 I want to start with this quote from Anthony Froshow reviewing pan aims and modern typography by Herbert Spencer. Why celebrate people if you can't say what they did and why and for what and for how much?" I want to use that as a framework for talking about this guy. Anthony Froshow talked, Cangarland I the past that I will talk about today. I want to ask, why can, why talk about him, what did he do? yw'r sefydliadau? Yn y gyfnod i'r ddweud yma, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru, yng Nghymru yn ysgrifennu. Felly mae'r cymdeithas o'r glipau o'r cyfrif. Mae'r cyfrifau'r cyfrifau'r gweithio, rwyf wedi'i gweithio'r gweithio'r ddechrau o'r 300 ddweud i'r sgwrs. Mae'r gweithio'r gweithio'r ddechrau, mae'n ddiweddol yn dweud. Mae'r ddechrau'r gweithio'r ddechrau yn 175 ysgrifennu, But the graphic design causes only 10 years old so we don't really have a past. So how do you develop a signature pedagogy and how do you develop a course? And that's where Ken comes in, he brings some kind of DNA. He taught me and I wanted to bring that into the course. So why Ken? For me he brings the micro and the macro, the micro detail in and off typography and yet always that macro view. Helm will always make a point out to explain the political context, and the social context in which that is what is said. These quotes would be printed or put on screens around our studio. What's interesting is that very progressive statement around keeping up technologically, and yet it has a clear gender bias within it. Ken has actually admitted himself that he has an overwhelm, this is a quote from Ken, an overwhelming urge to correct the heavy gender emphasis of the first fifteen yn ysgrifennu, ond y ddylch yn ymgyrch yn ystod, a byddai'r ddweud yn ystod. Rwy'n credu, yn y studio, rydyn ni wedi ei fydd yn ei. Felly, 70% o'r ddweud yn y ffemol. Rydyn ni'n fyddyn nhw'n cael ei gwybod i'r ddweud ymgyrch ar gyfer hyn. Rydyn ni'n gwybod i'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r parwys, ac oeddi'r ddweud. Yr hyn o'r ddweud ymgyrch yn ei ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud, Ie'r gweld yr ysgol roedd cyllid yn rhoi'r ffordd sy'n imboyffau mail. Ond hwnnw fawr gen amser i'r gweld yr ysgol iawn i fynd i deli. Felly, mae dros fel ysgol yn rywbeth o'i? Felly,'r gofio'r llwyaf o'r ysgol. Mae'r jwgau ar y swyddo, ond yn gweld yr unedd teimlo ar y canol. A wnaeth pôl i fynd i fyny yw'r pwysig o'r pwysig o'r sgol. y sectionist murwyr o'r drwy'r ystod o'r Eilodd yn y 70 ac 80 ac oedd ar y ddechrau'r cyfle o'r blynedd. Rwy'n gweinydd, mae'n trwy'r cyflwyfyr yng Nghymru, mae'r cair yn gweithio'r dynnu'r ffordd o'r chyfodd. Yr hyn yn cyfnod, mae'n rhai symposiwn allanol yma, oedd mae'n meddwl i'r cyfrifio ar y cwrs honno yn ei gwrs. Rwy'n meddwl i'r 2015, yn y cyfrifio, mae'n cyfrifio ar y cair yn rhaid yn rhaid i'r cyfnod. I think it's been one of my favourite parts of the course where we had Michael Rock on Skype from New York, with Ken Garland taking issue with Michael over his 2009 article for content. So for Ken, content is absolutely vital in and also the context that he's working in. One of the catalysts really for written by was this key text which we have within the course and it's something that was published through Reading in 1996 and it spans all the articles that have been written on most of the articles that have been written by Ken between 1960 and 1996. So this has become a key resource on the course and something that we wanted to retain. The problem is as a key text this is how much it costs so this is on A, but on Amazon. So it's out of print, it's really hard to get hold of so how can you have a key text, how can you keep that past alive when books are going out of print so this is a continuing problem. Also the students are accessing their content on different platforms. So the challenge was how do we keep that past alive, how do we keep that text alive. So we travelled to Camden where Ken lives and we went to him with a proposition. So here is Ken at his home and studio in Camden in Albert Street, 71 Albert Street. And the proposal to Ken was to repurpose a word in your eye for a web platform adding recorded interviews with Ken about adding the context to those articles. And the intent was to add metadata and links outside of those articles and the content and make it open source and responsive. So he would give us that text if you like and open it up to the world. So he was like, yeah that's great, let's do it. So we sat him down and we've been travelling over the last four years or so travelling down to interview him. So now I'm going to play you a number of clips from those interviews that will be interested to get your feedback on what you think of these. So this first clip is him talking about an article he wrote in 1960 and it was called Structure and Substance. And modernism was slow to take hold in England. So he was looking to Karl Gerstner in Switzerland and he travelled there and he was looking to Saul Bass in New York and he was looking at the American model and Swiss model and wondering what that would mean for him as a teacher. The context is he's teaching at the time at the Central School of Arts in London and this is him talking about the Americans in the Swiss. I don't think Karl Gerstner and Saul Bass ever met. They admired one another but I don't think they ever got together. Except in the pages of this article I wrote in Penrose annual. What was the reaction of students when you shared them this one? Well, enthusiastic