In The Crystal Goblet, Beatrice Warde mentioned that typography should function like a crystal-clear glass, acting as a vessel to reveal rather than hide the beautiful thing which it was meant to contain.

She also mentioned that typography used in print should be invisible for a clear transmission of ideas. It should not be eye-catching because that would imply that its first purpose was to exist as an expression of beauty for its own sake and for the delectation of the senses.

I think that what Beatrice Warde talked about in her article was relatable, but only to a certain extent. I do agree that the primary function of typography should be to convey thought, ideas, images, from one mind to other minds and sometimes that can only be achieved with a ‘transparent’ type. For instance, books mainly use “transparent’ types that are highly readable and legible so that the reader can go through the lengthy content with ease and speed.

BUT,

Typography is more than just a transparent vessel. In many cases, designers or artists create beautiful and elaborate types that communicates ideas as efficiently, or even more so than ‘transparent’ types. In the case of posters, bold and beautiful types are used to draw attention and evoke reaction from the viewers. The essence of an idea can be enhanced using an appropriate and beautiful typeface.

Following the thoughts of Matthew Butterick, who wrote an opposing article Drowning the Crystal Goblet, I feel that a text would have no visual characteristic without typography. Beatrice Warde’s metaphor and concept for typography is extremely flawed. By using the word ‘transparent’ to describe typography, she indirectly suggested that typography devoid any meaning, which really isn’t the case.