I recommend it for a typography course, because it is very basic use of the grid. I didn’t mention that it also covers a few type fundamentals such as leading and letterspacing. The way you use the type is even more important than the type itself.

I think the issue that alot of students have is that they end up taking the grid too literally. This results in either “grids” that look like intersecting sticks of a Ker-Plunk game, or the student getting frustrated and ignoring the grid altogether. I think the combination of pretty basic grids, and real-world, more expressive grids, in this book should help prevent such confusion.

Thanks Bill,

I have that one now and I’m hoping to get to it soon. I’ve been obsessed with proportions ever since reading Bringhurst’s Elements.

I picked up “Grid Systems” last weekend. If it weren’t for the great examples with the beautiful vellum overlays, I probably wouldn’t recommend the book unless you were planning on teaching a class on grid systems. It explains the assignments that Kimberly Elam used in her class, and exhausts all the possibilities of a 3x3 grid. It is a great exercise (I wish I would have had these assignments in school) but makes for some dry reading.

I guess I have a little trouble completely buying into the whole grid theory. Personally, my process of design is more intuitive and based on basic concepts for successful composition. Things line up because they should, not necessarily because their is a strict adhesion to an underlying grid. I think there is probably an semi-unconscious tendency to structure our design on a grid even if we don’t graph it out or calculate it mathematically. The better we get at design, the more sensitive we become to spacing, weight, hierarchy, and the invisible structures that hold our design together. Without that sensitivity, all the grids in the world won’t make a great design.

I read Elam’s first book on geometrics and design- great stuff. She clarified many ideas that Le Corbusier over complicated. I have not yet read the grid book, but am looking forward to it. However, I noticed in the index that Muller-Brockmann has very little air time. What’s the deal? His opus set the standard for the work I am doing today- does Elam really move beyond what he already taught? I would love to hear a comaprison. Likewise, what about Bosshard’s work, that one sits on my desk as a constant reference. Hey, here’s another great read if any one really wants to dig deep: Krome Barratt’s “Logic and Design in Art, Science and Mathematics.” It is rich with everything you ever wanted to consider about form, proportion and scale. I have read it numerous times and keep finding new things each read. Incredible. Cheers. topher

topher - I was feeling the same way about the lack of reference to Muller-Brockmann. Glad you mentioned it.

Thanks for all the great book references, everyone. Looking forward to reading a few in the near future.