Simon Helmstetter

What is your earliest typographic memory?

When I was a teenager, I would make the rounds of skate shops to pick up magazines and stickers. I was fascinated by the diversity of the logos, their distinctiveness, and the promise conveyed by their visual worlds.

They were really more like lettering—highly distinctive forms—than typography in the strict sense. Letterforms shaped by punk, alternative subcultures, and the DIY spirit.

As for magazines, whether surf or skate, I discovered deconstructed layouts in which type was “mistreated” and the “ink” seemed to run. I later realized that this was part of the legacy of postmodern designer David Carson.

How did you come to type design, and how does this practice relate to your work as a graphic designer today?

I began my studies with a BTS in graphic design at LISAA Strasbourg. In my second year, when we started designing visual identities, I realized that it was useful to create your own tools—your own letterforms, and even your own typefaces. That was when I began designing the SYSTM typeface. At the time it was called Carrelage and was intended for the visual identity of a municipal swimming pool.

Later, I entered the master’s program in Art Direction and Typography at ECV Paris, then led by Jean François Porchez, Julie Soudanne, and Mathieu Réguer. That is where I truly learned type design.

That practice, however, has always developed alongside my work as a graphic designer. I have always considered typography a tool in service of my projects. It was only with SYSTM that I made publicly available a tool originally developed for my own needs.

Blaze Type describes your approach as centered on graphic systems and custom type design. What exactly does the word “system” mean to you?

A system is a set of rules and principles that frames and defines a practice. It can stem from an initial idea or develop gradually through the repetition and variation of a single principle. I like the idea that constraints stimulate creativity. A system also makes it possible to maintain logical consistency. Finally, when it is sufficiently well thought out from the start, it makes production easier. This applies equally to layout systems, web design systems, and type design systems.

Which graphic traditions and figures have shaped your interest in systems, grids, and modularity?

This work very likely grew out of a strong interest, early in my studies, in the avant-garde movements of the early twentieth century, such as the Bauhaus and De Stijl, and in their use of modular principles.

Later, I became interested in the Swiss International Style of the 1950s, in grid- and column-based layouts, particularly those of Josef Müller-Brockmann. Then in Wim Crouwel and his work on the systematic rationalization of typographic form.

I think every graphic designer goes through, at one point or another, a kind of obsession with the grid. That was true for me for a long time, and probably still is. I also try to question the idea: how can you subvert the grid, move beyond it, and perhaps arrive at more organic forms?

In any case, SYSTM belongs to this long graphic design tradition based on the grid and modularity.

SYSTM began as a personal project for a public swimming pool and was originally called Carrelage. How did that context give rise to the system’s first principles?

The original idea did indeed come from the principle of tiling: the ordered spatial distribution of a finite number of elements (tiles) whose “edges” (the grout lines) are shared.

That is the principle I applied to SYSTM and its two basic modules—the quadrant and the square—whose edges merge when the modules are assembled. The challenge was to see whether this system, despite its constraints, would allow me to create all the letters and characters I needed. At first, there was only one font, now called SYSTM A Regular. Its counterform, the Stencil version, came second.

What fascinated me was that, by drawing all the letters from just two modules, any change to the position or appearance of one of them transformed every character. This meant I could potentially produce an infinite number of fonts. At that point, the project no longer had much to do with the original tiling principle, even though tiling remained its starting point.

The entire family is based on only two elements: a square and a quadrant. Why did you choose these two forms, and what did they make possible that a larger or more complex set of components would have prevented?

The first letter I drew was the uppercase B—the B in Bains [municipaux]. Initially, I wanted that B to function as a logo. That letter determined the system that followed and introduced the need to use quadrants.

By its nature, the square is one of the simplest and most modular shapes there is—it fits together and stacks perfectly. The quadrant, meanwhile, makes it possible to create connections between squares while also producing curves and diagonals. That is particularly useful when you are trying to draw letters and typographic characters.

A modular construction forces letterforms to negotiate a shared grid, even though their structures and proportions differ considerably. Which characters resisted the original system most strongly?

The system did not work immediately for letters and characters containing diagonals. I am thinking in particular of W, V, and Z, but also certain symbols, such as the percent sign, arrows, and the hashtag. Accents posed another question. In my construction principle, the accent is always centered over the letter, but the letter itself may be composed of an even or odd number of squares. So for certain characters I designed adaptive accents, sometimes shorter or wider, so that they would remain correctly positioned within the grid.

