According to the authors Jan Tschichold, Karl Gerstner, and Josef Müller-Brockmann, one should design through structural and systematic matters. Providing a system ensures that design is being held in an acceptable manner through means of simplification and clear understanding. Gerstner makes an interesting perspective in the forms of designing programs. Using, in his words a more “ intellectual criteria” as opposed to one’s feelings. He argues that his morphological box of the typogram is a solution to the problem of designing with a set structure that makes the design more organized in terms of basis, color, appearance, and expression. His grid determines what and how type should be used and in what context but lack complete efficiency because of undetermined factors that can not be placed into a category.

Müller-Brockmann takes on an approach that highlights the very same idea but that those elements that can not be categorized from Gerstner function, which are unable to be organized or chaotic that can indeed put places into a program that does the opposite of what they are. This means that they can be organized and fit into a structure based on his personalized grid and design system. He believes his system should contribute to the general culture in terms of the “ clearly intelligible, objective, functional, and aesthetic quality of mathematical thinking.” But I can help but think this is a contradiction based on  his point “that every visual creative work is a manifestation of the character of the designer.” This system places design in a way that I feel lacks creativity rather than embraces it from an individual designer standpoint.

Jan Tschichold argues that new typography is just a type that indulges in fascism and makes type illegible. He makes a point of centralization of the axis and that design influenced by De Stijl and constructivism disregards the basic principles of typography that help keep the idea of a universal language intact. That abandoning this technique would serve us no purpose in a future context. He believes in a logical relationship between sizes, typefaces, hierarchies, and alignments. That the Bauhaus and its influences lack the basis to structuralize typography. But does bring in a unique era, one that is destined for aesthetic purposes rather than functional purposes.