individual letter should be as close as possible to

every other occurrence of the same letter. In handwriting, the mind sees the same image of the

letter every time, but the speed of writing makes total consistency, impossible. It is these subtle

variations which give handwriting its individual character. This aspect should never be forced,

but should occur, naturally.

 

When discussing handwriting, the word which constantly crops up, is consistency.

Letter shapes, ascenders and descenders, inter-letter and inter-line spacing, writing slope, etc.

all benefit from consistency, and the resulting reading experience is much easier and more

pleasant.

 

Id like to stress that all of the above, is just my personal view of what constitutes good

handwriting .

 

Any other opinions or different views on the subject are very welcome.

 

Ken

Edited April 10, 2012 by caliken

[caliken]

Thanks for your kind words, Beak, and the observation, which I've taken on board. I've amended my text to specify Fine Art which is considered beautiful but of no practical value other than to please the viewer. Any form of Commercial Art is, of course, useful.

 

I agree with you that "Craft skills are things that are generally undervalued".

 

There may be forms of expressive Calligraphy which might be termed 'Art' but in my case, all my work has been Crafted. In my opinion, the distinction is quite clear. You either have or don't have the natural ability to create Art of quality, whereas most Calligraphy as a craft can certainly be learned if you have sufficient interest, time to practice, and a reasonably steady hand.

Edited April 10, 2012 by caliken

[View from the Loft]

Yes, consistency is the key to good handwriting. Something else that can be overlooked is leaving sufficient space for each character, and between words and lines.

 

My handwriting isn't anywhere near your standard Ken, but it is legibile (and it's normally me that fills in names on Commendation Certificates at work, or writes the labels for prizes at the school where I am a governor).

 

I agree that handwriting and calligraphy are crafts, and I have noticed a correlation between those that are good at other crafts (knitting, sewing spring to mind) and who take the time to write neatly.

 

It is sad, however, when somebody who once had beautiful writing starts to avoid hand writing because they are no longer physically able to control their movements as they once did.

[caliken]

Further thoughts -

 

To design handwriting from scratch in which all the letter forms are cohesive and balance, is very difficult - witness the large number of poorly constructed fonts which are now available on the internet.

 

 

If you like the idea of writing your own, individual style, it's far better to start with one of the established styles such as Italic or Spencerian Business Writing. Once you are reasonably proficient in the style of your choice, look at the alphabet as a whole before making any amendments. Then if, for example, you alter the way the descender of the g looks, make the other similar descenders the same. In other words, always consider the complete alphabet to produce a balanced result. Remember that the letters form words and are not used in isolation. If you approach changes in a more haphazard fashion, there's a real danger that you'll produce a particular letter which is fine on its own, but looks really out of place, in the overall context.

 

Remember the old adage - "The word is more important than the letter; the sentence is more important than the word and the page is more important than the sentence".

 

There are few things more beautiful, than a beautifully handwritten page. IMHO

 

Ken

[caliken]

duplicate

Edited April 10, 2012 by caliken

[katim]

While I'm happy to agree with you on the question of whether handwriting is an art or a craft (it is clearly the latter), I think it's important to recognise that there's no sharp boundary line dividing art from craft - it's a very blurred and wide line. I think it's perfectly possible for a craftsman to use his skill to produce art.

 

If you take wood-working as an example, there's a world of difference between the simple three-legged stool and a Sheraton chair; there are simple wooden picture frames and frames carved by Grinling Gibbons: the difference is so marked that the two artefacts bear only the vaguest resemblance. Yet in all these cases the work is produced by craftsmen. At one end of the scale, there is simple effectiveness. At the other there is skill combined with an artist's eye and imagination - very much the qualities of fine art.

 

Calligraphy can certainly be achieved by craftsmen who are able and willing to expend the time and effort to achieve perfect results - not only the writing masters of old, but also the copper plate engravers who translated their work into mass production. But that's not to say that it isn't possible for that perfection of a craft skill to go further, using an artist's eye and imagination to make the page a work of art!

 

I suggest that you have amply demonstrated that yourself, many times. Yes, the craftsman skills are there and I don't think anyone on this forum would dream of saying otherwise. But you take those skills further and, as you have yourself pointed out, it's the page that matters. Your pages are those of an artist, not a journeyman writer: there is too much imagination involved for them to be other than artistry.

 

[terminal]

Clearly, 'consistency' is the key word so far, but I'd add 'legibility'... which has been discussed indirectly.

 

However, these are words we could potentially use to describe any art. In order for art to be successful it must communicate with the audience. The language it uses is not a written language, but rules exist within each creation and also in the world around us and the human experience. It is a logic we all share and perhaps a less abstract form of communication than writing... too see this, look at the MOST abstract.. the MOST explicit writing: mathematical expression. In writing of a language like English, there are more opportunities for expression then there are in mathematics.

