First thoughts: Cultural appropriation in typography

10 min readJun 5, 2020

For a while now, I’ve seen a lot of designers using deliberately mismatched font combinations. I know there has been a trend to use, what would have previously been seen as very unfashionable/unsuitable, fonts within work that is more artistic/fashion led (especially in zines). While at the same time, a lot of digital work has been utilising the “new ugly” or “brutalist” approach as well. However, the examples that got me thinking the most about cultural appropriation in typography were a couple of zines I had seen that specifically used the font Mandarin (I took a screengrab of it and now can’t find it annoyingly). Seeing these zines reminded me of the section in The Politics of Design titled “Ethnic typography”. If you’re not aware of the book I would strongly recommend that you buy it. It looks at how no graphic design is objective. Everything is coloured by its environment and “explores the cultural and political context of the typography, colours, photography, symbols, and information graphics that we use everyday”. Within this section the author Ruben Pater looks at typefaces that have been designed and used to convey a sense of ethnicity, nationality, or geographic territory. The short essay that follows has been inspired by this section and also relies heavily on two essays quoted within this chapter: Stereo Types, written by Paul Shaw and New Black Face: Neuland and Lithos as Stereotypography, by Rob Giampietro. As well as my own thoughts on the subject of typography, cancel culture and who has permission to use culturally insensitive material, if any at all. I don’t want to regurgitate Pater’s chapter, because it is worth the price of the book alone, so I’ll be using the following criteria to look into the idea of cultural appropriation in typography:

Who created the font? Why did they create the font? What was its intended purpose?
Is a font innocent by itself? Is it only how it is used?
Questions over power and control: who has it? Can it change?
What is the role of typography in general?

Who created the font?

The typefaces primarily used in these three essays (I’ll use the word essay to collectively describe all three source materials within this essay, despite Pater’s being a chapter in a book) are Mandarin, Neuland and Lithos. I won’t go into too much depth here about the origins of each typeface — you get all that from the original materials — but I will touch on it briefly to help understand the context and purpose of each typeface and question whether this influenced its later use. Paul Shaw is keen to point out that we shouldn’t group all these ethnic fonts together and assume that they all share the same history but rather understand that there are “many different paths taken by a typeface from its creation to its status as a visual shorthand for an entire group.”

Firstly, when were these typefaces created and who created them? Neuland was created in 1923 by Rudolf Koch, Lithos was created by Carol Twombly in 1989 and Mandarin (originally named Chinese) was created by the Cleveland Type Foundry in 1883. While looking for any commonality in their creation, it is difficult to see any shared characteristics or attributes between these typefaces. Neuland was inspired by Blackletter/Blackface typefaces that had historically preceded it and designed with religious fervour in mind by Koch. When it went on to be marketed in America, it was pitched as an advertising font and its religious function was soon lost.

Lithos was architecturally inspired by Greek temple inscriptions but, like Neuland, this was not enough to make it sellable to market. To make it sellable another weight was added, much bolder, which drastically moved it away from its original intentions and into something, albeit historically unrelated, visually very close to Neuland. Or as Giampietro bluntly describes it, “Lithos’ bold-weighted anachronism is now Neuland’s bastard child”.

Mandarin, as portrayed by Shaw, is a different story and can be described as a “chop suey” font. Meaning, “just as chop suey is an American invention, so, too, are the letters of Mandarin and its many offspring. Neither the food nor the fonts bear any real relation to true Chinese cuisine or calligraphy.” This is not the same as Neuland and Lithos. From the outset Mandarin was an unashamedly stereotypical rendering of another nationality and culture’s visual language. It anglicised minor aspects of the original and made it what it wanted, in effect caricaturing the original. And like a caricature it ignored what it didn’t want to see and exaggerated what it wanted to highlight. As highlighted by the example (Pater and Shaw both use) the 1899 poster “Trip to Chinatown”. Shaw goes on to detail how by the 1930s, chop suey fonts were synonymous with Chinese culture (and today as almost anything Asian) and Pater mentions how this still continues with the 2002 Abercrombie and Fitch t-shirt with lazy, stereotypical “racist caricatures”. Therefore, Mandarin was deliberately stereotypical from the beginning and was not something that happened over time.

