An independent archive of typography.

The Exposed #2

Contributed by Love Lagerkvist on Mar 16th, 2017. Artwork published in
February 2017
The Exposed #2 1
Source: The Exposed. License: All Rights Reserved.

The second issue of The Exposed magazine tells the story about a place that does not exist. A place where energy is green, where minorities and majorities live peacefully side by side, where explorers rediscover planet Earth, where religion has no price, and where history does not repeat itself. Through the lenses of six young photographers we invite you on a hopeful journey; Searching for Utopia.

The Exposed is a mixed media magazine from Copenhagen, where the printed matter serves as a gateway to the stories within. By pointing your smartphone at a title page, you get launched into an audiovisual experience that blurs the line between podcast and reality. If you don’t own a smartphone, the stories are acessed via a special website.

Typographically sparse, the only real settings are title pages, a table of contents and occasional descriptions. The somewhat esoteric feeling of the content is further pronunced with two turn-of-the-century faces — Bauer’s Venus (1907) in regular and extended styles and Monotype’s Italian Old Style (1911). In the logo, the ‘o’ of Venus is replaced by a circle.

Editor-in-chief: Henriette Kruse
Design: Stefan Thorsteinsson

The Exposed #2 2
License: All Rights Reserved.
The Exposed #2 3
License: All Rights Reserved.
The Exposed #2 4
License: All Rights Reserved.
The Exposed #2 5
License: All Rights Reserved.
The Exposed #2 6
License: All Rights Reserved.
The Exposed #2 7
License: All Rights Reserved.
The Exposed #2 8
License: All Rights Reserved.
The Exposed #2 9
Source: License: All Rights Reserved.
The Exposed #2 10
License: All Rights Reserved.


  • Venus Extended
  • Venus
  • Monotype Italian Old Style




Artwork location

7 Comments on “The Exposed #2”

  1. For the record, this isn’t Frederic Goudy’s “Italian Old Style” – that has a bar on the top of the 'a’. This is a different, earlier family named “Italian Old Style”, which was Monotype’s copy of William Morris’s Golden Type. They also made first a heavier version named “Veronese”. (I’m taking this information from Carter’s history of Monotype, page 196.)

  2. Thanks, Blythwood, much appreciated. I have removed the reference to Goudy.

  3. Great. Carter dates IOS separately to Veronese with IOS in 1919 and Veronese in 1911, which I didn’t know until I reread it. Just been running round Wikipedia clearing that up…

  4. Hans Reichardt gives a 1925 date for Monotype’s Veronese 59. Could this be another case where a commissioned typeface was made publicly available years later? Both Veronese (Series 59) and Italian Old Style (Series 108) were produced for J. M. Dent.

    In 1911, when J. M. Dent requested a new roman and italic for his ‘Everyman’s Library’, [managing director H. M.] Duncan readily agreed it should be cut. Dent was not in any way opposed to mechanical composition but, as he could not bring himself to abandon the Morris doctrine completely, he asked the Corporation to cut Veronese from a heavy fifteenth-century original. This face is significant as marking a transition in type design from private press requirements to those of the world of commerce.
    —The Monotype Recorder, Vol. 43, No. 3, 1968

    Italian Old Style […] Series 108 [was] produced by Monotype in Britain for the publisher J. M. Dent soon after the First World War.
    The Monotype Chronicles, 1917–1925

  5. Seems plausible, although I can’t find a source. I suspect you know this, but Monotype’s hot metal version of Joanna was originally an exclusive for Dent.

  6. been running round Wikipedia clearing that up…

    Just chiming in to thank you for that noble service, Blythwood! There is inevitably a lot of misinformation on Wikipedia because the online sources for type are often inaccurate, and I know you do a lot there to improve the situation.

  7. Yes, after adding it in in the first place, probably! I’ve just been trying to clean up the Optima article which had three contradictory statements on when it was finished. A certain warning is certainly well-said.

    In all seriousness, the more I’ve read sources on metal type, the more I realise that nobody should trust “dates” of metal typefaces in books to more than a year either side, unless they specifically list details of what exactly they mean. It’s so easy to get confused between the year the artist sent in the pitch, the year the type design was made on graph paper, when it was first cut and sold as an exclusive, when it was released generally, when the bold weight everyone used got finished. If you compare (say) different lists of Monotype typefaces they often disagree on dates by a year or so. And that’s a company with surviving archives. On the Monotype navbox I’ve put “dates are approximate only”!

Post a comment