 

So, when every single symbol counts and there can be neither too few nor too many, and each one must be readable to the point where it cannot be interpreted as something else: consistency and legibility. DOES IT MATTER how you write a mathematical formula so long as it is clear as a bell what you've written down? No, at least not in terms of the function.

 

And yet, for us humans, even forumlas can become a thing of beauty. When you're EXCITED about what you're writing, your hand moves quickly, the lines begin to cross, the thickness changes, and suddenly, you're communicating on a basic human level. "I'm excited". "I'm elated to have figured this out". "I cannot believe I'm finally done!" "This part is ESPECIALLY clever." Still more interesting is that fact that mathematicians notoriously have difficult or poor hand writing, making their work hard to decipher!

 

Therefore, the difference is partly our own expectation. We come to a painting expecting a visual language, but we come to the written word expecting utility. I may be able to convey some emotion with a series of scribbles, but we have grown accustomed to the explicit.

 

This is why 'consistency' and 'legibility' are most important in handwriting; our expectations and the explicit utility of written language.

 

Beyond that, though, all of the other aspects of human experience and aesthetics come in to play. Why is one person's handwriting more attractive than another's? The issue then becomes the push pull between "the easier to read the better" and "a letter is more pleasant shaped this way".

 

I'd say the most beautiful handwriting walks this line, neither being too difficult to read, nor too concerned about ease of use. The letters match, and there is a flow and a rhythm in evidence. One can almost picture the writer, the hand moving gracefully and unhesitatingly -- evenly. as they hold the thought in their mind. As hypnotic as calking a tub.

 

...and then there's my handwriting...

[*david*]

Legibility is also greatly affected by local and regional customs, especially when handwritten letters are formed quite differently from typeset ones.

[caliken]

Calligraphy can certainly be achieved by craftsmen who are able and willing to expend the time and effort to achieve perfect results - not only the writing masters of old, but also the copper plate engravers who translated their work into mass production. But that's not to say that it isn't possible for that perfection of a craft skill to go further, using an artist's eye and imagination to make the page a work of art!

 

 

Thanks Ken: perceptive, as ever.

 

I still consider myself a craftsman/copyist as my work lacks artistic imagination. However, I do appreciate your comments. :embarrassed_smile:

 

This little tale will give a better idea of where I stand, artistically.

Some time ago, I was commissioned to produce a series of drawings of South Queensferry in West Lothian to be published in a book, concerning the history of the place. I took photographs from which I painstakingly produced original drawings in great detail. These drawings were about 12" x10", but were reproduced in the book, considerably reduced in size. So much so, that they looked just like photographs - even to me! I could have used the original photos and saved myself hours of work!

 

I think that I'm a good copyist - but a mere copyist nonetheless.

 

If you're curious to see what I mean, take a look at the 'drawings' section on my website www.caliken.co.uk

 

Ken

Edited April 10, 2012 by caliken

[Mickey]

Disclaimer: I made my living 'in the arts' though not as a calligrapher. (I find Pop divas expounding about their art ludicrous. The real artists are the engineers 'fixing it in the mix.')

 

Craft is a prerequisite for the performance of art. How much craft required by the would be artist depends in large measure on the profundity of the artistic statement to be made. That said, calligraphy is both a craft and an art; the category into which a particular expression falls has more to do with the importance of the message one wishes to convey than one's skill. The quality of the craft only becomes suspect when it is insufficient to get the message across.

 

Consider a Shakespeare sonnet, already a work of art in itself. Its performance in paper and ink can be either craft or art. If the performance merely conveys the original text, it is an exercise in craft, but, if the performance amplifies or comments on Shakespeare's art, the performance itself becomes art. How great the art is depends on what and how much the calligrapher has to say and how effectively he or she says it.

[PacificCoastPen]

A good rhythm and legibility make good handwriting.

[Pierce]

I am from Ireland. We are taught or rather told to get on with it in primary school 4 - 12. Effectivly copying the book cover to cover.

 

There was never any intervention or guide as to where you may be going wrong.

 

I work in a business where we get items to service and sometimes we get a note saying who its from, others we get lovely consistent scripts which are a joy to read.

 

It is no fun trying to decypher the da vinci code of what that person ment with no 2 letters the same, sprinkled upper and lowecase, letters looking like other letters etc.

 

To me I, until recently, thought writing was a form of art and it still is. You either do have beautiful writing or you don't.

 

I know I said I work in the service industry but my first port of call is software engineering. Calling it an engineering topic is not appropriate.

 

Twenty people could solve a half decent computer problem, but no 2 would be the same. But having said that if there was a flaw in the code, where it still worked, that flaw may appear in more than one solution.

 

What I am trying to say all be it in a long winded way, is that many people convey the message they were trying to get across, but many people are prone to the mistakes that do not make handwriting legible.

 

People are not computers and consistency is hit or miss depending on the situation. Writing a birthday card may be neater than a shopping note. But what if you were rushing for the post man?