Can the font itself be innocent?

Now that we have seen the origins of these three fonts, are they innocent? Or is it only their later application that has made them fall into cultural appropriation and stereotyping within the design world? As stated, Neuland began with religious fervour, it was later (and without the originator) that it became heavily used within “advertisements for products associated with slavery: tobacco and cotton.” Giampietro demonstrates how even the woodblock nature of the font itself even gave it the reputation as “lower class”. Reducing it to a “garbage type”, i.e. “esoteric, inelegant, difficult to set, and destined, like tobacco ephemera, for the garbage.” Neuland and other typefaces of this nature would be heavily used amongst circus advertising, only emphasising their “other” (i.e. non-western) status and grouped with the Middle East (Giampietro also emphasises this furthering the link with Lithos). Therefore, because of their use as signifying Africa and the Middle East, the fonts become lazy, unimaginative symbols, often combined with racist imagery, of not just these geographical locations but harmful stereotypes of people, histories and work practices. Giampietro argues that Lithos has also been used extensively to convey a feeling or rather, “suggest ‘jungle,’ ‘safari,’ and ‘adventure’ — in short, Africa”, citing the example of the Subaru Outback badge as well as books on the Harlem Renaissance.

In other words, as far as we know Neuland was created without any “African” concept in mind but rather as an updated German blackletter typography. (Although, Giampietro does reveal evidence of Koch’s sculpture work which is strongly “Primitivist” and also combines some of the religious fervour that went into creating Neuland itself.) Regarding Lithos, to say it ‘borrows’ from Greek influence would be kind. To say it presents as a corrupted caricature of a highly anglicised version of Greek typography might be going too far. Either way, it is certainly a cheapened version of a “Greek” style without too much care for the original. That is to say, neither Neuland or Lithos are anywhere near as bad as Mandarin. We know from it’s conception that the creator of Mandarin was producing it as purely a “chop suey” font with no love for the geographical, historic or visual origin and purely a commodification or colonial stereotype.

For these reasons I think we can safely say that Mandarin is not an innocent typeface. It was exploitative from the start. I am undecided whether Lithos is innocent or not. Neuland, with Koch as the creator, cannot be held accountable for the way the typeface got used beyond their control. Once the work of a typographer has been created and is released into the world, how can the creator possibly be held accountable for the way that it is used? With the evidence that Giampietro presents, it is without ill intent that the typeface was created. The same simply cannot be said for Mandarin. Whereas Lithos, according to Giampietro, has subsequently been used to convey “Africa” I am unsure whether there was any original implication of cultural appropriation. Despite its Greek influence and arguably anglicised nature it is certainly ambiguous whether we could go as far as to say it is guilty of cultural appropriation. Rather, as stated, it is a bit of a cheapened version of an original..

Power and control: who has it and can it change?

For me this is the essential part of the argument regarding cultural appropriation within typography, power and control. Of course, as much as anything else (the power and meaning of language, political power, cultural capital etc.) power has the potential to change hands. However, let’s also be realistic. Giampietro describes succinctly how, pre Neuland’s creation in 1923, African American graphic design history was “non-existent” as African American’s had “no buying power or social acceptance”. This only contributed to the proliferation of the racist stereotypes on products like tobacco. Maybe, it could be argued that this was almost a hundred years ago and things have changed? However, Giampietro describes the practice of ““stereotypography” — the stereotyping of cultures through typefaces associated with them — has been increasing as graphic design becomes a greater cultural force”.

My thoughts on this aspect (prior to reading on the subject) were based on whether it was possible to demonstrate a ‘reclamation’ of typefaces by those who had historically had power removed from them through this “stereotypography”. But from these three primary sources this has not been the case. There has not been a reclamation of Neuland or Lithos by African or African diasporan designers. Shaw states that, “Ethnic types have been dubbed “garbage fonts” by typophiles, and since the fonts are culturally inauthentic, they are deemed an affront to the political sensitivities of ethnic groups (and to the enlightened morals of graphic designers). But it has often been immigrant entrepreneurs, not professional designers, who have chosen to use these typefaces and keep their popularity alive.” Does this count as a reclamation? Does this address the historic power imbalance and go towards righting the wrongs previous graphic designers have inflicted on these “other” groups? I’d argue no.