about both. They admired I think both Swiss graphic design and the best of American graphic design in equal measure. And I wanted them to and these were students at Central School of Arts and Crafts at that time. I wanted them to feel as devoted to both as I was. Of course that question was, well now, where do we go from there? Which I was asking too. In the article I really was asking a question and in a way trying to answer it. I was saying, well here we have two excellent models. The American one born to some extent out of the European one. But varying very much because of its own situation. What do we go? I saw us stifled by the tradition of British printing and print design. And very much in need of something new, something refreshing. Something we could break away from what I had said was a played out tradition. So in between interviews we had access to his archive and we've been gathering and recording that. This second clip is him talking about Beatrice Ward and Stanley Morrison and the conversation he had with Beatrice Ward. Here we have to talk about Stanley Morrison and Beatrice Ward. Stanley Morrison influenced Beatrice Ward greatly and he has the moving spirit in the monotype, type setters, type funders rather. He was a traditionalist. By the way, politically he was virtually a communist. Isn't that intriguing? Some people know that by Stanley Morrison that alongside his traditionalism was this strange involvement in communism. Anyway, there he was. Regarding all the Bauhaus and Schickholt and all that gang as being just beyond the pale, not acceptable to us, not English. Beatrice Ward came from America and became thoroughly imbued with and possessed with the notion of British, I think mainly English, printing and print design. And she thought right to the end of her days, bless her, that print design was best left in the hands of the typographers. So that what you should do was train the typographers in typographic design and let them get on with it. The type compositors. Well, we didn't agree about this because we were their competitors. We were kind of arguing all the time with compositors who said, oh no, it's done this way, not that way. And we said, no, no, no, new typography. Get wise, get into it. And Beatrice had this long, long debate, but she argued in the most charming and delightful way. She was a delightful woman and having a really strenuous argument with Beatrice Ward was a pleasure. We had one lunch together at an exhibition. She buttoned home and she said, I've got to talk to you about an article you wrote recently. You're way off the beam. I want to convert you. She tried to convert me back to traditionalism without success, of course. But it was fun. So what we would do once we came back from interviewing Ken, we would transcribe those interviews and then set them as text for the students to type set. So they would take that conversation that you just heard and then find Ken's voice through type. And this is an example of that. So it would feed back into the curriculum. At the same time, Unit Editions and Adrian Shaughnessy was writing a monograph on Ken and we wanted to work with him. So we contacted Unit and Adrian and said, can we do an exhibition combining the project we're doing with the monograph field doing? And they said, great. So we essentially exploded the two projects together on the walls of our gallery in Sheffield. So we had structure and substance, the book around us, and then we ran in two columns, a word in your eye. And we back projected the videos and the things that we'd done through the text. So you could walk through the book. You could essentially kind of wade your way through this book that was hung. And this was one of the films that we had that was back projected. And this is a meeting that Ken had with Jan Schicold when he was starting to question the new typography. I had the great good fortune to spend a day with Jan Schicold. During the few weeks I spent in Switzerland, I met him at the invitation of Carl Gosner. It was supposed to be quite a short interview, but it extended for the whole day, lunch included. And towards the end of the day, Jan Schicold began to open up about what it was that turned him away from the new typography and towards the new traditionalism. He had had a shock, first of all, in 1933 by being treated as a very suspicious person by the Nazis. Not surprising, he despised. He'd been a fellow traveller for communes, etc. He was put in prison. Big shock. When he came out, he began to think, and I don't agree with him about this. I didn't then, we had a bit of a discussion about it, that some of the new typography had become absorbed into Nazism. Now this just wasn't true. For example, the Nazis very quickly flung over their obsession with the sunset of typefaces and went for the black letter. That's not the new typography. But that's what he felt. When he came to Switzerland as a refugee, he wrote a book. He wrote it and took quite a while before it got published. In that book, he still espouses some of the principles of new typography, but he's beginning to sort of loosen up. He hasn't yet sprung the new traditionalism on the world, but he's loosening up. Within a year of my visiting him, he had produced his thoughts on new typography. He was having a terrible argument with Max Bill. A very famous argument with Max Bill saying, you're a traitor, which he wasn't. You're no good and so on. They had a bitter, bitter confrontation. That confirmed Chickle in his belief that the new