<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Typography on Lichturm</title><link>/en/tags/typography/</link><description>Recent content in Typography on Lichturm</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-GB</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2024 15:44:13 +0100</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="/en/tags/typography/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Fraktur &amp; Antiqua</title><link>/en/posts/fraktur_antiqua/</link><pubDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2024 15:44:13 +0100</pubDate><guid>/en/posts/fraktur_antiqua/</guid><description>&lt;h2 id="why-we-are-here-today"&gt;Why we are here today&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Antiquariates have always been one of my favourite places to browse, and I did not want to be obstructed by the fact, that I was not used to some of the typefaces of old books. So I ended up sitting down for a few days, practicing the letters. This has been more then worth it for reading historical literature. Nowadays, I am a great friend of broken types, such as Fraktur. If you compare Antiqua and Fraktur, it is very obvious, which one was developed with calligraphic ornamentation in mind, and which one was meant for being easily read, such as from monumental buildings. These two families of fonts have a very different character, Antiqua seems almost spartan when compared to the varied shapes, angles and lines of Fraktur. As such, it was clear, which kind of font I would want to use for this website.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>