AI & Typography: A Christian-Theistic Look

Carl Shank • December 10, 2025

AI & Typography: A Christian-Theistic Present Look

Monotype Corporation recently released their 2025 Report concerning Artificial Intelligence and Typography called Re-Vision (See https://bit.ly/4aEUePf). This eReport looks at the various typographical, social and cultural issues surrounding AI and how it affects and impacts the craft and science of typography. A selected summary of the Report is available below.


What I want to do in this brief post is to address three questions that were raised in this Monotype report — What is it that we do that a machine will never be able to do? What is an essentially “human” typographic experience? Can AI be fully commanded, and interrogated, or will technology sanitize our vision and overthrow our own artistic hands?


While AI holds forth some fascinating and interesting scenarios for the future of typography, my own deep dive into the technology, as a pastor/theologian/ typographer has given me both an appreciation for the technology and suitable warnings for our humanity. A couple of seminars I conducted on AI have helped me frame the discussion with God-given “human” insights. The human concerns keep surfacing here — Will AI replace us in some significant way? Will AI even surpass us in its ability to accomplish things that we always thought were unique to human efforts? Will AI eliminate the Picasso’s? Or the Gutenberg’s? Or the Garamond’s? Or the Baskerville’s? Or the many other typographical giants through the centuries? Will AI robotics replace our relationships? How will AI integrate with our typographical and cultural journeys?


The specter of a post-human world where we have an  informational pattern over material existence, and our bodies are an accident of history and unnecessary, where consciousness is merely a secondary result of our evolution, where the body is merely a prosthesis, an artificial part, where human beings can be wedded with intelligent machines, and finally where we are merely a “sum of our parts,” no longer needing divine intervention, guidance or creativity, looms before us in AI.


Christopher S. Penn, Almost Timely News, noted on August 3 of this year that “AI is advancing so rapidly that if your preferred tool or ecosystem doesn’t have a useful feature today that another platform does, there’s a very good chance in 3-6 months that your tool/ecosystem will. Overall, AI’s capabilities, in terms of the complexity of tasks it can handle, doubles roughly every 6 months. A task AI couldn’t do a year ago, it can probably do in some capacity today if the model’s architecture permits it.” 


“The true menace of AI is not so much what it’s capable of doing today, but rather that it doesn’t rest. An AI program can learn, evolve, iterate, and work 24/7. Give it a job and it will toil sleeplessly until the task is complete. That’s a wonderful advantage if the job is, say, parsing cancer research data, but less so if it’s practicing and refining a creative craft that threatens to eventually put thousands of people out of work.” (Re-Vision Report, Monotype, Winter 2025)



As a Christian typographer and thinker, I am reminded of the biblical story of the tower of Babel in Genesis 11 — “This is autonomous self-aggrandizement and bringing God down to us rather than us worshipping him. Babel stood—and still stands today—as a type of the earthly city, in rebellion against God. . . . They name their city Bab-el, Akkadian for “gate of the gods,” but God makes their ambition a byword for babel: a near homonym for the Hebrew word meaning “confusion.” God gives Babel or Babylon a different destiny and meaning and forces his sovereign will on mankind.” (Christopher Watkin, Biblical Critical Theory)


To be made in God’s image means we are not just able to process and display, but we are called to create and express ourselves. This is a wonderful, glorious thing. But when we use that creativity to fashion something to think, speak, and create for us, we start to abdicate our role as Imago Dei and in a sense become less human. By delegating our God-given task to coding, we deny who we are and who God is.


The technology manager of the Seminary I attended noted this — “When the massive flood of AI-generated content drowns out both the well-crafted painting shared on Instagram and the random shower-thought posted to X, we might finally understand that the punishment for the idol maker is true. Our voices will be buried under the rising volume of AI-content, our vision will be blinded by the warping and blending of reality, and our hearing will be deafened by the noise of AI voices speaking AI-generated opinions.” ( Paul Quiram, Mgr. Ed Tech, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, PA)


Campbell goes on to say that “To recreate the work that designers have been doing since the days of illuminated manuscripts and the Gutenberg Bible is no simple feat,” Campbell rightly points out. “At this stage in the evolution of AI tools, the models built on statistical probabilities struggle to recreate the simple beauty of well-designed, meticulously crafted typography.”


What is it that we do that a machine will never be able to do?