typography people were not his kind of people. I liked his work in new typography and in new traditionalism equally. I thought they were both. He could never not be a great designer. It's part of the process of curating and collating the materials. It was great to get feedback from Ken at that point and from Adrian Shaughnessy. Tell us what they thought about the films that we were making and how it was progressing. For our students to feedback on that process and for them to walk through the work and to talk to Ken. The question what for, for how much, is probably answered with the work that Ken did for the campaign for the nuclear disarmament at CND and also what he's most famous for, the first things first manifesto. Written in 1963, probably on the back of Silent Spring, Rachel Carson written 62, which was feeding in to his work. Is Ken talking about the origin of first things first and it being quite a back of a conference like this, where he penned it? The birth of first things first was terribly casual, off the cuff. Its writing was very casual, done at the back of an audience for a symposium on quite another subject. In which I thought, well, what am I really interested in, not what they're talking about, but this. And finally got the opportunity to declare it at the end of the meeting, casual. Then the casualness of people come over and say, we like that, can we be part of it? And I say, well, I'll see what I can do. And then writing it up and again a bit more carefully and then getting it printed. And then thinking, well, who should sign this? And then working out who the secretaries might be terribly casual. But there was some sort of purpose there in these signatories. I wanted young people, students of mine. I wanted elderly people, older people, teachers of mine. I wanted practitioners, my confrers, people of my own age. So I wanted a mix. I didn't want particularly famous people. I didn't want big names. I thought that wouldn't be part of the thing. And that's the way it was. I also, you may not have realised this, wanted to reverse the alphabetical order in which I displayed the signatories. So that a dear friend of mine, Edward Wright, you had been my teacher in an evening class in a central school in experimental typography. He would come for us and he would deeply touched about that. And there they were, a mix. It was a complete mix. So every year we still set it as a project. We hand first things first over to the students and we say repurpose it, own it. And this is this year's second year students performing it really. So they chopped it up, they chopped first things first up, type set their section of it and then put it on placards and performed it through the streets of Sheffield. So it still has something to say. So what he wrote in 1963 still means something for those students I think. And so here we are as I come to conclude this talk. So we continue to edit. We have hours and hours of video. That edited video is making its way now. All that substance is being put into a structure. So it's becoming this website called Structure and Substance. And this is going to become some kind of open source resource that people will be able to access. So those stories aren't lost and it connects the past to the future. And then it's really important that Ken gets to see that. So we spend a lot of time going back to talk to Ken about what we're doing and get his critique on that and get his eye on that, as well as the students seeing that work. I wanted to finish with, this is typical Ken really. It's the last clip and it's him talking about an article he wrote in 1988 on improper lettering. And it was in response to what inspires him or what continues to inspire him. And Trump had just arrived in London. So I've coloured some of this what he's saying here with some of the images that might illustrate what he's saying. But I would say that the examples that have excited me were spontaneous graphics, street graphics that I found among protest movements like Occupy, among movements like the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, where street graphics was just thrown up passionately, perhaps, certainly enthusiastically, and which seems to have very little regard for rules or any special demands that you should have formed to unconfirmity. That's to me something we've got to take account of. It's unruly, it's sometimes offensive. And as a graphic example, sometimes I recoil from what amateurs are doing in my street and then I think just a minute, it's lively. It is itself. It isn't mass-produced. It is spontaneous. And these things of spontaneity are to be treasured. So just to come back to the fresh out quote, we've tried to capture, we've tried to celebrate the life and the work of Ken Garland, not in a book form, but in an open source responsive site that aims to continue the discourse started by Garland. Whilst examining at the same time the what for's, the why's and the for what's, and people can respond to that. So just to conclude, the exhibition that you saw is available to travel. So if anybody's interested in taking that exhibition to your institution and speak to me about that, we can arrange that. And also hopefully the site will be finished later this year in November. So I hope to open that resource up for other people if you're interested to access. I'd be very much interested in your feedback and what you think of the project over the next few days. I'll be around and we'll be good to meet you all. Okay, thanks very much.