 

So is it practice that makes good handwriting or is it age or is it your whole outlook on life?

[rogerb]

Although I greatly admire the skill of calligraphers whose writing looks like print and whose other work is photographically accurate, if I were to receive a piece of their work, I'd like it to have just a few tiny imperfections which would show me that it was produced by a human hand, and not by some sort of machine

And I love receiving letters (as i did today) from a FPN member whose writing has an idiosyncratic beauty which bears little resemblance to any copybook style

[Celerity-dad]

The questions I ask of myself when evaluating my own handwriting are "Does it distract from what's written?" and "Does it look refined?" A negative view but since I've been refining my handwriting for just the last few years it's what I want out of it. When I write a note I want the receipent to read the words not break the code. I work with a large engineering team and most people are impressed with my handwriting since it's not block capitals and is readable. Two things it wasn't just three years ago.

 

To extend the idea further I want to make sure the receipent would have no cause to complain when reading my writing. My life is often driven by avoiding complaints. I design industrial automation and what I've gathered from our customers is they want the product to meet the need and look good. A lot of complaints can be avoided if the product is pleasing to the eye.

 

Thanks for posting this topic Ken. It's one I've been thinking about lately.

Mark

[sirShiggy]

Because we are discussing art...Wait! It's relevant! I promise!

 

-Shiggy

[fncll]

Well, it's certainly a complex question. My personal formulation is that art involves the self expressing and individuality that can only be brought about through the mastery of craft. What makes good or bad art is ultimately and always subjective, as much as I'd like it to be otherwise at times.

 

So w/r/t writing I agree completely that it needs to be legible and that consistency can enhance legibility, but there's a wide gap between a ransom note and absolute consistency. And in that gap there's quite a bit of wriggle room to allow for individual expression while remaining legible.

 

There's certainly an incredible amount of effort that goes into being a master craftsman, as a good calligrapher can be. Craftsmanship is really underrated. And there are ways that such calligraphy can be art depending on the context and materials. But in and of itself, the movement from craft to art in handwriting is in the variations, with which one creates something personal and unique.

 

There's an interesting commingling in that I am normally one who advocates that an important part of art is inhabiting the process of making art...if one isn't writing poems for one's self, for example. then they aren't really writing poems for anyone else they may be intending to. But writing is so often an intentional form of communication that writing solely for oneself is a significantly lesser--but not non-existent--issue.

[*david*]

I don't think any of us can write unlike ourselves. I don't think we need to "inject" personality to "make it ours", because each person's personality is already unavoidably there in every stroke they make.

[fncll]

The spirit of your statement is, I believe, demonstrably untrue. If none of us could write unlike ourselves in a metaphorical way, there would be no such thing as calligraphy (logically writing unlike ourselves is both a truism that means nothing--kind of like "everywhere I go, there I am"--but more importantly doesn't logically exclude two people writing alike).

 

There are many people who have handwriting that is virtually indistinguishable from another, particularly when they are using a script that is defined for them. I purchase a fair amount of paper goods that have calligraphy, and a good bit of it could be written by the same hand...but isn't.

 

Handwriting is like an other visual art. By definition, none of us can paint unlike ourselves. But that doesn't mean people necessarily always paint in an individual way, and is demonstrably untrue when painters are purposefully trying to paint in a certain way. That's where the art comes in.

[Mickey]

The spirit of your statement is, I believe, demonstrably untrue. If none of us could write unlike ourselves in a metaphorical way, there would be no such thing as calligraphy (logically writing unlike ourselves is both a truism that means nothing--kind of like "everywhere I go, there I am"--but more importantly doesn't logically exclude two people writing alike).

 

 

If you are responding to David, I think you miss the point widely. The role of artist is to reveal truth, not make his work superficially unique. (We return to the notion of conformity defined in the negative space.) That is hackery, the road to becoming the next Britney Spears, as if one weren't bad enough. Learning a craft rigorously is gaining the tools, the ability to reveal truth and, by so doing, say something truthful about ourselves. To inject personality into one's writing is attempting to invent a personality for oneself - artifice, not art - and fundamentally dishonest: anti-art.

[the flexistentialist]

IMHO good handwriting is indeed consistent and legible, but I'd like to add to that list: appropriate.

 

Handwriting is a tool for communication, so one of the key factors in whether handwriting is good or not should be how it's accepted by the audience reading it.

Different handwriting styles are more successful when paired with different audiences and different situations.

 

I know people that can't/won't read any style of cursive, regardless of how well it's executed. In that case, even good cursive handwriting is really... bad as it's not serving it's function. There are others that consider print/manuscript "baby-writing" and the handwriting there could easily give the wrong impression. I work with both types and have learned that knowing your audience's expectations can go a long way to making handwriting good and getting your message (the way you intended) across.

 

It also makes writing for yourself all the more enjoyable.

 

That's just my thought, though.