Read more
Suitcase Type Foundry has launched a new website—a project that goes beyond a redesign and marks a new chapter for the foundry. Founded in 2003 by Czech type designer Tomáš Brousil, Suitcase Type Foundry has since developed an extensive type library alongside a wide range of custom type projects. To mark the launch of the new website, we spoke with Tomáš Brousil about the ideas behind the new platform and the work of Suitcase Type Foundry.
The question “Do we really need more typefaces?” has accompanied Suitcase Type Foundry from the beginning. There are already more typefaces than anyone could use in a lifetime, and new ones appear every day. How did this thinking shape the way you wanted to present Suitcase Type Foundry and its typefaces on the new website?
Of course, there are also far more books than anyone could read in a lifetime, and more music than anyone could ever listen to. Digital type design is still a relatively young field that has become significantly more popular in recent years. Increasingly accessible tools have also inevitably brought a certain degree of amateurism into the profession. The number of typefaces seems to be growing almost exponentially, making it increasingly difficult to come up with something genuinely new.
I think the question of whether we really need another typeface remains one of the fundamental principles of the foundry’s philosophy and a key criterion in deciding what to produce. Whether a new typeface offers users any real benefit, adds something necessary to the collection, has an audience, or whether there is some other reason why it is important to create it, regardless of its commercial potential. These are questions I continue to ask myself.
When preparing the new website, it was useful to look at my work from a certain distance and reconsider not only the website’s architecture but also the collection itself. With new typefaces, I try to anticipate how and where they will be used. With those that have been on the market for years, I can actually test those assumptions. As a result, I updated the technical aspects of most of the typefaces, completely redrew some, and added necessary styles or alternates. I also decided to discontinue a number of typefaces.
The new website should make it possible to present typefaces in a broader context. To explain why they were created, explore the background of their development, and show how they are actually used and what they are best suited for. I am gradually adding studies to the Editorial section that explore these processes in more detail.
You describe retail and custom work as two parts of the same practice. What do you learn from one side of your work that you bring into the other?
The two areas influence each other significantly. Some custom typefaces eventually enter the retail collection once their license agreements expire, and I also continue developing concepts originally created for custom project proposals. But it works the other way around, too. When modifying older retail typefaces for custom projects, I sometimes discover minor flaws that I then correct in the originals, add missing kerning, or even decide to redesign the entire typeface.
Another important aspect is that some of my more recent retail typefaces, such as Icona or Yolo, have been developed specifically with future modifications in mind. Many custom typeface concepts are created under considerable time pressure, particularly for visual identity competitions. Studios usually have only a few months to present a complete visual identity to the client, but they need to start working with the typeface well in advance, often within just a few weeks of the project starting.
Yolo, for example, was designed as a versatile geometric concept that can be adapted very quickly to specific requirements. In situations like these, it is possible to create a modification that reflects the character of the proposed identity within a relatively short time. This approach has already proved useful on several occasions.
Many of your typefaces grow into extensive families. The Tabac Collection, for instance, developed over ten years, from your diploma project in 2009 to Tabac Big in 2019. How do you decide when a family needs another weight, width or companion, and how do you know when it's finished?
Sometimes the intended scope of a typeface is clear from the outset. Multiple masters and variable fonts now make it possible to produce enormous, sometimes almost unmanageable type families. What interests me more, however, is how typefaces are actually used. I discuss their applications with designers and actively seek feedback. I find it more practical to release a smaller family first and gradually expand it if it shows potential or if there is demand for additional styles or related families.
For example, the Crabath collection, designed for book typography, was initially prepared as a beta version covering the basic optical sizes. Only after using it extensively in various book projects was it possible to evaluate how the typeface performed, where its limitations were, and how its possibilities could be expanded. Based on these experiences, I added further optical styles to the collection before its release.
The Tabac superfamily developed in a similar way. It began as a serif typeface for newspapers and magazines, with Sans being a logical companion. Slab and Mono followed, then Micro for typesetting at very small sizes, and the elegant Glam for fashion magazines. Serif, Sans, Slab, and Glam were later expanded with condensed Big display variants featuring a larger x-height. Next year will mark 20 years since I started working on the project, and I am planning to add one final family.
A good excuse to bring such extensive projects to a close is to publish a printed type specimen. Once a typeface has been committed to print, I usually don't allow myself to develop it any further.
Suitcase Type Foundry has remained a one-person foundry, with you responsible for everything from the concept to font production and presentation. How does that shape the kinds of projects you take on, especially large custom type systems?
For me, consistency throughout the entire working process is important, from the initial design to the technical production. When I am involved in every stage, I can fully understand the project, keep track of all its aspects, and stand behind every decision. I consider this one of the main advantages of working this way.
The capacity of one person is obviously limited, so it is necessary to realistically assess the scope and time requirements of each project before accepting it. However, the size of a project is not necessarily the deciding factor for me. What matters more is whether the work can be planned reasonably and whether continuity can be maintained throughout the process.
I also think this allows for a certain flexibility in communication and decision-making. This benefits both the users of my retail typefaces and the studios I collaborate with on custom fonts. Rather than communicating with several people responsible for different parts of a project, they deal directly with the person who designs and produces the typeface.
The custom section of the new website ranges from logotypes to extensive type systems for clients.. If you had to choose one or two projects that best represent where Suitcase is today, which would they be, and why?
I would probably choose two projects at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of scale. On one hand, there is Forsage, a single-style typeface I designed for the Aero art-house cinema about 20 years ago. I still enjoy its simple, expressive character. And apparently I'm not the only one, as it remains part of the cinema's visual identity to this day.
At the other end is one of my most recent projects, Czechia Sans, an extensive type family I designed for the unified visual identity of the Czech Republic, created by Studio Najbrt. It represents a completely different scale of work, with very different demands in terms of functionality, technical production, and range of applications. What I particularly enjoy is being able to move between such different assignments, from a single expressive style to a complex type system.
