Is Arial “neo-grotesque”, as the current wikipedia page indicates? or is that an obvious graffit – and if so, why the hatred to a font?
Explain font experts. . .
Arial is popular and therefore disliked by font snobs. Font snobs are like fans of indie films or music - if the average person has heard of it, they automatically have to hate it. If something formerly good becomes popular, they explain that it has “sold out” and is no longer good.
In the defense of font snobs: because Arial is popular and because it gets used by a lot of people who don’t know how to pick fonts, it gets used in a lot of places where a different font would be a better choice.
Sorry, I like Arial just fine.
According to that article, Arial is a variation of Monotype Grotesque, which seems to be the source of the ‘neo-grotesque’ descriptor.
Arial is mostly disliked because it is seen so often. Like all the fonts that come free with Windows, it is very, very common, and people tend to like something less-exposed. When someone tries to describe a sans serif face they like, it is natural to use a comparison something like, “My favorite font has such-and-such, unlike Arial.”
Arial is the new Helvetica. Only it ain’t so new.
“Neo-Grotesque” is just the German term for sans-serif. One of the early sans-serif typefaces, the first one to really be popular, was called Grotesque.
You mean I’m not the only one?
I hate Ariel because it’s so frikkin ugly. Of all the “short-list” fonts presented when writing an email or internet post, it’s my least favorite. So… spartan.
Mind you, my favorite font is Comic Sans. So I’m probably not speaking for millions of font snobs, here.
Grotesque is not a criticism but a font type. An example is Monotype Grotesque, illustrated here. They are so named, it is claimed, because they are based off a font by William Caslon IV in 1816, which was called grotesque by critics at the time. I won’t hazard any guess as to why.
I disagree. Helvetica, perhaps the ubiquitous sans serif, is plenty loved by many font snobs. I think the only font universally derided by font snobs is Comic Sans. I don’t think there is much issue with popularity and selling out as there is in other types of art. Maybe the most cutting edge counter-cultural font snobs hate anything that’s popular, but most font aficionados I’ve worked with love the elegance and beauty of the classics like Helvetica and Times New Roman.
Helvetica’s original name was Neue Haas Grotesk.
If you are interested in typography, I’d suggest watching the documentary “Helvetica”. If you have a netflix membership, then you can stream it from there.
“Font snobs”. Heh. I have just added another term to my vocabulary. 
“Grotesque” in this context is not a value judgement: it’s a name for a kind of sans serif font. Some are called “Grotesk” or “Grotesque”. Univers and Helvetica, two of the most popular typefaces, qualify as “grotesque”.
In my opinion, grotesque typefaces look clean and neat, and are good on signs and in headlines. They are less readable than a good serif typeface for body type – but they are still popular there, and I don’t have a really big problem with that. (But I’m not a typographer).
Interesting because I like Arial because it is so spartan although I’m more likely to refer to it as clean or uncluttered.
Manny Peoples, like myself, find serif fonts far easier reading in text (as opposed to headlines, etc. Arial and other sans-serif fonts, while ‘crisp’ and ‘efficient’ in databases and the like, are more difficult to read in paragraphs – and sometimes in other contexts.
Consider the header: King Richard Ill. Is that a comment on the ‘wicked uncle’ monarch of the House of York (reigned 1483-5)? Or a statement that some King Richard is under the weather? Did you have to look twice to determine that? Now, here it is again, in Times New Roman: King Richard Ill (as opposed to King Richard III). Easier reading? “We report; you decide.”
It is an inferior replica of Helvetica.
The differences that make it inferior are also the differences which make it ugly.
Arial is a perfectly nice font. The main criticism, which is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, is that it’s seen by many people as a ripoff of Helvetica. It is quite similar. I find Helvetica slightly more elegant (you can find the most obvious differences in the capital R, G, lowercase ‘a’ [look at the tail]) but otherwise completely interchangeable with Arial.
Hello. My name is not Pork Rind and I am a typeface snob. (Note that font and typeface do not mean the same thing.)
Here’s an interesting take on the Helvetica vs Arial debate. I think this quote sums up nicely the anti-Arial viewpoint:
This.
Arial is a Helvetica rip-off (of which there are many). It’s a bit like the difference between an off-the-peg and a Saville Row suit - they look the same from a distance, but Arial lacks the quality of cut and looks a bit clumsy in comparison.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate it, but if you have the choice between Arial and Helvetica Neue, you would never choose Arial.
It has its place as a freebie and is often the default font stipulated in brand guidelines for use by internal staff who might not have access to whatever sans font might be the corporate font.
And as others have already said, the ‘grotesque’ moniker is not a slur, merely an alternative descriptor for sans serif. Another term is ‘gothic’. If I cast my mind back to my typography degree I believe that these terms WERE originally slurs back when all other fonts were serifs. Sans were viewed as coarse/unrefined.
Actually, I think Caslon called the font “grotesque”, because he based it off carvings in Italian grottoes.