An Interview with Death of Typography (DOT) on 20 September 2026
One of the key objectives of Death of Typography is to celebrate what is “Singaporean” through type, which coincides with my research topic of identifying the overlooked non-western cultures within a westem-centric practice.
Therefore, my dialogue with the founders departed from the perspective of typeface design as cultural practice that establishes identity, and its role in reflecting, deconstructing or even re-establishing a collective identity. The dialogue provided valuable insights which enhanced my understanding of how type can represent culture and expanded my understanding of where cultural identity might reside within the process of type design.
Throughout the development of Unit 2, I approached the project primarily assuming that a typeface is a visual outcome through which pre-existing and readily defined cultures could be
communicated. My position implicitly assumed that cultural identities are somehow established before being translated into the visual typographic language. However, my conversation with
DOT challenged this position by foregrounding the fluid and complex nature of cultural identity. Culture can be understood, in part, as a categorisation of collective experience; yet, individuals
who are situated within the same cultural category may still possess significantly different interpretations of that identity. This distinction complicates my notion of what it means for a
typeface to be “representative”, as there can be no singular visual language that fully encompasses the experiences of a heterogeneous cultural group.
Rather than attempting to resolve this ambiguity, DOT suggested that embracing the possibility of multiple interpretations can generate further conversations around type and its cultural significance. This reinforced my developing understanding of typography as a form of common space. However, the dialogue expanded this concept beyond the idea of a shared visual space. Typography can also constitute physical and conceptual spaces in which people meet and exchange through the acts of discussing, designing and sharing experiences around type. Its capacity to create a common space therefore is not entirely restricted within the visual form of the typeface, but also within the social and discursive practices that surround its production and perception.
As DOT’s practice is grounded in the context of Singapore, looking backwards for an authoritative cultural reference has been difficult for them. This opened an alternative approach to my enquiry, shifting my attention from design histories towards contemporary design practices. Cultural identity does not necessarily have to be understood through what has been inherited from the past; instead, the practices of contemporary designers and the commonalities they share can provide evidence of a culture as it is currently being produced. This also suggests that cultural
representation should not be evaluated exclusively through the visual characteristics of a design outcome. The processes of researching, designing, producing and discussing a typeface rooted in a particular cultural context can themselves constitute forms of cultural practice and contribute to the work’s cultural relevance.
Nevertheless, there is a reciprocal relationship between subject and form. Cultural context informs the development of the typeface, while the process of producing and presenting the typeface can, in turn, prompt both designer and audience to reconsider and redefine that cultural context. The dialogue also highlighted the importance of context and authorship. For a culturally specific project to be presented fairly, the designer needs an opportunity to articulate the cultural context underpinning the work to avoid the risk where the typeface becomes detached from the research that informed its production.
Finally, the dialogue challenged my assumption that a typeface possess a singular or fixed meaning. DOT highlighted that the meaning of a typeface changes according to who uses it, where it is situated and who it encounters. A typeface can continue to acquire meaning beyond the intentions of its designer.
To conclude, my dialogue with DOT has informed my understanding of the circulatory relationship between type and identity, and how type contributes to the making, questioning, and destabilisation of the transient categorisations of cultures, politics, and languages. It has shifted my perspective of seeing type as an outcome of established categorisation, but as a practice that actively participates in the construction, facilitation, and subversion of such categories.
Leave a Reply