Typesetting - Modernist and Post Modernist Differences

Typography is used very different by modernists and postmodernists. Modernists using the International Typographic Style employ alignment, grid systems and features legibility/readability ensure that information is communicated as effectively as possible. Postmodernists, however, are often less concerned about what the words say, and are most concerned about how the words are saying it.  To exemplify this we could look at Massimo Vignelli as a modernist and David Carson as a postmodernist. 

New York City's transport identity, created by Vignelli, was designed with one thing in mind: communication. Non-essential and aesthetic-only aspects have been eschewed in favour of bare-bones and highly-legible minimalism. Typography is used to communicate through its words, not its appearance. 

Vignelli once said “I don't think that type should be expressive at all. I can write the word 'dog' with any typeface and it doesn't have to look like a dog. But there are people that [think that] when they write 'dog' it should bark.”

David Carson is a designer who thinks that when you write the word 'dog' it should bark. He uses typography as a form of image, communicating through its appearance even more than it does through its words.

Above and below I have used typesetting to attempt to epitomise the modernist and post-modernist approaches to the use of typography. Above shows the approach a modernist would likely take - flushed left, conveying information as clearly and uniformly as possible. 

Below is an approach a post-modernist might take, although its worth remembering that a post-modernist it likely to have much more freedom when he/she typesets because of their view that the type is simply a form of image, rather than a set of words that need to be read. It could be made to look like the literal tail of a mouse, or, like my approach, could be laid out to represent the never ending 'longevity' of the tale, and the increase in drama as it unfolds.