Download disabled

The designer of this FontStruction has chosen not to make it available for download from this website by choosing an “All Rights Reserved" license.

Please respect their decision and desist from requesting license changes in the comments.

If you would like to use the FontStruction for a specific project, you may be able to contact the designer directly about obtaining a license.

Pure minimalist font, just 1x1. I don't like the numbers, but then it's minimalist. The I still annoys me, since it's further spaced from other glyphs. Inspired by my first font 'Karmink'.
Info: Created on 26th August 2012 . Last edited on 29th August 2012.
License Creative Commons
Categories:
Sets:
Tags:
Fave Tags:
  • -

23 Comments

One by one?! You have some serious brain power, man. Usually the most impressive ones are HUUUGE, but this one proves this theory wrong. I like it! 9/10
Comment by anonymous-0 30th October 2012
That 'I' is a real puzzler. I cloned this and tried every permutation I could think of - nada!

To me thius represents the difficulty of working with small grids and 2:2 filters ... which is why I steer well clear of it.

More power to those of you who try, and 10/10 for this one.
Comment by p2pnut 30th October 2012
Comment by thalamic 30th October 2012
I think he/she wants it to be a "pure minimalist font". Means doesn't need any composites and stacking. I see no glyphs there made with composites, neither stacking.
Comment by queencat 30th October 2012
Even though this is likely built with default bricks, look again at these bricks and you will see that almost all of them can be made by stacking or compositing the primitives – those defaults, mostly in the first handful of rows, that cannot be built out of other unique default bricks. This is more than a thought experiment; it is vital to understanding the relative complexity (minimalism) of the default set.
Comment by William Leverette (will.i.ૐ) 30th October 2012
Sorry, but I can't see what the fuss is about, this has been done sooooooooo many times before. I'm not impressed. Needs a lot more work to even come close to some of the 1 x 1 minimal fonts. 3/10
Comment by djnippa 30th October 2012
It’s like elmonyenique said: One brick, one glyph... Try It, please, it's funny! Building one of these can be a satisfying thought experiment. Is this the most successful on ever? No.

But how do we define minimalism? That’s a deeper point of comparison, which is what I wanted to bring up.

To me, adhering to the default bricks is not the key to “pure minimalism”. The majority of the default set can be understood to already be built out of a surprisingly small handful of unique “primitives” – shapes that cannot be constructed out of other shapes. In creating theses defaults, Rob has used rules similar to stacking- and compositing, so ruling out stacks and composites from a font like this doesn’t make sense to me. Complexity is relative!
Comment by William Leverette (will.i.ૐ) 30th October 2012
@djnippa // 3 sayings for you:

“Sometimes imitation is the best way to gain skill.”
and
“If you've got nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all.”
and
“Do unto others what you want them to do to you.”

I don't mean to be hostile, just saying that if you don't like something, it's usually better to keep it to yourself. Beginners need to have some source of inspiration. Also, shouldn't we, in the art world, be able to do whatever we want? Again, I mean no harm.
Comment by demonics 30th October 2012
..........................................................................................
Comment by Abneurone Fluid Types 30th October 2012
..........................................................................................Oups! made an error on the "z" on my version using default bricks!
Comment by Abneurone Fluid Types 30th October 2012
@will // I see what you're saying, and I agree, but I think creating a font that's using the bare minimum can be called both an interesting challenge and in a way, minimalism. Using just what you're given and making something creative :-)
Comment by demonics 30th October 2012
This is definitely a worthy challenge. Restricting oneself to the default brick set is a creative constraint with some creative juggernauts who number themselves amongst proponents. Where do we take this philosophy?

Em argued that adding any new bricks to the fontstructor only serves to clutter the interface, encourage lazy design solutions, and diminish the elegance of the fontstruct platform. Of course, he is also hilariously self-aware of this stance – or at least being known for it.

Sure, using only default bricks represents a kind of minimalism. Is it “pure”, like FB noted and queencat invoked to disqualify thalamic’s helpful suggestion?

