Monotype, a leading figure in type design, is eager to share its vision of artificial intelligence in typography. The company, which owns a vast library of 250,000 fonts including iconic designs such as Helvetica and Futura, examines the potential impact of AI in its 2025 Re:Vision trends report, released in February. The report explores how AI could lead to a responsive typography that adjusts based on emotional and psychological cues from readers. Features could include text that sharpens as you focus on it or softens as your attention wanes, as well as dynamic typefaces that change with lighting conditions or reading speeds, enhancing engagement by highlighting essential information. Furthermore, AI is expected to simplify typography creation through “intelligent agents and chatbots,” allowing individuals without formal training to create type. However, specific applications remain uncertain, likely to be integrated into proprietary platforms.
Monotype is not alone in its contemplation of AI’s role in design. Many typographers are closely observing the trend, as designers increasingly utilize tools like Midjourney for ideation and Replit for coding while considering the applications of generative pretrained transformers (GPTs) in their workflows. This exploration is both proactive and confrontational, as many creatives resist the notion that the essence of artistry is a hurdle to be streamlined from their processes.
This mindset of efficiency echoes a century-old debate among creatives during the European industrialization era, where artists assembled to discuss the ramifications of mass production on art and typography through the Deutscher Werkbund (German Alliance of Craftspeople). Some artists outright rejected the advancements offered, while others embraced them, paving the way for the establishment of the Bauhaus school.
“It’s almost as if we are being gaslighted into believing our lives, or our professions, or our creative skills are ephemeral.”
This was a period marked by uncertain inquiries about the future of typography in response to industrialization. Key questions arose: Would type persist on printed pages, or would it evolve to incorporate sound through advances in radio? Was it feasible to create a universal typeface adaptable in every context? Ultimately, these inquiries led to limited tangible outcomes, primarily benefiting manufacturing efficiency rather than advancing artistic expression. Monotype’s current inquiries evoke these historical debates, yet the company remains realistic about the tangible applications of AI in the near term.
“Our chief focus is connecting people to the type that they need — everywhere,” explains Charles Nix, Senior Executive Creative Director at Monotype and co-author of Re:Vision. This commitment is not a novel concept for Monotype, which has been refining its similarity engine to identify typefaces since 2015.
Nix believes the potential of AI is boundless, making the current era an exhilarating time for typographers. “At both extremes of the AI spectrum, there are human beings seeking innovative solutions through their design skills,” he notes. “Opportunities for such radical technological shifts in our industry are rare throughout one’s career.”
Nonetheless, skepticism remains. Zeynep Akay, Creative Director at typeface design firm Dalton Maag, expresses concerns over the current lack of compelling results justifying excitement about AI. While Dalton Maag recognizes the potential for AI to alleviate repetitive tasks in type design—such as creating kerning tables or troubleshooting font discrepancies—many designers are wary of surrendering their creative autonomy to machines.
“It’s almost as if we are being gaslighted into believing our lives, or our professions, or our creative skills are ephemeral,” Akay remarks, highlighting her reservations about the generative capabilities of AI offering a brighter creative future. “This future arguably could mean a gradual erosion of human intellectual endeavors, transferred to AI, with unclear benefits for society,” she adds.
Nix shares Akay’s caution, emphasizing that the more realistic applications of AI may lie in simplifying tedious aspects of typography. While AI might lower barriers for design and typography, he insists that “the essence of creative thinking remains intact, regardless of the mechanics we employ.”
“Thirty-five years ago, there were similar fears about computers taking over design jobs,” he recalls. “However, for those of us who have used computers for design over the past three decades, our creativity has not diminished.”
“For all of us who have spent the last 35 years creating design using computers, it has not diminished our creativity at all.”
The transition to digital typography arose from a well-defined demand for improved workflow, moving away from laborious hand-setting to more immediate methods, according to Akay. However, the current landscape feels as if we are advancing without fully understanding how AI fits into our creative processes. The efficacy of integrating AI tools remains uncertain, particularly as results in the broader generative AI context have been underwhelming. Akay compares this moment to the late 1990s dot-com bubble.
There are parallels to be drawn with the rise of internet startups during that era, where an influx of venture capital came without addressing tangible consumer needs. Many failing startups crashed in 2000 due to being overvalued and lacking a clear mission. “However, the internet emerged again during a time when actual problems required solving,” Akay states.
Currently, the push toward AI is often spearheaded by executives attempting to automate tasks and reduce the creative input of professionals, rather than by designers seeking genuine enhancements to their workflows.
Nix and Akay concur that a potential downturn around AI could serve to shift venture capitalist interests away from the field. Despite the absence of an obvious practical need now, Nix believes it may soon become evident. He suggests that the need might not currently be within our immediate view.
According to Nix, the Western perspective on AI might overlook critical gaps in typographical representation for diverse writing systems. The demand for improvement may be greater in these less-central areas, where the limitations of existing typeface selections are more evident. “The periphery may ultimately drive the need for innovation,” he observes.
Nevertheless, it’s unlikely that the current model for typography sales will change significantly. Licensing from companies like Monotype and Dalton Maag is likely to continue. However, generative AI applications may eventually be integrated into existing typography subscription services, with associated costs passed on to consumers through these subscription fees.
At this point, speculation prevails as the industry remains in the early stages of AI development. Current demonstrable tools are mostly limited to font identification applications like WhatTheFont, with no clear understanding of the broader implications of AI technology. “What was considered type in 1965 is fundamentally different from today’s definition, and it is poised to continue evolving,” Nix notes. It’s a transformative period, yet challenging to ascertain how much of our existing practices will be preserved or redefined as we advance.
While exploring these possibilities, it is essential not to become overly captivated by the aesthetic of AI capabilities. Akay warns that creativity gains its value from its inherent challenges and risks. The advancement of technology should not lead us to neglect foundational principles in design or rush into uncertain futures. The journey forward must be approached with careful consideration and mindful of the lessons learned from the past.
