There is no universal recipe for designing Cyrillic. That is why here in the blog we would like to emphasise the diversity within the Cyrillic script, rather than propose an arbitrary set of golden rules. A typeface, as a piece of design, is created for a specific purpose, it solves a particular set of problems, obeys certain limitations. Equally, it has to be innovative, it has to create new character. We can’t forget what was done in the past, but at the same time we can’t ignore the present. When dealing with Cyrillic—whether you choose to stick to tradition or be experimental—what is most important is consistency.
Here we would like to pose several questions and hope that our colleagues will be more open to discussion.
Is Cyrillic developing or just following conventions?
Many foreign and native designers feel nostalgic to history. They blindly follow old conventions, whatever typeface they work on. The problem is, we see historical models differently—an existing model in Latin, when applied to Cyrillic, can have a completely different connotation or feel. A typeface stops being respectful to the history, when it becomes a gimmick, an unintended reference to an old and often not very good typography. As the result the Cyrillic looks more Cyrillic than it has to be.