I say No!, but that’s my problem. I take issue with absolute terms, and have to admit that the arguments that often stem from them are usually a waste of time and energy. I am certain that FontBlast meant no offense to literalists out there with his choice of words.

If we look at the tags FB included, his own self-depricating thoughts on the outcome of this experiment are revealed.

Carry on.
Comment by William Leverette (will.i.ૐ) 31st October 2012
Looks like there's obviously two sides to this argument. I can see the logic in both.

Isn't it fun when font geeks argue? :-)
Comment by demonics 31st October 2012
@Demonics. I respect your comments but FontBlast is NOT a beginner. He has some excellent work, so I'm just a bit disappointed with this effort.

I also have a few sayings:-
"Sometimes the truth hurts, but the truth is always better than the lies"

"If you can't handle the truth then don't display your work on a public site"

"I always expect people to be honest, I can deal with honesty. It's deception and falsity that I can't deal with".

My old man always used to say:-
"Always speak your mind. If you can't say something nice, then at least say something honest and constructive. If you don't say anything at all, people will believe they're doing it right"

I feel my 3/10 is justified, although I never actually clicked the vote button. :-)
Comment by djnippa 31st October 2012
I have to take djnippa's side on this one. Praise is temporary; only criticism has lasting benefits. It is a brave person who criticizes to help others. I respect such people.

On the flip side, praise or otherwise, all are one person's opinion which are easily dismissible if they are disagreed with.
Comment by thalamic 31st October 2012
The point is, is it a good font or not? I think it is. If you don't, that's fine! Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I think it's a really smart font nonetheless.
Comment by anonymous-0 31st October 2012
I appreciate your comments. I'm only 10 and I'm still learning to use various Fontstruct tools. I'm also making a similar font called 'Stakar' which makes use of brick stacking.
@thalamic Thanks for your suggestions, however I'm just keeping the I, as I don't do composites for now.
@AFT Very good!
I included tags like 'Faliure' and 'Poor' to show that it wasn't my best font.
Yet I hope Stakar will be better.
Maybe I'll make a 'Minimal Export 2' based on AFT's design.
In the meantime, please enjoy my other fonts, my latest are 'Crest Sans' & 'Cofmugg'.
Enjoy, and keep FontStructing!
Comment by Jamie Place (FontBlast) 31st October 2012
When I was 10, I barely knew how to blow my own nose.

In that respect, your work is awesome. Keep going.
Comment by thalamic 31st October 2012
You may find this tool useful:-
All composites
Comment by djnippa 31st October 2012
@djnippa // Thanks for being so civil and understanding. I thought this would blow up in our faces like all the other debates, but no. And thanks for that. I see what you're saying in that this is a step down from his other work (no offense at all FB) and I recognise why you'd say that. So thanks again for being clear and understandable :-)

@FontBlast // I've inadvertently started other arguments on fonts, so sorry to bring it here. By the way, it's a good attempt! Everyone must experiment with styles they may or may not like, so they know what they want to create. I like the F here, a whole font on a bigger grid scale based on that F would be cool... :-)
Comment by demonics 31st October 2012
I would suggest to remove some of the tags again, as this is definitely not a failure! You are experimenting with the medium of fontstruct and exploring the underlying anatomy of glyphs and your own creativity. These are all essential elements of the creative process that will take you into new territory.
Comment by four 31st October 2012
Fontblast, I'm 10 too.
Comment by Noah (winty5) 14th November 2012
And neither your fonts or mine suck. Digital high five!
Comment by Noah (winty5) 14th November 2012

Also of Interest

More from the Gallery

Dolphin Sansby Jamie Place (FontBlast)
threeby monoby Jamie Place (FontBlast)
Vaqueroby Jamie Place (FontBlast)
Metricby Jamie Place (FontBlast)
SpartanTechby geneus1
Scaffoldini Prospettico SGby funk_king
fs handwrittenby ETHproductions
fs Stability (Flux)by thalamic

From the Blog

News

New Bricks: Square Connectors

News

The Video Game Font Preservation Society

News

FontStruct goes open source!

News

New Bricks: Half Arcs