nection, one could make some observations that may help an understand
ing of Tschichold and the present book. First, that in this book he had done
as much as any writer could to imagine such a movement into existence.
One of the best indications of this is the list of addresses on the last page,
which seems to say: here are the protagonists, you have seen their work
reproduced in these pages, now write to them! And second. the history of
the Ring shows that Tschichold played a moderately active part in it, but
not a leading one. He was a colleague, on a level with the others.
Tschichold's distinction - and Die neue Typographie is prime evidence of
this - lay in explaining and documenting what the others were doing.
It is worth noting also that the Bauhaus, the institution that has so domi
nated the history of the modern movement (to the extent of sometimes
being taken as synonymous with it) , is seen in Die neue Typographie, as in
all the literature of the period, as just one of the contributing components:
one star in a diverse and spreading constellation of institutions and indi
viduals. The Ring "neue werbegestalter" was another star, if a small and
erratic one, and it is interesting to observe the rather wary relationship
between the Ring and the Bauhaus: as if the former was felt by its members
to be in danger of being gobbled up by the latter. 2 9 In the event. none of
the Bauhaus teachers became members of the Ring, and they participated
in its exhibitions only as guests. On the question of Tschichold's relations
with the Bauhaus: there is no record of any substantial contact. This appar
ent distance may point to Tschichold's capacity as a professiona l typogra
pher, teaching at a school for printers. and the lack of typographic and
pri nting-trade expertise at the Bauhaus, even at Dessau in the time of its
greatest ideological commitment to designing for industrial production.30
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Although Tschichold himself is clear enough about the principles that
inform the New Typography in its approach to designing (see especially
"The Principles of the New Typography," pp. 64-86), it may be worth point
ing out certain aspects that are assumed or latent within his discussion.
First. and as already indicated, it is clear that the New Typography could
not, for Tschichold, be a simple matter of aesthetics: this category was
always dissolved into a larger and more complex consideration of use and
purpose. This is not to say that the New Typography was without an aes
thetic or formal dimension: and least of all in the work of Tschichold, which
by this time was beginning to display a sure control of subtly chosen and
often self-effacing means. In the original edition of Die neue Typographie,
good evidence for this lies in the material substance of the book itself. The
XXV