Shaw himself provides some of the reasons why this does not qualify as reclamation in the paragraph preceding the quote above, “[Ethnic type] survives for the simple reason that stereotypes, though crude, serve a commercial purpose. They are shortcuts, visual mnemonic devices. There is no room for cultural nuance or academic accuracy in a shop’s fascia.” Could it be that shop owners, restaurateurs, small business owners etc. are not thinking in the same way, or for as long, as critics, writers and graphic designers on this subject? They certainly cannot be blamed for employing the use of these “lower class”, “ethnic”, “garbage fonts” because, as Shaw points out, they provide a quick, easy, visual device that tells the potential customer what they sell so was good for business. However, given the history that we have seen associated with these typeface, we as designers, must think in a way that does not resort to “stereotypography”. For one, it is lazy, but more importantly do we want to perpetuate these stereotypes and be a part of their historical usage? Regarding whether African American designers used fonts like Neuland and Lithos, Giampietro writes, “away from the white-controlled industries of book publishing, movie making, car dealing, adventure seeking, font designing, and designer clothing, in small African-American-controlled sectors of business and culture, no sign of Neuland or Lithos appears”. Rather, by looking at Ebony magazine and Blue Note records, he instead sees “playful modernism” with “modern typefaces revamped”. No need to use these “garbage fonts” when you’re designing for some of the best records ever made.

What is the role of typography in general?

After having looked at each font’s origins, asked can the font itself be innocent, and considered ideas of power and control within typography, we can now ask (briefly): what is the role of typography? Have we been overly sensitive? Have we read too much into some ugly fonts? Is this political correctness gone mad? Is it alright for typography to just be expressive and capture a mood or a feeling, even if it’s not accurate and only in the typographer’s mind and avoid cultural appropriation altogether?

Of course, typography can be expressive! I do not subscribe to the masochistic zealousness that faux-modernists hold dear by quoting Massimo Vignelli. I admire his work, of course, but I think there are more than 3 good typefaces in the world. I enjoy a lot about the so-called “brutalist” or “new ugly” designs that are a reaction, or distortion, to the parochial passion that many feel towards the Bauhaus and the Swiss/International style. Again, I am definitely not against these styles and admire a lot about them and what they have provided graphic design. Stylistically and theoretically. However, as I have read these three essays I have realised that the question regarding typography’s role is not as relevant. Of course, as mentioned at the beginning, zines and art projects are perfect for expressive, subversive, challenging typography and I love seeing previously frowned-upon typefaces reinvented with great design combining text and image. In some ways I have wondered, might it be appropriate to use fonts like Neuland and Lithos, if they were not tainted by the history that has come to be associated with them? To use a “garbage font” could be non-conformist and make a powerful visual and political statement. We have seen how even typefaces like Helvetica, the most ubiquitous typeface, can be distorted, altered and bent into something powerful and interesting. However, hopefully what we have read here is to avoid, at all costs, “stereotypography” through lazy stereotyping using typography. Is it ever alright to use “chop suey” fonts? That might need a part 2 to explain further but it should be obvious not to perpetuate harmful imagery with bigoted attitudes. Or as Pater concludes, “the use of ethnic stereotypes prevents the public from seeing representations of minorities treated with the same respect as those of the dominant culture”.

First thoughts

First thoughts is the beginning of a series which will present my initial thoughts on a given subject. The subject will always be inspired by visual culture, even though the subject might seem far removed from what is traditionally graphic design or visual communication. These thoughts might have the potential to change over time and I may even completely change my mind on a subject. In this instance, I might write a response as part 2 or delete the first and write my current thoughts on the same subject. I hope you enjoy it and forgive any lack of technical knowledge, or naive mistakes, and see first the desire and passion to write about design. This is a way to document my thoughts on the areas that interest me, as well as having the potential to provide dialogue within the field of visual culture.