Type design often depends more on optical judgment than on geometry. Does SYSTM incorporate optical corrections, or is its construction logic carried through without compromise?

Yes, type design is a combination of metrics and optics. Metrics help define harmonious proportions, but optics and optical corrections always take precedence. SYSTM is a special case because it is a metric typeface: the design of the characters is dictated by a grid with a strict logic, and the possibilities for optical correction are very limited.

I did, however, make a few adjustments to the spacing of certain letters. This is the case with the j, whose lower descender extends beneath the preceding letter, and with accented I and i, whose diacritics encroach on neighboring letters. One of the few specific kerning pairs is L-T.

The variable axis controls the outline thickness of the modules, with sometimes paradoxical perceptual effects from one typeface to another. How did you calibrate this variation while preserving their shared metrics?

The first challenge involved the thickness of the outlines and the size at which the type could be displayed. I therefore created a second, much heavier master and turned the first into a much lighter version. Interpolation between the two allowed me to modulate the outline thickness and offer the full range of weights available today—each functioning as a kind of optical variant.

SYSTM A Stencil is an emblematic case: because it corresponds to the counterform of SYSTM A, the heavier the weight becomes, the lighter it appears visually. I kept this paradox because it fit the overall logic of the family. For standalone use, however, I would recommend slightly reducing its tracking to achieve a better typographic color.

I also wanted to preserve equivalent advance widths at a given weight, whether in SYSTM A, Stencil, Cryptic, or Binary, so that the fonts could be combined and superimposed.

Finally, I wanted to maintain exactly the same cap height regardless of weight. Because the thickness of the outlines could alter the height of the letters, I established an equation with two unknowns between master 1 and master 2.

The original project consisted of SYSTM A and its counterpart, SYSTM A Stencil. How did you move from this initial pair to the other branches of the family—Floor, Binary, Origami, Cryptic, Hybrid, Dotted Pixel, and Dotted Cloud?

The project began with SYSTM A. SYSTM A Stencil came from removing the outlines and revealing the counterforms. It then seemed natural to hybridize SYSTM A and SYSTM A Stencil. That is how SYSTM Hybrid was born, followed by SYSTM Hybrid Reverse.

After that, I modified the basic modules empirically and experimentally to see whether each variation brought something new to the system. That is how Binary, Origami, and Floor emerged. Cryptic is a “degraded” version of Stencil in which the quadrant module has been removed.

Dotted Cloud and Dotted Pixel are special cases: the two basic modules are reduced to a few dots, circular in appearance for Dotted Cloud and square for Dotted Pixel. The width of these dots increases with the weight, producing overlapping effects between them. Only in the heavier weights—from bold onward—does this dotted appearance gradually shift toward a “cloud-like” look in Dotted Cloud, or an angular, pixelated look in Dotted Pixel. What they share with the other typefaces in the family is the construction and advance width of the different characters.

The versions offered by Blaze Type are the ones I selected, but I keep a folder containing about ten other variants. In particular, I created versions in which the modules shifted from one master to another. Interpolation then produced “kinetic” fonts, generating effects of construction and deconstruction.

At what stage did you present SYSTM to Blaze Type, and how did working with the foundry transform the project?

I simply emailed Blaze Type. They replied fairly quickly and were enthusiastic about the project.

When I contacted the foundry, the various fonts were already fairly advanced: all the glyphs and styles had been drawn. I had assumed that the project needed to be nearly complete before I could submit it. I probably could have presented it a little earlier! In any case, the collaboration with the foundry taught me a great deal about type engineering, exporting the different fonts, and organizing the various branches of the family.

These typefaces share a common matrix and metrics. Did you conceive them as independent forms or as components of a system intended to be combined, particularly through superimposition?

Most of the fonts can, of course, function independently. That said, the whole collection lives up to its name: it is a system, and each component is designed to work with the others.

When designing display typography, it is particularly effective to combine different fonts at the same weight—for example, SYSTM A Regular with SYSTM Binary Regular. Although they share the same weight and advance width, their typographic color differs, creating contrast and therefore visual hierarchy. The same principle applies when combining several stylistic sets, for example by alternating the default capitals with the Narrow Caps style (SS02).

