Steve’s Stuff

Helvetica is an interesting documentary about something that
superficially appears banal - the ubiquitous san serif font. This is a
stylish film that is actually about a lot more than typography.

The film pursues two angles. The first deals with typography directly
and is more expository in nature. It’s the ostensible topic of the
film, but the interest comes from the second angle, which deals with
issues of modernism, postmodernism, and the aesthetics of graphic
design. Yes, it’s interesting to learn about typography, but
typography is not an art per se (nor am I suggesting that the film
makes this claim). Rather, it is the manner its used that has the
potential to rise above its market-driven function and become an
artistic statement.

The film really hits its stride after about 40 minutes when the
modernism bubble bursts and we start getting a lot of resistance to
the world-wide helvetica saturation. After hearing modernist designers
extol the virtues of its clean lines and clarity, it’s nice to hear
some postmodernists begin to deconstruct its undercurrent of
conformity. By the end of the film, we’ve come back to a place where
helvetica is no longer mass market taboo and graphic designers are
free to use it, so long as they some how subvert its structure.

The best part about the film is that it really lays out the
modern/postmodern debate clearly by using something to which everyone
can relate. A comparison of modernist and postmodernist painting is
sure to leave those unfamiliar with the field of 20th century painting
confused, but by using something everyone has a lot of experience
with, the issues become increasingly clear.

I have a few issues with the film that keep me from giving it five
stars. It feels a bit long for its subject matter. There are quite a
few montage sections showing how the Helvetica typeface surrounds us
everywhere. I think most people get the picture within a few minutes.
All these montages feel a bit like filler. While it’s an engaging
topic, I’m not sure that it’s a “feature-length” topic. “Helvetica”
seemed to be a great 60-minute documentary that unfortunately ran 80
minutes.

Also, some of the interviewees are a bit fanatical about typography.
At least one individual borders on the verge of typographic fetishism.
I know the difference between enthusiasm and fetishism and this was
clearly the latter. You’ll see what I mean. I don’t mind that this guy
holds this position, but I think it weakens some of the arguments that
others make in support of the aesthetic complexity of typography.

In conclusion, I’ll say that “Helvetica” is a very nice documentary.
It’s not on the same level as, say, “Gates of Heaven” or “Shoah”, but
it’s solid. It’s definitely worth renting. I’m not sure how much
replay value is present - I don’t think I will watch it again soon,
only because it was straight-forward. It’s accessible enough to engage
individuals who don’t typically watch documentaries. It’s definitely
one you can watch with your friends.

Triadic Memories is my absolute favorite Feldman piano work and probably ranks up there with my top five Feldman works of all time (the others include his Piano and String Quartet, Rothko Chapel, King of Denmark, and Crippled Symmetry). Solo piano works so well for Feldman’s music for a number of reasons. Works such as “Why Patterns?” can sometimes sound a bit shrill if the musicians have not made good sonic choices. Anytime you have flute and orchestra bells as two thirds of an ensemble, you’re bound to risk a lot of high-frequency irritation. By contrast, the piano has a wonderful range that is never grating on the ears. (I should point out though that I do like “Why Patterns?” when it’s performed well)

I’ll comment first on the work itself and then on the interpretation.

There are some reviewers here that claim the work is “boring”. This could be for a variety of reasons. The most obvious is that they’re inexperienced with 20th century modernist art music. But, I’ll give these listeners the benefit of the doubt and address these criticisms anyway. There is no perceptible form at work here. You can’t follow it as you would a sonata. There is either very little repetition or quite a lot - it’s difficult to say which. Sometimes I feel like I’ve heard a certain section before, but other times it feels through-composed. That is all to say, there are valid reasons for not enjoying Triadic Memories.

Additionally, as with all extended-length Feldman, if you don’t happen to enjoy the mood and texture of a particular work, you’re probably not going to like it. “For Philip Guston” does not appeal to me because I happen to not like the small idea that Feldman expands into a nearly four-hour work. On the other hand, I like the sounds of his second String Quartet, which is even longer.

Ultimately, I would suggest listening to Amazon’s 30 second previews. They give a very representative sampling of the work. It’s as simple as this: if you like the preview, you’re in for a treat because it’s more of the same for about 93 minutes. If you don’t think it sounds good, then you’re not going to like the work.

These are all subjective perspectives anyway. Personal taste aside, this is one of Feldman’s strongest works. It perfectly realizes his delicate, haunting aesthetic and induces the type of meditative listening experience that he typically requests of his listeners. Beyond that, he finds variety with simple ideas. The broken chords of Triadic Memories, if stacked vertically, would form more-or-less normal triads, but Feldman arranges them into major and minor seconds that destroy any chance of triadic consonance. It’s beautiful stuff, really.

Marilyn Nonken provides a terrific interpretation of this difficult work. After listening to it around ten times, I cannot find any faults or errors. Her tempo is slow, but not too slow. Most importantly, she maintains excellent rhythmic integrity. For those who have had the chance to examine the score, you know that Triadic Memories is rhythmically complex - deceptively so, I might add. Nonken is able to convey this accurately and avoids the pitfall of making the notes seem like a random cloud of pitches.

Overall, I can’t recommend this recording highly enough. The only question for Feldman fans is whether to buy the double CD or the DVD-Audio version.