What Monotype found out in their reporting about AI now is that the technology is clearly lacking in typographical preciseness and artistic coherence. “But for better or for worse, it turns out that AI is fairly bad at drawing letters. In a recent piece in The Atlantic (a piece that, it should be noted, was sponsored by Google), writer Drew Campbell observed that while AI knows many words and may already know all the words there are to know, it “stumbles” when “creating the literal letterforms that construct each syllable, clause, and paragraph.” (Monotype and see “Typography Reconsidered,” Drew Campbell, The Atlantic at https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/google/typography-reconsidered/3886/)


In my own experimentation with AI tools in typographic design, I asked ChatGPT to give me a typeface in Rotunda rounded Gothic type of the 15th century in the letters, ABCdeg. This is what it came up with. Looks “like” rounded Gothic, but not really. I also asked AI to give me those letters with the typeface of Romaine du Roi, a very carefully crafted typeface of the Enlightenment Period in the 1700s. It came up with these letters, a terrible rendering.


Of course, this does not mean that AI cannot ever duplicate these typographical periods and faces. But it does point to the need for “human” based typographical input and guidance and critique. Monotype’s conclusion — “Whether the work is done by our team or others in the industry, we believe human beings should remain central to typographic ideation.”


Christopher Penn offers four ethical tests or guards to be applied to AI which can easily apply to typographical standards and creations —"Respect — Does our use of AI respect the values we've established? Harm people? Devalue people? Accountability — Who is responsible for AI outputs? Does the AI dodge liability? Fairness — What known biases does any given AI model have? Transparency — The more transparency, interpretability, and explainability there is in any AI system, the safer it is. The more trustworthy it is.” (Almost Timely News: The Ethics of AI by Christopher Penn, August 17, 2025)


“AI should not be feared, but designers are yet to form a consensus. What feels pertinent is that we as design “humans” define the value we bring to our role in ideation and execution. If nothing else, AI has prompted introspection on creative methodologies, a reappraisal of our relationship to technology.” (Monotype Report)


From a Christian ethical point of view, “We must engage these issues, rather than respond after their effects are widely felt. But we don’t have to face today or tomorrow with fear. God is sovereign and his Word is sufficient for every good work, so we are able to walk with confidence as we apply his Word to these challenges with wisdom and guided by his Spirit.” (Jason Thacker, The Age of AI: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity, Zondervan, 2020)


A helpful guide to AI use and concerns is that provided by Ann Mckensie — "People often don't realize that all ChatGPT prompts containing their photos, health data and intimate details are stored and used in training models by default. This is incredibly concerning, especially in the light of OpenAI's shady deals with the military and intelligence agencies.
Using AI may be unavoidable, but it doesn't have to mean you need to forfeit your privacy in the process. This is why I collaborated in the production of this useful guide how to use ChatGPT safely." See this guide at —
https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/chatgpt-privacy/


It is only fitting that we should give an AI generated summary of the Re-Vision Report by Monotype. Click on the image for a PDF Summary of that Report.