On the other hand, some fonts are less intelligible and less obvious when used on their own. This is especially true of the Cryptic variant, which I specifically designed to be used in combination with other SYSTM fonts—particularly through superimposition.

When I discovered this possibility, I felt as though a new system was emerging within the first one. It immediately made me think of the book Color and Chromatic Wood Type, published in the United States in the late nineteenth century. It presents characters in which different fonts are superimposed and printed in multiple colors. I realized that by combining the fonts currently available, it was possible to reconstruct some of the experimental variants I had developed—without having to distribute them separately.

This principle can be applied through exact superimposition or with a slight offset, producing experimental pattern effects reminiscent of certain works by Karel Martens or Muir McNeil. Superimposition can also make use of the various grid glyphs I included in each font, if one wants to visually “reinsert” the characters into the grid from which they originated.

Finally, by reducing the leading or spacing in a text, the outlines of the characters can overlap and create an overall pattern effect, reconnecting with the original tiling principle.

SYSTM Binary is one of the most legible typefaces in the family, while Cryptic can be used to selectively erase certain characters. Does legibility become a parameter that the graphic designer can adjust?

When designing a typeface, there is often a tension between legibility and expressiveness. With a display typeface, you can allow yourself much more freedom than with a text typeface.

SYSTM Cryptic plays with that question. It can recall certain postmodern principles in which information is no longer completely legible but functions more as a pattern or an autonomous form. A comparable logic can be found in SYSTM Hybrid: as the weight increases, the quadrants begin to disappear, giving the letters a distressed appearance.

SYSTM offers numerous possibilities for variation and customization. What are the different parameters that allow designers to interact with the family?

The SYSTM fonts can be described as “parametric” in several respects.

First, each font includes five “forms” of letters. There are, of course, capitals and lowercase letters, joined by small caps, Wide Lowercases (SS01), and Narrow Caps (SS02), along with Narrow Digits & Currencies (SS03).

Second, the SYSTM fonts are variable fonts. This feature makes it possible to fine-tune the appearance of the characters according to their size of use, optimizing them for display or print.

Third, when used in motion design or web design, this variable dimension makes it possible to create movement and interactivity. Pushing the concept to its full potential, several animated fonts could be superimposed and driven simultaneously by their variable functions.

Faced with this wealth of combinations, I designed a type specimen and a comprehensive user guide for the family—downloadable as a PDF—to provide a concrete, navigable overview of it.

Extending the family to Cyrillic allowed you to test the system’s possibilities and limits. What did it reveal, and what changes would be required to adapt SYSTM to writing systems with very different structures?

To test the possibilities and limits of the system, I turned to Cyrillic characters. My knowledge of Cyrillic and Cyrillic type design was relatively limited. I therefore tried to understand what made each letter distinctive. I studied the appearance of different Cyrillic typefaces, both serif and sans serif, to identify the recurring distinctions from one typeface to another for the same letter. The “construction” imposed by SYSTM produces this formal, minimal synthesis of the characters.

In addition, certain formal characteristics of Cyrillic lend themselves particularly well to the aesthetic of the SYSTM fonts. I see in them, in particular, a reference to the Brutalist and Constructivist architecture of the Soviet era.

For writing systems such as Arabic or some East Asian scripts, SYSTM, in its current form, would be more difficult to adapt. Arabic in particular remains closely tied to hand-drawn strokes and organic curves produced by gesture. It would probably be difficult to transpose directly.

The later release of SYSTM Hybrid Reverse shows that the family remains open. How do you decide whether a new branch still belongs to the system, and are you currently working on any further type developments?

Yes, it is a system that remains open and functional, and it could give rise to other fonts. For now, the ten versions currently offered are the ones I find most relevant. It is also possible to create many others through superimposition.

At the moment, I am not developing any new type families. I do, however, continue to use letter design to create custom lettering for visual identity projects.

Would a return to tiling and mosaic constitute the project’s logical culmination? What architectural or wayfinding applications do you imagine for SYSTM?

Yes, it would be wonderful to physically translate this tiling principle, whether onto a facade, a pavement, or any other three-dimensional object.

Beyond that, I can easily imagine SYSTM being used for event title systems and visual identities, or in public space, especially for very large-scale signage; for magazine headlines, posters, and book covers; for animated title sequences and interactive web layouts using the variable function; or for superimposing fonts in different colors, particularly in screen printing.