[sesutton]

Maybe I'm just not very observant and/or a philistine but I can't be the only one that can't tell the difference between these fonts without looking very hard. I doubt I would be able to tell at all if you swapped any of those fonts.

[arrrg]

You are not.

Typography is an extremely constrained design space with tons of little details and small differences. If you constrain yourself to readable type suitable for use on screen the space gets smaller, still. That’s why I love it. You don’t have to – but you should also then probably not offer up your opinion on fonts (which you didn’t, but many people do, in that same sneering and really annoying way some people talk about contemporary art, for example).

[archagon]

Not the OP, but as with contemporary art, I strongly feel that "this shouldn't be as big of a thing as it is" is a perfectly valid opinion to have.

[arrrg]

That’s a really boring opinion that is tremendously uninteresting and completely unsurprising. I do not know why anyone feels the need to express an opinion so utterly boring and predictable. It’s just cliche, zero substance.

I mean, if you think something is not interesting why add to that uninterestingness by saying something that itself is so utterly uninteresting.

I’m really a fan of amateur thinking and talking about art because I am also quite clueless about art (contemporary and all other art), so I think it’s great to talk about it even if you are clueless, but I do try to avoid clichés and if I don’t get something I assume that I either don’t know the context (context does tremendous things to elevate all human endeavors and can make something that seems superficially boring or worthless very interesting) or that there really is nothing to it – but I don’t really possess the ability to judge what’s what.

I think that’s a very reasonable assumption to make when looking at contemporary art and you are clueless about art – and you also avoid dealing in clichés as a result.