Successful Layout & Design

Type Trends 2026 Analysis

By Carl Shank • October 13, 2026
Type Trends 2026 Analysis Tiffany Wardle, The Type Founders copy and design service editor, has offered her perspectives on the state of type in 2026 (SEE https://bit.ly/4s5fgNV ) She offers the summary that “no single style has defined 2026.” She, instead, offers that “variety” is the defining feature of 2026 — “traditional and unconventional approaches, maximalism beside restraint, and pairings without an obvious connection that still suit their context.” She notes that familiar or bookish type is found in unexpected roles and scales, that “expressive type is paired with pragmatic type, and that character-rich typefaces used as logotypes with broader use of variable fonts for creativity and performance.” Instead of the traditional typeface advice of carefully selecting faces that harmonize with one another, and the classic sans-serif headlines with serif text, she notes that type in 2026 emphasizes contradiction — “Contradiction gives much current typography its appeal. A bold, mannered display face can sit beside a practical sans serif; the two need no obvious formal connection. Their contrast creates energy. These ideas are not new. Typography has always adapted and recombined earlier approaches for new purposes. What matters now is the particular mix—and the wide range of methods that can feel contemporary at once.” The age-old sage advice, that I posted in 2021, notes this about how to use and combine typefaces — "Robert Bringhurst wisely says — “The best type for a book about bicycle racing will be, first of all, an inherently good type. Second, it will be a good type for books, which is to say, a good type for comfortable long-distance reading. Third, it will be a type sympathetic to the theme. It will probably be lean, strong and swift; perhaps it will also be Italian. But it is unlikely to be carrying excess ornament or freight, and unlikely to be indulging in a masquerade.” ( The Elements of Typographic Style , 91). Jan White echoes this sentiment about choosing type in How To Spec Type — “There is no such thing as 'right' or 'correct' use of type. There is only vivid and eloquent effectiveness, or numbing and misleading ineffectiveness.” (10) Consequently, a math textbook will use a different typeface than a slogan on a can of soda or a bottle of wine. White suggests the following questions for the would-be use of a typeface in any context — [1] Does the way the type is handled in a specific circumstance fulfill its purpose? [2] Is it doing the job efficiently? [3] Is the message coming through clearly and vividly? is the message jumping off the page into the reader's mind crispy and memorably? (10) He goes on to say that “good typography is transparent, like blister-packaging — exposing the content inside and letting it speak for itself.” He agrees with Bringhurst about the use of type ornaments — “too often typography is used like gift wrapping, in the hope that cosmetic prettification will make the package seem more desirable.” (10) So then, “good typography links the verbal with the visual to produce arresting results. Good typography clarifies. It articulates. It elucidates. It expresses meaning.” (11) Many would-be editors and writers and office personnel try too hard when it comes to setting type. With the thousands of possible typefaces that are on the market today, produced by would-be typographers, playing with digital type producing programs, many people can get overwhelmed and confused and frustrated by what typeface to use.”(SEE my blog “How To Choose the Right Type for the Right Job,” March 29, 2021, www.caretypography.com ) This age-old and wise advice has been supplanted, I would suggest, by a post-modern theoretical, indeed theological, cast. Like Dutch De Stijl (See Reference ), or Dadaism (See Reference ), or Psychedelic (See Reference ) or Punk (See Reference ), or Grunge type (See Reference ), the cultural context of rebellion against any typography rules of readability and legibility and well-defined type go out the window in favor of whatever gives “energy” to an ad or a poster or a book that wins the day. Wardle goes on to say about 2026 type combinations — “Unexpected roles. Bookish, text-oriented, or familiar type appears at surprising scales or in applications not usually associated with it. Contrasting character. Maximalist or highly expressive type sits beside pragmatic type, with the overall composition mattering more than obvious stylistic harmony.” She says these contrasts “invite closer attention to the content and reasoning behind each choice.” Post-modernism rejects absolutes and what I would call “common-sense” order and structure. Everyone makes up their own rules, their own agendas, their own type combinations, ignoring centuries of time-tested typography. This is what “feeling contemporary” means. If I am correct, then the 2026 typeface choices and patterns will likewise disappear from regular use. Using what has been called display type for “normal” use betrays one of White’s criticisms — “too often typography is used like gift wrapping, in the hope that cosmetic prettification will make the package seem more desirable.” What is important is what is on the inside of the package, not the audacious gift wrapping.  I would imagine that Wardle would point to White’s other typography notes that say “good typography links the verbal with the visual to produce arresting results. Good typography clarifies. It articulates. It elucidates. It expresses meaning.” She might point out the “energy” aspect of 2026 type choices and combinations and maintain that they accomplish the same thing as White suggests. I am not at all sure about that. Some of Fonts In Use samples below are what Wardle highlights (SEE https://fontsinuse.com ). You make the judgment call.

Typeface Characteristics: Which Type Where?

By Carl Shank • September 9, 2026
Typeface characteristics are the visual and structural features that distinguish one typeface from another. They determine a typeface’s historical appearance, readability, personality, and appropriate use. Useful Ways to Analyze Any Typeface. When examining an unfamiliar typeface, ask these questions in order (provided by ChatGPT) — Does it have serifs? What kind of serifs? How much thick/thin contrast is present? What is the stress angle? What is the x-height? How wide or narrow are the letters? How are the counters constructed? What do the terminals look like? What are distinctive letters such as a, g, e, R, and Q doing? How does the typeface behave in a paragraph—open, dark, dense, airy, mechanical, or calligraphic? What historical or technological process does its construction suggest? What personality does the combination of these characteristics produce? There are a number of online sources to help identify typefaces ( See Feb. 6, 2022 Blog for more explanation and use.) Sources include — MyFonts ( www.myfonts.com/WhatTheFont ), FontSquirrel ( www.fontsquirrel.com/matcherator ) WhtFontIs ( www.whatfontis.com ) Identifont ( www.identifont.com ) is one of the best. Here are the questions it will ask you — Does it have feet (serifs) or not (sans-serifs)? What style is the tail on uppercase Q? What style is the ampersand (the &)? Is the numeral “4” open or closed? What style of vertical line does the Dollar sign ($) have? How high is the center vertex of the uppercase M? Sit on the line or not? What type of bar does the uppercase G have? How far below the baseline does the uppercase J extend? What about the uppercase R? How far does the center bar extend? Is there a gap with the vertical part of the letter? Does it meet or cross the vertical? What about the question mark (?) What shape is the dot at the bottom? Is it circular, square, triangular, rectangular or even missing? The important point is that a typeface should not be identified by a single characteristic. Its identity comes from the interaction of serifs, contrast, stress, proportions, counters, terminals, spacing, and letterform construction.
Show More